This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smagorinsky, P. Articles by Smith, M. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Nature of Knowledge in Composition and Literary Understanding: The Question of Specificity

University of Oklahoma

Michael W. Smith

Rutgers University

Psychologists have long debated the extent to which people transfer knowledge from context to context. This debate has emerged in the study of literacy where researchers of composition and literary understanding have begun to examine the extent to which different tasks require particular knowledge and the extent to which different interpretive communities require specific understandings. This article reviews issues related to transfer and knowledge specificity as articulated in psychology and then examines theory and research in composition and literary understanding which parallel the debate in psychology. The authors identify three positions that have emerged in literacy debates: the case for general knowledge, the case for task-specific knowledge, and the case for community-specific knowledge. Each position carries with it certain assumptions about learning and transfer, and each has clear implications for curriculum and instruction. The authors delineate the positions and the assumptions that drive them and detail their instructional consequences, arguing that researchers and teachers need an articulated understanding of their assumptions about knowledge and transfer in order to establish a clear and coherent relationship between theory and practice.

Review of Educational Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, 279-305 (1992)
DOI: 10.3102/00346543062003279


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Smagorinsky The Cultural Practice of Reading and the Standardized Assessment of Reading Instruction: When Incommensurate Worlds Collide Educational Researcher, October 1, 2009; 38(7): 522 - 527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. James The Influence of Perceptions of Task Similarity/Difference on Learning Transfer in Second Language Writing Written Communication, January 1, 2008; 25(1): 76 - 103. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. L. Berge Hidden Norms in Assessment of Students' Exam Essays in Norwegian Upper Secondary Schools Written Communication, October 1, 2002; 19(4): 458 - 492. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. BEAUFORT Learning the Trade: A Social Apprenticeship Model for Gaining Writing Expertise Written Communication, April 1, 2000; 17(2): 185 - 223. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A. Hansman and A. L. Wilson Teaching Writing in Community Colleges: A Situated View of How Adults Learn to Write in Computer Based Writing Classrooms Community College Review, July 1, 1998; 26(1): 21 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. FOERTSCH Where Cognitive Psychology Applies: How Theories about Memory and Transfer Can Influence Composition Pedagogy Written Communication, July 1, 1995; 12(3): 360 - 383. [Abstract]