Reading Across the Readings: Transfer, Narrative, and Synthesis

Before I move into my notes, I'd like to say that I was also reminded of Lacan when reading the Emmons passage Joe cited. I also didn't fully work through any coherent thoughts about what Lacan has to do with reflection, but it's interesting that we both went to that place.

One similarity that I noticed across the texts is the assumption that reflection and transfer are related, which was surprising to me, given that it seems that connection has only recently begun to be explored explicitly. Burke's critical pedagogy seems to operate under the assumption that students will transfer their linguistic reflection: "Linguistic reflection, Burke points out, is the institutionalizing of an attitude; it habituates students into responding to literature and life with careful and critical thought. Reflection, then, does not just prompt and interpret action; reflection is an action. Reflection is a way to act on and approach the world" (291). What students learn through critical reflection pedagogy is not merely a "habit of mind" but also an action on "the world." Similarly, Bowers and Emmons point to the necessity of students' making explicit connections between their reflections on writing and specific discourse community conventions. Emmons writes, "[S]tudents who can reflect on the rhetorical and social practices of the composition classroom (rather than those who simply reflect on their own internal practices) are more likely to be able to transfer these skills to new writing situations." Similarly, Bower contends that students who do not cite specific examples or provide sufficient details about their thinking are not demonstrating that they have learned:  "This may mean that most students have not gained control over their thinking but are merely paying lip service to the classroom’s values, a move that does not alter thinking about writing on a long-term basis" (60).

Though I agree with Emmons and Bower that students do need to consider the activity systems within which they are working, including the conventions of those systems, I wonder whether Bower and Emmons' claims are applicable outside of the reflection-in-presentation context. As Yancey makes clear in her discussion of the three types of reflection and reflection in the assessment context, there is a difference between tacit reflection, prompted reflection, and reflection for an other. In other words, I'm wondering whether what Bower and Emmons claim might have more to do with what readers value in students' reflections-in-presentation than with what we hope reflection can do for our students. As Yancey explains, "the constrained version of the comprehensive reflective text is constrained for a reason, to produce something predictable" (77). Though the constraints vary, as Yancey points out in her discussion of reflection and assessment, some situations--such as high-stakes assessments--require more direction than others.

However, prompts and scaffolding do seem important for most classroom instances of reflection. Yancey provides several examples of how we might scaffold students' reflection-in-action and constructive reflection. What I find interesting about this discussion of the types of reflection and how we might prompt reflection is the importance of dialogue--between student and teacher, student and student, and a student and herself--and of narrative. Emmons provides one example of narrative--the narrative of progress--but Yancey provides many more. For instance, Yancey writes, "Through reflection, we tell our stories of learning: in the writing classroom, our stories of writing and of having written and of will write tomorrow; in other classes, other stories, often told through writing, too. This story-making involves our taking a given story, and our lived stories, and making them anew" (53). These stories "construct us, one by one by one" and so, Yancey claims, "it's important to tell lots of stories where we get to construct the many selves for us to attempt, some we continue to inhabit" (53). Here, Yancey implies that narrative is not only unavoidable, but that it has the important function of self-making. But the self that is made is not necessarily unitary or stable: "Any self we see within text, particularly autobiography but reflection-in-presentation as well, is multiple, is shaped, is constructed; is necessarily contingent, transitory and filled with tension" (73). Perhaps the problem with the narrative of progress is that readers are not seeing the kind of selves Yancey describes: the narrative of progress paints an overly simplified picture of the student writer, one that cannot coincide with the reality of that students' experiences. Also, as Yancey explains in her work on postmodernism and palimpsest in portfolios, print portfolios constrain the writing in such a way that students must produce linear narratives, whereas web-sensible portfolios create the conditions for alternative self-construction.

I find myself with several questions after completing the readings:

1. What role does narrative play in reflection-in-presentation, and does that role change or disappear once we start thinking about web-sensible eportfolios?

2. Yancey mentioned synthesis as an important dimension of reflection, and though she doesn't use the word "synthesis" in describing reflection-in-presentation, it seems to be lurking there. It also seems to be an important part of constructive reflection, though as Yancey points out, this type of reflection is usually tacit and private. Constructive reflection seems most clearly related to writing transfer, so I wonder if synthesis is necessary for writing transfer (i.e. theory of writing as synthesis of ideas about writing).

3. On p 30-31, Yancey mentions scales that one might use in discussing reflection with students. I'm curious to hear more about how these scales have factored into reflective pedagogies.