an outline, or learn the structural features of different genres. These different kinds of tasks apparently activate different parts of the brain.
Another study, by biologist James Zull (2002), shows that all new learning must be linked to preexisting neural networks already in the learner's brain. Teachers can't simply transfer a concept from their own brains into students' brains because a teacher's neural networks are the products of his or her own life history and don't exist within the learner's brain. Consequently, the learner must build the new concepts on neural networks already present. Informal writing assignments aimed at helping students probe memory, connect new concepts to old networks, dismantle blocking assumptions, and understand the significance of the new concept are particularly valuable.
Zull links his analysis of brain research studies to David Kolb's (1985) research on cognitive styles. Kolb plots an individual's cognitive style along four axes: concrete experience (feeling), reflective observation (watching), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (doing). Kolb recommends that for each learning unit in a course the instructor cycle through activities that focus on each of these learning styles, thus helping learners find at least one approach that most appeals to them while giving all students practice at thinking in less natural ways. Zull draws on brain imaging studies to argue that each of Kolb's quadrants corresponds with different regions of the brain, so that the kind of thinking or writing task associated with each quadrant particularly fires neurons in that region. Each phase of the cycle suggests a different kind of writing assignment, as shown in exhibit 3.2.
In sum, Zull's study suggests that different genres engage different parts of the brain and that teachers can deepen student learning by mixing personal writing (expressive, exploratory, reflective pieces) with academic and professional writing (mainstream academic papers, proposals, and persuasive pieces).
EXHIBIT 3.2 Assignments throughout the Learning Cycle
| Kolb's Learning Style Phase | Corresponding Brain Cortex (Zull, 2002, 18) | Suggested Writing Assignments |
| Concrete experience phase. Learners are introduced to new concepts and issues through watching a film or demonstration, playing a game, doing field observations, and so forth. | Sensory cortex | Nongraded personal writing that records the learner's personal observations, thoughts, and feelings during the initial experience and that raises questions and expresses puzzlement |
| Reflective observation phase. Learners consider the concepts and issues again after doing readings, listening to lectures, participating in class discussions, and hearing different points of view. | Temporal integrative cortex | Personal exploratory writing, such as journal entries that allow the students to connect new material to their personal experiences and previous knowledgePersonal pieces based on autobiographical experiences with a topic or conceptPersonal reflection papers that encourage a questioning, open‐ended, thinking‐aloud‐on‐paper approach rather than thesis‐with‐support writing |
| Abstract conceptualization phase. Learners try to achieve abstract understanding of the concepts and issues by mastering and internalizing their components and seeing the relationship between new material and other concepts and issues. | Frontal integrative cortex | Formal academic projects calling for thesis‐based analyses and arguments |
| Active experimentation phase. Learners actively use the new concepts to solve problems by applying them to new situations. | Motor brain | Position papers based on cases that use the new conceptsWrite‐ups of a student's laboratory or field research using the conceptsProposals applying new concepts and knowledge to solve real‐world problemsCreative pieces demonstrating understanding of new material |
Teaching Genre in the Context of Discourse Communities
When instructors assign a genre, such as an experimental report or a recommendation memo, they have a tacit understanding of how that genre connects to and does the work of the discipline or profession. A psychologist implicitly understands how the structure of an APA experimental report reflects the scientific method and how its frequent use of the passive voice can be explained by scientists' emphasis on the data and not on the individuals conducting the experiment. The psychology professor also knows why the APA citation system, which privileges date of publication over the author's name, differs from the MLA citation system that students might have learned in a composition course. But this tacit knowledge of the connections between genres and discourse community norms is something that students understandably struggle to understand.
The concept of “discourse community” can at first be puzzling to students. Whereas some communities may be identified by ethnicity (the Latinx community), by national origin (the Somalian community), or by gender identity (the trans community), discourse communities are identified by common interests (the steampunk community, the football geek community, or the gamer community). Discourse communities share a common language for discussing their shared interests, including distinctive genres and specialized vocabulary and slang. Students need to learn that each academic discipline forms its own discourse community with its own characteristic ways of using language.
As the research in writing across the curriculum has shown, when students move from one discourse community to another they feel like “strangers in a strange land” (McCarthy, 1987). Students may not understand why a literature review in a philosophy course differs in style and organization from a literature review in a biology course or why different disciplines develop different citation styles. Expert writers understand the ways that genres shape, and are shaped by, discourse communities. To use our own writing as an example, both of us (John and Dan) understand that when we submit an article for publication in a pedagogical journal, the manuscript must meet the targeted journal's expectations for content, structure, and style. These expectations will vary, sometimes substantially, depending on whether the targeted journal is within our own field of writing studies (College English, WAC Journal), is a pedagogical journal in another discipline (Journal of Economic Education, Teaching Psychology), or is in the broad field of education and pedagogy (AAHE Bulletin, Journal of Higher Education). We must consider our target discourse community at every step in our composing processes.
A useful way of thinking about discourse communities comes from the work of the linguist John Swales. Swales (1990) argues that a discourse community has the following characteristics:
A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. (24)
A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members. (25)
A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. (26)
A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims. (26)
In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis. (26)
A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal experience. (27)
Students may sometimes view teachers' writing expectations as idiosyncratic, but often what appears as idiosyncratic is in actuality our attempt to represent to apprentice students the discourse community values and expectations of our disciplines. Asking students to write in authentic disciplinary, professional, or public genres provides an opportunity for teachers to encourage students to see writing in college not as