This article seeks to present a model of critical factors that influence writing transfer by exploring and extending conversations happening in the field. The article identifies five critical and interconnected factors that support writing transfer: connection, perception, reflection, disposition, and fortification. These factors emerge from an integration of writing transfer scholarship and data from a longitudinal study of student writers. In that study, six participants were followed for seven years (from first-year composition past graduation and into the workforce) and asked to explain their experiences and perceptions of writing. I offer these five factors to spark a broader conversation about how multiple overlapping influences contribute to writing transfer and to encourage further research into how these factors interact and reinforce one another.

This research team sought to gauge potential changes in the composition landscape by replicating, diversifying, and extending Bergmann and Zepernick’s 2007 study. To potentially measure the impact of years of transfer-focused work, we examined participants’ perceptions of first-year writing (FYW) classes at multiple institutions and in multiple fields at four diverse institutions. Gathering data from thirteen focus groups and sixteen interviews, the study included sixty-four total participants at four universities across the United States. Our findings diverged from the original study. The results indicated students felt that FYW was both personal and academic; that FYW taught students how to write; that FYW instructors were experts in their field; that FYW teaches best writing processes and practices; that personally relevant writing is important to writing transfer; and that for writing, there is “no box under the bed.” These findings suggest that transfer curricula may be working in tandem with other approaches, such as Writing about Writing, to shift students’ perceptions of the importance of FYW.

Developed from a collaborative transdisciplinary analysis of transfer scholarship, we redefine transfer as a relational phenomenon to capture the “dynamic, emergent, embodied, messy” elements of writing transfer (Prior and Olinger 137). Relationality also highlights conceptual relationships in transfer research that produce seeming contradictions but are more often complementary than confounding.

Drawing on a five-year study of 20 student writers, this study advances a concept related to but distinct from writing transfer. Integration contextualizes and complicates transfer episodes and encourages us to take a long view of writing development. Like transfer, integration can be facilitated by connectionsand disconnectionswriters perceive between writing contexts.

Drawing on the Teaching for Transfer (TFT) writing curriculum, this study documents how students in writing courses at four different institutions transferred writing knowledge and practice concurrently into other sites of writing, including other courses, co-curriculars, and workplaces. This research demonstrates that when students, supported by the TFT curriculum, understood that appropriate transfer of writing knowledge and practice is both possible and desirable, (1) they engaged in writing transfer during the TFT course into other sites of writing; (2) they transferred from in-school contexts into out-of-school contexts with facility; and (3) in both cases, they engaged in a just-in-time transfer.

This article theorizes how students know when to activate knowledge acquired in FYC courses. Addressing knowledge activation as motivated by pursuing activity-specific objectives, the author calls for situating students’ encounter with and acquisition of rhetorical knowledge and practices of writing as knowledge of how to perform activities other than writing.

The authors report on a study of writing transfer using a relatively novel method. Specifically, they use screencast videos to study the work of a dozen undergraduates who had taken first-year writing and were now enrolled in an interdisciplinary biology class. The authors argue that students were able to adapt to the writing requirements in the biology class because they implicitly understood themselves to be engaged in Carter’s metagenre of “research from sources.” Because students in this study had been asked to engage in that metagenre at least since high school, they believed their writing habits were established well before first-year writing, and consequently they have trouble recognizing the influence of such a course on their subsequent work. The study also revealed that students coordinated multiple texts simultaneously in order to engage in processes akin to what Howard has called “patchwriting” but also similar to the habits of professional writers. Whereas professional writers have well established networks for seeking information, the students in this study worked in relative isolation, using a few sources found haphazardly through library or Google searches. The authors suggest that instructors spend more time helping students develop effective networks of information, including experts and organizations in addition to published sources.

In this case study, an accomplished academic writer struggles to produce very brief game summaries for a local newspaper as part of the service requirements to his son’s community football team. An analysis of his experience demonstrates the universal challenge of transfer regardless of prior knowledge or meta-awareness of rhetorical strategies for writing in new or unfamiliar settings and argues for a more nuanced understanding of existing ability, disposition, context, and genre in the deployment of knowledge for writing.

A study of twenty-five newly returned adult students finds that students with more process experience used more and more specific process analogies to construct their writing processes for school assignments than those with less process experience. Cues from peers and sense of academic identity also influenced transfer of process knowledge.

This article reviews the deeply conflicted literature on learning transfer, especially as it applies to rhetorical knowledge and skill. It then describes a study in which six students are followed through their first co-op work term to learn about which resources they draw on as they enter a new environment of professional writing. It suggests that although students engage in little one-to-one transfer of learning, they draw on a wide range of internalized rhetorical strategies learned from across their academic experience.