In this essay, we map out four major approaches to the study of writing experiences: (a) worlds apart, (b) literacy in the wild, (c) ecologies and networks, and (d) transfer. We examine how the primary metaphors used in each approach have contributed to our field’s understanding of writing. In focusing on specific dimensions of writing, each framework privileges a different aspect of the writing process, writing development, and/or writers’ context(s). Building on these approaches, we propose the concept of wayfinding to emphasize how writers navigate their own writing development, skills acquisition, and changing knowledge about writing over time. Wayfinding offers a metaphor that resonates with recent work on lifelong learning and meaningful writing. Among other characteristics, wayfinding emphasizes how writers encounter a continuous potentiality in writing and how they navigate unanticipated challenges and opportunities.
Adler-KassnerL.WardleE. (2015). Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies. Louisville: University Press of Colorado / Utah State University Press .
3.
AlvarezS. P.CanagarajahS.LeeE.LeeJ. W.RabbiS. (2017). Translingual practice, ethnic identities, and voice in writing. In HornerB.TretreaultL. (Eds.), Crossing divides: Exploring translingual writing pedagogies and programs (pp. 31-47). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
4.
AnsonC. M. (2016). The Pop Warner chronicles: A case study in contextual adaptation and the transfer of writing ability. College Composition and Communication, 67(4), 518-549.
5.
ArtemevaN. (2005). A time to speak, a time to act: A rhetorical genre analysis of a novice engineer’s calculated risk taking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 389-421.
6.
ArtemevaN. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 160-185.
7.
ArtemevaN.LogieS.St. MartinJ. (1999). From page to stage: How theories of genre and situated learning help introduce engineering students to discipline-specific communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 301-316.
8.
BazermanC.ApplebeeA. N.BerningerV. W.BrandtD.GrahamS.JefferyJ. V.. . .WilcoxK. C. (2018). The lifespan development of writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
9.
BazermanC.GrahamS.ApplebeeA. N.MatsudaP. K.BerningerV. W.MurphyS.BrandtD.. . .SchleppegrellM. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 351-360.
10.
BlackR. W. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies Vol. 23. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
BoydD. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
BoyleC. (2016). Writing and rhetoric and/as posthuman practice. College English, 78(6), 532-554.
13.
BrandtD. (2014). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BrentD. (2012). Crossing boundaries: Co-op students relearning to write. College Composition and Communication, 63(4), 558-592.
15.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (2017). The social life of information: Updated, with a new preface. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
16.
BurkeK. (1966). Terministic screens. In Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method (pp. 44-62). Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
CanagarajahA. S. (Ed.). (2013). Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
ColeM. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Psychology Press.
21.
DiasP.FreedmanA.MedwayP.ParéA. (2013). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1999)
22.
DriscollD. L. (2011). Connected, disconnected, or uncertain: Student attitudes about future writing contexts and perceptions of transfer from first year writing to the disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 8(2). Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/driscoll2011/index.cfm
23.
EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
24.
EngeströmY. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
EngeströmY. (2014). Learning by expanding (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GeeJ. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
HaasA. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3), 277-310.
28.
HayesH.FerrisD. R.WhithausC. (2017). Dynamic transfer in first-year writing and ‘writing in the disciplines’ settings. In AnsonC. M.MooreJ. L. (Eds.), Critical transitions: Writing and the question of transfer (pp. 181-213). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
29.
JenkinsH. (2006a). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
30.
JenkinsH. (2006b). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
31.
KnobelM.LankshearC. (Eds.). (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
32.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (Eds.). (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
34.
LiconaA. C. (2012). Zines in third space: Radical cooperation and borderlands rhetoric. Albany: State University of New York Press.
35.
LynchK. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
MooreJ. L.BassR. (Eds.). (2017). Understanding writing transfer: Implications for transformative student learning in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
37.
MurrayJ. H. (2017). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1997)
38.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
39.
PerkinsD.SalomonG. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258.
40.
PriorP. (2018). How do moments add up to lives? Trajectories of semiotic becoming vs. tales of school learning in four modes. In WysockiR.SheridanM. (Eds.), Making future matters. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press / Utah State University Press. Retrieved from https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/makingfuturematters/prior-intro.html
41.
PriorP.ShipkaJ. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180-238). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.
42.
ReadS.SwartsJ. (2015). Visualizing and tracing: Articulated research methodologies for the study of networked, sociotechnical activity, otherwise known as knowledge work. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 14-44.
43.
ReynoldsN. (2004). Geographies of writing: Inhabiting places and encountering differences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
44.
RicoeurP. (2000). The creativity of language. In BurkeL.CrowleyT.GirvinA. (Eds.), The Routledge language and cultural theory reader (pp. 340-344). New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1981)
45.
RoozenK.EricksonJ. (2017). Expanding literate landscapes: Persons, practices, and sociohistoric perspectives of disciplinary development. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press / Utah State University Press. Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/expanding/
46.
RussellD. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In PetragliaJ. (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
SchneiderB.AndreJ. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students in three disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195-218.
48.
SelberS. A. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
49.
SelfeC. L.HawisherG. E. (2004). Literate lives in the information age: Narratives of literacy from the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
SpinuzziC. (2008). Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
SpinuzziC. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Starke-MeyerringD.ParéA.ArtemevaN.HorneM.YousoubovaL. (Eds.). (2011). Writing in knowledge societies. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/books/winks/
53.
SteinkuehlerC. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. E-learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 297-318.
54.
SternglassM. S. (2017). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1997)
55.
SwartsJ. (2018). Wicked, incomplete, and uncertain: User support in the wild and the role of technical communication. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
56.
SyversonM. (1999). The wealth of reality: An ecology of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
57.
WardleE. (2012). Creative repurposing for expansive learning: Considering “problem-exploring” and “answer-getting” dispositions in individuals and fields. Composition Forum, 26. Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/creative-repurposing.php
58.
WerderC. M. (2017). Telling expectations about academic writing: If not working, what about knotworking? In MooreJ. L.BassR. (Eds.), Understanding writing transfer: Implications for transformative student learning in higher education (pp. 69-78). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
59.
WhickerJ. H. (2011). Narratives, metaphors, and power-moves: The history, meanings, and implications of “post-process.”JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 31(3/4), 497-531.
60.
WilliamsB. T. (2005). Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 702-706.
61.
WinsorD. A. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
WitteS. P.HaasC. (2005). Research in activity: An analysis of speed bumps as mediational means. Written Communication, 22(2), 127-165.
63.
YanceyK. B.RobertsonL.TaczakK. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition, and sites of writing. Louisville: University Press of Colorado / Utah State University Press.
