Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Computers and Composition 41 (2016) 32–45 Adaptive Remediation and the Facilitation of Transfer in Multiliteracy Center Contexts Kara Poe Alexander a , Michael-John DePalma b , Jeffrey M. Ringer c a Baylor University b Baylor University c University of Tennessee Received 11 January 2016; received in revised form 30 March 2016; accepted 4 April 2016 Available online 28 April 2016 Abstract This essay considers the question of transfer in relation to processes of remediation. In particular, we explore the interrelationships between transfer and new media in multiliteracy center contexts. Drawing on a case study of an undergraduate student named Sophie, we offer a multidimensional approach called adaptive remediation that helps composers develop meta-awareness about how they might use and reshape prior composing knowledge and available semiotic resources in ways to suit media affordances and their rhetorical objectives in processes of remediation. Specifically, we propose four dimensions of adaptive remediation, including charting, inventorying, coordinating, and literacy linking. Our hope is that adaptive remediation will prepare multiliteracy center directors and consultants to help students transfer knowledge across media and, in the process, make rhetorically sound decisions about how to adapt and reuse literacies, skills, and ideas in a variety of contexts. Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: adaptive transfer; multiliteracy centers; adaptive remediation; affordances; transfer; remediation; multimodal composition; digital story; multiliteracies; pedagogy; consultant training 1. Introduction Since John Trimbur’s (2000) prediction fifteen years ago that “writing centers will more and more define themselves as multiliteracy centers” (p. 30), scholars have made significant gains in theorizing what multiliteracy centers might look like, how they might best operate, and which consulting approaches might allow multiliteracy center consultants to engage productively with writers’ emerging needs. Theorists have examined the physical spaces needed to facil- itate multiliteracy center consulting (Fishman, 2010; Inman, 2010), considered the interactions between writers and technologies (Selfe, 2010), discussed how to adapt traditional tutoring practices to account for new media (McKinney, 2009), and outlined theories and practices of training multiliteracy center consultants (Fishman, 2010; McKinney, 2010). Scholars have also investigated the roles and functions of writing centers on campus and in the community (Cooper, 2010; Hicks, 2010), explored the materiality of multiliteracy centers (Sheridan, 2010a), and defined the resources available to facilitate multimodal composing (Sheridan, 2010b). Multiliteracy center consultants—along with the faculty and administrators who train them—have at their disposal a range of theoretically- and pedagogically- sound resources that can help them lead successful consultations. When taken together, these advances suggest not http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.04.005 8755-4615/Published by Elsevier Inc.