Though I found the Salvatori piece to be interesting and somewhat useful, at the end I did not feel as empowered how to bridge the gap of understanding (the importance) between reading and writing for Eng 1000 students as I had hoped I would be. However, I absolutely loved her assertion on pg. 349 as regards to the task at hand is not whether reading should be used in a comp course, but rather “which kind of reading gets to be theorized and practiced.” Once again because readings are so crucial to my course, I am finding it most difficult to pick and chose which ones should be used—which ones are intriguing enough for the topic at hand while not being burdensome for the student. I do not think Salvatori’s argument/explanation helped to answer this question for me. It gave me some tips about the dangers of highlighting, and of course helped to point out some aspects of “reading as a means of teaching writing” (347) that I think should be opened up to a larger class discussion to gain the knowledge of if the actual students believe what she is theorizing essentially about them, to be true.
Nonetheless, it was informative as I find all our readings to be—but Bean definitely won this week for its usefulness.
1 comment:
I agree with you on this point about Salvatori. I, too, did not feel as if I was given the tools to help the students bridge the gap between reading and writing. Bean was much more helpful, even though I feel his 10 reasons overlapped quite a bit.
Post a Comment