I’m beginning to
worry because I feel like I not as engaged with the text as I should be because
every time a scholar defines what successful readers do, I feel like I don't
actually do that when I read. It could be that I am just unaware of the
specific strategies I use.
I know I run the
risk of sounding a bit pretentious--and I'm trying not to--but I wasn't entirely sure if Armstrong
& Newman were bringing up any new ideas. Their notion of intertextuality
seemed to overlap with Schoenbach's knowledge building dimension. Although I do
think Armstrong & Newman specifically focuses on bringing in a variety of
outside text to help build students' schema.
I did find myself
wondering how a curriculum based on intertextuality would address difficulty or
engagement. It seemed like something was missing. I got the sense that the
approach is meant to build students' schema through supplemental texts, but I
couldn't pinpoint how instructors were supposed to help students learn the kind
of reading discussed in the article. They address misconception and the flaws
of skill-based teaching but don't demonstrate how the use of intertextuality
fosters student growth in other areas.
The longitudinal
study mentioned in the closing paragraph was rather intriguing. This is the
kind of research project I've been interested in conducting but I haven't been
able to find the right focus.
No comments:
Post a Comment