First Questions for Reading Haas

Due: October 30

Time on task: 3 hours, including reading time.

Read two chunks from Christina Haas’ “Learning to Read Biology.” Read pages 43-51 (up to “Setting)  & 73-9. (For now, we’ll skip the 20 pages of Setting, Narrative, and discussion of the data.)

There are five tasks but only four actual questions. The four questions ALL work to help you develop understanding of the reading. You might even read them and work on them as you read Haas’ article.

Your Task

  1. Use the headings and subheadings to “outline” the sections/structure of the ENTIRE article, even though your first reading focuses only on the beginning and end.
  2. Haas opens the article with the following statement: “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). Explain what she means. In you response, be sure to quote at least one time from the first section of her article (before “Learning About Literate Activity in the Sciences”).
  3. What is the “‘myth’ of autonomous texts” that Haas discusses (45)? How does Haas’ study of Eliza help us understand what might happen to college students’ understanding of texts as they progress in a major? Use at least one passage from the text to support your response to this second question.
  4. In “Rhetorical Reading,” Haas uses the term “rhetorical frame” (47-8). What is a rhetorical frame, at least in terms of rhetorical reading? Illustrate (support) your answer with both a quote and explanation.
  5. In her “General Discussion,” Haas offers four factors that she believes contribute to Eliza’s development as a rhetorical reader (and writer): Increased domain knowledge; Instructional support; “Natural” development; and Mentoring in a sociocultural setting. Choose any one of these factors and explain why it might contribute to what Haas finds in her study of Eliza.

13 thoughts on “First Questions for Reading Haas”

  1. 1. Haas states “at the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). This means that college students need to learn and understand the material they are studying in college, in order for them to be fully literate individuals in the Discourse of their future. Haas values readings/texts as being key aspects for college students to learn about different opinions, and in this specific case about scientific papers. Haas refers to the disciplinary field of science and how these texts can be dynamic: from “softer social sciences [to] harder disciplines such as economics, physics, [and the] life sciences” (44). Since the Discourse of science-based careers are diverse, Haas wants students to understand and be exposed to various texts from life science to physical science. College students need to learn how to behave towards the various readings so that they can be fluent and literate in the Discourse of science. Once the students are more literate, then they will be able to distinguish between how “scientists adjust the strength of their claims depending on the audience” (44). This means that literate students in the Discourse can understand why some readings might be more questioning and left inconclusive because they are for those in the Discourse, whereas other readings will be more certain because they are for the general public.

    2. When Haas discusses the “myth of autonomous texts”, this is a problem in academic literacy and academic settings where students believe that some scientific readings are independent and not based on prior knowledge or research of other texts. The belief “views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, [and] even timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture” (45). The students believe that the readings are all the authentic thoughts of the author and not influenced at all by others like the audience or the culture. They think that texts are not interdependent and have no outside references, which is clearly not true. Haas’s study of Eliza shows a student may agree with autonomous texts at first in college, but then mature and develop a greater awareness rhetoric. Eliza shows that as a college student progress through their major, they are exposed to more readings within their discipline of biology which makes the student a more well-rounded reader, but not necessarily a better writer. Over the course of her college career, Eliza interacts with a great number of texts in biology such as “textbooks, research reports, articles, proposals, lab notes, [and] data sheets” which make here gives her a wide variety of knowledge for reading (47). After Eliza is exposed to all of these specialized texts, she has then gained rhetorical sophistication and is part of the Discourse.

    3. Haas utilizes the term ‘rhetorical frame’ which acts as a model of representation to help the rendering “account for their motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (48). Gaining a rhetorical frame is almost like a frame of reference where the reader can step back and realize the context of the reading and focus on the various relationships and motives within the reading. This is a sophisticated way of thinking which is why it applies to Eliza who has become literate in the Discourse by reading science. A rhetorical frame provides the participants with reasoning for “why the author wrote the piece [or] why she or he used a particular structure of certain words” (48). The rhetorical frame gives students the opportunity to critically analyze what they are reading and why they are reading it in regards to how useful it can be for their future.

    4. Haas’s section on ‘increased domain knowledge’ states that Eliza became more sophisticated rhetorically throughout college because she “increased facility with the terms and concepts of biology” (74). This means that through experience, Eliza learned more and more biological terminology and concepts which enabled her to become more fluent in the Discourse. Overtime, Eliza became exposed to many more terms from freshman to senior year, which caused her have more key concepts in her memory about biology. As a result, Eliza became more sophisticated in the Discourse.

  2. Joonho Han
    Professor Cripps
    English 110-S
    Oct 29 2014

    Hass Reading Questions

    2. When Haas says “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43), she is saying that students must fully learn and know about whatever their field. This is almost like Gee’s concept of mastering a Discourse, Haas is saying that in order to fully be in what the students filed is they must be fully educated and be able to act and behave towards what they want to be. Haas says “… students need a metaunderstanding of the human enterprise of science…”(45). She is saying that in order to be apart of scientific things, the students need to have a base understanding of science beforehand.

    3. When Haas discusses the “myth of autonomous texts” she is talking about how student read and study journals or articles that they believe are independent. This means that they do not believe that most of this stuff they are reading is based off of prior knowledge taken from other places. When Haas says “views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, [and] even timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture” (45), she is saying that most students are taking most work as original. Haas uses Eliza as an example by showing how she develops and eventually opens her mind to see that all work is influenced by other sources.

    4. When Haas mentions “rhetorical frame”, she is talking about how a student can analyze the text by taking a moment to step back and see the text and make connections within the reading. When Haas says “… a rhetorical frame, that helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes”(48). She is saying that by using rhetorical frame, a reader can help themselves to understand the text better through analysis.

    5. Hass’s section on instructional support relates to Eliza growth by exposing her to various situations. When Haas says “… Eliza’s education proceeded, she was exposed to different kinds of classes and assignments, and that this instructional support”(75). Haas is saying that Eliza grew educationally because she was exposed to different ways of learning.

  3. 2. Haas opens the article with the following statement: “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). She means that in certain field of study there is a way to read texts so that there is a complete understanding rather than memorizing or assuming certain theories. It is not enough just to be able to repeat the text or recall certain parts. Readers can not be “content simply to extract information or to accept the arguments of an autonomous text” (50). One must go deeper than the surface of the text in order to become literate in the particular discipline. Readers must understand the discipline so they can question the reading and get the complete meaning.

    3. The “myth” is that texts are independent of outside forces. When readers believe that texts are autonomous they think that the text was not influenced by outside sources and that is can stand alone without any context or previous knowledge. Haas’s study of Eliza helps us understand that as time goes on in college students move away from the idea of autonomous texts and are able to make connections that broader their understandings. As students go through college they are not only exposed to textbooks, but other readings such as scholarly articles so their skills increase. Over time “her reading practices became more sophisticated as she moved away from linear reading and verbatim-note taking strategies” because she paid more attention to other aspects of literature” (73). When she came across new types of texts she had to adapt to new strategies to be able to understand them.

    4. A “rhetorical frame” is being able to put a text into a broader context than just itself to get a better understanding of the text in relation to other texts and broader theories. This “helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (48). For example when Eliza looked at her readings in broader terms she could analyze the readings in the correct context and therefore benefitted more.

    5. Haas found that as time went on Eliza understood her discipline better and one reason for this is “mentoring in a sociocultural setting” (77). When Eliza was in the labs and other settings with more experienced people in her discipline she ended up learning a whole lot. She learned terms and actions that bettered her knowledge. She would have not learned these any other way that having the real life expriance. This is like Gee’s idea of apprenticeship.

  4. Jeremy Longchamp

    10/29/14

    ENG 110

    First Questions for Reading Haas

    2. In this quote, Haas means that in order to learn a certain field, or part of succeeding in a certain field, is being able to read texts in the mindset of your field. Haas says “Scholars from a wide variety of subject areas have acknowledged that within their disciplines, texts are best seen not as static, autonomous entities but as forms of dynamic rhetorical action” (44). This means that authors change their wording to persuade certain people. If they are writing for insiders, they will leave the debate open and make their claims less clear. If they are writing to outsiders they will make their claim more profound. When reading texts, readers must first determine what kind of people the author is writing to, insiders or outsiders, then based off that, connect it to their field. This is easy if the author is writing to insiders and you share the same field, but may be a harder if the author is not writing for your field.

    3. The “myth of autonomous texts” as Haas discusses are basically that academic texts are “discrete, highly explicit, even ‘timeless’ entities of functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture” (45). Basically, it’s the idea that academic texts are written as purely fact with no opinion. Eliza shows us that as one progresses through college, they become more away that authors are bias and that academic texts are not fact. They also begin to see the texts not as facts, but as ideas, and put themselves in those scientific ideas. Haas states, “She had come to a greater awareness of the rhetorical, contingent nature of both the activities and discourses she participated in within her chosen field, biology” (46). This means that she began to make connections between the texts and her field, not just facts.

    4. Rhetorical frames “help readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (Haas 48). Rhetorical frames basically take facts, and connect them to everything that has to do with them, such as the author and audience. They show who the author is and who he or she’s intended audience is, as well as the author’s history.

    5. In her case study, Haas offers increased domain knowledge as a contributor to Eliza’s development as a rhetorical reader. She states, “A strong knowledge explanation for Eliza’s development would maintain that her increased facility with the terms and concepts of biology led to her increased rhetorical sophistication” (74). Basically, since Haas had been exposed to and had more experience in the discourse, she had a better understanding of it and of the terms and language used in it. It led her to be able to grow in the discourse because she could actually understand what her professors were saying, both in and out of the classroom, like in a meeting, so she could take information away from it. This obviously caused her to grow and become a better rhetorical reader because she actually understood the language and jargon used.

  5. 2. In Christina Haas’s article she states “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). To me, this means that a student must fully understand something or they will not be prepared in their field. If the students want to be in a specific field they must behave/act to achieve it. Haas also explains how “metaunderstanding [ is an essential thing that motivates] science and scientist and the history of scientific concepts” (45). In other words, Haas believes if you don’t understand something you should find a way to understand it.

    3. The “myth of autonomous texts” basically revolves around how students interpret the journal and their knowledge about it. Haas gives the reader an example when she talks about Eliza. She describes in “details a longitudinal study, an extended 4 year study examination of one student as she progressed during college, focusing primarily on how the student’s views of, and interactions with, disciplinary texts changed through her postsecondary education” (45). This study demonstrates how she will have a better awareness on work and how it relates to other important sources in her field.

    4. In the reading Haas mentions how it “helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (48). In other words, if a reader is having trouble understanding something they should try to interpret it in different ways and anaylze the text differently. By doing this it could help them comprehend the text better. She gives an example when she says “when rears approach a discourse situation, they presumably have some knowledge or representation of the participants, including the identity, knowledge, and background of author and intended readers” (48).

    5. An important aspect that related to Eliza is increased domain knowledge. By having an increased domain knowledge it led her to increase her rhetorical sophistaction.

  6. Devon Verville
    ENG 110S
    10/29/14

    2. What Haas means when she makes this statement is that in college, students must know everything about the material they are given. A person is in college to prepare themselves for their future career. If they want to be successful at whatever they choose to do in life they have to know the in’s and out’s of that career. Most students that transition from high school to college are used to doing their work just for the sake of doing it and getting a good grade. But in college it is about what you can take away from the class that will help you succeed in your profession. Haas states “Beginning college students approach academic tasks as if they believe that texts are autonomous and context free.”( Haas 46) This shows how the values of students change over time. They are not just going to class for a grade, they are going to learn something meaningful.

    3. When has talks about the “myth of autonomous texts” she is referring to the fact that most students think that everything they read in a textbook is 100% reliable. This is not the case although because in every academic piece of writing there is a certain percentage of bias that goes along with it. Haas states the “belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit,even timeless entitles functioning without contextual support.” (Haas 45) Haas shows how students are always naive about everything they read. College students are always willing to take in new information even when it is not always completely true.

    4. Haas talks about the idea of rhetorical frame. “Drawing together common elements and theories…that helps readers account for motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes.”( Haas 47-48) The idea of rhetorical reading is about the readers comprehension of the texts message and not just the words. The reader must not take every piece of information in the literal sense but rather read the underlying idea.

    5. One factor that contributed to Eliza’s development was her increased domain knowledge. “A strong knowledge explanation for Eliza’s development would maintain that her increased facility with the terms and concepts of biology led to her increased rhetorical sophistication. Eliza was able to develope a more reliable college personality and performance because she was able to take in more knowledge than the average student.

  7. Jessica Mikaelian
    10/29/14

    Haas begins her article with “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). When Haas says “become literate”, it is very similar in what Gee defines as entering a Discourse in the sense that it requires knowing about the discourse and behaving in the right way. Haas means that in order to really be literate in the sciences an understanding of the sciences as well as context are necessary. This is apparent when Haas says “One of the things students of science must become privy to..is this rhetorical, contingent nature of written scientific discourse”(45). It is necessary to understand the way that scientific literature is written as well as the content and context.

    When Haas discusses the “myth of autonomous texts” she is talking about when students read either text books or scientific texts and are under the influence that the content is not influenced by other works in that field. This however is not true at all as Haas says that “the components of scientific literacy as not only the mastery of scientific facts and concepts, but an understanding of “evolving contributions of individual scientists and groups of scientists”.Then Haas uses Eliza in order to demonstrate what may happen as students progress in a major. As students progress they move further and further away from the concept that all texts all autonomous.This becomes apparent when Haas says “her reading practices became more sophisticated as she moved away from linear reading and verbatim-note taking strategies” because she paid more attention to other aspects of literature” (73). As Eliza progressed she became more aware of the connections between literatures in the same field.

    In the reading uses the term “Rhetorical Frame”. A rhetorical frame is a mindset that requires students to take a step back and look at the big picture. This definition is apparent when Haas says “ , that helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes”(48)” when referring to rhetorical frame. Using a rhetorical frame can help students to understand material in a field better as well as aid in making connections between literatures.

    In the text Haas offers an increase in domain knowledge as a portion of the explanation for Eliza’s development as a rhetorical reader. Haas says “ “A strong knowledge explanation for Eliza’s development would maintain that her increased facility with the terms and concepts of biology led to her increased rhetorical sophistication” (74). Haas is implying that because she was exposed to more things she has a deeper understanding. This is probable because more experience in the discourse can be correlated to a better understanding of the discourse. Of course being capable of understanding the discourse is useful, the more you understand the more you are able to take away from that discourse.

  8. Dalani Roy
    10/29/14

    2.) I think that Haas is almost talking about a sort of Discourse. It is reminiscent of Gee’s ideas about how you must be able to act, speak, do, believe etc. in order to fully be in a Discourse. They must read and completely understand the texts in order to become literature in that particular subject. Not only is it about Discourse but metaknowledge as well. The way Haas references “patterns of knowing about” (Haas 43) relates to her sentence “students need a metaunderstanding of the motives of science and scientists in the history of scientific concepts” (45).

    3.) The myth of autonomous texts is that these texts are “timeless.” They are able to exist without any type of support and students believe that they exist without any type of knowledge to the subject. This means that when the students read the specific text, they think this is all of the authors thoughts. There aren’t any other things that were able to influence the author at all. “In general, the belied in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even ‘timeless’ entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture (Haas 45). As for studying Eliza, it shows growth in the students’ major. As they go through their years of college, they are much more exposed to different readings and writings and understand the topic better. As for Eliza “by the time she left college she had come to a greater awareness of the rhetorical, contingent nature of both the activities and Discourses she participated in within her chosen field, biology” (46).

    4.) A rhetorical frame is something “that helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (Haas 48). This means that the students have an idea or foundation about what they are reading. It can also complicate the reading for instance the students will begin to develop new ideas of the reading such as relationships in the texts and passages.

    5.) I chose “increased domain knowledge” as the element to look at. Increased domain knowledge is “a strong knowledge explanation for Eliza’s development [that] would maintain that her increased facility with the terms and concepts of biology… led to her increased rhetorical sophistication” (Haas 74). Like explained in the question above, the more exposure one person has to a certain subject, the stronger their knowledge in that particular field is.

  9. Molly Mohan
    Eng 110-S

    2. Hass begins her article with her view that “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). Hass is basically relating to the discourse of college by saying that one must learn the correct ways of knowing and behaving to completely understand. Hass states that “entering college students may hold an arhetorical or asituational theory of written discourse, a representation of model of discourse that precludes seeing text as motivated activity and authors as purposeful agents, when in fact discourse theorists and scientific educators agree that students would benefit from a more rhetorical model” (46). Students must change their way of thinking when it comes to reading texts to be beneficial in college.

    3. The “‘myth’ of autonomous texts” that Haas discusses relates to the belief that texts are independent. They think that the text comes from an outside source or is not entirely true. Haas writes, “In general, the belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even “timeless” entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader or culture” (45) They lack the knowledge needed. Eliza was used as an example to show how she opened up her mind to more beneficial knowledge by reading more in depth and analyzing the text more.

    4. In “Rhetorical Reading,” Haas uses the explains the concept of a “Rhetorical Frame.” “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context” (48). A rhetorical frame is how one analyzes and connects the text.

    5. In her “General Discussion,” Haas talks about domain knowledge and how this helped Eliza through her studies. Eliza developed a strong understanding and memory of the terms and concepts of biology. “The world of domain content proceeds and supports the world of rhetorical process” (74). How Eliza analyzed and connected the terms and important key factors of biology set up up for success in the field.Eliza got a very strong understanding of the subject and the terms which led her to understand the whole idea in general.

  10. 1 In this section of text Haas is trying to explain that every type of scholarly text is different depending upon which context it is written in. Haas writes that “Disciplinary texts, like all texts, are intensely situated, rife with purpose and motive, anchored in myriad ways to the individuals and the cultures that produce them” (Haas 44). An article concerning the introduction of a non-native species will have a different tone, point of view, and organization than an English composition article about a series of books. You have to know a little about the style of article you are reading before you read it.
    2 The autonomous “myth” that Haas references is that every non secondary education thinks that every text is straight forward and requires no prior knowledge or context about the topic the text is on. Haas believes that every level of educator has taught students at some point that no “contextual support from author, reader, or culture” is necessary (Haas 45). Haas study with Eliza may give an answer about how students view different kinds of texts and how students need to prepare for each text in order to better understand the content.
    3 A rhetorical frame is defined by Haas as a “model that helps a reader account for the motives and underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (Haas 48). So basically this rhetorical frame allows the student to analyze or understand the motives as to why a text was made and the point it tries to make.
    4 Increased domain knowledge used as an explanation by Haas shows that Eliza learns how to read particular texts. Eliza said that she “understood a lot more than if she had been a sophomore…because she has been exposed to a lot more terms” (Haas 75). The reason why Eliza developed through her college career was because the classes she took integrated her into the types of articles she would end up reading.

  11. 1) Haas says, “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). I think that Haas is saying that a person has to fully grasp what they are learning. This relates to Gee and Discourses. A person must become fully fluent within a Discourse to be a master, as does a person at the college level. On page 45 Haas says, “these educators have argued that in order to understand, use and judge scientific content…students need a metaunderstanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts.” This quote is basically saying that before you understand scientific content or material in general students need to have a good understanding of concepts and what they are learning.

    2) The “myth of autonomous texts” Haas writes about is the idea that academic texts are not written from prior knowledge or outside sources. She says, “the belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even “timeless” entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture. Students truly believe that the authors don’t use outside sources and that they are original, which is not true. Haas’ study of Eliza shows that as you advance throughout college students learn how to tell when authors are being bias and they are able to make better connections.

    3) Haas uses the term “rhetorical frame” and says, “a rhetorical frame, helps the reader account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes” (48). Basically a rhetorical frame allows the reader to step back and make better connections to the text. Facts are taken and connected to the author and or audiences.

    4) In “General Discussion” Haas mentioned how Eliza’s mentor was Shelly who she worked for. Haas states, “As the linguistic analysis of human agents mentioned in the interviews revealed, Shelly became quite important to Eliza, making up a full 10% of the mentions of human agents in the interviews from Eliza’s senior year” (77). Mentoring relates to Gee’s concept of apprenticeship.

  12. 2. Hass starts off by saying “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). She is saying that with all fields there are certain ways to do things and there are certain ways to act. This relates back to Gee’s concept of a discourse and being in one.
    3. When she talks about the “myth of autonomous texts” she is talking about students not believing that work was influenced by prior work. The students believed it was all original. By bringing in Eliza, Hass was showing that she became open minded about where the sources came from.
    4. When Hass talks about “rhetorical frame” shes talking about making connects within text. She explains is as it “helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes”(48).
    5. Hass talks about Eliza learning better because she was exposed to different kinds of learning, “she was exposed to different kinds of classes and assignments, and that this instructional support”(75). Hass is saying that Eliza had more educational growth through being exposed to education that way.

  13. Christopher LeTourneau
    10/29/14
    ENG 110 S

    2. In the opening pages of the article, Haas mentions that “… text as motivated activity and authors as purposeful agents…” (Hass 46). I really liked this quite because its like what reading someone else’s writing is suppose to be about, instead of reading to understand the material or to just get the answer so you’re practicing the content, it goes more into the sense that you’re suppose to ‘get’ what the author is actually feeling and saying about his/hers opinions on the matter. Haas goes into this by saying the autonomous text is more-so what the first year would do, “tests that ask students to recall and reiterate informational content only;” (46). This meaning that we as first years are only looking at the content of the writing, rather than Haas’ second ‘theory’ or rhetorical reading/learning which goes into more of an in-depth concept of reading and what exactly you take from reading. Haas declares that students usually experience/master this concept around their senior year.

    3. I mentioned this a tad in the question above but this the autonomous text are “…tests that ask students to recall and reiterate informational content only;” (46) or in short term is just based on context, and what the question was asking is is that a myth. Honestly I believe that the autonomous is for surely what we were taught in high school; we were tested for context and memorization of the reading material rather than what we thought the author felt or what we felt. The autonomous text can obviously transition into college as the senior in high school version of yourself has this concept tattooed on themselves as they enter the college level discourse of reading and writing. The first year would often complain or have a rough time with the transition which I think is normal but with the help from either the right high school senior english teacher or the help from a first year english professor, like Cripps is doing he is showing us these articles to help us better transition into the college discourse which personally, is helping a lot.

    4. The rhetorical reading myth is something that I am most interested in with this article. The rhetorical reading myth is best described by Haas’ mini definition inbeded in his three theories which in short “… are concerned with the nature of social, communicative acts and how individuals participate in and understand those acts”(47). The rhetorical reading is obviously much different from the autonomous text. This new myth is actually much more sophisticated in the sense that it has a more abstract way of comprehending the material you are reading. Mainly used in the scientific field of reading and writing other peoples work but can still be used in the english sense of reading. As relating to rhetorical frame, it helps readers account for the motives underlying textual acts and their outcomes; which include “… participants, their relationships and motives, and serval layers of context” (Haas 48). Another definition more into the passage about rhetorical reading is that a rhetorical frame includes authors, readers, motives… is what Haas called the process of rhetorical reading.

    5. For this I will be picking Natural development, this meaning the certain lifespan studies or the development of psychological growth within the sophistication of rhetorical reading. Haas best acknowledges this with the example of Eliza’s views about her transition from her first year in college to her senior year. Where in her first year she was focused on “the knowledge as somehting to be received… what the book says” (Haas 76). This goes farther into the explanation that she develops more than just reading comprehension but more of a abstract explanation for how the author interprets “nature” of the example from Eliza’s biological meaning and interpretation of her transition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Course Website