Deborah Coxwell Teague’s article “Making Meaning – Your Own Meaning – When you read” was terribly redundant. Not only was it terribly redundant, but it was also full of tips that should be common sense, and second nature as well. It’s redundant because in the article, she’s talking to herself. She’s constantly asking the reader questions that are italicized, as if that’s exactly what we’re thinking to ourselves (a cliché tactic that I have an extreme distaste for) and then she goes on to restate the question a thousand times in her response. The article is also full of things that should be common sense. “If you don’t understand a passage, read it again”. As if I’m going to read something that I know I’m going to be tested on, find that I don’t understand it, and just shrug it off. Anyone with any common sense whatsoever would probably go back and read the passage without having someone over their shoulders saying “did you get it? No? Well… Maybe you should try reading it again”. It kind of goes without saying. She also goes over things that are kind of instinctive. When we read something, we automatically interpret a meaning. If it goes in one ear and out the other, then we read it again. But if it sinks in, we interpret what the writer is saying automatically. We make our own assumptions without being told that we have to.
I thought that the article was fairly well written (besides the cliché writing techniques such as the rhetorical questions) and that as a teacher, she probably does have some wisdom in regard to reading and writing, but I just didn’t find the article useful or enlightening in any way. Here’s a tip for Deborah about making meaning: HAVE ONE BEFORE YOU START WRITING.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree somewhat with what Marissa was saying about the article was being a bit redundant. I found my mind wandering while reading it which is never a good sign. The article was also very preachy towards the end. Most college kids do not and will never write in the margins of their book. God knows I don't and I probably never will. I can't be bothered to write down everything of each paragraph or else I would be reading forever. That being said, I did like the beginning of the article because I could relate to what she was trying to say about interpretations of text. However, perhaps the tips at the end could have been a little shorter and more to the point.
I see where you're going with this Marissa. She was redundant and it was very annoying. She also did state some pretty obvious facts and tips. However, I feel we should give her some credit for focusing on the fact that literature has many different meanings and interpretations. It's much easier to say there is a "right" and "wrong" way to interpret something, especially if you are a teacher who is forced to grade based on interpretation. Her execution was not up to my standards either, but her intent was pretty nice. I guess I just respect any teacher who goes out of their way to really involve students and get them to think. So many would rather grade on some generalized system because it's less work. If she uses half the effort as she did in writing pointless examples in this paper in her class, then she must be pretty damn good.
Post a Comment