Abstract

The authors twice replicated C. Haas and L. Flower's 1988 think-aloud reading study, which found that graduate students used “rhetorical” reading strategies to interpret a passage, whereas first-year college students used such strategies hardly at all. Rhetorical reading strategies use suppositions about the social, cultural, and historical context of the writing. The main intent of the replications was to see whether different outcomes might be found if the passage read dealt with a topic more familiar to first-year students. With the original passage, the results roughly supported Haas and Flower. But with the more familiar topic, the undergraduates generated substantially more rhetorical comments than they did with the Haas and Flower passage. Personal narrative and value-laden commentary were also measured, with older students far outproducing first-year students. The caution for researchers and teachers is to avoid hasty assumptions about underlying language competence without considering contextual factors.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
1999-01-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088399016001001
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. Pedagogy
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. College Composition and Communication
  4. Research in the Teaching of English
  5. Written Communication
Also cites 14 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1207/s1532690xci0202_2
  2. Actual minds, possible worlds
  3. 10.1159/000273174
  4. 10.1080/14640747708400637
  5. Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic …
  6. 10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.619
  7. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01823.x
  8. 10.2307/358026
  9. 10.1080/19388078209557645
  10. 10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60368-7
  11. Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading
  12. 10.2307/747599
  13. 10.1080/14640746808400161
  14. 10.3102/00028312028003495
CrossRef global citation count: 9 View in citation network →