When we live in a universe where college pupils “found it hard to absorb. transform. and use information by reading it” it is a clip to take a base. That is what David Heiller and Helen Richards do in this article titled Do We Have to Read All of This? – Encouraging Students to Read for Understanding. While the article is citing jobs in the alumnus and lower division survey of History. the statements they make appealed to me as applicable to the general status of American Colleges. When I approach an assignment. it has been my first reaction on many occasions to believe precisely in the same manner.
I wonder if my professors think I have no life. or a stop watch that puts the universe on clasp while I wade through mountains of text. By the clip I am finished with half of my research I am so burned out that I barely want to make the assignment. much less feel any enthusiasm for it. The point that they make in this essay. nevertheless. has encouraged me to reconsider my attack to the texts. “This sort of reading – reading for understanding – is a cardinal accomplishment non merely for history. but for life. ” They go on to discourse note-taking accomplishments and some of the different attacks to assisting pupils cope with big texts.
The point is made that the more a pupil can understand of what is being read. the drum sander it goes. In add-on. once the pupil can absorb the text better and more quickly. the more energy they are left with for composing. The direct correlativities between being a painstaking reader and a solid author are clear. Heiller. AuthorDavid. & A ; Richards. Helen ( 2005 ) . Do We Have to Read All of This? – Encouraging Students to Read for Understanding. Teaching History. 118. 44-48. I was speaking to a friend of mine about this assignment the other twenty-four hours.
She is presently using to a PhD plan in Composition and Rhetoric and had the undermentioned statement about composing. “Good composing accomplishments are merely of import when you have something of import to state. ” This is something that I think we can all hold on. Whether you are composing for a occupation. a category assignment. or a missive to convert person in your vicinity to halt allowing their Canis familiaris run free. you would non be seting frontward the attempt if it was non of import to you to be heard. There is more to composing than acquiring from point A to point B.
There is a affair of pride in a occupation good done. I went to the Google hunt engine and started to look around for sites that discussed what really makes for good composing. There are a few cardinal points. such as lucidity. enlightening prose. and organisation. However there were a great trade of divergent thoughts every bit good. I came to a simple site. really put up for a high school. that addressed composing in such clear and accessible footings that I felt I should portion it. I had to hold with them. “There is no individual manner to compose an effectual composing. ”
MHS. MHS Composition Guide – What Makes a Good Comopsition? . Retrieved October 21. 2006. from Maryville High School Web site: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. curie. maryville. Tennessee. us/mhs/studyskills/CompGuide/goodcomp. htm Example 1: I agree that re-reading the work frequently will assist to clear up misinterpretations on the first read. but sometimes it is every bit of import to acknowledge multiple possible interlingual renditions. Example 2: I disagree that there is no such thing as bad authorship. I think that when it is sloppy and incoherent. the authorship can be considered bad because of the deficiency of attempt put frontward by the author.
