These three articles, "Hyper-Readers" by Sosnoski, "Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes" by Hill, and "We Can't Teach Students to Love Reading" by Jacobs, I actually found pretty interesting.
Right away Sosnoski's article caught my eye because I am one of those readers who hate to read on the computer. I will print the article out that I am supposed to read for a class no matter how long it is. I will never buy a Nook or a Kindle because I like the idea of having an actual book. But I do agree with Sosnoski that there are a lot of advantages to reading on the computer, like what seemed to be his main emphasis, search engines. I found it kind of funny that this article was obviously written a few years ago because the author said one day he is sure that there will be some sort of handheld computer that will be like a book. That was kind of funny. I find it really interesting though how even back then, when it was still dial up interent, that people were predicting that soon texts will all be digital...and look at us now? We are getting closer and closer to that happening...unfortunately.
What I found interesting about Hill's article was how much emphasis our culture really does put into images and what all you can actually do with images. One can make so many assumptions just by looking at a picture. Or even make assumptions of what a article or essay is about by the style of font that the title is written in. I also found it interesting that two people can make different assumptions by seeing one image. Its just crazy how pictures really are worth a thousand words and how much meaning they have to us. Even as people not studying rhetoric. They use images in ads that get the message they want across to all sorts of people.
The Jacobs article is the one I liked the least. My only real comment on this article is why are they even questioning the idea of not being able to teach people to love to read. There are plenty of hobbies that some people are very passionate about while others do not understand the craze. I feel like reading is a lot like math. My boyfriend loves math and does not understand my love of reading. I love reading and do not understand his love of math. You cannot teach people to love something that they don't. I think hobbies are kind of engrained in people. If you like something, you like it. If you don't, you don't. I just don't understand why they think reading is different than any other hobby out there.
I like your point about Jacobs' article, and how reading is like any other hobby. I think his lament, as a professor, is that students are required to read a lot in college, but if they can't enjoy it they won't learn as much. I think the main flaw in his argument is that not all skills taught and learned in college require reading lengthy texts, or reading texts at all. You said your boyfriend loves math and doesn't understand your love of reading; I think that Jacobs loves reading and doesn't understand there is anything else. I think he is mainly referring to himself when he says "the idea that many teachers hold today, that one of the purposes of education is to teach students to love reading..."
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to bash on Jacobs, but in the end I think he's just a really passionate English professor, and when he says "it may be that one of the better services teachers can provide for students today is to awaken those good memories whenever they exist," he wants to reach out to people who do enjoy reading, or know what it is to enjoy reading, without forcing his passions onto other people.