Asking Questions:
Does their idea of reading include reading Internet text, or must the reading be physically present in book or newspaper article form?
How can you be an expert without knowing a majority of the content in your field of expertise?
How can understanding/comprehension/application transcend knowledge if knowledge is what is being applied and understood?
Am I reading this article passively or actively?
Is baseball the only thing these authors could find to accurately compare writing/reading?
How is that simple? (p.7, first paragraph)
So how are their two definitions different? Just because the second person has to work for understanding while the first one achieved understanding effortlessly?
What does that even mean, literally speaking, anyways? "Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps"? How would a person even physically do that?
Are the authors purposely making this text seem more difficult so that their readers can "increase their understanding"?
How can they talk in absolutes like this: "not every book read for entertainment can be read for understanding"? How would they know? Have they read every book published for entertainment and understanding?
When they talk about "learning by discovery" and "learning by instruction," are they referring to Vygotsky's theory of scaffolding?
Which stance are they taking- learning without help ("reading nature") or learning with help ("reading discourse")?
Adler, M. & Van Doren, C. (1940). How to read a book: The classic guide to intelligent reading. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
No comments:
Post a Comment