Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Written Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HASWELL, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by TREVINO, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Context and Rhetorical Reading Strategies

Haas and Flower (1988) Revisited

RICHARD H. HASWELL

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

TERRI L. BRIGGS

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

JENNIFER A. FAY

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

NORMAN K. GILLEN

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

ROB HARRILL

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

ANDREW M. SHUPALA

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

SYLVIA S. TREVINO

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

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.

Written Communication, Vol. 16, No. 1, 3-27 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088399016001001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
S. Smith
The Role of Technical Expertise in Engineering and Writing Teachers' Evaluations of Students' Writing
Written Communication, January 1, 2003; 20(1): 37 - 80.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
J. Wolfe
Marginal Pedagogy: How Annotated Texts Affect a Writing-From-Sources Task
Written Communication, April 1, 2002; 19(2): 297 - 333.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Business and Technical CommunicationHome page
J. L. Wolfe and C. M. Neuwirth
From the Margins to the Center: The Future of Annotation
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 1, 2001; 15(3): 333 - 371.
[Abstract] [PDF]