Write my english paper
In consequence, in terms of the figure-ground analogy they seem to construe figures that are only partially related to the ones suggested by the author. However, and this seems important, their ways of making sense of these paragraphs are not wrong in any absolute sense and do not violate basic rules of language use. Nor is it reasonable to assume that general intellectual deficits would make it impossible for Suzy, Sean and Stan to reconstruct the messages as intended. Before attempting this, let us however comment on some other findings indicating differences in how the exemplars made sense of what they had been reading. In continuing our search for the nature of the intersubjectivity established between the reader and the text, we shall add some observations from two other sources that reveal interesting differences.
The first source was a very open and non-directive question asking participants to give their general reaction to the text.
Consider first the accounts given by Suzy, Sean and Stan. Suzy: Well, I really think one should have had more time on it. At the end there were also such nice comments about deep structure and surface structure. These excerpts contain general reactions to the test as a learning task and some comments about how interesting it was found to be. Dick, Dora and Dave buy coursework also comment on their interest in the text, but add a very specific remark. Well it tied in with the questions we discussed earlier, sort of. Why some people find it easier to learn and remember, and how you remember things and so on. Dora: Well, I write my english paper mean what we talked about earlier, it relates very closely to what I was saying... We had just been sitting write my english paper here talking about learning and of course I thought about that. What was said corresponded to a certain degree with the ideas I had and it was interesting to get it confirmed all this about the activity and so on and thinking independently. What is added in these comments is an explicit recognition that the text deals with the very same situation as was discussed in the initial interview.
These participants, in contrast to their counterparts above, thus spontaneously react by pointing to the thematic continuity between two different instances of communication, the interview and the text. Furthermore, throughout the continued questioning they compare what they themselves had said about learning with what was said in the text. The second source of data to be commented upon here derives from the concluding interview, where the participants were encouraged to report on the associations they had been making while reading and to explain to what extent and in what write my english paper way the text had reminded them of things they had experienced or read about.
Here too clear differences between the two groups can be discerned. Dick, Dora and Dave constantly talk in terms of the overarching theme of learning and the various scientific investigations and experiments they refer to are always explicitly accounted for as illustrations of learning.
I understood that it would be going to deal with different forms of learning. Suzy, Sean and Stan, on the other hand, do not seem to be directed towards identifying what the author attempts to make known in the same active way. They have difficulties in identifying and expressing what theme the author addresses, as is exemplified by the following quotation from Suzy. Interviewer: What did you see as of most importance in the text?
What did the person who wrote it want to get across? Interviewer: Hm, what title do you think you would want to give to this text?
Then there was a lot of research stuff and then there.
Well, there were sort of a lot of different things which come in there all the time like. The questioning also yields signs of differences in how the two groups 85 of participants inject meaning into what they read and what kind of associations the text evokes. The statements given by Suzy, Sean and Stan imply that they had been reacting to the text, and to the various parts of it, in a way that was not related to the messages the author intended to convey.
They atomize the text and they use the parts which they themselves have singled out as a basis for injecting meaning and for associating. Reading with the Intention of Learning In accordance with the logic of research adopted in this volume,, our search for an interpretative framework encompassing differences in how the participants made sense of this particular text should focus on possible internal relationships between approach and outcome (cf. In other words, in functional terms, it should focus on what the participants were doing in this particular communication situation, and the assumptions they held about it.
As will have been evident to the reader, the two groups of participants focused on here were selected since their approach to learning could be identified as instances of a deep (Dick, Dora and Dave) or a surface (Suzy, Sean and Stan) approach. The latter display indications of what has been described in Chapter 3 as a surface approach (an orientation towards memorizing, focusing on the text per se rather than what the text is about, etc). But a further salient difference was found to reside in their conceptions of knowledge and learning. These differences in conception, as we saw in Chapter 3, are linked to differences in approach.
How then can the relationship between approach and conception help us to understand how the text is apprehended by Sean, Stan and Suzy? The point we wish to make is that this subjectively coherent picture of what knowledge is and how one learns serves as a premise for and a limitation upon the sense-making activities assumed to be appropriate when approaching a discourse with the intention of learning.