8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

1/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources PersuasivelyAuthor(s): Margaret KantzSource: College English, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 74-91Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/377413

Accessed: 16/02/2009 10:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

College English.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/377413?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/377413?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

2/19

MargaretKantz

H e l p i n g S t u d e n t s U s e T e x t u a l S o u r c e sPersuasively

Although the researched essay as a topic has been much written about, it hasbeen little studied. In the introduction to their bibliography, Ford, Rees, andWardpoint out that most of the over 200 articles about researchedessays pub-lished in professional ournalsin the last half centurydescribe classroommeth-ods. "Few," they say, "are of a theoreticalnatureor based on research,and al-most none cites even one other work on the subject" (2). Given Ford andPerry's finding that 84%of freshman composition programsand 40% of ad-vanced composition programs ncludedinstruction n writingresearchpapers,more theoretical work seems needed. We need a theory-basedexplanation,onegrounded n the findingsof the publishedresearchon the natureandreasons forour students' problems with writing persuasive researched papers. To under-stand how to teach studentsto write such papers, we also need a betterunder-standingof the demandsof synthesis tasks.As an examplefor discussingthis complex topic, I have used a typicalcollegesophomore. This student is a composite derivedfrompublishedresearch, frommy own memories of beinga student,and fromstudents whom I have taughtatan open admissions communitycollege and at both public and private univer-sities. I have also used a few examplestaken frommyown students,allof whomshare many of Shirley's traits. Shirley, first of all, is intelligent and well-motivated. She is a native speakerof English. She has no extraordinary nowl-edge deficits or emotionalproblems.She comes from a home where education svalued, and her parentsdo readingand writingtasks at home and at theirjobs.Shirleyhas certainskills. When she enteredfirst grade, she knew how to listento and tell stories, and she soon became proficientat readingstoriesandat writ-ing narratives.Duringher academiclife, Shirleyhas learned such studyingskillsas finding the main idea and rememberingfacts. In terms of the relevant re-search, Shirley can read and summarize source texts accurately (cf. Spivey;Winograd). She can select material that is relevant for her purpose in writing(Hayes, Waterman,andRobinson;Langer).She can make connectionsbetweenthe available informationand her purposefor writing, including he needs of herreaders when the audienceis specified (Atlas). She can make originalconnec-MargaretKantz s assistantprofessor f Englishat CentralMissouriStateUniversity.Shehaspresentedpapersat CCCCandpublishedon composingprocessesinresearched tudentpapers.

College English,Volume52, Number1, January199074

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

3/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 75tions among ideas (Brown and Day; Langer). She can create an appropriate,audience-basedstructure or her paper(Spivey), take notes and use them effec-tively while composing her paper(Kennedy), and she can present informationclearly and smoothly (Spivey), without relying on the phrasingof the originalsources (Atlas;Winograd).Shirleyis, in my experience,a typical college studentwith an averageacademicpreparation.Although Shirleyseems to have everythinggoingfor her, she experiencesdif-ficulty with assignmentsthat requireher to write original papersbased on tex-tual sources. In particular,Shirley is having difficulty in her sophomore-levelwritingclass. Shirley,who likes English history,decided to writeaboutthe Bat-tle of Agincourt (this part of Shirley's story is biographical). She found half adozen histories that described the circumstances of the battle in a few pageseach. Although the topic was unfamiliar, the sources agreed on many of thefacts. Shirleycollated these facts into her own version, notingbut not discussingdiscrepantdetails, borrowingwhat she assumed to be her sources' purposeofretellingthe story, and modellingthe narrative tructureof her paperon thatofher sources. Since the only commentsShirleycould thinkof would be to agreeor disagree with her sources, who had told her everythingshe knew abouttheBattle of Agincourt,she did not comment on the material; nstead, she concen-trated on telling the story clearly and more completely than her sources haddone. She was surprised when her paper received a grade of C- . (Page 1 ofShirley'spaperis given as AppendixA.)

Although Shirley is a hypothetical student whose case is based on a realevent, her difficulties are typical of undergraduates t both privateand publiccolleges anduniversities.In a recent class of IntermediateComposition n whichthe students were instructed to create an argumentusing at least four textualsources that took differingpointsof view, one student,who analyzedthe cover-age of a recent championship ootballgame, rankedher source articles in orderfromthose whose approachshe most approvedto those she least approved.An-other studentanalyzedvarious approaches akenby the media to the Kent Stateshootings in 1970, and was surprised and disappointed to find that all of thesources seemed slanted, either by the perspectiveof the reporteror by that ofthe people interviewed. Both students did not understandwhy their instructorsaid thattheirpapers acked a genuine argument.The task of writing researched papers that express original argumentspre-sents manydifficulties.Besides the obvious problemsof citationformat and co-ordinationof source materialswith the emergingwrittenproduct,writinga syn-thesis can vary in difficulty accordingto the numberand lengthof the sources,the abstractnessor familiarityof the topic, the uses thatthe writermust makeofthe material,the degree and qualityof original houghtrequired,and the extentto which the sources will supplythe structureand purposeof the new paper.Itis usuallyeasier to write a paper that uses all of only one short source on a fa-miliartopic than to write a paperthat selects material rom many long sourceson a topic that one must learnas one reads and writes. It is easierto quote thanto paraphrase,and it is easier to build the paraphrases,withoutcommentor withrandomcomments, into a descriptionof what one foundthan it is to use them as

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

4/19

76 College Englishevidence in anoriginalargument. t is easier to use whateverone likes, or every-thing one finds, than to formally select, evaluate, and interpretmaterial. It iseasier to use the structureand purposeof a source as the basis for one's paperthan it is to create a structure or an original purpose. A writing-from-sourcestask can be as simpleas collatinga body of facts froma few shorttexts on a fa-miliartopic into a new text that reproducesthe structure,tone, and purposeofthe originals,but it can also involve applyingabstractconcepts fromone areatoan original problemin a different area, a task that involves learning the rela-tionships among materials as a paper is created that may refer to its sourceswithoutresembling hem.Moreover,a given task can be interpretedas requiringan easy method,a dif-ficult method,or any of a hundred ntermediatemethods.In this context, Flowerhas observed, "The different ways in which students [represent]a 'standard'reading-to-write ask to themselves lead to markedlydifferentgoals and strat-egies as well as differentorganizingplans" ("Role" iii). To write a synthesis,Shirleymay or may not need to quote, summarize,or select material rom hersources; to evaluate the sources for bias, accuracy,or completeness;to developoriginal ideas; or to persuade a reader. How well she performs any of thesetasks-and whether she thinks to perform these tasks-depends on how shereads the texts and on how she interprets he assignment.Shirley's representa-tion of the task, which in this case was easier thanher teacherhad in mind,de-pends on the goals that she sets for herself. The goals that she sets dependonher awareness of the possibilitiesandher confidence in herwritingskills.Feeling unhappyabout her grade, Shirleyconsulted her friend Alice. Alice,who is an expert, looked at the task in a completelydifferentway andused strat-egies for thinkingaboutit that were quitedifferent romShirley's."Who were your sources?" asked Alice. "Winston Churchill, right? AFrenchcouple and a few others. Andthey didn'tagreeaboutthe details, suchasthe sizes of the armies.Didn'tyou wonderwhy?""No," said Shirley. "I thought the history books would know the truth.When they disagreed, I figuredthat they were wrong on those points. I didn'twant to have anything n my paperthat was wrong."

"But Shirley," said Alice, "you could have thoughtabout why a book en-titled A History of France might present a different view of the battle than abook subtitled A History of British Progress. You could have asked if the En-glish and Frenchwriterswantedto makea pointaboutthe historyof theircoun-tries and looked to see if the factualdifferences suggestedanything.You couldeven have talked about Shakespeare's Henry V, which I know you've read-about how he presents the battle, or about how the King Henryin the play dif-fers fromthe Henrysin your otherbooks. You wouldhave had an angle, a prob-lem. Dr. Boyer wouldhave loved it."Alice's representationof the task would have requiredShirleyto formallyse-lect and evaluate her materialand to use it as proof in an original argument.Alice was suggesting hatShirleyinventan originalproblemandpurposefor herpaper and create an original structure for her argument.Alice's task is muchmore sophisticatedthan Shirley's. Shirley replied, "That would take me a year

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

5/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasivelyto do! Besides, Henrywas a real person. I don't want to make up thingsabouthim.""Well," said Alice, "You're dealing with facts, so there aren't too manychoices. If you want to say somethingoriginalyou eitherhave to talk aboutthesources or talk aboutthe material.Whatcouldyou say aboutthe material?Yourpapertold about all the reasons KingHenry wasn't expected to win the battle.Could you have argued that he should have lost because he took too manychances?""Gee," said Shirley, "That'sawesome. I wish I'd thoughtof it."This versionof the task wouldallow Shirleyto keep the narrative tructureofher paperbut wouldgive her an originalargumentandpurpose.To writethe ar-gument,Shirleywould have only to rephrasethe events of the story to take anopposite approach rom that of her Englishsources, emphasizingwhat she per-ceived as Henry's mistakesandinsertingcommentsto explainwhy his decisionswere mistakes-an easy argument o write. She could also, if she wished,writeaconclusionthatcriticizedthe cheerleading one of her British sources.As this anecdote makesclear, a given topic can be treatedin more or less so-phisticatedways-and sophisticatedgoals, such as inventingan originalpurposeand evaluatingsources, can be achieved in relatively simpleversions of a task.Studentshave many options as to how they can fulfill even a specific task (cf.Jeffery). Even childrencan decide whether to process a text deeply or not, andpurposein readingaffectsprocessingandmonitoringof comprehension Brown).Pichert has shown that readingpurposeaffects judgmentsabout what is impor-tant or unimportantn a narrative ext, andother researchtells us that attitudestoward the author and content of a text affect comprehension (Asch; Hinze;Shedd;Goldman).One implication of this story is that the instructor gave a weak assignmentand an ineffective critiqueof the draft (her only commentreferred o Shirley'sfootnoting technique;cf. AppendixA). The availableresearchsuggests that ifDr. Boyer hadset Shirleya specificrhetoricalproblemsuchas havingher reporton her material to the class and then testing them on it, and if she had com-mented on the content of Shirley's paperduringthe drafts, Shirleymight wellhave come upwith a paper thatdid morethan repeatits sourcematerial Nelsonand Hayes). My teachingexperience supports his research inding.If Dr. Boyerhad told Shirley from the outset that she was expectedto say somethingoriginaland that she shouldexamine her sources as she read them for discrepant acts,conflicts, or other interestingmaterial,Shirley might have tried to write an origi-nal argument (Kantz, "Originality"). And if Dr. Boyer had suggested thatShirleyuse her notes to comment on her sources and make plans for using thenotes, Shirley might have written a better paperthan she did (Kantz, "Rela-tionship").Even if given specific directions to create an originalargument,Shirley mighthave had difficulty with the task. Her difficulty could come from any of threecauses: 1) Many students like Shirleymisunderstandources because they readthem as stories. 2) Many studentsexpect their sources to tell the truth;hence,they equate persuasive writingin this context with making things up. 3) Many

77

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

6/19

78 College Englishstudents do not understand hat facts are a kind of claimand are often used per-suasively in so-calledobjectivewriting o create an impression.Students need toread source texts as arguments and to think about the rhetorical contexts inwhich they were writtenratherthanto readthem merelyas a set of facts to belearned. Writingan originalpersuasiveargumentbased on sources requiresstu-dents to apply material to a problem or to use it to answer a question, ratherthan simply to repeat it or evaluate it. These threeproblemsdeserve a separatediscussion.Because historicaltexts often have a chronologicalstructure,studentsbelievethat historianstell storiesand thatrenarratinghe battle cast themas a historian.Because her sources emphasizedthe completeness of the victory/defeatand itsdecisive importance n the historyof warfare,Shirleythoughtthat making hesesame points in her paper completed herjob. Herjob as a reader was thus tolearn the story, i.e., so that she could pass a test on it (cf. Vipondand Hunt'sargumentthat generic expectations affect readingbehavior. Vipond and Huntwould describe Shirley's readingas story-drivenratherthan point-driven).Stu-dents commonlymisreadtexts as narratives.When studentsrefer to a textbookas "the story," they are telling us that they read for plot and character, re-gardless of whethertheir texts are organizedas narratives.One reason Shirleyloves history is that when she reads it she can combineher story-reading trat-egies with her studying strategies. Students like Shirley may need to learn toapply basic organizingpatterns, such as cause-effect and general-to-specific, otheir texts. If, however, Dr. Boyer asks Shirleyto respondto her sources in away that is not compatiblewith Shirley's understandingof what such sourcesdo, Shirley will have troubledoing the assignment. Professorsmay have to dosome preparatory eachingaboutwhy certain kinds of texts have certaincharac-teristics andwhat kindsof problemswritersmust solve as they designtext for aparticularaudience.They mayeven have to teach a model for the kindof writingthey expect.The writingversion of Shirley's problem,which Flower calls "writer-basedprose," occurs when Shirley organizeswhat shouldbe an expositoryanalysisasa narrative, especially when she writes a narrative about how she did her re-search. Studentsfrequentlyuse time-basedorganizingpatterns,regardlessof thetask, even when such patternsconflictwithwhatthey aretryingto say and evenwhen they know how to use more sophisticated strategies. Apparently suchcommon narrative ransitionaldevices such as "the first point" and "the nextpoint" offer a reassuringlyfamiliarpatternfor organizingunfamiliarmaterial.The common strategyof beginningparagraphswith such phrases as "my firstsource," meaningthat it was the first source that the writer foundin the libraryor the first one read, appearsto combinea story-of-my-researchtructurewith aknowledge-telling trategy(Bereiterand Scardamalia,Psychology). Even whenstudentsunderstand hatthe assignmentasks for morethanthe fill-in-the-blanks,show-me-you've-read-the-materialpproachdescribed by Schwegler and Sha-moon, they clingto narrative tructuringdevices. A rankorderingof sources, aswith Mary'sanalysisof the footballgame coveragewith the sources listed in an

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

7/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 79orderof ascendingdisapproval,representsa step away from storytellingandto-wardsynthesizingbecause it embodies a persuasiveevaluation.In addition to reading texts as stories, students expect factual texts to tellthem "the truth"because they have learnedto see texts statically, as descrip-tions of truths, instead of as arguments.Shirleydid not understand hat nonfic-tion texts exist as arguments n rhetoricalcontexts. "After all," she reasoned,"how can one argueaboutthe date of a battleor the sizes of armies?'"Churchill,however, describedthe battle in much more detail thanShirley'sother sources,apparentlybecause he wishedto persuadehis readers to take pridein England'straditionof militaryachievement. Guizotand Guizot de Witt, on the otherhand,said very little about the battle (beyond describing t as "a monotonousand la-mentablerepetitionof the disasters of Crecy and Poitiers" [397])because theysaw the Britishinvasion as a sneaky way to take advantageof a feud amongthevarious branches of the French royal family. Shirley's story/studyskills mightnot have allowed her to recognizesuch arguments,especiallybecause Dr. Boyerdidnot teach her to look for them.WhenI have asked studentsto choose a topic and find three or moresourceson it that disagree, I am repeatedlyasked, "How can sources disagreein differ-ent ways? After all, there's only pro and con." Studentsexpect textbooks andotherauthoritative ources either to tell them the truth(i.e., facts) or to expressan opinionwithwhichthey mayagreeor disagree.Mary'streatmentof the foot-ball coverage reflects this belief, as does Charlie'ssurprisewhen he found thateven his most comprehensivesources on the Kent State killingsomittedcertainfacts, such as interviews with National Guardsmen.Students'desire for truthleads them to use a collatingapproachwhenever possible, as Shirleydid (cf. Ap-pendixA), because students believethat the truthwill includeall of the facts andwill reconcile all conflicts. (This belief may be another manifestation of theknowledge-telling trategy [Bereiterand Scardamalia,Psychology]in which stu-dents write down everything they can think of about a topic.) When conflictscannot be reconciledand the topic does not admit a pro or con stance, studentsmay not know what to say. They may omit the material altogether, include itwithout comment, as Shirley did, or jumble it together without any plan forbuildingan argument.The skills thatShirleyhas practiced or most of her academiccareer-findingthe main idea andlearningcontent-allow her to agree or disagree.She needs atechniquefor readingtexts in ways that give her somethingmore to say, a tech-niquefor constructingmorecomplexrepresentations f texts that allow roomformore sophisticated writing goals. She also needs strategies for analyzing herreading hatallowherto buildoriginalarguments.One way to help studentslike Shirleyis to teach the concept of rhetoricalsit-uation. A convenient tool for thinking about this concept is Kinneavy's tri-angulardiagramof the rhetoricalsituation. Kinneavy, analyzingAristotle's de-scriptionof rhetoric, posits thatevery communicative ituationhas three parts:aspeaker/writer the Encoder), an audience (the Decoder), and a topic (Reality)(19). Althoughall discourseinvolves all three aspects of communication,a given

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

8/19

80 College Englishtype of discourse may pertainmore to a particularpoint of the trianglethan tothe others, e.g., a diary entry may exist primarily o express the thoughtsof thewriter(the Encoder);an advertisementmayexist primarily o persuadea reader(the Decoder). Following Kinneavy, I posit particulargoals for each corner ofthe triangle. Thus, the primary goal of a writer doing writer-based discoursesuch as a diary might be originality and self-expression; primary goals forreader-baseddiscourse such as advertisingmightbe persuasion;primarygoalsfor topic-based discourse such as a researchedessay mightbe accuracy, com-pleteness, andmasteryof subjectmatter. Since all threeaspects of the rhetoricalsituation are presentand active in any communicativesituation,a primarily ef-erentialtext such as Churchill'sTheBirthof Britainmay have a persuasive pur-pose and may dependfor some of its credibilityon readers'familiaritywith theauthor. The term "rhetorical reading," then (cf. Haas and Flower), meansteachingstudents to read a text as a message sent by someone to somebodyfor areason. Shirley, Mary, and Charlie are probably practiced users of rhetoricalpersuasion n non-academiccontexts. They may never have learned o applythisthinking n a conscious and deliberateway to academictasks (cf. Kroll).The concept of rhetoricalsituation offers insightinto the natureof students'representationsof a writing ask. The operativegoals in Shirley'sand Alice's ap-proaches to the termpaperlook quitedifferentwhen mappedonto the points onthe triangle.If we think of Shirleyand Alice as Encoders, the topic as Reality,and Dr. Boyer as the Decoder, we can see that for Shirley, being an Encodermeanstryingto be credible;herrelationship o the topic (Reality) nvolves a goalof usingall of the subject matter;and her relationship o the Decoderinvolves animplied goal of tellinga complete storyto a readerwhomShirleythinks of as anexaminer-to use the classic phrase from the famous book by Britton et al.-i.e., a readerwho wants to know if Shirleycan pass an exam on the subjectofthe Battle of Agincourt.For Alice, however, beingan Encoder meanshavingagoal of saying something new; the topic (Reality)is a resourceto be used; andthe Decoder is someone who must be persuadedthat Alice's ideas have merit.Varyingtask representationsdo not changethe dimensionsof the rhetoricalsit-uation: the Encoder, Decoder, and Reality are always present. But the way awriterrepresentsthe task to herself does affect the ways that she thinks aboutthose dimensions-and whethershe thinksaboutthemat all.In the context of a researchassignment,rhetoricalskills can be used to readthe sources as well as to design the paper. Althoughteachershave probablyal-ways known that expert readers use such strategies, the concept of rhetoricalreading s new to the literature.Haas and Flower have shown that expert read-ers use rhetoricalstrategies "to account for author'spurpose, context, and ef-fect on the audience . . . to recreate or infer the rhetorical situation of the text"(176;cf. also Bazerman).These strategies,used in additionto formulatingmainpoints and paraphrasing ontent, helped the readersto understanda text morecompletely and more quicklythan did readerswho concentratedexclusively oncontent. As Haas and Flowerpoint out, teachingstudentsto readrhetorically sdifficult. They suggest that appropriatepedagogy mightinclude "directinstruc-tion . . . modeling, and . . . encouraging students to become contributingand

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

9/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 81committed members of rhetoricalcommunities"(182). One early step mightbeto teach students a set of heuristicsbased on the three aspects of the commu-nicative triangle. Using such questions could help students set goals for theirreading.In this version of Kinneavy's triangle,the Encoder is the writerof the sourcetext, the Decoder is the studentreader,andRealityis the subjectmatter.Read-ers may consider only one point of the triangleat a time, askingsuch questionsas "Who are you (i.e., the author/Encoder)?" r "What are the important ea-tures of this text?" They may considertwo aspects of the rhetoricalsituation na single question, e.g., "Am I in yourintended(primary) udience?";"WhatdoI think about this topic?"; "What context affected your ideas and presenta-tion?" Other questions would involve all three points of the triangle, e.g.,"What are you saying to help me with the problem you assume I have?" or"What textualdevices have you used to manipulatemy response?" Askingsuchquestions gives students a way of formulating oals relating o purposeas well ascontent.If Shirley, for example, had asked a Decoder-to-Encoderquestion-such as"Am I in your intendedaudience?"- she mighthave realized that Churchillandthe Guizots were writingfor specific audiences. If she had asked a Decoder-to-Reality question-such as "What context affected your ideas and presenta-tion?"-she might not have ignored Churchill's remark, "All these names[Amiens, Boves, Bethencourt]are well known to our generation"(403). As itwas, she missed Churchill'ssignal that he was writingto survivors of the FirstWorld War, who had vainly hoped that it would be war to end all wars. IfShirleyhadused an Encoder-Decoder-Reality uestion-such as "Whatare yousaying to help me with the problem you assume I have?"-she might have un-derstood thatthe authorsof hersources were writing o differentreaders or dif-ferentreasons. Thisunderstandingmighthave given hersomething o say. WhenI gave Shirley's source texts to freshmen students, asked them to use the mate-rial in an originalargument,andtaughtthemthis heuristic or rhetoricalreading,I received, for example,papersthatwarnedundergraduates bout nationalprideas a sourceof authorialbias in history texts.

A factualtopic such as the Battle of Agincourtpresents special problemsbe-cause of the seemingly intransigentnatureof facts. Like many people, Shirleybelieves that you can eitheragreeor disagree with issues and opinions,but youcan only accept the so-called facts. She believes that facts are what you learnfrom textbooks, opinions are what you have about clothes, and argumentsarewhat you have with yourmotherwhen you want to stay out late at night. Shirleyis not in a positionto disagreewith the facts about the battle (e.g., "No, I thinkthe French won"), and a rhetoricalanalysis may seem at first to offer minimalrewards(e.g., "Accordingto the Arab, Jewish, and Chinese calendarsthe datewas really . . .").Alice, who thinksrhetorically,understands hat both facts and opinions areessentially the same kind of statement:they are claims. Alice understands hatthe only essential differencebetween a fact and an opinionis how they are re-ceived by an audience. (Thisdiscussion is derived fromToulmin's model of an

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

10/19

82 College Englishargumentas consisting of claims provedwith data and backedby ethical claimscalled warrants.Accordingto Toulmin,any aspect of an argumentmaybe ques-tioned by the audienceand must then be supportedwith furtherargument.) n arhetoricalargument,a fact is a claim that an audiencewill accept as beingtruewithoutrequiringproof, although hey mayaskfor an explanation.An opinionisa claim that an audiencewill not accept as true withoutproof, and which, afterthe proof is given, the audience may well decide has only a limitedtruth, i.e.,it's true in this case but not in other cases. An audience may also decide thateven thougha fact is unassailable,the interpretation r use of the fact is open todebate.For example, Shirley'ssources gave differentnumbers or the size of the Brit-ish army at Agincourt;these numbers,which must have been estimates, wereclaims masquerading s facts. Shirleydid not understand his. She thoughtthatdisagreementsignified error, whereas it probablysignified rhetoricalpurpose.The probablereasonthat the Guizotsgive a relatively argeestimatefor the En-glish army and do not mention the size of the French army is so that theirFrench readers would find the British victory easier to accept. Likewise,Churchill'srelativelysmallestimatefor the size of the Englisharmyand his highestimate for the French army magnifythe brillianceof the Englishvictory. Be-fore Shirleycould create an argumentabout the Battleof Agincourt,she neededto understand hat, even in her history textbooks, the so-calledfacts are claimsthatmayor maynot be supported,claimsmadeby writerswho workin a certainpolitical climate for a particularaudience. She may, of course, never learn thistruthunless Dr. Boyer teaches her rhetorical heoryanduses the researchpaperas a chance for Shirleyto practicerhetoricalproblem-solving.For most of her academic life, Shirleyhas done school tasks that requireherto find main ideas and important acts; success in these tasks usuallyhingesonagreeingwith the teacheraboutwhat the text says. Such studyskillsform an es-sential basis for doing reading-to-writeasks. Obviouslya studentcan only usesources to build an argumentif she can first read the sources accurately (cf.Brown and Palincsar; Luftig; Short and Ryan). However, synthesizing tasksoften requirethat readersnot accept the authors'ideas. Bakerand Brownhavepointedout thatpeople misreadtexts whenthey blindlyaccept an author's deasinstead of considering a divergent interpretation. Yet if we want students tolearnto buildoriginalarguments romtexts, we mustteach themthe skills need-ed to create divergentinterpretations.We must teach them to thinkaboutfactsandopinions as claimsthatare madeby writersto particular eadersfor particu-lar reasonsin particularhistoricalcontexts.Readingsources rhetoricallygives studentsa powerfultool for creatinga per-suasive analysis. Althoughno researchexists as yet to suggestthatteachingstu-dents to readrhetoricallywill improvetheirwriting,I have seen its effect in suc-cessive drafts of students' papers. As mentioned earlier, rhetorical readingallowed a studentto move from simplysummarizing ndevaluatingher sourceson local coverage of the championship ootballgame to constructinga rationalefor articles that covered the fans rather than the game. Rhetoricalanalysis en-abled another student to move from summarizinghis sources to understanding

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

11/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 83why each reportabout the Kent State shootingsnecessarilyexpressed a bias ofsome kind.As these examples suggest, however, rhetoricalreading s not a magical ech-nique for producing sophisticated arguments. Even when students read theirsources rhetorically, they tend merely to report the results of this analysis intheir essays. Such writing appears to be a college-level version of theknowledge-telling trategydescribedby Bereiter and Scardamalia Psychology)and may be, as they suggest, the productof years of exposure to pedagogicalpractices that enshrine the acquisitionand expression of informationwithoutacontext or purpose.To move studentsbeyond merely reporting he contentandrhetoricalorienta-tion of their source texts, I have taughtthem the concept of the rhetoricalgapand some simpleheuristicquestionsfor thinkingaboutgaps. Gapswere firstde-scribedby Iser as unsaidmaterial hat a readermust supplyto/infer rom a text.McCormick expanded the concept to include gaps between the text and thereader;such gaps could involve discrepanciesof values, social conventions, lan-guage, or any other matterthat readers must consider. If we applythe conceptof gaps to Kinneavy's triangle,we see that in reading,for example, a gap mayoccurbetween the Encoder-Decoder ornerswhen the reader s not a memberofthe author's intended audience. Shirley fell into such a gap. Another gap canoccur between the Decoder-Reality corners when a reader disagrees with ordoes not understand the text. A third gap can occur between the Encoder-Reality points of the triangle f the writer has misrepresentedor misunderstoodthe material.The benefitof teachingthis concept is that when a student thinksabout a writer'srhetoricalstance, she may ask "Whydoes he thinkthat way?"When a studentencountersa gap, she may ask, "Whateffect does it have on thesuccess of this communication?"The answers to both questions give studentsoriginalmaterial or theirpapers.Shirley, for example, did not know that Churchillbegan writing The Birth ofBritainduringthe 1930s,when Hitler was rearmingGermanyandwhen the Brit-ish governmentand most of Churchill'sreadersardentlyfavoreddisarmament.Had she understood he rhetoricalorientationof the book, which was publishedeleven years after the end of World War II, she might have argued thatChurchill'sevocation of past militaryglories would have been inflammatory nthe 1930sbut was highlyacceptable twenty years later. A gap between the read-er andthe text (Decoder-Reality)might stimulatea readerto investigatewhetheror not she is the only person havingthis problem;a gap between other readersand the sources may motivate an adaptationor explanationof the material o aparticularaudience.Shirley mighthave adaptedthe Guizots' perspective on theFrench civil warfor Americanreaders. A gap betweenthe authorand the mate-rial (Encoder-Reality)mightmotivatea refutation.To discover gaps, studentsmay need to learnheuristicsfor setting rhetoricalwriting goals. That is, they may need to learn to thinkof the paper, not as a re-hash of the availablematerial,but as an opportunity o teach someone, to solvesomeone's problem, or to answer someone's question. The most salient ques-tions for readingsource texts may be "Who are you (the original audience of

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

12/19

84 College EnglishDecoders)?"; "What is your question or problem with this topic?"; and "Howhave I (the Encoder) used these materials to answer your question or solve yourproblem?" More simply, these questions may be learned as "Why," "How,"and "So what?" When Shirley learns to read sources as telling not the eternaltruth but a truth to a particular audience and when she learns to think of texts asexisting to solve problems, she will find it easier to think of things to say.For example, a sophomore at a private university was struggling with an as-signment that required her to analyze an issue and express an opinion on it,using two conflicting source texts, an interview, and personal material assources. Using rhetorical reading strategies, this girl discovered a gap betweenAlfred Marbaise, a high school principal who advocates mandatory drug testingof all high school students, and students like those he would be testing:

Marbaise, who was a lieutenant in the U.S. Marinesover thirty years ago . . .makesit veryobvious thathe cannot and will not tolerateanyformof drugabuseinhis school. Forexample,in paragrapheven he claims,"Whenstudentsbecomein-volved in illegal activity,whetherthey realize it or not, they areviolatingother stu-dents . . . then I become very, very concerned . . . and I will not tolerate that."Because Marbaisehas not been in school for nearlyforty yearshimself,he doesnot take into consideration he reasonswhy kids actuallyuse drugs. Todaythe so-cial environment s so drasticallydifferent hatMarbaisecannotunderstanda kid'smorality,and that is why he writes from such a fatherlybut distantpointof view.The second paragraph answers the So what? question, i.e., "Why does it matterthat Marbaise seems by his age and background to be fatherly and distant?" Un-less the writer/reader thinks to ask this question, she will have difficulty writinga coherent evaluation of Marbaise's argument.

The relative success of some students in finding original things to say abouttheir topics can help us to understand the perennial problem of plagiarism. Someplagiarism derives, I think, from a weak, nonrhetorical task representation. Ifstudents believe they are supposed to reproduce source material in their papers,or if they know they are supposed to say something original but have no rhetori-cal problem to solve and no knowledge of how to find problems that they candiscuss in their sources, it becomes difficult for them to avoid plagiarizing. Thecommon student decision to buy a paper when writing the assignment seems ameaningless fill-in-the-blanks activity (cf. Schwegler and Shamoon) becomeseasily understandable. Because rhetorical reading leads to discoveries about thetext, students who use it may take more interest in their research papers.Let us now assume that Shirley understands the importance of creating anoriginal argument, knows how to read analytically, and has found things to sayabout the Battle of Agincourt. Are her troubles over? Will she now create that Apaper that she yearns to write? Probably not. Despite her best intentions,Shirley will probably write another narrative/paraphrase of her sources. Why?Because by now, the assignment asks her to do far more than she can handle ina single draft. Shirley's task representation is now so rich, her set of goals somany, that she may be unable to juggle them all simultaneously. Moreover, therhetorical reading technique requires students to discover content worth writing

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

13/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 85about and a rhetoricalpurposefor writing;the uncertaintyof managing uch adiscoverytask when a gradeis at stakemaybe too much for Shirley.Difficult tasks maybe difficult n either(orbothof) two ways. First, they mayrequirestudents to do a familiarsubtask, such as readingsources, at a higherlevel of difficulty,e.g., longersources, moresources, a more difficult opic. Sec-ond, they may requirestudentsto do new subtasks,such as buildingnotes intoan originalargument.Such tasks mayrequire ask management kills, especiallyplanning,that studentshave never developed anddo not know how to attempt.The insecuritythat results fromtryinga complex new task in a high-stakessitua-tion is increased when students are asked to discover a problemworthwritingabout because such tasks send students out on a treasurehuntwith no guaranteethat the treasure exists, that they will recognize it when they find it, or thatwhen they find it they will be able to build it into a coherent argument.Thepaperon Marbaisequoted above earneda gradeof D because the writercouldnot use her rhetorical nsightsto build an argumentpresented n a logicalorder.Although she asked the logical question about the implications of Marbaise'spersona, she did not follow through by evaluating the gaps in his perspectivethatmightaffect the probablesuccess of his program.A skillful student using the summarize-the-main-ideaspproachcan set herwritinggoals and even plan (i.e., outline)a paperbefore she reads the sources.The rhetoricalreadingstrategy,by contrast,requireswriters to discover whatisworth writing about and to decide how to say it as or after they read theirsources. The strategyrequireswritersto changetheircontentgoals and to adjusttheirwritingplansas their understanding f the topic develops. It requireswrit-ers, in Flower's term, to "construct" their purposesfor writingas well as thecontent for their paper(for a descriptionof constructiveplanning,see Flower,Schriver,Carey, Haas, and Hayes). In Flower's words, writerswho constructapurpose, as opposed to writers who bringa predeterminedpurpose to a task,"create a web of purposes . . . set goals, toss up possibilities . . . create a multi-dimensional network of information . . . a web of purpose . . . a bubbling stewof variousmentalrepresentations" 531-32).The complexindeterminacy f sucha task may pose an intimidating hallengeto studentswho have spent theirlivessummarizingmainideas and reporting acts.Shirley may respondto the challengeby concentratingher energies on a fa-miliarsubtask, e.g., repeatingmaterialaboutthe Battle of Agincourt,at the ex-pense of strugglingwith an unfamiliar ubtasksuch as creatingan originalargu-ment. She mayeven deliberatelysimplifythe taskby representingt to herselfascallingonly for somethingthat she knows how to do, expectingthat Dr. Boyerwill accept the paperas close enoughto the original nstructions.My studentsdothis frequently.Whenstudents decideto write a reportof theirreading, hey canat least be certainthatthey will findmaterial o writeabout.Because of the limits of attentionalmemory,not to mentionthose caused byinexperience, writers can handle only so many task demandsat a time. Thus,papers producedby seeminglyinadequate ask representationsmay well be es-sentially rough drafts. What looks like a bad paper may well be a preliminarystep, a way of meetingcertaintask demands n order to createa basis for think-

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

14/19

86 College Englishing about new ones. My students consistently reportthat they need to marshalall of their ideas andtext knowledgeandget that materialdown on the page (i.e.,tell their knowledge)before they can think aboutdevelopingan argument i.e.,transform heirknowledge). If Shirley's problem s that she has shelved certaintask demands n favor of others, Dr. Boyer needs only to pointout what Shirleyshould do to bring the paper into conformity with the assignment and offerShirleya chance to revise.The problems of cognitive overload and inexperience in handlingcomplexwritingtasks can create a tremendoushurdlefor students because so many ofthem believe that they shouldbe able to write theirpaperin a single draft.Somestudentsthinkthat if they can't do the paperin one draftthat meansthat some-thingis wrongwith them as writers,or with the assignment,or withus forgivingthe assignment.Often, such studentswill reactto their draftswith angerand de-spair, throwingaway perfectly usable rough drafts and then coming to us andsayingthatthey can't do the assignment.The student's first draft about drug testing told her knowledge about hersources' opinions on mandatorydrugtesting. Her second draftcontained therhetorical analysis quoted above, but presented the material in a scrambledorderand did not build the analysis into an argument.Only in a thirddraft wasthis studentableto make herpoint:

Not once does Marbaiseconsiderany of the psychologicalreasonswhy kids turnaway fromreality. He fails to realize that drugtesting will not answertheirques-tions, ease theirfrustrations,or respondto theircriesfor attention,butwill merelyfurther alienatehimselfand otherauthorities romhelpingkids deal with their realproblems.

This comment representsTerri's answer to the heuristic"So what? Why doesthe source's position matter?"If we pace our assignments o allow for our stu-dents' thoughtsto develop, we can do a greatdeal to build their confidence intheirwriting(TerriraisedherD+ to an A). If we treat the researchedessay as asequence of assignmentsinstead of as a one-shot paperwith a single due date,we can teach our studentsto buildon theirdrafts,to use whatthey can do easilyas a bridgeto what we want them to learnto do. In this way, we can improveour students' writinghabits. More importantly,however, we can help our stu-dents to see themselves as capablewritersand as active, able, problem-solvers.Most importantly, we can use the sequence of drafts to demand that our stu-dents demonstrate increasingly sophisticated kinds of analytic and rhetoricalproficiency.Rhetoricalreadingand writingheuristicscan help studentsto representtasksin rich and interesting ways. They can help students to set up complex goalstructures (Bereiter and Scardamalia, "Conversation"). They offer studentsmany ways to think abouttheir readingand writingtexts. These tools, in otherwords, encouragestudentsto workcreatively.

And afterall, creativityis what researchshould be about. If Shirleywrites acreative paper, she has found a constructive solution that is new to her andwhich other people can use, a solution to a problemthat she and other peopleshare. Creativityis an inherentlyrhetoricalquality. If we thinkof it as thought

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

15/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 87leading to solutions to problems and of problems as embodied in questions thatpeople ask about situations, the researched essay offers infinite possibilities.Viewed in this way, a creative idea answers a question that the audience or anysingle reader wants answered. The question could be, "Why did Henry V winthe Battle of Agincourt?" or, "How can student readers protect themselvesagainst nationalistic bias when they study history?" or any of a thousand otherquestions. If we teach our Shirleys to see themselves as scholars who work tofind answers to problem questions, and if we teach them to set reading and writ-ing goals for themselves that will allow them to think constructively, we will bedoing the most exciting work that teachers can do, nurturingcreativity.AppendixA: Page 1 of Shirley'spaper

The battle of Agincourt ranks as one of England's greatest military triumphs.It was the most brilliant victory of the Middle Ages, bar none. It was foughton October 25, 1414, against the French near the French village of Agincourt.

Henry V had claimed the crown of France and had invaded France with an armyestimated at anywhere betweaM 10,0001end 45,000 men2. During the seige of Marfleurdysentery had taken of them3, his food supplies had been depleted4, and the fallrains had begun. In addition the French had assembled a huge army and were marchingtoward him. Henry decided to march to Calais, where his ships were to await him5.He intended to cross the River Somme at the ford of Blanchetaque6, but, falselyinformed that the ford was guarded7, he was forced to follow the flooded Somme uptoward its source. The French army was shadowing him on his right. Rememberingthe slaughters of Crecy and Poictiers, the French constable, Charles d'Albret,hesitated to fight8, but when Henry forded the Somme just above Amiens9 and was just

1. Carl Stephinson, Medieval History, p. 529.2.Guizot, Monsieur and Guizot, Madame World's Best Histories-France, Volume II,p. 211. --3. Cyrid E. Robinson, England-A History of British Progress, p. 145.4. Ibid.

S Winston Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I: TheBirth of Britain, p. 403.

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

16/19

88 College English6. Ibid.7. Ibid. t8. Robinson,p. 145. ,.e ?e9. Churchill, . 403. ..*

Works CitedAsch, Solomon. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice, 1952.Atlas, Marshall. Expert-Novice Differences in the Writing Process. Paper pre-sented at the American Educational Research Association, 1979. ERIC ED107 769.Baker, Louise, and Ann L. Brown. "MetacognitiveSkills andReading."Hand-book of ReadingResearch. Eds. P. David Person, Rebecca Barr,MichaelL. Kamil,and PeterMosenthal.New York:Longman,1984.Bazerman,Charles. "Physicists Reading Physics: Schema-LadenPurposesandPurpose-Laden Schema." Written Communication 2.1 (1985): 3-24.Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia."FromConversation o Composition:The Role of Instruction n a DevelopmentalProcess." Advances in Instruc-

tional Psychology. Ed. R. Glaser. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, 1982. 1-64.---- . The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, 1987.

Briscoe, Terri. "To test or not to test." Unpublishedessay. Texas ChristianUniversity, 1989.Britton,James,Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin,Alex McLeod, andHaroldRosen.The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). Houndmills BasingstokeHampshire:MacmillanEducationLtd., 1975.Brown, Ann L. "Theories of Memory and the Problemof Development: Ac-tivity, Growth, and Knowledge." Levels of Processing in Memory. Eds.LairdS. CermakandFergusI. M. Craik.Hillsdale,NJ: LaurenceErlbaumAssociates, 1979.225-258.----, Joseph C. Campione, and L. R. Barclay. TrainingSelf-CheckingRou-tines for Estimating Test Readiness: Generalizations from List Learning toProse Recall. Unpublishedmanuscript.Universityof Illinois, 1978.

andJeanneDay. "Macrorules or SummarizingTexts: The Developmentof Expertise." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22.1(1983): 1-14.

and Annmarie S. Palincsar. Reciprocal Teaching of ComprehensionStrategies: A Natural History of One Program for Enhancing Learning.

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

17/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 89Technical Report #334. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading,1985.

Churchill,Winston S. The Birthof Britain.New York:Dodd, 1956. Vol. 1 of AHistory of the English-Speaking Peoples. 4 vols. 1956-58.Flower, Linda. "The Constructionof Purposein WritingandReading."CollegeEnglish 50.5 (1988): 528-550.

---. The Role of Task Representation in Reading to Write. Berkeley, CA:Center for the Studyof Writing,U of Californiaat Berkeleyand CarnegieMellon. TechnicalReport, 1987.-. "Writer-BasedProse: A CognitiveBasis for Problems n Writing."Col-lege English 41 (1979): 19-37.

Flower, Linda, Karen Schriver, Linda Carey, ChristinaHaas, and John R.Hayes. Planning in Writing:A Theory of the Cognitive Process. Berkeley,CA: Centerfor the Studyof Writing,U of Californiaat Berkeleyand Car-negie Mellon.TechnicalReport, 1988.Ford, James E., and Dennis R. Perry. "ResearchPaperInstruction n the Un-dergraduateWritingProgram."College English44 (1982):825-31.Ford, James E., Sharla Rees, and David L. Ward. Teaching the ResearchPaper: Comprehensive Bibliography of Periodical Sources, 1980. ERIC ED197363.Goldman, Susan R. "Knowledge Systems for Realistic Goals. Discourse Pro-cesses 5 (1982):279-303.Guizot and Guizot de Witt. The History of France from Earliest Times to 1848.Trans. R. Black. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: ohnWanamakern.d.).Haas, Christina,andLindaFlower. "RhetoricalReadingStrategiesand the Con-struction of Meaning." College Composition and Communication 39(1988): 167-84.Hayes, John R., D. A. Waterman,and C. S. Robinson. "Identifying he Rele-vant Aspects of a ProblemText." CognitiveScience 1(1977):297-313.Hinze, Helen K. "The Individual'sWordAssociations andHis Interpretation fProse Paragraphs." Journal of General Psychology 64 (1961): 193-203.Iser, Wolfgang. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkins UP, 1978.Jeffery, Christopher."Teachers' and Students'Perceptionsof the WritingPro-cess." Research in the Teaching of English 15 (1981): 215-28.Kantz, Margaret. Originality and Completeness: What Do We Value in PapersWritten rom Sources? Conference on College Composition and Commu-

nication.St. Louis, MO, 1988.. The Relationship Between Reading and Planning Strategies and Suc-cess in Synthesizing: It's What You Do with Them that Counts. Technicalreport n preparation.Pittsburgh:Centerforthe Study of Writing,1988.

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

18/19

90 College EnglishKennedy, Mary Louise. "The ComposingProcess of College StudentsWritingfrom Sources." Written Communication 2.4 (1985): 434-56.Kinneavy,James L. A Theoryof Discourse. New York:Norton, 1971.Kroll, BarryM. "AudienceAdaptation n Children'sPersuasiveLetters." Writ-ten Communication 1.4 (1984): 407-28.Langer, Judith. "Where Problems Start: The Effects of Available Informationon Responses to School Writing Tasks." Contexts for Learning to Write:Studies of Secondary School Instruction. Ed. Arthur Applebee. Norwood,NJ: ABLEX PublishingCorporation,1984.135-48.Luftig, Richard L. "Abstractive Memory, the Central-IncidentalHypothesis,and the Use of Structural mportance n Text: Control Processes or Struc-

tural Features?" Reading Research Quarterly 14.1 (1983): 28-37.Marbaise, Alfred. "Treating a Disease." Current Issues and Enduring Ques-tions. Eds. Sylvan Barnetand Hugo Bedau.New York: St. Martin's,1987.126-27.McCormick,Kathleen. "Theoryin the Reader:Bleich, Holland,and Beyond."College English 47.8 (1985): 836-50.McGarry, Daniel D. Medieval History and Civilization. New York: Macmillan,1976.Nelson, Jennie, and John R. Hayes. The Effects of Classroom Contexts on Stu-dents' Responses to Writing from Sources: Regurgitating Information orTriggering nsights. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing,U ofCaliforniaat BerkeleyandCarnegieMellon. TechnicalReport, 1988.Pichert, James W. "Sensitivity to Importanceas a Predictorof ReadingCom-prehension." Perspectives on Reading Research and Instruction. Eds.MichaelA. Kamiland Alden J. Moe. Washington,D.C.: NationalReadingConference, 1980.42-46.Robinson, Cyril E. England: A History of British Progress from the Early Agesto thePresentDay. New York: Thomas Y. CrowellCompany,1928.Schwegler, RobertA., and Linda K. Shamoon. "The Aims and Process of theResearchPaper." College English44 (1982):817-24.Shedd, PatriciaT. "The Relationshipbetween Attitude of the ReaderTowardsWomen's ChangingRole and Response to LiteratureWhich IlluminatesWomen'sRole." Diss. Syracuse U, 1975. ERICED 142956.Short, Elizabeth Jane, and Ellen BouchardRyan. "MetacognitiveDifferencesbetween Skilled and Less Skilled Readers: RemediatingDeficits throughStory Grammar and Attribution Training." Journal of Education Psycholo-

gy 76 (1984): 225-35.Spivey, Nancy Nelson. Discourse Synthesis: Constructing Texts in Reading andWriting.Diss. U Texas, 1983.Newark, DE: InternationalReadingAssocia-tion, 1984.

8/2/2019 Kantz-WRT 205

19/19

Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively 91Toulmin,Steven E. The Uses of Argument.Cambridge:CambridgeUP, 1969.Vipond, Douglas, and Russell Hunt. "Point-DrivenUnderstanding:Pragmatic

and Cognitive Dimensions of Literary Reading." Poetics 13, (1984):261-77.Winograd,Peter. "Strategic Difficulties in SummarizingTexts." Reading Re-search Quarterly 19 (1984): 404-25.