The affects of not reading: Hating characters, being bored, feeling stupid

Poletti, Anna; Seaboyer, Judith; Kennedy, Rosanne; Barnett, Tully; Douglas, Kate

doi:10.1177/1474022214556898

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as Robert Scholes explains, it is more often the case that emphasis is placed on teaching ‘writing’ since we can see and judge writing but we cannot see reading (2002: 166). Referencing Scholes, Poletti and Seaboyer et al point out that, assuming that ‘literary studies does teach the skill of reading’, this is ‘largely accidental’ because we focus more on ‘whether a student can describe their reading in their writing, in the creation of a new text, not whether or not they have actually read the text they’re responding to’ (2014: 6). An obvious form is the college English essay.…”

Section: Extr(a)active Reading and The Second Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading literature in/against the digital age: Shallow assumptions, deep problems, expectant pedagogies

Gordon

2023

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the popular theme of Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010), various commentators observe the erosion of what used to be called ‘reading’, but is now increasingly referred to as ‘deep’ reading. University English departments offer ‘close reading’ of literary texts as a corrective to the digital shallows, while worrying about a general decline in reading, and reading ‘for pleasure’, attributed to the digital. However this decline is created equally by the procedures of the discipline, including its core practice of ‘close reading’ which emerged similarly from entangled anxieties about technology, mass media and low/high culture. It makes sense that literary reading would be eroded in educational contexts (which overdetermine reading), and not just because of the erosion of deep reading and ‘deep attention’. Training in literature may lead, ironically, to a loss in the ability to read and understand literary texts and to draw on multimodal narrative literacies. This paper proposes a practice of expectant reading that, supported by social annotation, can re-centre reading and restore narrative and frameworks of expectation constitutive of literary meaning, while embodying the contract between reader(s) and text, and facilitate socially distributed reading.

show abstract

Section: Extr(a)active Reading and The Second Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading literature in/against the digital age: Shallow assumptions, deep problems, expectant pedagogies

Gordon

2023

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[r]eading begins … with an initial moment of trust: we venture a leap, taking the risk of an encounter with the unknown in the hope that there is something to be understood and that our effort will not be in vain. (2015, p. 64) We have, elsewhere and collaboratively, considered in terms of a hospitality of reading the encounter as an interface, a coming together of perspectives (Poletti, Seaboyer, Kennedy, Barnett, & Douglas, 2016). How can we help students understand the encounter with an unknown, perhaps unknowable, text to be akin to encountering a stranger, that brings with it an attendant set of behaviours enshrined in the fact that we owe a duty of care to the person we encounter and have a set of responsibilities to them resulting from the human contract of being in society?…”

Section: ; Emphasis In Original) Felski Draws On Steiner To Suggestmentioning

confidence: 99%

New perspectives on reading and writing across the disciplines

Seaboyer

Barnett

2018

Higher Education Research & Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There's a level of public anxiety that at times approaches moral panic around the argument that those born into a digital age have lost the ability as well as the desire to read or write long-form text. That anxiety haunts higher education, too. From rigorous research in the reading-heavy disciplines to conversations among colleagues after class, the internet is often held as responsible for the failure of too many of our students to be able to read enough disciplinary material in enough depth to allow them to take the next steps in the dialogic that constitutes a university education. We look to research that suggests that to blame changing technology is at best an oversimplification. While the capacity to deep read complex texts and to respond orally and in writing are foundational skills that are complicated by the rise of digital technologies, research on what has come to be termed reading non-compliance suggests the problem is of much longer standing. The ways in which we engage text may have changed, but the failure to read for class preceded digital technologies and their distractions (Hobson). We argue we can best serve our students now by encouraging biliteracy (Wolf and Barzillai) so they are able to shift between the reading-for-information that involves scanning, clicking, and linking, and the deep, immersive reading vital for the rich and productive engagement that enables critical, creative, and ethical learning.

show abstract

“…The literature covers numerous conceptions of different reading approaches. The most commonly discussed concepts are ‘close reading’ (Brookman and Horn, 2016; Culler, 2010; Douglas et al., 2016; Hayles, 2010; Love, 2010; Poletti et al., 2016; Weller, 2010), ‘active reading’ (Douglas et al., 2016), ‘reflective reading’ (Weller, 2010), ‘reparative reading’ (Sedgwick, 2003), ‘symptomatic reading’ (Best and Marcus, 2009; Hayles, 2010; Weed, 2012), ‘surface reading’ (Best and Marcus, 2009), ‘instrumental reading’ (Douglas et al., 2016; Weller, 2010), ‘distant reading’ (Love, 2010) and ‘flat reading’ (Love, 2010). In particular, close reading and surface reading are discussed extensively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inquiry-based reading – Towards a conception of reading as a research method

Katan

Baarts

2018

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading is an activity in which both researchers and students invest immense time and energy. However, reading is disregarded as a research method and generally assigned a marginal position as a mere supplement to empirical hands-on methods. In this article we argue that reading should be recognized as a method of inquiry. Based on qualitative interviews with 20 researchers from a humanities department, we explore how researchers read, and we show how reading contributes significantly to their knowledge production. We argue that the concepts of ‘close reading’ and ‘surface reading’ in addition to ‘deep approach’ and ‘surface approach’ insufficiently convey how researchers read. Instead we propose the concept 'Inquiry-Based Reading' for designating the specific orientation towards texts that characterizes how researchers practise reading to further their research. Finally, we suggest that the conceptualization of inquiry-based reading could open up new discussions about the current position of reading in methods curriculum.

show abstract

The affects of not reading: Hating characters, being bored, feeling stupid

Cited by 15 publications

References 26 publications

Reading literature in/against the digital age: Shallow assumptions, deep problems, expectant pedagogies

Reading literature in/against the digital age: Shallow assumptions, deep problems, expectant pedagogies

New perspectives on reading and writing across the disciplines

Inquiry-based reading – Towards a conception of reading as a research method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About