Response to “Interrogating Texts: From Deferent to Efferent and Aesthetic Reading Practices” by Cheryl Hogue Smith

     I agree with this author’s basic premise that students’ difficulties with regard to writing are directly linked to an inability to deconstruct and distill meaning from complex reading materials.  My own reading and writing skills are rooted in reading.  I was encouraged to read a variety of texts as a young girl; from the process, I inductively gained a set of skills that made writing much easier for me late in life.  I had internalized the conventions of writing and, with time, was able to reproduce what I’d read.  I was able to respond to a logical argument because I could identify the important elements and structure of the piece I’d read and respond in kind.  If a student is unable to identify the argument or what the compelling evidence of the argument is, they s/he is unlikely to be able to respond appropriately. 

     The occurrence of “inattentional blindness” defined by Simons and Chabris as the “phenomenon of missing something that should be obvious,” (59) also plays a part in students’ difficulties with regard to responding to text or even knowing how to respond.  I agree that part of the problem is that students miss important information because they’re concentrating on locating specific information in a text, but I don’t think that describes the problem in its entirety.  Students are also often unaware of the way different genres are structured and therefore can’t differentiate between important information and supporting details. This deficit can indeed be minimized by teaching students how to read and mark information that strikes them and then reread for greater clarity. There is a misconception among students that reading a text can be completed in one sitting and that all pertinent information will be available after that single reading.  Reading, like writing, is a process and needs to be taught as a process.