24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T43d,

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.

26:T411,

This article describes an assessment carried out in collaboration with the administrators of a large freshman English course. The assessment team worked with instructors to identify course goals and to design tasks that the instructors felt would fairly assess the extent to which the students achieved the goals. Students who did and did not take the course were both pre- and posttested on five central goals: critical reading, argument identification, differentiation of summary and paraphrase, understanding of key terms used in the course, and practical strategies for writing academic papers. Results of the assessment failed to indicate any substantial improvement on any of the five course goals for students who took the course. These results contrasted with positive outcomes obtained by the same assessment team with introductory history and statistics courses. The article concludes with reflections on why instructors may fail to recognize that their courses are not working.

27:T43f,

This article explores the possible grounds for a research program in cognitive rhetoric that aims to forge a tight link between the structures of meaning and structures of brain, body, and world. In section one, I outline a theory of human meaning-making in terms of pragmatic, epistemic, and symbolic actions as they relate to the principles of intentionality, projection, publicity, and materiality. In section two, I consider recent global theories of mind and brain to assess the theory's neurological plausibility. The common link between these two sections i