tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2635704064582031260.post8524433014392089670..comments2016-07-05T08:38:38.545-07:00Comments on Connected Reading: EMWPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03918691619405247408noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2635704064582031260.post-59287265214589658012016-06-29T10:29:31.801-07:002016-06-29T10:29:31.801-07:00Yes, and this will be especially interesting in an...Yes, and this will be especially interesting in an election year. I've run into this problem many times, where students look to all texts as authoritative. All written text is flattened--all ideas are valid, fair game for use as evidence. In this way, digital text is more democratic but also more dangerous. One of our jobs in first year writing is to inculcate critical thinking skills. And if all we do is assign readings and then grade students on how well their interpretation matches our own, then we're not doing much to foster their literacy skills. I've been thinking about how to use the critical reading framework to get students to interrogate their own reading practices in order to become more critical readers: how did you find this text? did you read it fully? did you follow their sources (or were there any)? what did you do with it? did you share it on Facebook? What does your Facebook feed look like, politically? The idea of ideological silos is interesting here--the idea that in that first part of connected reading, the encountering phase, we are becoming more and more likely to see only a limited range of opinions. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05839560473946406770noreply@blogger.com