A PROJECT TO INCLUDE STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITY READING COMPREHENSION COURSES
School of Philosophy and Letters (Universidad de Buenos Aires)
M.A. María Susana González
Reading Comprehension Model at the �School of Philosophy and Letters
Argentinian Universities
Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires
Free public university Heterogeneous groups of students
Introductory course
Since 1985 students have to complete an introductory course that lasts a year.
Why an introductory course?�Aims
The main purpose is to deconstruct an encyclopedic and fragmented vision of knowledge����
Importance of the English language at Higher Education
Philosophy and Letters
Reading Comprehension Courses at Philosophy and Letters
Reading
Two extreme positions
Reading process
Reader Variables (Alderson, 2000) – (Grabe, 2009)
Physical Characteristics
STABLE UNSTABLE
Personal Characteristics
Reader Variables (Alderson, 2000) – (Grabe, 2009)
Reader background knowledge
formal schemata content schemata
foreign language discourse genres topic, culture, world
knowledge knowledge knowledge
Reading ability
Metacognitive knowledge expert non-expert
Interaction of knowledge sources in the development of the reading process�Bernhardt (2011)
Stanovich (2000)
Reading comprehension courses in English at Philosophy and Letters
Latest version of the Reading Comprehension Model at Philosophy and Letters
Cognitive area: Pre reading stage
Before reading
Rowbottom, Darrell P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level. In Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Volume 42, Issue 1, March 2011, Pages 117-124
Before reading�Read the title and advance a general hypothesis
Rowbottom, Darrell P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level. In Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Volume 42, Issue 1, March 2011, Pages 117-124
Abstract�¿Can you anticipate the genre and the author’s position? �What words or phrases help you advance specific hypotheses?
Popper repeatedly emphasized the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for ‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).
Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfill similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate. The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’
Abstract�What words or phrases help you understand the contrast and the author’s position?�
Popper repeatedly emphasized the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for ‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).
Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfill similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate. The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’
Abstract�
Popper repeatedly emphasized the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for ‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).
Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfill similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate. The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’
Organizational signals (Lorch and Lorch 1997)�More specific hypotheses�How many positions can we distinguish? In which sections will you find each of them?
While reading stage�First paragraph
Introduction—Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge was the flashpoint for a well-known debate between Kuhn and Popper, in which the former emphasized the importance of ‘normal science’ qua puzzle solving and the latter (and his supporters) questioned the very idea that ‘normal science’, so construed, could count as good science at all.
While reading stage�Second paragraph
Kuhn’s basic idea was that science would hardly get anywhere if scientists busied themselves with attacking what they already had, rather than accepting and redefining it. But Popper instead emphasized the importance of striving to overthrow theories that might very well, for all their designers and users knew be false (or otherwise unfit for purpose). The debate was inconclusive because each side clearly had a perfectly reasonable point.
Which is the most important/new idea in this paragraph?
Summarize the most important idea in a simple sentence.
What is the function of this paragraph? Does the author’s position appear?
Hypotheses verification
While reading stage�Second paragraph
Kuhn’s basic idea was that science would hardly get anywhere if scientists busied themselves with attacking what they already had, rather than accepting and redefining it. But Popper instead emphasized the importance of striving to overthrow theories that might very well, for all their designers and users knew be false (or otherwise unfit for purpose). The debate was inconclusive because each side clearly had a perfectly reasonable point.
While reading stage�Third paragraph �What is the function of this paragraph? What words help you see it?
The natural solution would have been to take the middle ground—i.e. to suggest that scientists should feel free to attack or to uncritically accept—but both Popper and Kuhn appear to have avoided this option because they ultimately considered the matter, I will contend, only at the level of the individual scientist. By this, I mean that each thought about how one particular scientist ought to behave, and then extrapolated from this to determine how they thought a group of scientists should behave. And on the one hand, it is hard to see how it can be right for an individual (and by extrapolation every) scientist to blithely assume that what everyone else is doing is basically right, and that the theories she is given are fit for purpose. On the other, it is difficult to see how it could be right for a (and by extrapolation every) scientist to treat the canon of her science as fundamentally wrong, and to spend all her days objecting to the basic metaphysical principles underlying it.
While reading stage�Third paragraph �What is the function of this paragraph? What words help you to see it?
The natural solution would have been to take the middle ground—i.e. to suggest that scientists should feel free to attack or to uncritically accept—but both Popper and Kuhn appear to have avoided this option because they ultimately considered the matter, I will contend, only at the level of the individual scientist. By this, I mean that each thought about how one particular scientist ought to behave, and then extrapolated from this to determine how they thought a group of scientists should behave. And on the one hand, it is hard to see how it can be right for an individual (and by extrapolation every) scientist to blithely assume that what everyone else is doing is basically right, and that the theories she is given are fit for purpose. On the other, it is difficult to see how it could be right for a (and by extrapolation every) scientist to treat the canon of her science as fundamentally wrong, and to spend all her days objecting to the basic metaphysical principles underlying it.
Does the author’s position appear in this paragraph?
While reading stage�Fourth paragraph
In this paper I will explain how thinking at the level of the group, using a functionalist picture of science, provides a means by which to resolve the tension. I do not claim that this notion is entirely new—Hull (1988); Kitcher (1990) and Strevens (2003) all discuss the importance of the division of cognitive labor, although not with emphasis on attitudes—but I would venture to declare that the subsequent analysis is far more penetrating than that recently offered by Domondon (2009) in this journal, and previously by Fuller (2003).1 In fact, it shows precisely how we can resolve, and move beyond, the kind of ‘Kuhn vs. Popper’ problems with which they are concerned. I shall begin by explaining the positions of Popper and Kuhn in greater depth.
What repetition do you notice in this paragraph? Why does it happen?
What is the function of this paragraph?
While reading stage�Fouth paragraph
In this paper I will explain how thinking at the level of the group, using a functionalist picture of science, provides a means by which to resolve the tension. I do not claim that this notion is entirely new—Hull (1988); Kitcher (1990) and Strevens (2003) all discuss the importance of the division of cognitive labor, although not with emphasis on attitudes—but I would venture to declare that the subsequent analysis is far more penetrating than that recently offered by Domondon (2009) in this journal, and previously by Fuller (2003).1 In fact, it shows precisely how we can resolve, and move beyond, the kind of ‘Kuhn vs. Popper’ problems with which they are concerned. I shall begin by explaining the positions of Popper and Kuhn in greater depth.
Post reading step
Three steps in this process: (scaffolding)
Conclusions
How do we include students in the reading comprehension courses in foreign languages at the School of Philosophy and Letters (UBA)?
���THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!