Article Reading Response
Response 1
Karen Rosenberg in her literary works dubbed the ‘Reading Games‘ tries to have an explanation on how students can get to read articles without getting bored or dozing off while reading; thus, compelling reading coming into the light. She tackles the issue of individuals reading an article only to forget what they read or not having an understanding. In her argument, she postulates of strategies to go about the common issue among students that even she went through while studying. She brings into the light how to go about a scholarly article and understand what the main arguments are in the item as well as what the essay is about. She depicts that the introduction acts as the outline of an article while the body paragraphs contain what the article’s main points are. She also brings the aspect of the conclusion as it best helps understand the introduction and the main arguments. Should there be any problems in understanding the article in going through the steps in whichever order that the reader deems best, seeking ad from an instructor arises.
I find Rosenberg’s article interesting, especially in her depiction that an individual does not have to go through the steps systematically, having the liberty to start from whatever section that an individual wants. She encourages skimming should the part fail to be the one sought out and therefore proving useful in her strategies for reading purposes. Moreover, getting to have an explanation of the title was also of interest with the aspect of the label on the left of the colon being the attention grabber. With that knowledge, one can easily go through scholarly articles without reading challenges and boredom.
Response 2
Additionally, Kyle Steadman in his article on ‘Annoying Ways People Use Sources‘ seems to have a similar role as Rosenberg’s article, being making scholarly articles more obtainable and well received by students or readers. However, his article has a sole focus on the sourcing problems that most writers encounter while writing their articles and content. He goes forth to have the sourcing problems in terms of annoyances that he has come across while having a sufficient explanation of each annoyance. For a better understanding, he sets rules for perfect sourcing that removes the irritants, having his argument significantly lying on the annoyances stemming from the writers failing to guide their masses or audience before citing their content in a text, thus breaking sourcing rules. Therefore, he gets to suggests that not properly sourcing texts annoys readers as well as agreeing to the problem arising from either not knowing how to cite their sources or they fail to have the care that they should have when citing, resulting to annoying the readers.
It is in my belief that Steadman, in his article, targeted everybody that gets to have contact with articles either in reading or writing. Getting to understand what annoys people in articles as well as providing rules and guidelines for citing ensures that the right procedures get followed to reduce and eliminate the issue and bring the aspect of care in individuals. Moreover, I find it interesting the way that he also mentions the fault that web designers have in their placement of citing links. With this, writers and readers should ensure proficiency as well as attentiveness when getting in contact with scholarly articles. In individuals getting annoyed with citing in texts, then the stipulation of a faulty writer comes into play.