"Learning to Read Biology"

In Haas's (1994) "Learning to Read Biology," she situates herself in a conversation that's concerned with how the work of science is imbued with authority. And in that way, she links herself to authors like Latour, Bazerman, Geisler, etc., all of whom show, in their own way, and in various places, that the work of science becomes real only by means of texts used in a certain way. So, to take just one particular example that Haas mentions, texts aren't autonomous; they don't contain meaning to be extracted. Or, to put this more exactly, sure, the reader can treat texts as though they are receptacles of meaning, yet, if the reader wants to participate in the real work of science, or, if the reader wants to get caught up in the work of science in action, then the reader has to treat a scientific text rhetorically. To get back to that example I never furnished, Haas quotes Fahnestock's "Accommodating Science" article. And in that article, Fahnestock shows how scientists construct claims more absolutely for lay audiences. That being said, a rhetorical reading of those scientists' articles would recognize that the facts in question were plastic, or that they are shaped slightly to accommodate whatever situation they're in.

Haas positions herself in this broader rhetoric of science conversation. She notes that scholars before her have recognized that, when students come to college, they view texts as autonomous entities. In fact, she notes that teachers and scholars have gone so far as to postulate that the point of a writing class is to get students to understand this threshold concept. However, she also notes that no one has thus far actually gone so far as to empirically demonstrate whether students' views of discourse actually change, which is what she tasks herself with in this article. More specifically, she acknowledges that developmental psychologists have in fact shown this progression from arhetorical to rhetorical attitudes (Belenkey et al.; Perry), but they haven't studied this in the context of reading and writing. Moreover, "Haswell ... looked at growth in writing competence through college but he did not explicitly address how students view texts or how disciplinary training and literacy instruction interact" (46).

Haas's motivations for conducting this study might be tied to the potential of rhetorical reading as an object of study. As she suggests, students read more than they write. And for that very reason, changes in students' views about and approaches to discourse might be available in a study of students' writing, but the difference might be more readily apparent if reading rather than writing is examined. In other words, it is important to make this move to study rhetorical reading because otherwise we might not be able to see the dramatic changes that do in fact take place in students--emphasis on that word "drama."

As indicated, developmental psychological theories underpin Haas's study (Belenkey et al.; Perry). However, she also makes use of theories of rhetorical reading (Haas and Flower). Using the former, she does expect students to approach texts more rhetorically as they go through the college curriculum. However, using the latter, she expects that progression to take a specific form, namely, a reorientation toward explanation. That is, as readers develop rhetorically, Haas expects readers to look less and less to the text itself (i.e., looking inward), which is also to say that she expects readers to look more and more for contextual support (i.e., looking outward).

In terms of method, Haas randomly selected one students to study longitudinally. And in that way, she studies one student's rhetorical development from freshman to senior year. For forms of data, she gathers process logs, interviews, and think-aloud protocols, and that's on top of observing this student while she was reading and talking to her teachers. Moreover, to triangulate this mountain of data, she approached it both qualitatively and quantitatively. On the one hand, and relying mostly on the interviews (n =11), two coders looked for a discussion of reading tasks and goals, reading practices, and views of discourse and knowledge. On the other, she employed a discourse analysis of verbs (being, saying, and doing). Importantly, Haas did not solicit questions on discourse, knowledge, rhetoric, etc.; she just asked her questions about reading, and reference to those things was supposed to arise organically.

All in all, Haas found that something happened to Eliza (the student), starting her junior year. Qualitatively, we can tell this because both discourse and knowledge claims and mentions of rhetorical concerns spike at that point. For one thing, Haas finds evidence of her reading selectively, rather than linearly. For another, she self-sponsors a study of genre. She also begins to look at tables. Quantitively, the spike makes itself felt through the dramatic increase in the use of do-related verbs, especially those linked to proper names (teachers, authors, mentors, co-workers, etc.). What, then, happened to Eliza, starting in her Junior year? What caused her to begin to read rhetorically? Haas offers four explanations: increased domain knowledge, instructional support, natural development, and mentoring in a socio-cultural setting.

One implication of this study--echoed by Haswell et al. (1999)--is that students can do just fine in school without having to rhetorically read. We see this especially in Eliza's sophomore year, when she is asked to write the report. As Haas suggests, "...the myth of the autonomous text grows out of an entire culture of schooling" (80n2, emphasis not mine). In other words, teachers reward her for treating texts arhetorically well into her sophomore year. However, given that the increase in domain knowledge is a possible explanation for her transformation into a rhetorical reader, it very well might be the case that a culture of schooling like this is necessary. As a result, we might ask: what is the role of the FYW course in the development of Eliza as a reader? Is it the case that she gets taught rhetorically reading at that point, but that she just doesn't have the opportunity to use it until later? Incidentally, it is also worth pointing out that Haas's results qualify the developmental psychological studies she builds on, or at least insofar as Eliza bypasses certain developmental stages altogether.