Response to “Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course” by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky

     The curriculum described in “Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course” seems to me an excellent option for implementation in a basic writing classroom.  I particularly liked the heavy scaffolding of assignments and emphasis on timed reading and writing rather than on number of pages read or written.  I also thought the tasks that focused on locating different types of information were likely to be useful because they would guide the students toward skimming and scanning texts for specific information. In addition, the inclusion of the journal option that wouldn’t be graded was a really great way to get students to increase writing production in a low stakes scenario.  I think that gradually  increasing production—and revision—are the path to proficiency. The curriculum provides many structured, timed segments that focus on production and increased time spent reading.

     The curriculum also requires that students begin “interrogating texts” by instructing them not to underline information they think is important but to make a note in the margin or circle the page number so they can find the page again easily.  This is an excellent technique that will break the habit many students have of underlining information that seems important while reading without making a note about why it’s important. Then, revisiting the text without remembering why it’s underline—I’ve done this myself many times.

     In addition, the curriculum provides extension writing that connects the readings to the students’ lives by having them respond to themes in the text with examples from their own lives.  This makes the reading relevant to the students and they will, I believe, be more likely to engage with the text.  I can’t wait to be able to implement this type of curriculum in a class.  It seems likely to produce positive results.