Thought Piece #2

            I have always found academic reading to be really boring. Even the article itself wasn’t very interesting at first until I realized that I was the audience and I could relate to a lot of the author’s struggles. When I have to read something for a class I usually try to read it as quickly as possible and hope that I remember enough to say I read it. But this article really did offer some new insight into academic reading. I was always encouraged in high school to read things multiple times and divide it into sections to understand meanings so that part wasn’t new. Reading something multiple times definitely doesn’t make it more interesting that’s for sure. But when Rosenberg says that before trying to understand an article I should try to figure out why I was assigned to read it that made a lot of sense to me. As obvious as that seems, it is not something I usually do. I just assume there is a purpose and leave it at that. But as the reader, if you don’t know why you are reading it then how do you know what to look for? You have to make it interesting and challenging somehow in order to stay awake. When I read a book because someone tells me it is really good I start reading and even if it is not interesting at first I keep reading and waiting for the “insane” part of the book that they told me about. It’s the same with academic writing; if you know what to look for then it gives the reading purpose and if it has a purpose then it is worth reading. While you may have to trick your brain into thinking that the reading has a purpose, sometimes that is the only way to learn the information effectively without reading it and forgetting all the information right away.