What do students mean by "going over the readings"?

[JFlanders]

Sometimes I teach older texts-- not obscure medieval fragments, but stuff mostly out of the standard 18th- and 19th-century pop-lit canon  of "classics".  I am always careful to select these for maximal high-interest sex, violence and drama.

A constant refrain of students assigned these readings is (a) that the language is impossibly, unreasonably old-fashioned and difficult; and (b) that therefore, as a good teacher, I should not expect them to know anything about the content of assigned texts until I have first "gone over the reading."   

When asked, students never provide specific questions or any concrete account of what "going over the reading" might entail, but the persistence and earnestness with which they make this request suggests that "going over it" is a thing some teachers actually do accomplish to their satisfaction.  I do, of course, point out major themes, features, and contexts in class discussion, which is what "going over it" meant back in my undergrad days.   However, students seem to feel that "going over it" should also be what enables them to know the literal content of the text (as in, "It was pretty unfair to quiz us on [that basic plot point] before we had really gone over the reading in class"). 

My question: what do they mean by "going over the reading" in this context? Surely not standing up and giving a line-by-line paraphrase?   Retelling the whole story in my own words?  Printing out the Sparknotes summary section and reading it aloud?   I feel as though these things would clearly bore the students and would still not result in their understanding the actual words on the page, but what else could they mean? 

Is there anyone whose students have commended them for their thoroughness in going over things, who can clue me in on how this works in your classes?

[apl68]

I don't have the kind of experience and advice you seem to be looking for.  However, it is worth pointing out that if you teach at a college that is not all that selective, you probably have at least a fair proportion of students who read at a middle-school level, have never read anything older or more challenging than what one finds in a standard high-school reading anthology, and have never read a text of more than a very few pages except under duress.  Even ordinary 18th-19th-century prose is going to seem very slow and obscure to them.  Their sense that the assigned texts are very difficult to grapple with is probably real enough.

[RatGuy]

I think they want a summary. Both the broad strokes in terms of plot, but also any historical/cultural context. I find that basic items that I take for granted--character names, important plot points--they think of as "details."

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think they know what they mean (but, as RatGuy suggests, they'd probably be happy with a summary). Mine keep asking for my 'notes'. To which the answer is: the powerpoint slides are the notes. The information is actually stored inside my head. Believe it or not, I don't need 'notes' to explain key concepts, the reading, or do proofs.

Perhaps collecting their vocabulary questions into a kind of classroom lexicon would help? It might be especially helpful if they all posted them online every week, and everyone was tasked with figuring out what one word (or phrase) means.

[mamselle]

Maybe also do a gloss of longer/older/unfamiliar words as you do your quick summary, so those don't become stumbling blocks if/when they do try to read it later. 

And for the 18th/19th c. texts, there are a number of contractions, British-ish slang terms, etc. that never "took," or else have passed out of usage in the U.S.--"top hisself," "the bog/loo/latrine," etc.  that could be added to the lexicon.

You might also assign them to watch a few episodes of one of the current/recent/older British police procedurals ("The Professionals," "George Gently," "A Touch of Frost," "The Bill," etc.) to pick up the sense (which still prevails) of the differences between classes in the UK, which may seem either stilted, or invisible, as social context for plot and character motivation, in a setting they can more readily interpret.

A lot of those UK cop dramas just re-cycle Dickens and Sinclair in modern dress, with the themes, schemes, and attitudes more clearly drawn.

M. 

[fourhats]

In my experience, in the humanities, students prefer to have had a class discussion about the readings rather than leaping into being tested on them, especially if the language is new to them. That doesn't mean you can't give reading quizzes, but that a basic conversation can be helpful--I think that's what they're referring to.

Part of higher education is, of course, being challenged and learning to rise to the challenge. When Oprah Winfrey called Toni Morrison the first time, Oprah told her that she found "Beloved" hard to read, and slow going at first. "That," Morrison replied, "is called reading."

[kaysixteen]

"My question: what do they mean by "going over the reading" in this context? Surely not standing up and giving a line-by-line paraphrase?   Retelling the whole story in my own words?  Printing out the Sparknotes summary section and reading it aloud?   I feel as though these things would clearly bore the students and would still not result in their understanding the actual words on the page, but what else could they mean? "

Sadly it might be just exactly this, or at least a shortened-up version of the summaries others have  suggested.  And apl is exactly right wrt the level many students will be on, and what they have likely done wrt reading in high school.

But college is different, and kids there must as noted learn to rise to the challenge.   So the good question here remains: 'How to get them to do this, how to teach them how to read competently to a college standard, including how to access reference resources to assist them in doing so?'

[Caracal]

Sometimes I think students just get intimidated by readings. The skill they need to learn is that when they encounter language that is a bit difficult or themes that are confusing, to just muddle through it. I think there are ways you can build up that skill without just spoon feeding things to them. When possible, if we are reading a long text, I try to start by assigning just the intro first and then discussing what the author is saying she'll do in class before they go off and read the longer chapters.. That may not work as well for all literature texts, but maybe it would for some. In intro classes, when we read an academic article for the first time, I walk them through the thing step by step in class with a whole powerpoint asking questions as we go. That is spoon feeding, but it is an intro classes and many of them have never encountered this sort of writing before.

[AmLitHist]

My Early Am lit this fall is a very small class with 4-5 very bright, interested, well-prepared students, and the other 3-4 who are at the other end of the spectrum (low literacy, very poor writers).  I don't fault any of them for problems in our first three weeks:  Columbus, Of Plimouth Plantation, and the sermons (Day of Doom and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) aren't easy going, either in terms of the language or the content.  They'd love it if I'd "go over" these by simply telling them what the authors said.

Here's what I tell them.  It's no fair just having me "translate" these for you. I already know what they say and what they mean.  You can all read (well....); you have a ton of contextual materials for each text (I'm a New Historicist, so they don't lack for context); you all know how to do the critical reading drills from Comp I and make your lists of author, title; historical context, form/genre, and social context.  I need you to put in the work to show me that YOU know what the texts say and mean.

In these early weeks, I require them to work in small groups and lay out all this stuff for the day's texts.  Then they report out to the class--and when they get stuck, I'm more than happy to jump in and fill the gaps, explain context, etc.  But they need to know that there's no magic answer somewhere--they need to struggle with these texts, and get as far as they can. 

That's what learning is all about.  (To quote one of my first friends in my department:  "I can't just unscrew the top of your head and pour some English in.") If I can see they've made the effort, that's half the battle. On the other hand, if I ask the questions and it quickly becomes clear they haven't done the reading or made the attempt, all bets are off.  I can sit in silence and wait them out longer than they can stand the silence. 

All that said, they do love the sermons, once I break it down and give them the Puritan history and social context; they're quick to latch on to the "people just think they can do anything without any consequences" angle and relate it to modern life, and all of the things up to that point seem to click into place and come together for them.

Happily, we're on to Franklin and some of the letters between John and Abigail Adams, and I'm having to do much less helping.  They always seem to really like the republican period, and they think the Adamses are a hoot.  Who knew?  I'm interested to see what happens next week when we visit Thomas Paine, since most of them are very plugged into BLM, the election, and social justice topics.

[apl68]

I find that basic items that I take for granted--character names, important plot points--they think of as "details."

Maybe that's what some students want.  An idea of what sorts of things they're supposed to be paying attention to as they read.  Because it either isn't as obvious to them, or they're very insecure and looking for some indication that they're on the right track.

[Hegemony]

I have someone read a particularly thorny paragraph out loud, and then I ask someone else to summarize it. They generally leave out something important. Than I say, "What else can we add to the summary?" Then we add in the left-out parts. We talk about difficult sentences and difficult vocabulary. We also talk about the basics of the reading for the day — a summary, talking about the themes, etc. And I make sure that everyone is as comfortable as can be asking questions. Because some will feel puzzled and will be too intimidated to say so.

It can be hard to realize how unfamiliar many students are with the language and style of some selections. And they're coming to it for the first time, whereas if we have assigned it, presumably we have read it at least once, probably multiple times. It can be very useful to allow for their low level of experience, instead of just being disappointed and impatient, which is often my first response.

I was reminded of this last week, when I started a Dickens novel I'd never read before. Now, I adore Dickens, and I've read most of Dickens, usually multiple times. But there was one novel I'd never gotten to. One of the chapters completely bamboozled me. I felt as if I'd just had a stroke or something, I was so incapable of understanding it. Finally I mentioned a specific baffling passage to a friend, and she informed me that it was based on knowing a certain poem which I didn't know. In another chapter, I was baffled as to what was going on, and finally turned to online summaries. It turned out that there were four characters in the scene, whereas I had thought there were three characters. I had thought that one name was a nickname for one of the other characters, based on some complicated scenes in a previous chapter. The whole experience has been humbling. Remember that these beginning students are certainly no more adept than I am.

[dismalist]

I seem to recall that "going over X" was a euphemism for "tell us what's going to be on the exam".

[spork]

I seem to recall that "going over X" was a euphemism for "tell us what's going to be on the exam".

+1

[peitho]

I am a fan of group discussion. Ask them to summarize the main points, put the main episodes in order, or identify the most meaningful scenes or characters. You then have the opportunity to expand on it and fill in the gaps, because they are telling you what they understand and what seemed important to them.

[Aster]

I can't remember the last time that I heard a student use this phrase. I really only hear professors still using this phrase...