Discussion Questions on Hirvela, Chapter 3

1. 1. Hirvela (2004) discusses three models developed by Eisterhold (1990), which represent reading-writing relationships (pp.72-73), but he uses only directional model for pedagogical implications. How would you use other models?
2. 2. Which writing-to-read techniques (summarizing, synthesizing, and responding) did /do you use as a reader? Do you find them useful?
3. 3. Which techniques would you as a teacher use in your context with your students? Why? (Would a writing instructor choose writing-to-read approach? Is it common to see a student as a reader rather than a writer in a composition class?)
4. 4. Why do you think summarizing, synthesizing, or responding might be difficult for L2 readers/writers?
5. 5. Paraphrasing and quoting are described as complex processes of reading and writing as a student “locates and reconstructs or appropriates material from the source texts” (p.94). It has never been presented like that to me. Rather, paraphrasing and quotations were technicalities that were practiced on the sentence level. Could you share your experience as language learner and language teacher? Do you agree with Hirvela’s position regarding these two aspects of synthesizing?
6. 6. For me, the idea of writing as a facilitator / foundation for reading as active and meaning-making process is quite new. Hirvela (2004) lists many benefits of using writing-to-read approach with L2 readers/writers. What would be the limitations of applying writing-to-read techniques in the classroom?