I find that a lot of folks never get past some kind of numbered list of steps for How to Write (tm), which yes works for instructional purposes, but really isn't the way good writing happens as such.
Like for example when a full grown adult, a teacher even, on this committee I'm on was trying to edit a letter and insisted that you can never ever ever start two sentences in a piece of writing the same way, that you always always have to vary every single line. Which, you know, no. Not really. They teach that rule in school so you don't make *everything* the same. But it's not really a hard and fast rule, once you know how to actually write. /soapbox
Anyhow, my reason for saying the above follows from that, in that, simply paraphrasing on a micro level is not enough for a cohesive summary most of the time. You have to synthesize the information into understandable chunks in its abbreviated form and actually mediate with the reader, explaining why the information is significant and to whom.
This is true. But even if you're ruling out higher level thinking, what they are asking for in this case (one main point and one supporting detail from the text) is not in any way a summary.
I am currently in college and "summarize this article" or book or whatever usually means "here is something that supports what I believe. Take some quotes to demonstrate why I am correct".
Wah. I remember "summarise" questions always being hard at school because I always felt there must be a trick somewhere. It always looks too easy. What on earth be this "supporting detail" stuff? Do they mean you must say, for example, that the article is about acne and focuses on its eruption during adolescence, rather than giving a prasy or whatever it's called and saying the article is about acne, offers some first-hand accounts of the suffering it causes its victims, digresses somewhat into the issue of bullying suffered by people with spots, then flashes lots of pseudo scientific information to sell you its spot cream?
I am waffling. I have PMT so feel spots coming on. Being a teacher sounds way too brain-churning to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Like for example when a full grown adult, a teacher even, on this committee I'm on was trying to edit a letter and insisted that you can never ever ever start two sentences in a piece of writing the same way, that you always always have to vary every single line. Which, you know, no. Not really. They teach that rule in school so you don't make *everything* the same. But it's not really a hard and fast rule, once you know how to actually write. /soapbox
Anyhow, my reason for saying the above follows from that, in that, simply paraphrasing on a micro level is not enough for a cohesive summary most of the time. You have to synthesize the information into understandable chunks in its abbreviated form and actually mediate with the reader, explaining why the information is significant and to whom.
I know you knew all this, just ranting. :-D
no subject
no subject
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I am waffling. I have PMT so feel spots coming on. Being a teacher sounds way too brain-churning to me.
no subject