1. Haas discuses being literate throughout college and behaving different towards texts. Haas talks about becoming fully literate at a college level, and a person must learn how to retain the information from the texts, and understand the content of the text and what the author is saying. Haas talks about an experiment she did on a student over four years in college. Haas says, “by the time she left college she had come to a greater awareness of the rhetorical, contingent nature of both the activities and discourses she participated in within her chosen field, biology” (Haas 46) During Eliza’s study throughout college she eventually gained a better understanding of texts and how to fully retain the text/content. The study that Haas made has given her a conclusion of people can make better connections with text, and being able to connect different pieces of text. 
2. In Haas’ article there is a motion of a myth that consists of someones understanding of the text at hand. Haas states, “This myth has been well described—… In general, the belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even “timeless” entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture” (Haas 45). The autonomous text is simply a myth in the way that Haas is saying because it is an idea and not factual (scientifically). This relates to me in many ways, all the time I will read text just to either get it done and only retain what is needed, never looking for a different meaning.
3. In Haas’ study of Eliza she studies her progress over four years at college. She studies the development of her discourse and how it grows to better understand the text at hand and different strategies towards reading. The different majors will also affect how a person shows interest and will interpret the text at hand or given. Haas says, “In addition, I hypothesized that in her reading practices, Eliza might demonstrate more rhetorical sophistication than she would in her writing, where many more production skills must be managed (Haas 47). Eliza’s progress would grow with more involvement she had within the subject, and the understanding of the text would relate to less notes and data sheets because of her understanding of the text and ability to retain the information.
4. Rhetorical Frame is consisted of three theories that involve individuals and their different social interpretations. Haas describes Rhetorical Frame as, “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context. For instance, when readers approach a discourse situation, they presumably have some knowledge or representation of the participants, including the identity, knowledge, and background of author and intended readers” (Haas 48); it is explained as peoples interpretations of social encounters, and motives towards situations. This Rhetorical Frame helps to understand the motives of different texts and situations that are involved within the reading to deeply understand the meaning.
5. There are many similarities between Gee and Haas, when Discourses are being discussed. The idea of rhetorical frame goes deeper into the readings for students and others reading the text. Haas talks about, “Acknowledging or attempting to understand these elements of discourse—constructing a rhetorical frame which includes authors, readers, motives, relationships, and contexts—is what I call the process of rhetorical reading”(Haas 48). Haas is able to give us an example of being able to understand elements and being able to have a motive to reading texts and understand the content at hand. This relates to Gee’s “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing” (Gee 13). Both Acknowledging and metaknowledge is very similar between both Gee and Haas. Meaning a reader can use the text at hand and fully understand the content and be able to go deeper into the meaning and the reason for this text.

ENG110I