Comprehending Informational Texts

Old Vs. New - Comprehending Informational Texts

 

          The next section in the old Arizona English Language Arts Standards deals with Informational Texts.  As always, the actual standards can be found here: old and new.  As I stated in my previous post, I continue to research data collection and sharing, changes to FERPA, and how those changes have affected and translated into policy in my district and state.  Friday I will meet with our district's head data guru to verify exactly what data we share with whom and when.  If I need additional information about what data the state currently shares and what they plan to share once the state's longitudinal database is complete, I have a contact I will speak to after Friday.  In the mean time, I have decided to move forward with my analysis of old versus new.

 

The Facts:

• The old standards break information texts into three categories: expository, functional, and persuasive.  The new standards are not divided in this manner.
• In the old standards, organizational patterns were required to be critiqued or analyzed in expository texts with a focus on effectiveness and in functional texts with a focus on clarity and understanding.
• The new standards likewise require analysis and evaluation of structure with an emphasis on whether the structure helps make the text "clear, convincing, and engaging."
• Both sets of standards emphasize citing evidence for the student's analysis of an informational text.
• In the old standards, students were required to: determine the accuracy and truthfulness of an argument or statement by citing evidence from the text itself as well as referencing evidence from other sources; evaluate evidence from primary and secondary sources; examine differences in evidence in texts with same or competing views on the same topic; and give evidence to show an author's assumptions.
• In the new standards, students will be required to: "cite strong and thorough evidence" to support their analysis of what a text says both explicitly and implicitly; and integrate and evaluate multiple sources to address a question or solve a problem.
• Both sets of standards require students to evaluate the use of rhetoric in informational texts.
• The old standards require students to identify unsupported inferences and fallacious reasoning.  The new standards do not explicitly state this requirement for 11th/12th grade, but it is required in earlier grades.
• The old standards ask students to evaluate persuasive texts for "adherence to ethics."  They also required that students evaluate the logic of functional texts.
• The new standards require students to analyze the development of central ideas throughout informational texts and provide an "objective summary."
• The new standards ask students to state the author's point of view or purpose, looking at how style and content contribute to the text's "power, persuasiveness, or beauty."
• The new standards require students to analyze seminal US texts with an emphasis on "application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses)."
• Students will also be required to analyze foundational US documents for their themes, purposes and rhetorical features.  These documents must include The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

My Opinion:

          Although the old and new standards for informational texts are organized very differently, most of the requirements are nearly the same.  The emphasis on structure, evidence, and multiple sources appear in both sets of standards.  There are a few items that appear in the old standards that are absent from the new.  Evaluating logic, ethics, and fallacious reasoning are the three main exclusions.  As stated in the fact section, identifying unsupported inferences and fallacious reasoning is present in the new standards for earlier grades (9th and 10th).  I think evaluating an author's reasoning or logic is an important standard, but more so in persuasive and expository texts than in functional texts (i.e., How-to manuals) where it is required in the old standards.  I think this requirement is covered in the new standards with the various analyses of the author's point of view, evidence, central ideas, and conclusions. 

          The only standard completely missing from the old to the new is an evaluation of persuasive texts for "adherence to ethics."  I must admit that I'm not sure what this standard means.  Does it mean properly citing references?  Not plagiarizing?  Or does it refer to whether or not the author's point of view is ethical?  Are students to determine whether or not authors are using evidence and citations honestly (i.e., not taking things out of context)?  Because I'm not sure what this standard means, I have no idea whether or not it should be included in the new standards.

          The biggest difference from the old standards to the new is the requirement to study seminal US texts and foundational documents of historical and literary significance.  This is the one place where specific texts are required to be studied and they are texts I think every American should know and understand.  Studying these documents and constitutional principles will require students to understand complex traditional language and will better prepare them to be active citizens aware of their rights, privileges and responsibilities.  It will reinforce the lessons learned in American History and encourage cross-subject integration of teaching and learning.  I can think of few things conservatives have been more adamant about lately than the need to understand constitutional principles and the events and documents central to the founding of this nation.  I feel like this is a huge win for conservatives and for the future of this country.

          This concludes the reading portion of the standards.  Overall, I am sure it is clear that I find the new standards superior to the old, however, there are still two topics I wish to address before going on to the writing standards.  One is the recommendation for the distribution of literary versus informational texts.  On this topic I hope to look at the breakdown of literary versus informational texts used in college and careers as well as any research I can find to determine whether or not the recommendation is evidentially based.  The second topic I would like to look at is what reading deficiencies most often require students to take remedial college courses and whether or not these standards address those problems.  Also, I will look for research on what reading abilities are most important to entry level employers.  My goal here is to determine whether or not students who master these reading standards are "college and career ready" as promised.  If other concerns with the reading standards come up (either in the comments section, in my own research, or in person), I will research them as I have the time and opportunity.