Academic Reading & Writing: Learning How to Critically Read and Analyze Texts by Professor Chris L. Verschage Oklahoma City Community College Critical Reading What is “Critical Reading”? Critical Reading, much like writing, is a process. We discover the ideas and views of others by looking beneath the surface of the words and by thinking about their meaning and significance. As we read, we weigh their claims, ask for definitions, evaluate the information, look for proof, question their assumptions, and make decisions regarding what they have to say and how well they communicate it. In essence, we enter into a conversation with the writer, and by doing this, we walk away from the experience with a new appreciation and understanding of the material that we were reading. Learn to read as writers We need to approach other people’s work – not as a reader – but as another writer. By reading the text as a writer, we learn to examine the effectiveness of the writings of others and use the things we learn to help clarify our own ideas and the choices we make regarding organization, development and style. In every discipline, people learn a skill or craft by studying those who are more skilled and successful: Singers listen to vocalists they admire. People in sports watch championship games. Actors evaluate their colleagues’ award-winning performances. Medical students observe famous surgeons. How does reading help become a better writer? Understanding the ideas and opinions expressed by other writers may spark interesting ideas for our own writing. Discovering the various ways other writers have organized and explained their material should give us some new ideas about selecting our own strategies and supporting evidence. Becoming familiar with the effective stylistic devices and diction of other writers may also encourage us to use language in ways we’ve never tried before. Strategies for Reading Arguments Because argument begins in disagreements within a particular social community, we should examine any argument as if it is one voice within a larger conversation. In helping us to examine and analyze any argument, we should use the following strategies in sequence: Read as a believer. Read as a doubter. Consider alternative views and analyze sources of disagreements. Use disagreement productively to prompt further investigation. Read as a Believer When we read as a believer, we practice what psychologist Carl Rogers calls “empathetic listening.” Empathetic listening requires that we – see the world through the author’s eyes. adopt temporarily the author’s beliefs and values. suspend our skepticism and biases long enough to hear what the author is saying. Annotating What You Read Learning to Annotate as We Read Annotate: To make or furnish critical or explanatory notes or comments in the margin of the text. These notes may also include using asterisks or other codes to alert us to special materials. Close Reading: In this type of annotation, we are focusing on content. Comments or notes that explain the text. For example, Number and briefly list the steps in a process; Define a term in our own words or add a definition to help with our understanding, or Summarize the ideas in a particular section. In essence, explain the material to ourselves. Annotate (cont.) Active Reading: In this type of annotation, we are focusing on making connections between the material and what we already know or have experienced or observed. Are there connections between the author’s views and our own? Even if we don’t agree with the author, can we understand where he or she is coming from? Why he or she thinks or feels the way that he or she does? By connecting the material in the reading to our own experiences, we are able to better understand the material. (Discuss teachings of the cognitive psychologist, Jean Piaget – brain like a file cabinet) Annotating Symbols Summarize the Author’s Viewpoint After reading through the text as a believer, summarize the author’s views and ideas using our own words. By being able to summarize the material, it demonstrates our own level of understanding of the material. How much of the material we actually understand? How well we understand the author’s stance and perspective? Writing a Summary What is a “Summary”? When you write a summary, you capture what is relevant, essential, or the key concepts and ideas of what is present, and you rephrase it in your own words and sentence structures. What are three things you should not do to a summary? Don’t make the summary too succinct and leave out crucial details. Such a summary might be useless when, days later, you try to make sense of it. Don’t use the actual words or phrases of the actual author without both quotation marks and documentation. This is plagiarism. Don’t insert your own personal views, feelings, thoughts, or notes in a summary. Reading as a Doubter Read as a Doubter Now read through the same material, but this time as a doubter. Critique and ask questions about the writing. For example, Why did the writer begin this way? What is the point the writer is trying to make? What might be some fallacies to this point of view? Why did the writer compare this event to that one? What is the writer trying to say by making this comparison? Why did the writer use a personal example in this paragraph? In other words, we want to begin to question the motivation, reasoning, and rhetorical choices of the author. Analyzing the Argument What is “Analysis”? Analysis is an interactive process that involves four basic stages: 1. To break down what’s being analyzed into smaller component parts; 2. To identify and examine each of the parts; 3. To identify and examine the relationship between each of the parts; and 4. To identify and examine how all of the parts work together to formulate the whole. What is “Interpretation”? Interpretation is an assumed part of the analysis process. College professors and instructors will say, “Analyze this,” but what they mean is “analyze and interpret this.” Interpretation is when you ascribe meaning, purpose, relevance, significance, or importance to whatever you are analyzing. If I were to give the meaning, purpose, relevance, significance or importance of the incredible Hulk in the Avengers movie, then I’d interpreting that character. Toulmin’s Model In analyzing arguments, we want to use the model formulated by the modern philosopher, Stephen Toulmin. Toulmin rejected the prevailing models of argument based on formal logic in favor of a very audience-based courtroom model. His model differs from formal logic in that it assumes that – All assertions and assumptions are contestable by “opposing counsel” and that All final “verdicts” about the persuasiveness of the opposing arguments will be rendered by a neutral third party, a judge or a jury. Toulmin’s Model (cont.) Keeping in mind the “opposing counsel” forces us to anticipate counter arguments and to question our assumptions. Keeping in mind the “judge” and “jury” reminds us to answer opposing arguments fully, without bitter deepseated ill will or enmity, and to present positive reasons for supporting our case, as well as how to anticipate and respond to the claim, reasons, and grounds of the “opposing counsel.” Above all else, Toulmin’s model reminds us not to construct an argument that appeals only to those who already agree with us. In short, it helps us to tailor arguments to our intended audience. Identify the Parts of the Argument Using Toulmin’s Model, identify the following parts of the argument: Claim: The point of view being presented or argued. Qualifiers: A word or phrase used to limit the force of a claim and to indicate the degree of its probable truth. Exceptions: Situations in which the claim may not hold true or may not apply. Grounds (or Data):The supporting evidence that cause us to make a claim or that’s produced to justify a claim in response to an audience’s skepticism. Warrant: The value, belief, or principle that the audience has to hold if the soundness of the argument is to be guaranteed or warranted. Identify the Parts (cont.) If there’s a chance that the audience will question or doubt the warrant, then we need to back up the warrant by providing an argument in its support. Backing: the argument that’s presented to support the warrant. Conditions of Rebuttal: A resistant audience might try to refute our argument. Specifically, they might challenge – Our reasons and/or our grounds. Our warrant and/or our backing. Specific Areas of Disagreements We can disagree with how a particular text has been interpreted or understood. To disagree with a particular interpretation does not mean that we disregard the text itself, just in how it has been understood by a particular group or individual. We can disagree about facts or reality. For example, is something the author is presenting a “fact” or is it really an interpretation? Is the person’s perspective of reality valid or invalid? Real or fiction? What is it based upon? We can disagree about values, beliefs, or assumptions. Are they valid? Are they shared with the audience? On what are they based? We can disagree with how words may be defined or whether some analogy is, in fact, appropriate. Finally, Learn to Draw Inferences Inference: A statement that’s not explicitly stated in the text, but it can be logically drawn, or concluded, from what has been stated within the text. We can also draw inferences from things that we experience, things we hear or see, as well as from things that we read. Consider Alternative Views Once you have read through a text and examined it both from the perspective of a believer and as a doubter, then consider alternative views. The purpose of examining alternative views is to gain a deeper, fuller, more comprehensive understanding of the overall issue and the various perspectives being presented and argued. Then analyze the various sources of disagreements between individuals and/or groups. Finally, use the information discovered through that analysis of disagreement to productively prompt further investigation and research. In Summary, When reading and analyzing a text, we need – To read through it as a believer, in order to empathetically listen to what the author is saying; To read through it as a doubter, in order to question and critique the validity and support of the argument; To make sure we draw any necessary inferences, in order to include within our analysis and understanding, even the implied aspects of the argument; To consider alternative views, in order to gain a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of the issue as a whole and the various perspectives being argued; To analyze the sources of the disagreements, in order to understand how the perspectives differ and on what points; and finally, To use disagreement productively, in order to prompt further investigation and research. Synthesis & Evaluation Once we finish our analysis (and interpretation), then we synthesize (or put together with a new view or level of understanding) what we have analyzed. The final stage in the analysis process is to evaluate (or ascribe a qualitative value to) it, such as asking the question, “Was this good or bad? Why?” Much like an employee may be evaluated by his or her manager or a student’s work may be evaluated by an instructor, we evaluate things based upon our analysis (and interpretation) of it. Our analysis (and interpretation) and evaluation of the person, place, or thing is then written down and presented in an argument to an academic audience. Academic Writing What is “Academic Writing”? In academic writing (essays, research documents, articles, proposals, etc.), information is often incorporated within these writings that are borrowed and properly cited from a variety of sources. The borrowed and cited information is used to support and to give credence or validity to the student’s views and ideas. Two Types of Sources: In academic writing there are two types of sources that are often used: Primary Sources: Firsthand accounts: historical documents (letters, speeches, diaries, journals, etc.), eyewitness reports, works of literature, reports on experiments or surveys conducted by the writer, or your own interviews, experiments, observations, or correspondence. Secondary Sources: Secondhand reports that analyze information drawn from other sources, both primary and other secondary sources: a reporter’s summary of a controversial issue, a historian’s account of a battle, a critic’s reading of a poem, a physicist’s evaluation of several studies. Keep It Proportional Only 25-30% of your overall paper should consist of documented material. The rest of your paper (70-75%) should consist of your argument, your reasons, your inferences, insight, connections, rationale, and any “common knowledge” materials that you’ve decided to use within your paper. What is “Common Knowledge”? Common Knowledge consists of the standard or basic information on a subject that we’d expect most intelligent people to know. This includes the following types of information: 1. All historical facts. However, it does not include the interpretation or explanation of those facts. 2. All folk literature. Any literature traceable to an author is not folk literature, even if it is familiar. 3. All Commonsense Observations.
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz