CRI TI C AL R EA D IN G > S H ORT N ON FI C TI ON > L ES S ON 11 ( A)
Course Synthesis: Nonfiction Techniques
Overarching Questions


How can unpacking titles help us to determine an author’s perspective?
How do the choices authors make in their openings impact us as readers?
Situating the Task
Lesson Overview
Course Synthesis Lessons
In this lesson, students will pull back from looking at a specific
text or topic to examine two features of nonfiction texts—titles
and openings. They will identify the voice and techniques
different authors use and try out two different voices and
techniques for themselves.
Lesson 10 (A): Walden Connections
Lesson 10 (B): Vocabulary Review
Lesson 11 (A): Short Nonfiction Synthesis
Why This Task Now
The final lessons in this unit attempt to synthesize students’
understanding of nonfiction as a genre, now that they have
read and analyzed a number of nonfiction texts.
Lesson 11 (B): Vocabulary Quiz
Preparation Before Class
Lesson 12 (A): Sharing Final Arguments & Unit Reflection
Complete the classwork handout.
Lesson 12 (B): Closing Assessment
Materials
Critical Reading Notebook (students should have these with them each week)
Classwork: Nonfiction Techniques (1 copy per instructor and student)
Homework to Collect and Grade
n/a.
© Sponsors for Educational Opportunity 1
Teaching Approach
Setting Up the Task: Paired Work & Whole Class (15 minutes)
Purpose: For students to discuss how individual words in a title can help elucidate point of view.
1.
Let students know that their final critical reading classes will be devoted to strategies for approaching
nonfiction reading in general, by looking at the specific texts students have reads this semester. Tell students
that in today’s lesson, they will look at two features of nonfiction texts that can provide a key into the author’s
perspective and potentially bias: titles and opening paragraphs.
2.
Distribute the Nonfiction Techniques handout and read through the directions to the “Write off the Bat”
together.
3.
Give students a few minutes to work with a partner to rank the titles from 1-6, depending on how neutral or
charged they feel the titles is; if time allows, they should also rewrite two titles from neutral to charged, or vice
versa. (If students need clarification about the term ‘charged,’ have students compare the language of two
titles of your choosing, to illustrate the idea.)
4.
Bring the class back together and discuss responses. Answers may vary; what matters is only that students
justify their decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Learning Target: Here is one way to rank the titles and some examples of rewritten titles. Feel free to provide your
own as needed!
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
The Case Against High-School Sports
High-School Sports Aren’t Killing Academics
The Crazy Intense World of Competitive Youth Soccer? Bring It On!
Stop Googling, Let’s Talk
How Facebook Makes Us Unhappy
Drop Everything and Read This
(1)
(3)
(6)
(4)
(2)
(5)
The lower rankings were due to the fact that the language wasn’t particularly charged, even if the argument was clear;
words like ‘killing,’ imperative commands in titles and language like ‘crazy intense’ and exclamation points seemed more
charged.
Rewrite #1: “The Case Against High-School Sports”  “Schools Should Consist of Classrooms, Not Locker Rooms”
Rewrite #2: “The Crazy Intense World of Competitive Youth Soccer? Bring It On!”  “My Daughter, The Spartan”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.
6.
Finally, ask students what observations they have or patterns they notice among the titles. For example,
multiple titles contain:

imperative commands (“Stop Googling, Let’s Talk,” “Drop Everything and Read This” etc.)

mini thesis or argument statements (“The Case Against High-School Sports,” High-School
Sports Aren’t Killing Academics,” etc.)

extreme language: (“killing,” “unhappy,” “crazy intense” etc.)
Reiterate that often titles can give us as readers clues as to the point of view of the author, as well as his/her
central argument.
© Sponsors for Educational Opportunity 2
Modelling Process: Whole Class (10 minutes)
Purpose: To model the process students will continue when they analyze the kinds of voice and techniques authors use
in openings to persuade a reader.
1.
Have students turn to page 2 of their handout, and explain that in addition to titles, the openings of nonfiction
texts can vary according to their purpose and what the author is trying to convey.
2.
Read the task directions, and complete the first analysis together as a class. For example:
3.

Voice: casual, humorous, first-person (as students identify these features, have them point to
moments in the text that support their reasoning)

Nonfiction Techniques: analogy, anecdote, and charged language (again, have students explain their
reasoning here)

Purpose: The purpose seems to be to set up a comparison between the author and her daughter in
order to show how serious her daughter is about soccer. This leads in to her argument about why
excelling in one area can be more powerful than dabbling in many areas.
Spend a few minutes discussing other ways the author could have opened but didn’t and what the effect of
other choices may have been.
Monitoring Student Progress: Individual & Paired Work (15 minutes)
Purpose: To give students the chance to practice their analysis skills independently and to talk through and clarify
responses with a partner.
1.
Tell students that they should complete their analysis task for the remaining three openings independently,
after which point they’ll get together with a partner to share and revise answers.
2.
As students are working, circulate around the room to monitor their progress, taking note of interesting
responses and helping struggling students by asking guiding questions.
3.
After about ten minutes, have students get together with a partner to compare answers and talk through any
discrepancies. Students should revise their thinking if need be during this time.
Teacher Note: The goal with this work is for students to be able to do the analysis work independently after you have
modelled it and after they have used a peer as a resource.
Evaluating Arguments: Whole Class (10 minutes)
Purpose: For students to evaluate the effectiveness of the techniques they’ve analyzed and listen to others’ responses,
potentially changing their mind based on their classmates’ evaluations.
1.
Bring the class back together, and facilitate a discussion where students select for themselves which opening
they feel is most effective for setting up the author’s central argument in the rest of the article.
Teacher Note: You might remind students that this isn’t quite the same as asking which is the most ‘engaging’
opening. You might need to spend a minute talking about what you mean by effective—that it provides a logical way
into the article, that it engages on more than one level (ethos, pathos, logos, etc.) and that it helps to set up the author’s
argument.
© Sponsors for Educational Opportunity 3
2.
Have students share the opening / techniques they feel were most effective, with reasoning to support their
evaluation. Have other students weigh in on the points made by their peers.
3.
After the class has discussed, ask students whether anyone has a new opinion now based on hearing their
classmates’ arguments.
4.
End class by reiterating that being aware of some of these techniques/voices can help students understand the
author’s point of view and central argument in a nonfiction text.
© Sponsors for Educational Opportunity 4