Questioning+Editorial+Perspectives


 * Summary and Rationale**

The //Questioning Editorial Perspectives// strategy (Lenski et al., 2011: 192) asks students to think critically about authors' perspectives. The strategy focuses in particular on identifying the claims of the author, linking evidence to those claims, considering alternative viewpoints, and recognizing bias in the writing. This strategy is useful in that students engage gain the skills to consider the purpose and bias embedded in a piece of writing, helping students become critical consumers of information. Though this strategy asks students to recognize perspectives in the context of newspaper editorials, the strategy lends itself well to considering other persuasive texts.

//Directions//:
 * 1) **Discuss** with students that they will be considering opinions and bias in newspaper editorials.
 * 2) **Provide**the following list of questions that they will be required to answer as the read a newspaper editorial (copied from Lenski text):
 * What is the title of the editorial?
 * What is the issue in this editorial?
 * What stance on the issue is represented?
 * What specific evidence is given to support this side of the issue?
 * Is there any evidence apparent in this editorial to suggest another viewpoint?
 * Does the writer show a bias? Are there any particular words or patterns of writing used to accomplish this? If so, what are they?
 * 1) **Hand out** the newspaper editorial and ask them to read them independently.
 * 2) **Group** students together to discuss their answers to the questions.
 * 3) Encourage students to **develop a counter argument** to the newspaper editorials view.


 * Example**

In a Current Issues or Civics course, students may be asked to consider issues like the death penalty. Students will be provided with a New York Times editorial piece on Oregon Governor Kitzhaber's decision to halt executions in the state ([|see the article here]). Here are possible responses to the questions listed:
 * //What is the title of the editorial?//
 * "Oregon and the Death Penalty"
 * //What is the issue in this editorial?//
 * This article discusses Governor Kitzhaber's decision to halt future executions in the state of Oregon.
 * //What stance on the issue is represented?//
 * The author calls the practice of execution as "barbaric". Therefore, he is supporting the Governor's decision.
 * //What specific evidence is given to support this side of the issue?//
 * For evidence, the author quotes the Governor as saying that the two executions he has allowed to go through as Governor have not made the community any safer. Furthermore, he states that execution had been banned previously until the mid 1980s, and that only a few individuals have been executed since being reinstated.
 * //Is there any evidence apparent in this editorial to suggest another viewpoint?//
 * There is no evidence in the editorial to suggest another viewpoint.
 * //Does the writer show a bias? Are there any particular words or patterns of writing used to accomplish this? If so, what are they?//
 * The author is clearly in support of Governor Kitzhaber's decision. He calls execution "barbaric," suggesting that he also believes that the death penalty should be stopped.

A possible counter argument may look at the cost of maintaining an individual incarcerated for the remainder of their lives.