# data[].attributes.body
Most students struggle with the deeper, implicit meaning of texts, whereby it requires consideration of the significance of semantic choices, tone, and other literary devices in excavating the author's hidden views and biases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lack of content knowledge and sensitivity to nuances in language

# data[].attributes.subject
Lack of content knowledge and sensitivity to nuances in language

# data[].attributes.body
I think many of these issues stem from students not reading enough - particularly different text times. They may be comfortable with more informative pieces, but will struggle with writing that has more distinctive attitudes, stylistic uses of language, etc. Inference is then rather difficult for students who may lack both the content knowledge and the language sensitivity to draw out an author is hinting at.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reluctance and reservations in questioning the text

# data[].attributes.subject
Reluctance and reservations in questioning the text

# data[].attributes.body
Information and arguments are often taken at face value. Students seem to prefer to agree. Otherwise, students are preoccupied with wanting a definitive answer as to which is the ‘correct’ perspective to take .

# data[].attributes.body
Twin challenges of having limited contextual knowledge with slower unpacking to see connections across. Weaker vocabulary grasp allow limits understanding of arguments. Critical reading relies heavily on language ability and awareness.

# data[].attributes.body
Students skim passages, ignoring many contextual clues that help them to better understand the passage. This inevitably leads to either misunderstanding the passage, or vague understandings at best.

# data[].attributes.body
Students tend to gloss over complex segments of text, fearing especially complex language. This would keep them from even trying to discern contextual clues or work out the meaning of the word from its morphology. This then leads to vague representations of the gist when they try to paraphrase.

# data[].attributes.body
Many students generate ideas based on their personal experiences (which can be limited), hence arguments presented tend to be superficial and weak. Justification is also limited and poorly reasoned.

# data[].attributes.body
For many students, the difficulty they have with critical reading (input) skills more or less reflect the difficulty they have with argumentative writing (output) skills.

Even if they are taught the importance of connectors, coherence, etc. and get the principle of doing so, it's another thing to actually be able to do so across the length of an essay and mentally keep track of the plan/structure of the logic of the text.

They read at the paragraph level (P2) in a way similar to how they write isolated paragraphs (P1).

# data[].attributes.body
Skills aside, many simply struggle to critically evaluate what they are reading because they don't really have anything much to work with in the first place. They're not aware of why some views may be problematic without heavy guidance, questioning, and being introduced to relevant perspectives and information.

In some relatively rare cases, this can be seen with students who have the skills, but just end up trying to 'smoke' their way through.

# data[].attributes.body
Students struggle to understand what evaluation means, and how to apply this in their essays and in their responses to the Application Question.

Most of them merely rush to make connections to Singapore society, rather than critically analyse the issue at hand, and look at the concern from alternative points of view.

[CJC]

# data[].attributes.body
Not (consistently) paying attention to small, simple, but highly important qualifying terms (all, some, more, etc.).

In some cases, reading what they want to rather than the more nuanced view offered by the author.

For the particular case of multiple voices (where the author is not expressing the given views, but the views are being reported or narrated in the text), students often struggle to navigate this, especially in deciding which views the author is (or not) advocating.

# data[].attributes.headline
Struggles with tone and argumentative moves of the writer

# data[].attributes.subject
Struggles with tone and argumentative moves of the writer

# data[].attributes.body
Some students struggle reading for tone as they find it hard to perceive the tone and the underlying connotations of words due to limited reading experience, particular with arguments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning need: Assessing the significance of an argument and its implications and consequence

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning need: Assessing the significance of an argument and its implications and consequence

# data[].attributes.body
Students are fairly good are identifying the author's claim but find it challenging discerning nuances in meaning, author tone and gaps in information and logic within the text. As such, they can have trouble drawing out and evaluating the possible implications of what the author's saying. MI

# data[].attributes.headline
Distinguishing the elements of argumentative structure - Learning need

# data[].attributes.subject
Distinguishing the elements of argumentative structure - Learning need

# data[].attributes.body
Students need more assistance in analysing the text where they see the interaction and flow more clearly, between paragraphs and also within the paragraphs (between sentences). Some are still reading at sentence level and are unable to identify the inter-connectedness of arguments. Weaker students are unsure of hedging strategies used by authors and the purpose behind why authors say certain things, within the argumentative structure. D- DHS

# data[].attributes.headline
Difficulty reading between the lines, being sensitive to the nuances of language use, very simplistic evaluation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Difficulty reading between the lines, being sensitive to the nuances of language use, very simplistic evaluation 

# data[].attributes.body
Students treat every text like what they encounter in their H2 subjects. They read for content and notice content. Hence they are not sensitive to aspects like authorial intention, tone etc. Those who are slightly more able to detect sarcasm or mockery are not able to explain their assessment very well.

In terms of the quality of their evaluation, their lack of content knowledge and lack of sensitivity to language use leads to very simple and simplistic evaluative claims and the inability to undertake developed evaluation. They deploy evaluation toolkits in a mechanical manner.

# data[].attributes.headline
To determine your students’ learning needs, refer to the following: 

# data[].attributes.subject
To determine your students’ learning needs, refer to the following: 

# data[].attributes.body
(a) the Table of Skills (pp. 19-24) in the GP TLS to identify the skills required for critical reading;
(b) the section on Reading and Viewing (pp. 39-50) from the English Language Syllabus 2020 (ELS 2020) to identify the skills that your students need to continue to develop in order to read critically.

# data[].attributes.headline
Click on the link below to respond to Q2.

# data[].attributes.subject
Click on the link below to respond to Q2.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/moe_cpdd_preu_el/y2ra6ww8nyxbaeue