CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.8.6

ELA8th GradeCraft and Structure

The Standard

Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how the author acknowledges and responds to conflicting evidence or viewpoints.

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts · Reading Standards for Informational Text

What This Standard Means

Students need to identify what the writer believes or wants readers to think, then track how the writer handles disagreement. They should notice words that show attitude, claims that reveal purpose, and places where the author brings up another side.

Mastery looks like a student saying, “The author supports school uniforms, admits cost is a problem, then argues the long-term savings outweigh it,” with evidence from the text. Students often find the author’s view but miss the response to opposing evidence. They may also confuse a topic with a purpose, or label any mentioned viewpoint as the author’s own.

Ways to Teach It

Give students two highlighters to mark the author’s claim in one color and opposing viewpoints or evidence in another color.
Ask students to write: What does the author want readers to believe, and how does the author answer people who disagree?
Use an exit ticket with one paragraph: identify the author’s view and copy one sentence where they address another side.
Bring in two short editorials on school phone policies and have students compare how each writer responds to the other side.

Before This Standard

If students are struggling here, check these first.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.7.6
Students move from identifying how an author separates their position from others to analyzing how they address opposing evidence or views.

Plan a Lesson for CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.8.6

Generate a complete lesson plan aligned to this standard, with objectives, activities, and materials. Free, no account needed.

Chat About This Standard Generate a Lesson Plan

What This Unlocks

Mastery here sets students up for these next.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.6
Students move from tracking purpose and responses to opposing views to analyzing rhetorical choices that advance that purpose.