From Lens to Hypothesis

Overview

This is lesson 3 of 12 in Critical Lenses, Powerful Readings. Students move from close-reading observations in their chosen primary text to a focused, provisional research question or hypothesis, using one of seven critical lenses. The lesson builds on prior learning about the lenses and prepares students to select critical texts and evidence for their investigation.

Learning intentions

• WALT use a critical lens to interpret a recurring pattern in a primary text.
• WALT develop a focused, arguable research question or hypothesis.
• WALT identify evidence that could support or challenge an emerging interpretation.
• WALT explain how a critical text could help test an interpretation.

Success criteria

• I can identify a recurring pattern and support it with precise textual details.
• I can select a productive lens and explain why it fits my pattern.
• I can formulate a specific, arguable question about my primary text.
• I can identify at least two passages to investigate and explain what evidence might challenge my idea.

Curriculum links

• Develop an informed understanding of literature and/or language using critical texts through a hypothesis, evaluation of critical sources, and synthesis of evidence.
• Respond critically to significant aspects of studied written texts through close reading and specific evidence.
• Respond critically to significant connections across texts, including connections between a primary text and critical interpretations.
• English learning in the refreshed curriculum: interpret texts critically, develop and communicate ideas coherently, and make informed judgements using evidence.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Retrieve and match. Teacher displays the retrieval matching task and distributes the lens-to-hypothesis organiser. Students match brief observations from familiar text examples to the most suitable lens, then justify one choice with a partner. Prompt: “What makes this lens more useful than another?” Quickly review the seven lenses and clarify that a lens is a tool for asking questions, not a single correct answer.

2. 7–17 min · Model the thinking process. Teacher uses the observation-to-hypothesis model and a short mini-analysis extract to think aloud: “This detail is interesting, but what larger pattern does it suggest, and how could a critic help me test it?” Model the progression: observation → recurring pattern → lens → interpretation → provisional hypothesis. Contrast a topic (“power”) and plot-summary question (“What happens to the character?”) with a stronger question about how the text represents power. Emphasise that a hypothesis may be revised: it is tested, not proven unchanged. Ask: “Could reasonable readers disagree?” and “Is the question about the text rather than only the theory?”

3. 17–30 min · Compare interpretations. Teacher assigns pairs one of the contrasting mini-analysis extracts in the paired close-reading tasks and displays the paired analysis instructions. Students annotate the extract, identify a pattern, choose a lens, and compare two plausible interpretations. Each pair records one piece of evidence supporting each interpretation and one detail that might complicate it. Circulate and check that students are moving beyond naming a feature to explaining its significance.

4. 30–40 min · Build three questions. Teacher introduces the pattern-to-question ladder and models turning a broad idea into a focused question. Students use the question stems and checklist on the question drafting section to draft three possible questions about their own primary text. They must name the pattern, lens, textual focus, and likely evidence for each. Prompt: “What would count as evidence against your idea?” Conference briefly with students whose questions can be answered by plot summary or are only definitions of a theory.

5. 40–50 min · Collaborative tuning. Teacher places students in groups of three and displays the collaborative tuning protocol. Students read one draft at a time and give feedback on four criteria: focus, arguability, lens fit, and evidence availability. Use structured roles: reader, questioner, and recorder; rotate roles for each draft. Peers must ask, “Could reasonable readers disagree?” and “Is the question about the text rather than only the theory?” Students record one strength, one concern, and one suggested revision for each question.

6. 50–57 min · Revise and conference. Teacher displays the revision checklist and works through the conference roster, checking each student’s current question, lens, recurring pattern, and proposed passages. Students revise independently on the final research checkpoint and explain how a critical text might help test the claim. Accept oral explanation, speech-to-text, or teacher scribing where appropriate. Record conference notes as formative evidence.

7. 57–60 min · Exit ticket. Teacher displays the exit-ticket prompt. Students submit their current question or hypothesis, selected lens, recurring pattern, and two passages they will investigate. Collect the annotated extract, three drafts, peer feedback, and worksheet for planning the next lesson.

Resources

• the complete lesson slide deck
• the lens-to-hypothesis organiser
• Seven-lens reference notes
• Teacher-selected mini-analysis extracts with contrasting interpretations
• Copies of students’ chosen primary texts
• Sticky notes and highlighters
• Research-question checklist and question stems
• Teacher conference roster
• Devices, headphones, and speech-to-text access where needed

Assessment

• Check retrieval explanations, annotated extracts, and pair discussions for accurate lens selection and movement from feature to interpretation.
• Review three draft questions and peer-tuning feedback for focus, arguability, lens fit, and evidence availability; record brief conference notes.
• Use the exit ticket to identify whether each student has a provisional, testable question, a recurring pattern, and two viable passages.

Differentiation

• Provide question stems, a modelled example and non-example, a reduced choice of lenses, and a partially completed pattern-to-question ladder for students needing additional structure.
• Offer oral conferencing, audio access to the primary text, speech-to-text, extra processing time, and permission to explain thinking verbally for EAL and SEN learners.
• Pre-teach terms such as pattern, interpretation, hypothesis, arguable, and evidence; pair students strategically and use explicit roles during tuning.
• For advanced learners, require a counter-hypothesis and an explanation of which evidence might challenge or revise the original claim.

Extension

• Formulate a counter-hypothesis that offers a genuinely different interpretation of the same pattern.
• Identify a critical perspective that might disagree with the proposed reading and predict what evidence that critic would value.
• Begin rereading relevant sections and log five possible evidence points, noting how each supports, complicates, or challenges the hypothesis.