Genevieve Jones

Focus and rationale for planning

This literacy unit focuses on persuasive writing, specifically an argument. The My

Place website http://www.myplace.edu.au/home.html was used as a basis for the
planning, with information from the 1800s Episode 21 | 1808 Sarah Unit Focus:
English Year levels 3-6 Episode Clip: Seashells Activity 2: A Classless Society used
as inspiration. The clip highlights a class-based society that was present in Britain
and enforced to a limited extent in Australia. Now, many Australians are proud that
there are no classes, however, multiple views exist. I chose it as students can form
their own opinion based on the information in the clip as well as what they have
observed in their lives as active participants and contributors in society.

word count 117

S00144104

Genevieve Jones
Justification

The information provided in the chosen My Place episode could be integrated into
and form the basis of a persuasive text, specifically an argument. According to
Newell et al (2011), being able to write argumentatively assists to engage students in
debates that reflect the controversies and discussions that are present in their daily
lives through popular culture, home and work environments. Thus, it is a valuable
skill for children to acquire to actively participate in and contribute to society.
Subsequently, I chose a persuasive text type, as I believe that students would be
interested in researching classes within society and then create arguments stemming
from this research and the My Place episode. Persuasive texts also allow for a
variety of activities to build students knowledge of the text type, structure and
language features, and in particular enable oral language activities to scaffold
students understanding of the language features.

As stated by Newell et al (2011), the ability to identify the fundamental argument and
its accompanying claims and evidence in reading, as well as to construct a highquality argument with claims and evidence are critical skills for academic success.
When teaching the reading and writing of arguments as part of a unit on persuasive
texts, it is crucial to acknowledge that students must be engaged and interested in
what is taught by making activities relevant to their culture (Newell et al, 2011). Thus,
I provided students with an opportunity in Session 1 to investigate past and present
issues and facts about classes within Australian and English society. In this way,
students are able to make connections to their own culture and perhaps even
examples of social classes in their daily lives, such as stories on the news. Students
are able to build knowledge of their topic so they can draw on this information later in
the unit when writing an argument.

S00144104

Genevieve Jones
Arguments involve identification of a thesis, supportive evidence, and evaluation of
ideas linking the thesis, amongst other features. As opposed to simply attempting to
convince someone, evidence-based argumentation involves making a thesis
statement, then supporting it by providing evidence or reasons (Newell et al, 2011).
Using Hallidays categories of (1) the ideational, (2) the interpersonal, and (3) the
textual, the role of language in the development of persuasive texts can be outlined.
The first idea refers to how language is used to classify, understand and express
experiences and the order of ideas; the second idea reflects how language enables
people to take on roles and express their grasp of emotions and attitudes to argue
and discuss different literacy events; and the third refers to how language organises
what the creator wants to communicate to an audience (Newell, et al, 2011). This
means that students need to be exposed to reading, writing and discussion as the
integration of these assist students to acquire and adopt strategies for transfer to
reading and writing (Newell, et al, 2011.

Furthermore, students develop a range of argument strategies from their peers

through discussion, and gradually use these more frequently (Newell, 2011). I
consequently decided to incorporate numerous opportunities for discussion, both as
a class with the teacher and in groups, to extend students understanding.
Additionally, discussion and discussion groups enable students to use language in
meaningful and purposeful ways. The correct oral language is modelled and students
hear words and language that the teacher and other students use as they
demonstrate the appropriate use of correct language features, such as challenging
others viewpoints (Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 2000).

Gibbons (1993) and Hertzberg (2012) mention a mode continuum of language, from
most spoken-like to most-written like. Gibbons (1993) states that in linking learning
activities to a variety of points along this continuum, teachers can recognise the kinds

S00144104

Genevieve Jones
of tasks that are most relevant for students to develop both the conceptual framework
and language of the topic. Furthermore, planning according to the continuum
considers the role of spoken language in learning itself, and of its significance in
literacy development. A learners increasing capability in using language can be
recognised in their ability to move towards the more reflective end of the continuum
and to use language successfully in decontextualized situations (Gibbons, 1993).
Therefore, I used many activities with a focus on oral language to gradually move
students to this more reflective stage, with gradual release of responsibility on the
part of the teacher.

Oral language activities cater for all students, however they are particularly beneficial
for English as an Additional Language (EAL) students as they create less formal
situations in which students can practice the language. During probing and
questioning, it is necessary for students to provide a more detailed explanation,
allowing the teacher to reformulate what the student says and thereby model new
language (Hertzberg, 2012). I have included many opportunities for the teacher to
ask probing questions within the unit to provide for this. Additionally, I have
incorporated many activities involving partner work as this is also crucial for EAL
learners as it encourages more learning opportunities through talk, and students are
more likely to feel comfortable working with their peers (Hertzberg, 2012).

I decided to incorporate oral language activities throughout the entire unit, rather than
only during the sessions to develop the specific language features. This is because,
according to Renitskaya & Gregory (2013), oral language, or dialogue, has the
potential to assist students to develop higher order thinking and deeper
understanding of subject-matter knowledge. However, one specific language feature
focused upon during the unit is emotive language. As defined by Macagno (2014),
this includes emotively powerful words and phrases that work to adapt peoples

S00144104

Genevieve Jones
judgement, elicit emotions, and influence decisions, ultimately having a persuasive
effect. Moreover, emotive language can be used as a tool for creating emotional
descriptions and representations with the aim of arousing emotive reactions,
changing peoples beliefs (Macagno, 2014).

To develop students knowledge of emotive language, I used an oral based activity in

which students have to place emotive words on a continuum, which then facilitates
further oral and written activities. This is because oral language use is a major factor
in the development of language and is a tool for learning. We grasp new
understandings more efficiently and deeply when we talk about them, meaning that
students learn through language (Gibbons, 1993). In Session 7, there is a focus on
opinions and facts and how to incorporate them in an argument. I decided to use a
Spot the Difference activity, as outlined in Hertzberg (2012), to highlight the
difference between a fact and opinion. This is an oral language activity which allows
students to use longer stretches of discourse and to practice, with guidance from
peers and teachers, ways of thinking and talking which are closer to written language
(Gibbons, 1993).

As part of Session 8, I included a debate in which students are encouraged to

verbally argue the two opposing sides of the topic based on their previous research.
As suggested by Gibbons (1993), more formal oral presentations incorporate added
information from written sources. Consequently, a prepared piece of spoken
discourse has the potential to include several of the features of written language, and
can support subsequent more formal writing tasks, such as those in the following
sessions (Gibbons, 1993). This debate, as well as several activities throughout the
unit, scaffold the students to assist them in moving towards new skills, concepts or
levels of understanding in relation to persuasive arguments (Gibbons, 2002).
Moreover, the back-to-back viewing in the first session, adapted from Hertzberg

S00144104

Genevieve Jones
(2012), as well as the See-Think-Wonder and Support It activities in Session 3, are
all oral language activities that deepen students knowledge and cater for EAL
students.

Scull and Bremner (2013) state that the development of oral language is critical to
students ability to create and fully comprehend texts. Oral language activities are
crucial in developing students knowledge of texts, and are therefore used throughout
this literacy unit to foster student learning.

word count 1317

REFERENCES

S00144104

Genevieve Jones

Gibbons, P. (1993). Talk: A bridge to learning and literacy in the classroom. TESOL in
Context, 3(1), 32-34. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/fullText;dn=765678408470
582;res=IELAPA
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning : teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann, Portsmouth,
N.H.
Hertzberg, M. (2012). Teaching English language learners in mainstream classes,
Primary English Teaching Association Australia, Newtown, N.S.W., pp. 48- 75.
Macagno, F. (2014). Manipulating emotions: value-based reasoning and emotive
language. Argumentation and Advocacy, 51, 103-122. Retrieved from
https://web-a-ebscohostcom.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0aa700b8-83b34dad-9f8e-666cbddbb0a1%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4204

Newell, G., Beach, R., Smith, J., VanDerHeide, J., Kuhn, D., & Andriessen, J. (2011).
Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: a review of
research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/stable/pdf/41228654.pdf?
acceptTC=true

Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language:
examining the mechanisis of change in dialogic teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.775898

S00144104

Genevieve Jones

Scull, J., & Bremner, P. (2013). From conversation to oral composition : supporting
Indigenous students' language for literacy. Babel, 48(1), 20-29. Retrieved
from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/fullText;dn=200834;res=AE
IPT

Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. (2000). Focus on research: using what we know about
language and literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream
classroom. Language Arts, 77(3), 258-265. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/stable/pdf/41483061.pdf?
acceptTC=true

S00144104