Argument Through Evidence

Overview

In this lesson, students research their chosen character from the unit text and collect evidence to support a central argument for a speech. They use a scaffold to turn observations about character into a clear contention, at least three supporting points, and appropriately selected quotes or examples.

Learning intentions

• Students will identify character traits, motivations, and turning points using evidence from the play.
• Students will craft a central contention that explains how their character is complex, not just “good” or “bad”.
• Students will build three supporting points and link each to specific quotes or moments from the text.
• Students will monitor and revise their plan so their argument is clear, purposeful, and audience-aware.

Success criteria

• I can write a contention that clearly answers the question: “How is this character complex?”
• I can list at least three supporting points that match my contention.
• I can include relevant quotes or scene evidence for each supporting point and explain how it proves my claim.
• I can improve my plan after feedback by strengthening links between evidence and analysis.

Curriculum links

• EN5-ECA-01: Students craft personal, creative and critical texts by experimenting with and controlling language features to shape meaning (speech planning using persuasive/analytical language).
• EN5-URC-01: Students analyse how meaning is created through representation and point of view (characterisation, connotation/imagery, and perspective-based claims).
• EN5-URB-01: Students evaluate how texts represent ideas and how they can affirm or challenge values and attitudes (what the character suggests about resilience, courage, or moral choices).
• EN5-ECB-01: Students use planning, monitoring, revising and reflecting to develop and refine compositions of texts (speech planning template and revision check).

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Retrieval hook (character to claim). Teacher writes: “Complex characters change.” on the board and shows a brief character prompt (trait + challenge + choice). Students do a quick silent write: one sentence about their character’s complexity, then underline the key idea.
2. 5–12 min · Model: observation → analytical argument. Teacher models using a familiar character moment from the play:

• Step A: Observation (what the character does/says).
• Step B: Meaning (what that reveals about values, fear, desire, or conflict).
• Step C: Claim language (because/therefore/in order to). Students listen and note the difference between “description” and “analysis” using a two-column mini-notes sheet.

3. 12–28 min · Research sprint (collect evidence). Students work in pairs or triads at desks with the play text and a character evidence sheet. They locate 3–5 moments that show complexity (internal conflict, contradictory actions, consequences, shifts in perspective). For each moment, they record: quote/scene description, page/act reference (if used by your school), and a 5–10 word “what it shows” note.
4. 28–38 min · Build the speech plan (contention + 3 points). Students complete the scaffolded speech planning template:

• Contention (one sentence): “My character is complex because…”
• Supporting point 1–3 (each in a separate box): Point (topic sentence), Evidence (quote/example), Analysis (how evidence proves complexity and links to the contention). Teacher circulates using prompts: “What changes?” “Whose perspective is shown?” “What value is tested?” “How does this create tension or irony?”

5. 38–44 min · Monitoring & quick revision check. Teacher leads a whole-class “evidence-to-analysis” checklist on the board:

• Does every point connect directly to the contention?
• Is the evidence specific (not general summary)?
• Did you explain meaning (not just repeat the quote)? Students revise one box (choose the weakest point) and add one “linking sentence” using because/so/therefore.

6. 44–45 min · Exit ticket (readiness for speech drafting). Students submit a 3-line exit ticket: contention, point 1 evidence, and one analysis phrase starting with “This suggests…”

Resources

• Class copy of the play (printed or digital) with visible access to acts/scenes
• Speech planning template (one per student)
• Character evidence sheet
• Highlighters/coloured pens (optional: one colour for quotes, one for analysis)
• Timer (visible)
• Board checklist for evidence-to-analysis links
• Feedback prompt cards for teacher circulation

Assessment

• Teacher formative checks during research sprint: accuracy of evidence selection and relevance to “complexity”
• Teacher observation during planning: whether analysis explains meaning rather than summarising plot
• Exit ticket at the end of the lesson to confirm contention clarity and evidence linkage

Differentiation

• Support: Provide sentence starters for the template (e.g., “This reveals…”, “The character’s choice suggests…”, “Although they… they…”). Allow students to use scene summaries if quotes are hard to locate, as long as analysis remains specific.
• Support: Offer a reduced checklist version for students needing structure (evidence, point, analysis in separate fields with word limits).
• Extension: Students add a “counter-argument” line for one point (what an audience might think first, and why the evidence complicates it).
• EAL/SEN: Encourage translation or paraphrase first in notes, then rewrite into the scaffolded analytical sentences; model one example and provide a clear word bank (complex, conflict, values, consequence, perspective, motivation, change).