Discursive Essay Finish

Overview

This lesson is the final (12/12) in the unit “Power and Resilience in Texts”. Students complete their discursive essays analysing what power and resilience mean, using evidence from Hughes’ texts and brief personal reflections, then engage in individual conferencing to refine final submissions.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• complete a discursive essay that clearly explains an opinion about power and resilience in texts
• use evidence from Hughes’ texts to justify claims about characters, settings and events
• compare and respond to ideas with agreement/difference, using reasons
• edit for clarity and control of language to communicate meaning to readers

Success criteria

Students can:

• write a discursive response with a clear position and logical argument
• select relevant evidence and explain how it supports their claim about power/resilience
• justify their opinion using text-based references and personal reflection connections
• revise and proofread so the essay is coherent, accurate and well-presented

Curriculum links

• Literature: form an opinion about characters, settings and events in texts; identify agreement/difference with others and justify responses
• Literature: identify and explain how characters, settings and events combine to create meaning in narratives
• Literacy: use comprehension strategies (summarising/inferring/monitoring) to analyse and synthesise ideas into a clear response
• Language: recognise and use evaluative language to evaluate texts, with judgement substantiated by reference to the text

Lesson structure (50 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Warm start + success focus. Teacher displays the essay success checklist (position, evidence, explanation, evaluation, coherence) and students reread their planning notes for 2 minutes, then circle their strongest claim. Students highlight one sentence in their draft that best shows their opinion about power/resilience.

2. 5–10 min · Conferencing setup. Teacher models (briefly) how to turn a claim into justification: claim → evidence from Hughes → explanation (character/setting/event → meaning) → evaluation. Students write a “next step” comment on the margin for conferencing (e.g. “Add evidence here”, “Clarify my reasoning”, “Fix cohesion/paragraphing”).

3. 10–35 min · Independent writing completion. Teacher circulates with a lightweight conferencing schedule: quick checks for structure, evidence use, and clarity of justification; provide targeted prompts rather than rewriting for students. Students complete the essay, aiming to finish at least 1–2 body paragraphs plus conclusion/summary, then do a brief self-check against the checklist.

4. 35–42 min · Final edit sprint (quality control). Teacher runs a 7-minute edit routine: read aloud once, then check (a) thesis/position is consistent, (b) evidence is embedded, (c) evaluative words match the evidence, (d) spelling/punctuation, (e) paragraph transitions. Students complete one edit cycle and make up to three “final changes” in a different colour or using track-changes style.

5. 42–49 min · Individual conferencing (micro). Teacher meets each student for a short conference (or uses a rotation for groups if time is tight): confirm claim strength, verify evidence relevance, and recommend one improvement for final submission. Students record one actionable improvement and finalise formatting/presentation for submission.

6. 49–50 min · Exit ticket: justify readiness. Teacher collects the essay draft/finished piece and asks students to submit a one-sentence self-justification: “My position is… because the evidence shows…” Students complete the sentence and hand in their final draft (or final version if school process requires).

Resources

• Student discursive essay plan and previous feedback notes from earlier lessons
• Hughes texts extracts/printouts or digital copies used in class
• Essay checklist and conferencing prompt cards (claim → evidence → explanation → evaluation)
• Writing paper or devices with offline access if needed
• Highlighters (2 colours), pen/pencil, eraser
• Word processor tools (if used): spellcheck, grammar suggestions, word count
• Timer and rotation chart for conferencing

Assessment

• Formative during writing: teacher conferencing checks use of evidence and clarity of justification about power/resilience
• Formative during edit sprint: students self-check against the checklist (position clarity, evidence explanation, evaluative language)
• Summative task completion: final discursive essay demonstrating opinion, substantiation with text evidence, and coherent reasoning
• Exit ticket: one-sentence justification to confirm students can articulate their position and reasoning

Differentiation

• Support for students needing structure: provide a sentence-starter bank for claim, evidence, explanation, and evaluation (e.g. “I believe…, because…”, “This suggests…”, “In this moment, the character’s…”).
• Support for EAL learners: offer an “evidence framing” template so they can consistently embed quotations and add reasoning (sentence frames for character/setting/event meaning).
• Scaffolds for students requiring extension of ideas: ask an extra justification question in conferencing (“What does this show about power and resilience in society?”).
• Alternative assessment format (teacher-led choice): allow students to submit a typed essay, handwritten essay, or recorded oral draft accompanied by a written evidence/evaluation scaffold (short written justification notes for summative marking), depending on reasonable adjustments and school processes.
• Learning support for students with planning difficulties: allow “minimum target” structure (intro + 2 body paragraphs + conclusion) and prioritise evidence and explanation over length.
• Attention supports: display a visible timer and break the writing task into two targets (“complete body paragraph 1” then “complete body paragraph 2/conclusion”).