Discursive Phone Debate

Overview

Students examine how discursive texts explore more than one perspective without forcing a single conclusion. They analyse a short model, distinguish discursive writing from persuasive writing, and use a planning scaffold to begin an original response to: “Should schools restrict students’ use of mobile phones during the school day?”

Learning intentions

• Students will identify the purpose, structure and language features of a discursive text.
• Students will explain how discursive writing differs from persuasive writing.
• Students will plan a balanced response for a defined audience and purpose.
• Students will draft an effective opening and one developed paragraph.

Success criteria

• I can explain that discursive writing explores differing viewpoints, while persuasive writing mainly seeks to convince.
• I can identify a clear opening, balanced viewpoints, linking words and appropriately cautious language.
• I can plan at least two perspectives, relevant examples and a considered position.
• I can draft an opening and paragraph using controlled, purposeful language.

Curriculum links

• Crafting personal, creative and critical texts for a range of audiences by experimenting with and controlling language forms and features to shape meaning.
• Using planning, monitoring, revising and reflecting processes to develop and refine compositions.
• Analysing how meaning is created through language forms, features and structures, including point of view and argument.
• Evaluating how texts represent ideas and experiences and affirm or challenge values and attitudes.

Lesson structure (50 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook and prior knowledge. Display the prompt using the opening question slide and ask students to position themselves on a continuum from “strongly restrict” to “do not restrict”. Students silently choose a position, then share one reason with a partner; explain that today they will investigate both sides rather than debate to win.

2. 5–13 min · Direct teaching: purpose and structure. Use the discursive writing teaching slides to define discursive writing as a balanced exploration of an issue for a general audience. Explicitly compare it with persuasive writing: persuasive texts use selective evidence and emphatic language to influence the reader, whereas discursive texts acknowledge competing views, use measured language and may reach a nuanced conclusion. Teach this structure: engaging introduction and context; viewpoint one; viewpoint two; possible synthesis or qualification; reflective conclusion. Highlight connectives such as “however”, “similarly”, “on the other hand” and “ultimately”, and modality such as “may”, “could” and “is likely to”.

3. 13–22 min · I do: teacher model. Project and annotate this short exemplar through the model paragraph and annotation slides: “Mobile phones are now woven into many students’ daily lives, so restricting them at school may appear unnecessarily severe. Phones can support learning by providing quick access to dictionaries, research and organisational tools. However, constant notifications can interrupt concentration, and some students may feel pressured to remain available to friends. A reasonable approach could therefore be to restrict phones during lessons while allowing supervised access at designated times.” Think aloud while labelling the context, viewpoint, counter-viewpoint, evidence/example, connective, modality and qualified conclusion. Ask: “How does the writer show more than one perspective? Which words make the position sound considered rather than aggressive?”

4. 22–30 min · We do: guided analysis. Distribute the discursive writing analysis and planning sheet. Complete the first analysis row together, identifying a feature from the model and explaining its effect. In pairs, students classify six short statements on the worksheet as more discursive or more persuasive, then justify one choice. Check responses with mini-whiteboards or fingers 1–2; correct the misconception that balanced writing means giving both views exactly the same strength.

5. 30–43 min · You do: plan and begin writing. Students complete the planning grid for the mobile-phone prompt: audience, purpose, context, two benefits, two concerns, examples, linking language and a possible qualified position. They then draft an introduction and one developed paragraph. Direct students to use the checklist on the independent writing instructions and checklist slides. Pause at 36 minutes for a formative check: students underline one connective and circle one modal verb. Confer with students who have not yet established two perspectives.

6. 43–50 min · Review and exit ticket. Students reread their draft using the peer-check and exit-ticket section and improve one sentence for balance, clarity or cohesion. Invite two volunteers to read contrasting openings, then collect the exit ticket: “Write one difference between discursive and persuasive writing, and one specific revision you will make before completing your response.” Students hand in the worksheet or submit a clear photograph.

Resources

• the complete discursive writing slide deck
• the discursive writing analysis and planning sheet
• Projector or interactive display
• Exercise books or digital writing platform
• Mini-whiteboards, response cards or fingers for quick checks
• High-contrast printed copies and an accessible digital version
• Headphones or speech-to-text software where normally provided

Assessment

• During explicit teaching, question students about purpose, audience, viewpoint, modality and the difference between discursive and persuasive writing.
• Check pair classifications and the 36-minute connective/modality checkpoint; review planning grids for two genuine perspectives and relevant examples.
• Use the exit ticket and opening paragraph to identify students needing further instruction in balance, structure, cohesion or sentence control.

Differentiation

• Provide low-literacy students with a word bank, colour-coded paragraph structure, sentence starters (“One view is that…”, “On the other hand…”, “A balanced approach might…”), orally rehearsed ideas and a reduced planning load.
• Allow the student with dysgraphia to dictate to a peer or speech-to-text tool, type rather than handwrite, and demonstrate planning through labelled boxes, bullet points or recorded responses. Assess ideas and language separately from handwriting.
• For the two students with ADHD, give the task as short visible stages, use a timer, seat them where distractions are reduced, provide movement during the continuum activity and check in after each planning section.
• For the student with vision impairment, provide the slides and worksheet in an accessible, screen-reader-compatible format, use large high-contrast text, read all displayed material aloud and describe colour-coding verbally.
• Challenge the five high achievers to integrate a third perspective, qualify their conclusion, use a relevant school-based example and vary syntax without becoming overtly persuasive.