Social Media Sleuths

Overview

Students become linguistic forensic investigators, analysing a fictional social media post for persuasive techniques, bias, intended audience and language choices. They then rewrite the post for a contrasting audience and explain how their choices reshape meaning, building on prior work with persuasive language and critical reading.

Learning intentions

• WALT identify persuasive and stylistic language features in a digital text.
• WALT explain how audience, purpose and bias influence language choices.
• WALT adapt a persuasive message for a different audience.
• WALT describe how rewriting changes meaning and reader response.

Success criteria

• I can identify at least three persuasive techniques and quote evidence from the post.
• I can explain who the post targets, what it wants readers to think or do, and where bias appears.
• I can rewrite the message using language suited to a different audience.
• I can explain one deliberate change and its effect on meaning.

Curriculum links

• Crafting Texts — Persuasive texts: emotional appeal, logical reasoning and credible evidence work together to influence readers.
• Crafting Texts — Persuasive texts: language, structural and stylistic features shape how ideas are conveyed and how audiences engage.
• Crafting Texts — Persuasive texts: persuasive texts vary in tone, formality and structure according to audience, purpose and medium.
• Textual and Critical Analysis — Features of text: tone, visuals, structure, gesture and diction shape meaning and influence perception in oral and digital texts.

Lesson structure (20 minutes)

1. 0–3 min · Hook: spot the influence. Open with the provocative opening question and display this fictional post: “URGENT! Our school must ban homework apps NOW! Every responsible student knows they destroy real learning. Thousands of students agree, so why is the Board ignoring us? Share this before it is too late!” Ask: “What is this post trying to make us think, feel or do?” The student gives an initial response and identifies one word or phrase that creates influence.

2. 3–7 min · Forensic toolkit. Use the persuasive techniques and investigator prompts to model a quick annotation of the post. Think aloud: “URGENT” and “before it is too late” create fear or urgency; “must” is forceful modality; “why is the Board ignoring us?” is a rhetorical question; “thousands” sounds like evidence but gives no source. Introduce the investigation prompts: What is the purpose? Who is the audience? What is presented as fact? What viewpoint or interests are missing? The student helps label examples as pathos, logos, ethos, emotive language, inclusive language, rhetorical question, statistics or assertive tone.

3. 7–12 min · Solo investigation. Distribute the social media forensic investigation sheet and revisit the investigation instructions. The student annotates the post and records at least three features, the intended audience, the likely purpose, one biased or unsupported claim, and the effect on readers. Confer briefly, asking: “What evidence supports your judgement?” and “How might another reader interpret this?”

4. 12–16 min · Rewrite for a new audience. Display the audience-switch challenge: rewrite the post for a school Board member rather than students, or for whānau rather than students. The student drafts a shorter version, changing tone, vocabulary, direct address, evidence and call to action. Encourage an appropriate shift from “URGENT!” and “share this” to more measured wording such as “The Board should consider…” and a specific request for consultation. The student may retain the same viewpoint but must make the message fit the new audience.

5. 16–19 min · Brief presentation and comparison. Use the compare-and-explain prompts. The student reads the original and rewritten post aloud, then explains two changes: what was changed, why it suits the new audience, and how it affects meaning, credibility or emotional impact. Ask one probing question, such as: “Does the revised post sound more trustworthy? What makes you think so?”

6. 19–20 min · Exit reflection. Return to the plenary question and ask the student to complete the final box on the reflection and evidence section: “One persuasive choice I noticed was… It influenced readers by…” Collect the worksheet or photograph it for evidence of learning.

Resources

• the Social Media Sleuths slide deck
• the social media forensic investigation sheet
• Highlighters or coloured pens
• Device or projector
• Timer
• Student writing device or exercise book

Assessment

• During modelling, check whether the student can distinguish a persuasive technique from a general opinion and justify the choice with evidence.
• Review the investigation sheet for accurate identification of audience, purpose, bias and at least three language features.
• Use the presentation and exit reflection to assess whether the student explains how audience-driven changes affect meaning, tone or credibility.

Differentiation

• Provide a small word bank on the worksheet: audience, purpose, bias, emotive language, rhetorical question, modality, evidence, tone and call to action.
• Offer sentence starters: “The phrase ___ suggests…”, “The post targets ___ because…”, and “I changed ___ for my new audience because…”.
• For EAL learners, read the post aloud, clarify “Board” and “ban”, and allow planning through labelled notes before drafting.
• Support literacy or attention needs with a reduced target of two techniques, colour-coded annotation and teacher scribing or speech-to-text. Extend the student by asking them to make the rewritten version more balanced without abandoning its main viewpoint.