S5 E19 - Why Students Find Writing Persuasive Texts So Difficult

There's significant pressure to have students writing persuasively to perform well in NAPLAN , and we often attempt to connect persuasive text writing with our HASS curriculum . But if you're like most teachers I speak with , you've found that students really struggle with this kind of writing ,

despite your best efforts to teach it well . Let's begin by getting the lay of the land in relation to persuasive writing and look at exactly what is expected in the Australian curriculum so that we can have a clear understanding of what good performance looks like in this area .

We will be using different curricula across the country , so you will always refer to your state or territory's curriculum , but I'm going to refer to the Australian curriculum in this episode . Persuasive texts themselves aren't mentioned explicitly in achievement standards in the Australian curriculum .

However , they are included in the content descriptors for writing from years two to six and beyond . In Foundation and year one , the curriculum refers to expressing opinions . So that's

the start of the journey for our primary school students . Looking a little deeper into the curriculum through the general capabilities , we'll see that persuasive texts first enter the picture in year three . So they're there in the understanding text section and they're there in the writing sections , and I'm quoting directly from the document now .

It says "includes a simple introduction to orient the reader . Example states a fact to introduce a report . States an opinion to introduce an argument . So the concept of argument is definitely present and as students get older and move through the grades , the expectations of what they will do in terms of structure and features adjust .

When students hit the point in the progression that would sit at typically Year Six , there are genre-specific elements to examine , and that continues up into the secondary space . So that's what the curriculum says . Let's reflect now on student experiences in the writing process . As a central element of writing, persuasive Persuasive text should be simple , ? .

After all , children are all good at trying to get their parents to persuade them to buy something at the shops or to get a friend to share a toy . Well , that's what I was told, told that children were natural

persuaders and that writing persuasively would just come in time . Well , guess what ? Children are natural persuaders . That's true . It's also true that persuasive writing most definitely does not just come on its own for so many of our students , and I know that I'd done all the "right right things , in inverted .

commas I'd done the I Do do , We we Do, do You you Do do writing structure with modelled , shared and guided writing . I'd done the right thing and made the topic of my writing for my older students centre on real world issues for authentic problem solving . I'd provided written scaffolds to help students with text structure .

I'd done all of these things and yet many children still found it incredibly difficult to write persuasively . In speaking with teachers and leaders , I know I'm not alone in having done all of the so-called right things and still found that students' experience of persuasive writing was sometimes agonisingly agonizingly difficult .

So in this episode , I'm going to share the reasons that what I used to do didn't work and what I now know to be important elements in helping students to write strong , persuasive text . Let's start with the first mistake that I made .

Number one I thought that because I had modelled writing and told students about text structure that they would learn it , I would model the whole text and then send them off to have their turn . This resulted in them being at a loose end when they got to the desk and didn't know what to do , and guess what ? They weren't the only ones .

I was also at a loose end because I thought I'd done what was necessary . The approach that I used there completely ignored what we know about cognitive load theory . As Sweller explains , our working memory is incredibly limited . We can only process a small amount of information at any given time .

When we model an entire persuasive text at once , with all of its structural components , persuasive devices and content knowledge , it's very likely that we're overwhelming students' cognitive capacity . What I do now is break the writing process down into smaller parts and explicitly teach them one at a time .

I focus on a single element , perhaps just constructing a strong opening statement , and we practice just that component until students have mastered it before moving on to the next component . Now it doesn't mean that we have to take three months to write a single text , but I will know in any given unit what the main focus for new learning is .

Mistake number two was expecting that written scaffolds would fix any lack of knowledge students had about text structure . The reality was that students who understood the text structure didn't need the scaffolds and the students who didn't understand the text structure , didn't know how to use them .

I'd provide these beautiful templates with sentence starters and outlines of what should go into each paragraph , thinking this would solve the problem . But looking at it through the lens of cognitive load theory , if students don't have the foundational understanding of persuasive structure stored in their long-term memory , a template just becomes another

thing that they have to process . What I do now is ensure that students really know the text structure through repetition , retrieval and frequent practice . Students need to have the declarative knowledge of text structure , including being able to write a brief outline of the structure .

So now I have students practice retrieving the basic structure so frequently that it becomes automatic , freeing up their cognitive resources to focus on the content of their arguments rather than struggling to remember what comes next .

This doesn't mean that they're writing a whole text , but simply that they're taking their whiteboard marker and writing down introduction , body paragraph one, body paragraph two, body paragraph three , conclusion . When they know how to do that , then they can add in what needs to go in each body paragraph or each argument .

The third mistake I made was placing all of my focus on text structure , and this came from my initial teacher education and the training that I had early on in my career .

I was taught , as you were , that if I exposed and immersed my students in text structures , if I just read text and modelled writing them , students would then internalise all of the features that were needed and reproduce them . This approach is based on what we now recognise as a constructivist view of learning that just doesn't align with the evidence .

What I do now is reflect on the syntax and vocabulary needed to achieve specific goals that are relevant to the age of the students , and I teach these explicitly , one at a time . I don't expect that I can teach all elements of a genre at once and have students just pick up what they wanted them to notice .

I also recognise that repetition and practice is needed for students to develop fluency . One and done

lessons are not sufficient for students to learn to effectively use specific subordinating conjunctions or persuasive devices . I make sure I'm teaching the specific language features of persuasive text , things like modal verbs , causal connectives like because and therefore , and the necessary vocabulary for students to build a strong argument . They're taught directly .

They're practiced for a little while in isolation a very short time and then applied in increasingly complex contexts . Mistake number four was not building background knowledge for the topics I wanted students to write about .

I recall so clearly asking students to share ideas about why it was important that we have parks or why we shouldn't throw our rubbish on the beach , only to be met with the same two or three raised hands that I always saw , with everyone else looking at me blankly .

I thought that because I had read a text to students or we'd watched a clip on YouTube , that it was enough for students to be able to comment on the issues . What I do now is make sure that units are designed to spend more time than I ever thought was necessary building background knowledge .

This includes reading texts and watching clips , for sure , but I now build in opportunities for retrieval of knowledge , checking for understanding , partner talk and really careful consideration of students' existing knowledge in expectations, and I'm not talking about us dumbing down expectations , but rather taking the time to build knowledge needed for strong outcomes over time .

Mistake number five was not understanding that the difficult part of persuasive text writing was not using the modal verbs or writing with appropriate structure . That stuff was easy, once you teach it , it's quite constrained . The hard bit , though , is the thinking . Now , background knowledge is critical , but so is perspective .

I used to take it for granted that , because I could come up with reasons for parks or what we should do for responsible rubbish disposal , that that meant that students could do it too .

So I'd ask who knows why we should have parks , and then I'd wait , then I'd give a hint and I'd wait , then I'd provide one of the answers and I'd ask again and wait , and in the end I'd have fed all the answers to the students

in a way that just led to them all producing pretty much the same cookie cutter written response . The approach that I was using failed to develop the critical thinking skills that are at the heart of persuasive writing . But please do not misunderstand me, these are not skills we build in isolation .

They're grounded in the knowledge that we want the students to base their suggestion or their persuasive plan on . We have to create the knowledge for students so that they can think . We can then walk them carefully through processes of reflection and questioning that helps them to develop the capacity to think deeply .

What I do now is make sure that the issue or problem has enough nuance to make it worth focusing on . I also walk students through a thinking process that involves asking questions like, what are all the things that could happen if people throw rubbish on the beach ? Or what are the problems that will be solved by having parks ?

But this kind of thinking shouldn't just be confined to the times we're wanting students to write persuasively . In all subject areas, we can promote deeper understanding by building knowledge and engaging students in discussion and thinking about the topic at hand . Fundamentally , I don't just ask students to come up with the reasons .

I scaffold the thinking needed for them to do so , and part of that is considering perspective . Perspective of the people who live next to the beach , perspective of the people who use the water recreationally , perspective of the animals that live in the water .

If we want to talk about water pollution , students have to have all of the knowledge to be able to think critically . It just doesn't happen on its own . The final error that I made was to assume that because a concept or topic had been done in the previous year or even earlier , that I could just pick up where I had imagined the teachers left off .

I assumed that what had been done was firm enough to form the foundation of the learning that I had planned . This was a big mistake

and meant that in the early days , I was planning in a way that virtually guaranteed cognitive overload for the students . Now , as an alternative , we can spend time activating background knowledge about text types before we officially begin a unit .

However , we need to be very careful that students actually have the background knowledge and skills in their schema that we think they do , because if they don't have this in their background knowledge , if they don't have existing schema , we're not activating anything . We're just engaging in really bad teaching .

When we think about persuasive writing through the lens of cognitive load theory and information processing , we can see why students struggle so much . Persuasive writing requires simultaneous mastery of text structure knowledge , language features , persuasive devices , background knowledge and the processes of thinking and discussing that help us generate and evaluate arguments .

We also have to have foundational skills in writing , including syntax , spelling and handwriting . For a novice , coordinating all of these elements places an enormous burden on working memory . It's no wonder they struggle .

The key is to reduce cognitive load by ensuring that as many of these elements as possible are automatic , and we've done this through explicit instruction and practice . So what are the prerequisites for successful persuasive writing ? Well , here's a little list: Automaticity with basic transcription . Thorough knowledge of the structure of persuasive text .

Familiarity with persuasive language features . Deep background knowledge about the topic . An understanding of the thinking processes required to generate and evaluate arguments . And regular opportunities to practice each new component separately before integrating them . And remember, one and done is not sufficient

. We need to hold space . So that means having fewer goals within a unit of work and doing each of them really well before we bring it together , and that is how we write text-based units in our space . I want to reassure you that we can absolutely help students become competent persuasive writers if we follow evidence-informed principles . The research is clear .

When we break down complex writing tasks , teach the components directly , provide models , provide guided practice and gradually release responsibility to students , they can achieve remarkable results . This is the aim of the structure we use for text-based units .

As you reflect on your own teaching of persuasive writing , consider which of the elements I've described might be limiting your students' progress . Then choose one area to focus on improving in detail . Perhaps you'll break instruction down into smaller steps , or maybe you'll spend more time building background knowledge before asking students to write .

Whatever you choose , know that by aligning your practice with what we know about how students learn , you'll be giving your students the best chance possible of success . Until next time , happy teaching everyone . Bye .