May 24, 2025 • 18 mins
Has something in this episode resonated with you? Get in touch!
For more information about today's episode, visit www.jocelynseamereducation.com
Quick Links
Jocelyn Seamer Education Homepage
The Resource Room
Youtube channel
Facebook Page
#jocelynseamereducation #literacy #bestpractice #earlyprimaryyears #primaryschool #primaryschools #primaryschoolteacher #earlyyearseducation #earlyyearseducator #structuredliteracy #scienceofreading #classroom #learning #learningisfun #studentsuccess #studentsupport #teacherlife #theresourceroom #theevergreenteacher #upperprimary #upperprimaryteacher #thestructuredliteracypodcast #phoneme #grapheme #phonics #syntheticphonics
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jocelyn (00:00):
Hi there and welcome to the Structured Literacy Podcast
recorded here in Tasmania, thehome of the Palawa people.
I'm Jocelyn and I'm excited tobring you today's episode about
persuasive writing.
Persuasive writing has become acore feature of our English
programs.
There's significant pressure tohave students writing
(00:20):
persuasively to perform well inNAPLAN, and we often attempt to
connect persuasive text writingwith our HASS curriculum.
But if you're like mostteachers I speak with, you've
found that students reallystruggle with this kind of
writing, despite your bestefforts to teach it well.
Let's begin by getting the layof the land in relation to
(00:43):
persuasive writing and look atexactly what is expected in the
Australian curriculum so that wecan have a clear understanding
of what good performance lookslike in this area.
We will be using differentcurricula across the country, so
you will always refer to yourstate or territory's curriculum,
(01:03):
but I'm going to refer to theAustralian curriculum in this
episode.
Persuasive texts themselvesaren't mentioned explicitly in
achievement standards in theAustralian curriculum.
However, they are included inthe content descriptors for
writing from years two to sixand beyond.
In Foundation and year one, thecurriculum refers to expressing
(01:27):
opinions.
So that's the start of thejourney for our primary school
students.
Looking a little deeper intothe curriculum through the
general capabilities, we'll seethat persuasive texts first
enter the picture in year three.
So they're there in theunderstanding text section and
they're there in the writingsections, and I'm quoting
(01:49):
directly from the document now.
It says "includes a simpleintroduction to orient the
reader.
Example states a fact tointroduce a report.
States an opinion to introducean argument.
So the concept of argument isdefinitely present and as
students get older and movethrough the grades, the
(02:12):
expectations of what they willdo in terms of structure and
features adjust.
When students hit the point inthe progression that would sit
at typically Year Six, there aregenre-specific elements to
examine, and that continues upinto the secondary space.
So that's what the curriculumsays.
(02:34):
Let's reflect now on studentexperiences in the writing
process.
As a central element of writing,persuasive Persuasive text
should be simple, ?
.
After all, children are allgood at trying to get their
parents to persuade them to buysomething at the shops or to get
a friend to share a toy.
(02:54):
Well, that's what I was told,told that children were natural
persuaders and that writingpersuasively would just come in
time.
Well, guess what?
Children are natural persuaders.
That's true.
It's also true that persuasivewriting most definitely does not
(03:15):
just come on its own for somany of our students, and I know
that I'd done all the"rightright things, in inverted .
commas I'd done the I Do do, Wewe Do, do You you Do do writing
structure with modelled, sharedand guided writing.
I'd done the right thing andmade the topic of my writing for
my older students centre onreal world issues for authentic
problem solving.
I'd provided written scaffoldsto help students with text
(03:38):
structure.
I'd done all of these thingsand yet many children still
found it incredibly difficult towrite persuasively.
In speaking with teachers andleaders, I know I'm not alone in
having done all of theso-called right things and still
found that students' experienceof persuasive writing was
(04:01):
sometimes agonisinglyagonizingly difficult.
So in this episode, I'm going toshare the reasons that what I
used to do didn't work and whatI now know to be important
elements in helping students towrite strong, persuasive text.
Let's start with the firstmistake that I made.
Number one I thought thatbecause I had modelled writing
(04:24):
and told students about textstructure that they would learn
it, I would model the whole textand then send them off to have
their turn.
This resulted in them being ata 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 endbecause I thought I'd done what
(04:45):
was necessary.
The approach that I used therecompletely ignored what we know
about cognitive load theory.
As Sweller explains, ourworking memory is incredibly
limited.
We can only process a smallamount of information at any
given time.
When we model an entirepersuasive text at once, with
(05:06):
all of its structural components, persuasive devices and content
knowledge, it's very likelythat we're overwhelming
students' cognitive capacity.
What I do now is break thewriting process down into
smaller parts and explicitlyteach them one at a time.
I focus on a single element,perhaps just constructing a
(05:28):
strong opening statement, and wepractice just that component
until students have mastered itbefore moving on to the next
component.
Now it doesn't mean that wehave to take three months to
write a single text, but I willknow in any given unit what the
main focus for new learning is.
Mistake number two was expectingthat written scaffolds would
(05:51):
fix any lack of knowledgestudents had about text
structure.
The reality was that studentswho understood the text
structure didn't need thescaffolds and the students who
didn't understand the textstructure, didn't know how to
use them.
I'd provide these beautifultemplates with sentence starters
and outlines of what should gointo each paragraph, thinking
(06:13):
this would solve the problem.
But looking at it through thelens of cognitive load theory,
if students don't have thefoundational understanding of
persuasive structure stored intheir long-term memory, a
template just becomes anotherthing that they have to process.
What I do now is ensure thatstudents really know the text
(06:36):
structure through repetition,retrieval and frequent practice.
Students need to have thedeclarative knowledge of text
structure, including being ableto write a brief outline of the
structure.
So now I have students practiceretrieving the basic structure
so frequently that it becomesautomatic, freeing up their
(06:59):
cognitive resources to focus onthe content of their arguments
rather than struggling toremember what comes next.
This doesn't mean that they'rewriting a whole text, but simply
that they're taking theirwhiteboard marker and writing
down introduction, bodyparagraph one, body paragraph
two, body paragraph three,conclusion.
(07:21):
When they know how to do that,then they can add in what needs
to go in each body paragraph oreach argument.
The third mistake I made wasplacing all of my focus on text
structure, and this came from myinitial teacher education and
the training that I had early onin my career.
(07:42):
I was taught, as you were, thatif I exposed and immersed my
students in text structures, ifI just read text and modelled
writing them, students wouldthen internalise all of the
features that were needed andreproduce them.
This approach is based on whatwe now recognise as a
(08:04):
constructivist view of learningthat just doesn't align with the
evidence.
What I do now is reflect on thesyntax and vocabulary needed to
achieve specific goals that arerelevant to the age of the
students, and I teach theseexplicitly, one at a time.
I don't expect that I can teachall elements of a genre at once
and have students just pick upwhat they wanted them to notice.
(08:26):
I also recognise thatrepetition and practice is
needed for students to developfluency.
One and done lessons are notsufficient for students to learn
to effectively use specificsubordinating conjunctions or
persuasive devices.
I make sure I'm teaching thespecific language features of
(08:49):
persuasive text, things likemodal verbs, causal connectives
like because and therefore, andthe necessary vocabulary for
students to build a strongargument.
They're taught directly.
They're practiced for a littlewhile in isolation a very short
time and then applied inincreasingly complex contexts.
(09:11):
Mistake number four was notbuilding background knowledge
for the topics I wanted studentsto write about.
I recall so clearly askingstudents to share ideas about
why it was important that wehave 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 Ialways saw, with everyone else
(09:34):
looking at me blankly.
I thought that because I hadread a text to students or we'd
watched a clip on YouTube, thatit was enough for students to be
able to comment on the issues.
What I do now is make sure thatunits are designed to spend
more time than I ever thoughtwas necessary building
(09:55):
background knowledge.
This includes reading texts andwatching clips, for sure, but I
now build in opportunities forretrieval of knowledge, checking
for understanding, partner talkand really careful
consideration of students'existing knowledge in
expectations, and I'm nottalking about us dumbing down
(10:16):
expectations, but rather takingthe time to build knowledge
needed for strong outcomes overtime.
Mistake number five was notunderstanding that the difficult
part of persuasive text writingwas not using the modal verbs
or writing with appropriatestructure.
That stuff was easy, once youteach it, it's quite constrained
(10:39):
.
The hard bit, though, is thethinking.
Now, background knowledge iscritical, but so is perspective.
I used to take it for grantedthat, because I could come up
with reasons for parks or whatwe should do for responsible
rubbish disposal, that thatmeant that students could do it
too.
(10:59):
So I'd ask who knows why weshould have parks, and then I'd
wait, then I'd give a hint andI'd wait, then I'd provide one
of the answers and I'd ask againand wait, and in the end I'd
have fed all the answers to thestudents in a way that just led
to them all producing prettymuch the same cookie cutter
(11:20):
written response.
The approach that I was usingfailed to develop the critical
thinking skills that are at theheart of persuasive writing.
But please do not misunderstandme, these are not skills we
build in isolation.
They're grounded in theknowledge that we want the
students to base theirsuggestion or their persuasive
(11:41):
plan on.
We have to create the knowledgefor students so that they can
think.
We can then walk them carefullythrough processes of reflection
and questioning that helps themto develop the capacity to
think deeply.
What I do now is make sure thatthe issue or problem has enough
(12:05):
nuance to make it worth focusingon.
I also walk students through athinking process that involves
asking questions like, what areall the things that could happen
if people throw rubbish on thebeach?
Or what are the problems thatwill be solved by having parks?
But this kind of thinkingshouldn't just be confined to
(12:26):
the times we're wanting studentsto write persuasively.
In all subject areas, we canpromote deeper understanding by
building knowledge and engagingstudents in discussion and
thinking about the topic at hand.
Fundamentally, I don't just askstudents to come up with the
reasons.
I scaffold the thinking neededfor them to do so, and part of
(12:49):
that is considering perspective.
Perspective of the people wholive next to the beach,
perspective of the people whouse the water recreationally,
perspective of the animals thatlive in the water.
If we want to talk about waterpollution, students have to have
all of the knowledge to be ableto think critically.
(13:12):
It just doesn't happen on itsown.
The final error that I made wasto assume that because a
concept or topic had been donein the previous year or even
earlier, that I could just pickup where I had imagined the
teachers left off.
I assumed that what had beendone was firm enough to form the
(13:35):
foundation of the learning thatI had planned.
This was a big mistake andmeant that in the early days, I
was planning in a way thatvirtually guaranteed cognitive
overload for the students.
Now, as an alternative, we canspend time activating background
knowledge about text typesbefore we officially begin a
(13:56):
unit.
However, we need to be verycareful that students actually
have the background knowledgeand skills in their schema that
we think they do, because ifthey don't have this in their
background knowledge, if theydon't have existing schema,
(14:16):
we're not activating anything.
We're just engaging in reallybad teaching.
When we think about persuasivewriting through the lens of
cognitive load theory andinformation processing, we can
see why students struggle somuch.
Persuasive writing requiressimultaneous mastery of text
(14:36):
structure knowledge, languagefeatures, persuasive devices,
background knowledge and theprocesses of thinking and
discussing that help us generateand evaluate arguments.
We also have to havefoundational skills in writing,
(14:57):
including syntax, spelling andhandwriting.
For a novice, coordinating allof these elements places an
enormous burden on workingmemory.
It's no wonder they struggle.
The key is to reduce cognitiveload by ensuring that as many of
these elements as possible areautomatic, and we've done this
(15:21):
through explicit instruction andpractice.
So what are the prerequisitesfor successful persuasive
writing?
Well, here's a little list: Automaticity with basic (15:29):
undefined
transcription.
Thorough knowledge of thestructure of persuasive text.
Familiarity with persuasivelanguage features.
Deep background knowledge aboutthe topic.
An understanding of thethinking processes required to
(15:49):
generate and evaluate arguments.
And regular opportunities topractice each new component
separately before integratingthem.
And remember, one and done isnot sufficient.
We need to hold space.
So that means having fewergoals within a unit of work and
(16:10):
doing each of them really wellbefore we bring it together, and
that is how we write text-basedunits in our space.
I want to reassure you that wecan absolutely help students
become competent persuasivewriters if we follow
evidence-informed principles.
The research is clear.
(16:31):
When we break down complexwriting tasks, teach the
components directly, providemodels, provide guided practice
and gradually releaseresponsibility to students, they
can achieve remarkable results.
This is the aim of thestructure we use for text-based
units.
As you reflect on your ownteaching of persuasive writing,
(16:54):
consider which of the elementsI've described might be limiting
your students' progress.
Then choose one area to focuson improving in detail.
Perhaps you'll breakinstruction down into smaller
steps, or maybe you'll spendmore time building background
knowledge before asking studentsto write.
Whatever you choose, know thatby aligning your practice with
(17:17):
what we know about how studentslearn, you'll be giving your
students the best chancepossible of success.
Until next time, happy teachingeveryone.
Bye.
Hi there and welcome to the Structured Literacy Podcast
recorded here in Tasmania, thehome of the Palawa people.
I'm Jocelyn and I'm excited tobring you today's episode about
persuasive writing.
Persuasive writing has become acore feature of our English
programs.
There's significant pressure tohave students writing
(00:20):
persuasively to perform well inNAPLAN, and we often attempt to
connect persuasive text writingwith our HASS curriculum.
But if you're like mostteachers I speak with, you've
found that students reallystruggle with this kind of
writing, despite your bestefforts to teach it well.
Let's begin by getting the layof the land in relation to
(00:43):
persuasive writing and look atexactly what is expected in the
Australian curriculum so that wecan have a clear understanding
of what good performance lookslike in this area.
We will be using differentcurricula across the country, so
you will always refer to yourstate or territory's curriculum,
(01:03):
but I'm going to refer to theAustralian curriculum in this
episode.
Persuasive texts themselvesaren't mentioned explicitly in
achievement standards in theAustralian curriculum.
However, they are included inthe content descriptors for
writing from years two to sixand beyond.
In Foundation and year one, thecurriculum refers to expressing
(01:27):
opinions.
So that's the start of thejourney for our primary school
students.
Looking a little deeper intothe curriculum through the
general capabilities, we'll seethat persuasive texts first
enter the picture in year three.
So they're there in theunderstanding text section and
they're there in the writingsections, and I'm quoting
(01:49):
directly from the document now.
It says "includes a simpleintroduction to orient the
reader.
Example states a fact tointroduce a report.
States an opinion to introducean argument.
So the concept of argument isdefinitely present and as
students get older and movethrough the grades, the
(02:12):
expectations of what they willdo in terms of structure and
features adjust.
When students hit the point inthe progression that would sit
at typically Year Six, there aregenre-specific elements to
examine, and that continues upinto the secondary space.
So that's what the curriculumsays.
(02:34):
Let's reflect now on studentexperiences in the writing
process.
As a central element of writing,persuasive Persuasive text
should be simple, ?
.
After all, children are allgood at trying to get their
parents to persuade them to buysomething at the shops or to get
a friend to share a toy.
(02:54):
Well, that's what I was told,told that children were natural
persuaders and that writingpersuasively would just come in
time.
Well, guess what?
Children are natural persuaders.
That's true.
It's also true that persuasivewriting most definitely does not
(03:15):
just come on its own for somany of our students, and I know
that I'd done all the"rightright things, in inverted .
commas I'd done the I Do do, Wewe Do, do You you Do do writing
structure with modelled, sharedand guided writing.
I'd done the right thing andmade the topic of my writing for
my older students centre onreal world issues for authentic
problem solving.
I'd provided written scaffoldsto help students with text
(03:38):
structure.
I'd done all of these thingsand yet many children still
found it incredibly difficult towrite persuasively.
In speaking with teachers andleaders, I know I'm not alone in
having done all of theso-called right things and still
found that students' experienceof persuasive writing was
(04:01):
sometimes agonisinglyagonizingly difficult.
So in this episode, I'm going toshare the reasons that what I
used to do didn't work and whatI now know to be important
elements in helping students towrite strong, persuasive text.
Let's start with the firstmistake that I made.
Number one I thought thatbecause I had modelled writing
(04:24):
and told students about textstructure that they would learn
it, I would model the whole textand then send them off to have
their turn.
This resulted in them being ata 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 endbecause I thought I'd done what
(04:45):
was necessary.
The approach that I used therecompletely ignored what we know
about cognitive load theory.
As Sweller explains, ourworking memory is incredibly
limited.
We can only process a smallamount of information at any
given time.
When we model an entirepersuasive text at once, with
(05:06):
all of its structural components, persuasive devices and content
knowledge, it's very likelythat we're overwhelming
students' cognitive capacity.
What I do now is break thewriting process down into
smaller parts and explicitlyteach them one at a time.
I focus on a single element,perhaps just constructing a
(05:28):
strong opening statement, and wepractice just that component
until students have mastered itbefore moving on to the next
component.
Now it doesn't mean that wehave to take three months to
write a single text, but I willknow in any given unit what the
main focus for new learning is.
Mistake number two was expectingthat written scaffolds would
(05:51):
fix any lack of knowledgestudents had about text
structure.
The reality was that studentswho understood the text
structure didn't need thescaffolds and the students who
didn't understand the textstructure, didn't know how to
use them.
I'd provide these beautifultemplates with sentence starters
and outlines of what should gointo each paragraph, thinking
(06:13):
this would solve the problem.
But looking at it through thelens of cognitive load theory,
if students don't have thefoundational understanding of
persuasive structure stored intheir long-term memory, a
template just becomes anotherthing that they have to process.
What I do now is ensure thatstudents really know the text
(06:36):
structure through repetition,retrieval and frequent practice.
Students need to have thedeclarative knowledge of text
structure, including being ableto write a brief outline of the
structure.
So now I have students practiceretrieving the basic structure
so frequently that it becomesautomatic, freeing up their
(06:59):
cognitive resources to focus onthe content of their arguments
rather than struggling toremember what comes next.
This doesn't mean that they'rewriting a whole text, but simply
that they're taking theirwhiteboard marker and writing
down introduction, bodyparagraph one, body paragraph
two, body paragraph three,conclusion.
(07:21):
When they know how to do that,then they can add in what needs
to go in each body paragraph oreach argument.
The third mistake I made wasplacing all of my focus on text
structure, and this came from myinitial teacher education and
the training that I had early onin my career.
(07:42):
I was taught, as you were, thatif I exposed and immersed my
students in text structures, ifI just read text and modelled
writing them, students wouldthen internalise all of the
features that were needed andreproduce them.
This approach is based on whatwe now recognise as a
(08:04):
constructivist view of learningthat just doesn't align with the
evidence.
What I do now is reflect on thesyntax and vocabulary needed to
achieve specific goals that arerelevant to the age of the
students, and I teach theseexplicitly, one at a time.
I don't expect that I can teachall elements of a genre at once
and have students just pick upwhat they wanted them to notice.
(08:26):
I also recognise thatrepetition and practice is
needed for students to developfluency.
One and done lessons are notsufficient for students to learn
to effectively use specificsubordinating conjunctions or
persuasive devices.
I make sure I'm teaching thespecific language features of
(08:49):
persuasive text, things likemodal verbs, causal connectives
like because and therefore, andthe necessary vocabulary for
students to build a strongargument.
They're taught directly.
They're practiced for a littlewhile in isolation a very short
time and then applied inincreasingly complex contexts.
(09:11):
Mistake number four was notbuilding background knowledge
for the topics I wanted studentsto write about.
I recall so clearly askingstudents to share ideas about
why it was important that wehave 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 Ialways saw, with everyone else
(09:34):
looking at me blankly.
I thought that because I hadread a text to students or we'd
watched a clip on YouTube, thatit was enough for students to be
able to comment on the issues.
What I do now is make sure thatunits are designed to spend
more time than I ever thoughtwas necessary building
(09:55):
background knowledge.
This includes reading texts andwatching clips, for sure, but I
now build in opportunities forretrieval of knowledge, checking
for understanding, partner talkand really careful
consideration of students'existing knowledge in
expectations, and I'm nottalking about us dumbing down
(10:16):
expectations, but rather takingthe time to build knowledge
needed for strong outcomes overtime.
Mistake number five was notunderstanding that the difficult
part of persuasive text writingwas not using the modal verbs
or writing with appropriatestructure.
That stuff was easy, once youteach it, it's quite constrained
(10:39):
.
The hard bit, though, is thethinking.
Now, background knowledge iscritical, but so is perspective.
I used to take it for grantedthat, because I could come up
with reasons for parks or whatwe should do for responsible
rubbish disposal, that thatmeant that students could do it
too.
(10:59):
So I'd ask who knows why weshould have parks, and then I'd
wait, then I'd give a hint andI'd wait, then I'd provide one
of the answers and I'd ask againand wait, and in the end I'd
have fed all the answers to thestudents in a way that just led
to them all producing prettymuch the same cookie cutter
(11:20):
written response.
The approach that I was usingfailed to develop the critical
thinking skills that are at theheart of persuasive writing.
But please do not misunderstandme, these are not skills we
build in isolation.
They're grounded in theknowledge that we want the
students to base theirsuggestion or their persuasive
(11:41):
plan on.
We have to create the knowledgefor students so that they can
think.
We can then walk them carefullythrough processes of reflection
and questioning that helps themto develop the capacity to
think deeply.
What I do now is make sure thatthe issue or problem has enough
(12:05):
nuance to make it worth focusingon.
I also walk students through athinking process that involves
asking questions like, what areall the things that could happen
if people throw rubbish on thebeach?
Or what are the problems thatwill be solved by having parks?
But this kind of thinkingshouldn't just be confined to
(12:26):
the times we're wanting studentsto write persuasively.
In all subject areas, we canpromote deeper understanding by
building knowledge and engagingstudents in discussion and
thinking about the topic at hand.
Fundamentally, I don't just askstudents to come up with the
reasons.
I scaffold the thinking neededfor them to do so, and part of
(12:49):
that is considering perspective.
Perspective of the people wholive next to the beach,
perspective of the people whouse the water recreationally,
perspective of the animals thatlive in the water.
If we want to talk about waterpollution, students have to have
all of the knowledge to be ableto think critically.
(13:12):
It just doesn't happen on itsown.
The final error that I made wasto assume that because a
concept or topic had been donein the previous year or even
earlier, that I could just pickup where I had imagined the
teachers left off.
I assumed that what had beendone was firm enough to form the
(13:35):
foundation of the learning thatI had planned.
This was a big mistake andmeant that in the early days, I
was planning in a way thatvirtually guaranteed cognitive
overload for the students.
Now, as an alternative, we canspend time activating background
knowledge about text typesbefore we officially begin a
(13:56):
unit.
However, we need to be verycareful that students actually
have the background knowledgeand skills in their schema that
we think they do, because ifthey don't have this in their
background knowledge, if theydon't have existing schema,
(14:16):
we're not activating anything.
We're just engaging in reallybad teaching.
When we think about persuasivewriting through the lens of
cognitive load theory andinformation processing, we can
see why students struggle somuch.
Persuasive writing requiressimultaneous mastery of text
(14:36):
structure knowledge, languagefeatures, persuasive devices,
background knowledge and theprocesses of thinking and
discussing that help us generateand evaluate arguments.
We also have to havefoundational skills in writing,
(14:57):
including syntax, spelling andhandwriting.
For a novice, coordinating allof these elements places an
enormous burden on workingmemory.
It's no wonder they struggle.
The key is to reduce cognitiveload by ensuring that as many of
these elements as possible areautomatic, and we've done this
(15:21):
through explicit instruction andpractice.
So what are the prerequisitesfor successful persuasive
writing?
Well, here's a little list: Automaticity with basic (15:29):
undefined
transcription.
Thorough knowledge of thestructure of persuasive text.
Familiarity with persuasivelanguage features.
Deep background knowledge aboutthe topic.
An understanding of thethinking processes required to
(15:49):
generate and evaluate arguments.
And regular opportunities topractice each new component
separately before integratingthem.
And remember, one and done isnot sufficient.
We need to hold space.
So that means having fewergoals within a unit of work and
(16:10):
doing each of them really wellbefore we bring it together, and
that is how we write text-basedunits in our space.
I want to reassure you that wecan absolutely help students
become competent persuasivewriters if we follow
evidence-informed principles.
The research is clear.
(16:31):
When we break down complexwriting tasks, teach the
components directly, providemodels, provide guided practice
and gradually releaseresponsibility to students, they
can achieve remarkable results.
This is the aim of thestructure we use for text-based
units.
As you reflect on your ownteaching of persuasive writing,
(16:54):
consider which of the elementsI've described might be limiting
your students' progress.
Then choose one area to focuson improving in detail.
Perhaps you'll breakinstruction down into smaller
steps, or maybe you'll spendmore time building background
knowledge before asking studentsto write.
Whatever you choose, know thatby aligning your practice with
(17:17):
what we know about how studentslearn, you'll be giving your
students the best chancepossible of success.
Until next time, happy teachingeveryone.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.