Lesson video

Hello and welcome to today's lesson.

My name is Ms. Watson and I'm really looking forward to teaching you today and looking at how writers strengthen their positions when they take a stand.

And we're going to be reading about housing in the UK and the greenbelt.

Let's get started.

So by the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain how a writer uses personal experience, expert views, and wider politics to support their opinions when they're taking a stand.

As ever, we are going to begin with the keywords.

This is what they are: architect, brownfield site, amenities, strengthen and credibility.

This is what they mean.

So an architect is a person who designs new buildings and then goes on to oversee how they are built.

Brownfield site is an area of land in a town or a city that was previously used for industry.

Maybe it was a factory at one point or an industrial zone.

Amenities is any building, piece of equipment or service provided for people's comfort or enjoyment.

And that can be anything from a bus service, but it would also include things like tennis courts and leisure centres where you can go swimming.

If we strengthen something, we make it stronger or more effective.

And this is a word you are going to be using a lot today, credibility.

We talk about something being credible if it can be believed or we trust it.

Now, if you would like a little bit of time to familiarise yourself with the keywords and their definitions, please feel free to pause the video while you do that.

Join us when you are ready.

So today's lesson, we'll have two learning cycles.

We're going to start by reading an article about housing and the greenbelt and then we're gonna move on and explain the ways the writer supports his opinion.

How he strengthens, that's one of our key words, his point of view when he takes a stand on housing and the greenbelt.

Okay, let's move on.

Before we start reading, I want us to be clear that we understand what the greenbelt is.

This is what the Oak's pupil said.

Now Izzy said that it describes the area of countryside outside big cities and it provides places for people to walk on and it's good for natural habitats.

Yes, you'll have lots of countryside animals and birds that live there.

And Jacob says, you are not allowed to build houses on it.

So the greenbelt is not for house building.

There's actually legislation that prevents the building of houses on the greenbelt.

And he goes on to say, some people think that rule should be changed because there is a housing shortage in the UK.

So you can see that we've got housing on the greenbelt as the article we're gonna read, and this is controversial and contested and people have different opinions about it.

Is there anything you would like to add? You can pause the video while you add to the discussion.

So we're going to read the article called "Building on the greenbelt will not solve the housing crisis." You'll find that in Architects Journal.

Before we read, I would like you to have a brief discussion from the title and the context that's been given to you what predictions can you make about the article? The Oal pupil said this.

Izzy said that the phrase "will not solve" suggests that he is looking for an answer to the problem.

Good, Izzy.

And Jacob said that he would expect the article to be formal and professional because it is written in a magazine for architects.

Yes, absolutely, Jacob.

This is a magazine for people in the profession who already know probably quite a lot about the issues and he's going to put his case about the issues.

Let's have a quick check for understanding.

Is it true or false that you should always start your reading by looking at the title and the context? That's right, it's true.

But why is it true? I want you to justify the answer to that.

So is it A, knowing the type of publication helps us think about how the article might be written and the title sums up the main message.

Or is it B, titles are a really effective way for publications to engage the reader.

They tell us what the article will be about.

What do you think? You can pause the video while you consider your answer.

That's right, it's A.

It's true B, but A gives you a much more detailed response to why we should always start by looking at the title and the context.

Well done.

Let's move on.

So you're going to read the article and then you're going to answer the following questions.

How does the writer feel about the idea of relaxing planning laws on greenbelt land to address the housing crisis? According to the writer, what is the most serious challenge facing the sector in regards to building suitable houses? The sector being the housing sector, the architecture sector.

And what alternative does the writer suggest for addressing the housing shortage without building on greenbelt land? And what amenities, that's one of our key words, that's all the things that we use and enjoy in our towns and cities.

What amenities does the writer suggest could be provided on-site in new brownfield developments? Brownfield land is formally used for industry.

So happy reading.

There are the questions, pause the video while you do that and off you go.

So welcome back.

You did that task really well.

I really admire the way that you kept highlighting and identifying key parts of that article that you needed to answer those questions.

So, now it's time, I'm gonna put up some answers, that you may have written or similar things you have written, and I just want you to compare your answers with those.

Okay, here we go.

So the first question, how does the writer feel about the idea of relaxing planning orders on greenbelt land to address the housing crisis? You could have said something like this.

The writer disagrees with the idea of relaxing planning laws on greenbelt land to address the housing crisis.

He actually expresses concern about the environmental destruction and he doesn't think that the solution will work.

He doesn't think it's going to be an effective approach.

Number two, according to the writer, what is the most serious challenge facing the sector in regards to building suitable houses? And he says the biggest challenge is finding suitable locations and merging amenities.

So that's why he's, that's why people are thinking they're seeing the greenbelt as a suitable location, but he obviously doesn't think it is.

And for three, what does he think the alternative is? What alternative does the writer suggest for addressing the housing shortage without building on greenbelt land? Well, he says that sites that were originally used for industry would be perfect for building new communities.

That's the brownfield sites.

He says building there on those brownfield sites would address the housing shortage without building on greenbelt land.

So he's very, very clear about where the architects and the town planners should be addressing their attention.

And what amenities does the writer suggest could be provided on-site in new brownfield development.

And he says that you could have everything really that they need.

And he does list some.

And if you've listed some, that's great.

Now, if you would like a little bit of time to add anything to your answers, now's the time to do it.

You can pause the video while you do that.

Okay, so let's move on.

We're making really, really good progress today.

So we've read that article on housing and the greenbelt and well done for your resilience for sticking and focusing on a really quite kind of grown up and complex article.

Well done.

And now we're going to look at how does the writer support his opinion? What techniques does he employ to make the stand he's taking more convincing? Okay, let's move on.

So when writers take a stand, they express their opinions strongly.

And they often include other content, and they can include: personal experiences, expert views, and formal politics.

And what I want you to think about is, why they might? Why do you think they might use personal experience, expert views and formal politics? And of course you've got an article that you've just read.

So think about that question in relation to that article.

Okay, so pause the video while you have your discussion.

So this is what the Oak's pupil said.

Izzy said that using a range of sources means that you get to hear lots of different views.

And Jacob agreed with her.

He said, definitely, and that makes it more interesting.

And then Izzy said, however, thinking about it in more detail, I don't think this writer, one who wrote the article about the greenbelt, is using contrasting views in this article.

They're different views, but they're not opposing views.

And Jacob thought as well and said, yes, actually you are right.

The different views are all there to support the one central view, in this case, that building on the green belt is a bad idea.

And I think what's so fantastic about that discussion that Izzy and Jacob had is that they changed their minds.

They started off thinking one thing and then they looked at the article in a bit more detail and thought about it in a bit more detail and came to different conclusions.

Well done Izzy.

Well done Jacob.

Is there anything you would like to add? Okay, let's move on.

We're gonna have a quick check for understanding.

On the left we have some descriptions of content.

Personal experience, expert views and formal politics.

And on the right we have some examples of that.

Statement from MPS or local government officials, people with specialised knowledge or experience and anecdotes from the writer's past or stories about their family.

And what I would like you to do is to match the content on the left with the examples on the right.

Okay? So you can pause the video while you make your choices.

Okay, so what did you say? That's right.

Personal experience, they could be an anecdote, like a short story about the writer's past or about their family.

Expert views are people with specialised knowledge or experience.

In this case they're architects.

Formal politics, statements from MPS or local government officials.

Very well done.

Let's move on.

Now what you have to do is re-read the article, but this time you are looking for evidence for the following.

Number one, the personal experiences that the writer remembers.

Which experts are included? And which formal politics are referred to? Okay, you can pause the video while you do that.

So welcome back.

You might have said something like this.

Personal experience.

The writer remembers his childhood in the countryside and how he used to explore his surrounding with his friends.

And it's interesting because he does actually talk about how he knows that his, where he grew up was actually built in the countryside.

It was actually quite new property, new for the time, and built in the countryside.

So it's interesting, he really appreciates the value of the countryside, but he is also aware that that is often where people look to build.

And he says that he's sure that many architects would agree with him.

And he also refers to a rewilding expert, which is somebody who thinks, has put a lot of thought and effort into thinking about what would nature, what would the countryside look like if we didn't intervene so much? And he refers to two politicians who announced their plans for housing and the greenbelt.

So personal experience, expert views and formal politics are all referred to and used by the writer to support his opinions.

But this is what I want you to discuss about that.

I want you to think about why.

Why does the writer include those elements? You can pause the video while you have a discussion.

Now this is what the Oak pupil said, and I'd like you to compare your ideas with theirs.

See how much you agree, see what you can add to their ideas or take from them.

Izzy thought that the personal anecdote creates a sense of empathy.

He wants us to think about happy childhood memories.

And he may also be hinting that building on these fields will destroy them too.

They will actually destroy his memories.

And Jacob says that by adding the expert views, he wants us to realise it's not just a personal cause.

He's using other people's knowledge to add credibility to his views.

Remember that word credibility, meaning trustworthy, believable.

And the statements from the politicians remind us that this is a current issue, this is a national issue, this is an issue that people who decide legislation are working on.

So were your ideas similar to theirs? Feel free to add any of their ideas to yours.

If you need a little bit of time to do that, please pause the video While you do that.

Let's have a quick check for understanding.

Which of the following best describes the writer's use of a range of content? Is it A, the writer uses other content in order to introduce variety and engage his readers? B, the writer uses other content to strengthen his argument and persuade his readers to agree with his point of view.

C, the writer uses other content in order to show that the issue is complicated with many different points of view.

The writer uses other content in order to persuade us that the issue is highly personal.

What do you think? You can pause the video while you make your choice.

Did you say B? 'Cause that's the right answer.

Well done if you did.

Let's move on.

So now it's your opportunity to show your understanding of how the writer strengthens his opinions in the article in a little bit more detail.

I'm going to give you some sentence starters to work with.

Here they are.

The writer's use of a personal anecdote strengthens the article because.

Two, using expert views adds credibility by.

Three, the inclusion of formal politics adds.

You can pause the video while you write those sentence starters and then add your understanding of how the article is strengthened.

Off you go.

Welcome back.

You did that task really, really well.

Fantastic focus.

Now, you might have written something like this.

That the writer's use of a personal anecdote strengthens the article because it puts us in his shoes and allows us to see why he values the greenbelt.

You might have used the word empathy there because empathy means putting up, putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

You might have said that using expert views adds credibility by providing authority and a sense that this topic has been thoroughly researched.

And you might have finished by saying something like this.

That the inclusion of formal politics adds a sense of urgency to the discussion, emphasising the immediate need for effective solutions to address the housing crisis.

Now, if you would like to take some time to borrow some ideas from these feedback answers, now's the time to do that.

You can pause the video while you do that and then we'll move on.

Now, before we say goodbye, I would like to summarise what you have been learning today.

When you take a stand, you express your opinion forcefully.

You can support your opinion by using personal experience to make your writing more relatable.

Expert views will make your writing seem more knowledgeable.

And referring to formal politics can add a sense of urgency to your writing.

Well done for today's lesson.

You have shown yourself to be really hardworking and focused.

I wish you a very good rest of the day and I look forward to seeing you in another lesson on taking a stand.

Bye for now.