Discursive Writing

Example response (about 400 words — discursive)

In playgrounds, pools, and classrooms, the word winning carries a charge. Some people treat it as the point of every game; others argue that cooperation and growth matter more. The truth may sit between those poles.

On one hand, the drive to win can sharpen effort and skill. When a relay team chases a personal best, or a debating squad prepares for a regional final, a clear goal can focus practice and teach students to handle pressure. It could be argued that healthy competition pushes people to discover what they are capable of when they refuse to give up early. In that sense, winning — or striving to win — is not only about medals; it is about standards.

Conversely, an obsession with coming first can shrink what counts as success. If students believe that only gold matters, they may avoid challenges where they might lose, cheat to protect a streak, or treat teammates as obstacles. Perhaps the most damaging idea is that a narrow loss equals failure. Some suggest that this mindset follows children into friendships and tests, where comparison replaces curiosity.

There is also a difference between winning a match and winning at life. Schools celebrate grades, sports days, and awards — yet many valuable outcomes (kindness, persistence after setback, helping a peer understand a problem) never appear on a podium. It appears that communities which praise only visible victories risk teaching young people to hide struggle rather than learn from it.

Nevertheless, pretending winning does not matter at all would be unrealistic. Public games need scores; some roles — emergency workers, surgeons in training — depend on high stakes. The question is whether winning is the only metric, not whether it has any place.

Ultimately, winning can motivate without becoming a tyrant. It might be healthiest when students are asked not only "Did you come first?" but "What did you improve, and who did you help along the way?" A school that keeps both questions alive treats achievement as wider than a single ladder — and that, perhaps, is the balance worth aiming for.

Example response (about 420 words — discursive)

Primary-aged students live in a world where messages, videos, and games travel in the same pocket as their house keys. Whether that pocket should stay open all day is one of the most argued questions in staffrooms and kitchens.

On one hand, phones can connect families and support learning. When a bus is delayed, a single text can stop a parent waiting in rain. Some teachers use approved apps for quizzes and language practice; students who enjoy making short films or digital art may find tools that do not exist on paper. It could be argued that banning everything outright would punish responsible use and ignore how technology already shapes the jobs students will one day consider.

In contrast, unlimited access often collides with childhood needs. Notifications pull attention away from instructions; group chats can host unkind comments that follow a child home. Perhaps the quietest harm is sleep — screens lit late at night delay rest, and tired students struggle with patience and memory the next morning. Alternatively, social media can train young people to measure worth in likes, which is a fragile currency.

Schools sit in the middle. Teachers report students "checking something quickly" while safety rules are explained; parents report battles over screen time that replace homework with arguments. The context suggests the problem is not the metal device but when and how it is used — and whether adults model the habits they expect.

It is possible that a primary student can learn digital skills without owning a public social profile. Some families delay accounts until later years; others supervise closely rather than forbidding conversation. Schools might teach digital citizenship while keeping lesson hours largely screen-free, so practice happens with guidance rather than in secret.

Ultimately, smartphones and social media are not going to disappear from Australian life. They might belong in primary-aged childhood only under conditions: clear rules at school, phones away during sleep, adults who discuss content instead of only confiscating it, and students who learn that connection is valuable but not the only thing worth their attention. The goal is not to pick a team for or against technology — it is to grow people who can use it without being used by it.