Hello, Ms. Keller here.

Welcome to today's lesson.

I'm so glad that you could join me, because in this session, we are going to be analysing John Agard's poem, "Half-caste." So make sure you grab your copy of the text or your poetry anthology before we get started.

Okay, so by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to explain how Agard uses language and structure to express his viewpoint.

So let's have a look at today's keywords.

We have interpersonal conflict, prejudice, unconscious, facetious, and dialect.

And I would just like to draw your attention to two of the words here, but do feel free to pause the video and have a look through these meanings in a bit more detail because we are going to be encountering each of these words in today's lesson.

But I'd just like to focus on that second word there, prejudice, which means an unjustified negative opinion towards an individual or group based on an unfair perception of them.

So it's having that preconceived notion perhaps of what you might expect someone to be like before you've even met them.

But prejudice comes in when that perception of them is a negative one.

And then that third word, unconscious, means mental processes or actions not actively perceived or controlled by the individual.

So for example, dreams or nightmares are an example of our unconscious mind.

They're things that we think perhaps when we're not fully in control of our mind.

So actually, if we put these two words together, unconscious and prejudice, we can actually get words like unconscious prejudice or unconscious bias, which means having these negative perceptions of people that we don't even necessarily realise.

We don't have control over them.

They're not conscious prejudices but perhaps unconscious prejudices that are built into our mindset, the way that we perceive other people.

So it's really important in general in your life to think about these unconscious biases or unconscious prejudices and address them because, actually, it helps us to become much more open-minded as people.

So this idea of unconscious prejudice is something that appears very strongly in Agard's poem.

So do bear that in mind as we're analysing it together.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, in the first half of today's lesson, we're going to focus on interpreting the speaker.

And then in the second part of the lesson, we're going to focus on interpretations of prejudice.

So I would like to start by thinking about the speaker of the poem.

So two of our Oak students, Andeep and Laura, were discussing their interpretations of the speaker.

So Andeep says, the speaker seems like a normal person I could relate to.

They come across as friendly and good-humored.

Whereas Laura says, the speaker seems like a philosophical and cultured person.

I also get the impression they are proud of their dual heritage.

So my first challenge to you in today's lesson then is to take some time to think really carefully about these two interpretations and discuss them with the people around you, or if you're working on your own, that's okay.

Just make some notes on your paper or in your exercise book.

But really, take some time to pause the video and think about the perception of the speaker, this interpretation of the voice telling us the poem.

So which of these two students do you most agree with, and most importantly, why? Pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So lots of spirited debate taking place there, which was fantastic.

The great thing about English literature is we don't all necessarily have to interpret a text in the same way.

And that is why it's really important that we start to back up our ideas with evidence and analysis in order to present a compelling argument.

And actually, we needed to do that here because both of these interpretations are valid, and they just explore different aspects of the speaker's personality.

But these are both readings of the text that we can see.

Arguably, Laura's response is more detailed because a higher level vocabulary allows her to be more specific.

So we've got Laura using words like philosophical and cultured, which allow us to get a really specific idea of what this speaker is like as a person, whereas, arguably, Andeep's use of language here, friendly, good-humored, they're words we all know the meaning of, but I think he probably could have been a bit more specific and therefore given us a bit more of an explanation of how he had interpreted the personality of the speaker.

So let's take some time to go through each of these interpretations and think really carefully about how we could evidence them.

So let's start with Andeep's interpretation here then.

So can you find any evidence to support this idea that the speaker seems like a normal, friendly, good-humored person? So pause the video here while you take some time to read through the text and select your evidence.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really fascinating discussions taking place there again.

I was particularly impressed to see lots of you drilling down into Agard's use of language in the poem.

So lots of people were picking up on this idea that the poem has a very conversational tone.

It sounds like somebody is speaking to us.

And we can see this in Agard's use of informal language, such as that word, don't there on 921, contractions, so words that perhaps have been shortened.

So don't is usually, the longer form is do not.

So this contraction is a great way to spot informal language because contractions are really common parts of everyday speech.

Short lines as well.

Often, spontaneous spoken language is short because we're trying to think as we're speaking, so we tend to speak in quite short bursts.

A lack of punctuation as well.

This could definitely replicate the perhaps spontaneous nature of speech, where it isn't necessarily punctuated in a grammatically correct way as written English would.

And in this poem, the only punctuation that we get is that slash just breaking up ideas.

And finally, this humorous and facetious approach to big issues, so this idea that our speaker perhaps is a little bit sarcastic, that they're quite facetious, and they're using these ridiculous, overblown, and funny examples helps to give it this personality.

We're getting the speaker's perhaps playful personality coming across here.

So now let's have a look at Laura's interpretation.

So remember that Laura suggested that the speaker seems like a philosophical and cultured person who was proud of their dual heritage.

So same again then.

Can we take a moment to go back over our poems and see if we can draw out any evidence to support this interpretation of the speaker? So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to go through it together.

Okay, welcome back.

So a completely different interpretation here of the speaker.

So it'll be interesting to see what evidence we could find to support this idea.

So first of all, I overheard lots of people picking up on the idea that this poem explores a big issue.

Racism and discrimination is a big, serious issue that plagues our society.

But rather than focusing on real world examples, it explores it in a conceptual and linguistic level.

In order to facetiously play on this idea of the term half-caste and to take the literal meaning perhaps to its extreme in a funny way, the poem needs to almost rise above that issue and think about it as a concept rather than something that the speaker is experiencing at that particular moment.

And it also references lots of famous high-brow European artists and composers.

And what I mean there by high-brow is the type of perhaps art or music that is thought of as being part of the canon.

They're thought of as quite iconic pieces that have shaped our historical perceptions and the trends that have led to modern music perhaps.

So this idea that our speaker knows of these famous European artists, particularly given that perhaps their heritage isn't entirely European and perhaps draws on other cultures, suggests our speaker is quite philosophical and cultured.

They have quite a wide and diverse knowledge of these cultural and creative icons.

Also, we could argue then this second point that he's proud of his dual heritage.

So we've got the idea that the poem is written phonetically to represent the speaker's mixed dialect.

So we've got words like yu, mih, and dem there that if we read them aloud, pronouncing them as they are written here, would help us to be able to imagine what the speaker's accent sounds like or perhaps their dialect sounds like.

So first of all, the idea that this poem is delivered in this particular dialect suggests that our speaker is quite proud of that aspect of their heritage.

And also, the lack of punctuation in the poem helps to create an impassioned argument because it builds to this dramatic pause that we see on line 50.

So we're getting this idea that perhaps it's creating this excited and passionate tone to the speaker's voice because there aren't all these pauses to slow down the pace.

So what's interesting here as well is that particularly these last two analytical points were also evidence that we used to make Andeep's argument that our speaker came across as perhaps human and relatable.

So what's really interesting here is that, often, the same aspects of a writer's use of language or even the same examples from the text can be used to evidence multiple interpretations.

So that's a really good way to make sure that you're using that evidence and really exploring all the different meanings that perhaps it conveys.

So let's pause here and check our understanding so far.

Which of the following are phonetic spellings? So pause the video while you make your mind up, and click play when you're ready to reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back.

And well done to those of you who said a and d.

Wha was a shortened version of what, and dah was another way of saying the.

So the use of phonetic spellings helps the reader to hear the speaker's Caribbean accent by demonstrating the different pronunciation of common English words.

Okay, so now it's time for the first practise task of today's lesson.

And what I would like you to do is disprove Jun's interpretation of the poem.

So, so far, we've been finding evidence to support an interpretation, whereas this time, I'd like you to do the opposite.

I would like you to find some evidence to disprove this interpretation, to show that it isn't accurate.

So Jun says, the speaker of "Half-caste" sounds uneducated and like he doesn't take the issue of racism seriously.

So you'll need to think about all these discussions that we've been having about the other two students' interpretations of the speaker to help you out here.

So what I would like you to do is discuss your responses to Jun's interpretation of the poem.

But I'd like you to consider your interpretation of how Agard presents the speaker, and how this is similar or different from Jun's interpretation, using evidence to support your ideas, and most importantly, using tentative language to show personal interpretations.

So these are words like perhaps, likely, may, suggests.

These are words that show that something is your interpretation of the text and not a concrete fact.

So it's really important language to use when we're analysing a text.

So pause the video here and take some time to have a really good discussion about this interpretation and your interpretation of Jun's interpretation.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Well done for giving that a really good go.

It's quite simple sometimes to find evidence to support an interpretation, but disproving it is not always so easy.

So well done for overcoming that challenge I set you.

So here is how Izzy, another Oak student, responded to Jun's interpretation.

So she said, I disagree with Jun's interpretation of the text.

While many writers use informal language and non-standard English spellings to imply that a character may not be well-educated or well spoken, I would argue that Agard uses it to indicate the speaker's Caribbean accent by enabling the reader to hear how he would pronounce certain English words.

For example, Agard uses de instead of the.

Furthermore, the speaker references to high-brow European cultural icons, Picasso and Tchaikovsky, which does imply that he's actually quite educated in order to be familiar with them.

So what I would like to do now is to think really carefully about Izzy's response and see if you can give her a what went well or an even better if.

So remember, the thing she was considering was her own interpretation of the text and how that was similar or different to Jun's interpretation.

So pause the video here while you take some time to discuss this with the people around you or make some notes.

And when you're ready to continue, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of really great suggestions there for what was great about Izzy's response and also what she could improve.

So if I was Izzy's teacher and I was marking this response, this is the feedback that I might have given.

So I thought that Izzy had a fantastic use of evidence in her response.

She used lots of different aspects and quotations from the poem in order to support her ideas.

So I thought that that was really good.

For an even better if, I think I would've suggested that she explore more than one aspect of Jun's interpretation.

So here, she's just focused on Jun's interpretation that the speaker sounded uneducated.

And she's proven that quite succinctly and quite effectively.

Using all of this evidence, she's disproven the fact that that interpretation was accurate, because it wasn't.

However, Jun also suggested that the speaker didn't take the issue of racism seriously.

So to improve her response, Izzy he could have also included some references to that second part of the interpretation as well.

So we've made it to the halfway point of today's lesson.

So now we've looked at interpretations of the speaker, it's time to explore interpretations of prejudice.

So Alex's interpretation of the poem here is inaccurate.

He says, this poem links to conflict because it explores the speaker's inner conflict about their dual heritage and cultural identity.

So my first challenge to you is this.

What makes this interpretation inaccurate? So you'll need to think about what you know about the poem and what you know about how it explores conflict and prejudice.

So take a moment to discuss this with the people around you or make some notes.

And when you're ready to discuss it together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So well done if your discussions were picking up on some similar ideas to this.

This poem explores the interpersonal conflict between the speaker and a silent listener who uses the term half-caste.

He challenges the unspoken meanings associated with this derogatory term.

So rather than being a poem about inner conflict, a conflict within your own mind, this poem actually is about interpersonal conflict.

So it's about the speaker's conflict with another person who uses that derogatory term.

So can we find evidence to support this new interpretation then? Now we've redrafted it, so it's valid.

Can we find some evidence to support it? So pause the video here while you have another look over the poem.

And when you're ready to continue, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of fantastic examples of evidence there that I overheard you discussing.

So let's just have a look at some important examples.

So first of all then, the poem begins with direct address.

So what I mean by that is it calls directly out to that silent listener.

And it does that through this use of the repeated imperative phrasing, explain.

An imperative sentence is a sentence that begins with a verb there.

It's a command.

And we've got that second person pronoun as well that features quite a lot throughout the poem, yu, yuself.

So we know we've got that reference there to that other figure, the yu character.

So my question to you is this.

How do you think the speaker feels towards the silent listener? So pause the video here while you have a think and you take some time to make some notes or discuss it with the people around you.

And when you're ready for us to discuss it together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So I would argue that the directness here of the speaker's tone, of this imperative phrasing, and calling out this listener with the second person pronoun implies that our speaker is quite frustrated with people who use this derogatory language.

Perhaps he'd had enough of hearing it.

And actually, the opening of the poem seems to support this because it seems quite sarcastic.

The speaker begins with this idea of asking the listener to excuse them because they're standing in a certain way, when, actually, we know that the speaker doesn't really want to be excused because throughout the rest of the poem, they go on to make these demands from this silent listener.

So let's see if we can take this interpretation of the speaker's frustration here towards this prejudice, perhaps unconscious prejudice of the listener.

Let's take this idea through the poem and see if we can read it out in later parts.

So I'd like to think about these three images that Agard gives us in the text, that of the canvas and the mixing of colours, the weather and the mixing of light and dark, and Tchaikovsky and the mixing of notes to create beautiful music.

So as the poem continues, the speaker's frustration seems to grow.

He provides a series of examples demonstrating the ridiculousness of referring to mixed things as half-caste.

How does the use of these three images show the speaker's growing frustration? So pause the video here while you have a think.

Take some time to discuss it.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

Could hear lots of people thinking really carefully about how Agard has chosen to describe these particular images, which was where I wanted you to go with this, really.

So well done if you were also picking up on these ideas as well.

So each of these examples or images begins with a repetition of that imperative verb, explain.

So it's almost like we're cycling round again.

And also, the lack of punctuation gives the speaker a frustrated tone.

So we've got this idea that explain here is signifying that next image, the next idea.

So every single time we're thinking about another example, the speaker's saying, well, explain this, explain this.

It's drawing us back to that original message before giving us another example.

So it's just building up this idea, this ridiculousness that we can see in the images while we're continually being reminded of why those images have been chosen, the fact that they link to this idea of mixed elements or combinations.

So in providing these examples, he encourages the silent listener to question their own unconscious prejudices.

So how could these examples link to racial prejudice? So think really carefully about why Agard is using these particular examples.

So pause the video while you take some time to discuss it and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

It was so good to see so many of you linking these examples of Agard's use of language to that overall message of the poem.

So well done if your discussions we're engaging with those ideas as well.

So we could have said that it's precisely the combination of elements in each of these examples that gives art, nature, or music it's uniqueness and complexity.

So using derogatory terms like half-caste divides people into two parts, which doesn't acknowledge or celebrate this uniqueness or complexity of that dual heritage.

So it's ignoring that uniqueness and complexity that precisely comes out of the combination of those two heritages.

So that's that point there that Agard's really trying to get across to his reader.

So let's have a look at Aisha's interpretation then.

So she says, it has been argued that the silent listener in the poem could symbolise all of us, and Agard is encouraging all readers to consider their unconscious racial prejudices.

So my question to you is this.

Can you find any evidence from the poem to support Aisha's interpretation? So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of people then really considering this perhaps more subtle interpretation here of Agard's directness.

So on lines 35 and 36, so towards the end of the poem, the speaker describes how he will act when he meets yu, so this other character, this silent listener, and uses the future tense you'll, which implies that they haven't met yet.

So well done if you're using your detective skills there to work that out.

You will meet someone suggest you haven't already met them.

So this means that the opening accusation is perhaps hypothetical and referring to anyone who uses the term.

So this command to explain what they mean by it or why they use it could be a hypothetical command to anyone who uses the term half-caste.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

Which two methods does Agard use to directly address the silent listener and the reader? Pause the video here while you make your mind up and click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back.

And well done to those of you who said b, second person pronouns, and d, imperative verbs.

So now it's time for the final practise task of today's lesson.

And what I would like you to do is to write a paragraph answering the following question.

How does Agard encourage the reader to question their own racial prejudices in "Half-caste?" And I'd like you to use this checklist to add detail to your response and really challenge yourself to use a complex analytical style, so really drawing out those nuanced subtle meanings in the text.

So I'd like you to use tentative language to explore personal interpretation.

So remember, they're words like may, should, perhaps, suggests.

I'd like you to support your ideas with evidence from the text.

I'd like you to analyse Agard's use of language and structure.

And I would like you to link to the writer's intentions, influences, or other relevant contextual information.

And that keyword there is relevant.

It's really important that we're only making those contextual links where it's relevant to do so and not just bolting it on to our response.

So pause the video here while you take some time to give this a really good go.

And when you're ready to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, so now it's time to self-assess your response.

And I'd like you to use that checklist from earlier.

So as you're reading through your response again and perhaps redrafting if necessary, I'd like you to consider the following questions.

So did you use tentative language to explore personal interpretations? Did you use words like suggests instead of shows, for example? Did you support your ideas with evidence from the text? Did you analyse Agard's use of language and structure? And did you link to the writer's intentions, influences, or other relevant contextual information? And really double-check here that your links are always relevant to that main point that you're making.

So check that you're not just bolting on contextual information.

So what I would like you to do once you've had a chance to review and redraft is set yourself a what went well and an even better if for next time, thinking really carefully about those what went wells and even better ifs that we've been setting in today's lesson.

So what makes an effective response and what is really crucial that we always need to make sure we include? So pause the video here while you take some time to review, redraft, and set your targets for next time, and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So I have one final challenge for you in today's lesson then, and it is a discussion challenge.

So with the people around you, 30 seconds or so, take a look at the checklist there at the top of the slide.

And I would like you to think, which of the above points is most important to get right when writing an analytical response and why? So take some time to discuss this.

Pause the video and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of different responses.

I could hear lots of debating taking place.

I think they're all extremely important things to include in your analytical response, but I suppose if you pushed me, I would be tempted to choose evidence, because without evidence, without that important link to the text, our analytical points really don't carry the same weight.

Evidence is really important to ensure that we're not misinterpreting things, that we're not perhaps making links that aren't there.

So it's really important that when we analyse the text, we are continually using that evidence.

Okay, so we've made it to the end of today's lesson.

And a massive well done for all your hard work today.

I hope you're feeling a lot more confident when it comes to analysing Agard's poem, "Half-caste." So let's just summarise what we've covered in today's lesson.

The short lines and lack of punctuation make the poem sound conversational in tone.

The lack of punctuation could create a sense of strong emotion, illustrating Agard's frustration.

It is written in a mixture of dialect, perhaps reflecting the merging of identities.

Agard uses direct address to encourage the reader to challenge their prejudices.

And finally, Agard uses a series of comparisons to underline the ridiculousness of these prejudicial thoughts.

So thank you very much for joining me in today's lesson.

And I hope that you enjoyed getting to analyse this poem.

Have a fantastic day.

And I hope to see you again soon.