Hello, everyone.

Welcome to this lesson on crafting an effective comparison of non-fiction texts.

My name's Dr.

Clayton and I'm going to guide you through your learning journey today.

So in today's lesson, we're going to consider how we can use comparative and correlative conjunctions as well as inferences in order to create an effective comparison of two non-fiction texts.

So if you're ready, grab your pen, laptop, whatever you use for this lesson and let's get started.

So by the end of the lesson you'll be able to use discourse markers and correlative and comparative conjunctions to craft an effective comparison of non-fiction texts.

So we have five words today we're gonna be using as our keywords.

They'll be identified in bold throughout the learning material.

I'll try to put 'em out to as well, so see them being used in context.

Our first keyword is topic sentence, which is essentially expresses the main idea of the paragraph in which occurs.

We're going to be thinking about how we can craft effective comparative topic sentences in this lesson.

Our second keyword is inference, which means a conclusion reached on the base of evidence and reasoning.

We're going to be using our inferences in order compare two non-fiction texts.

Our third keyword is comparison, which means a consideration or evaluation of the similarities or differences between two things or people.

This lesson is devote to ideas of comparison and how we can effectively compare.

Now two of the devices you might use within your comparison are correlative conjunctions, which are made up of two or more words, working together as a pair to link to similar ideas, and comparative conjunctions, which are words or phrase that compare ideas in a sentence to show similarities or differences.

Gonna be talking through examples of each of those conjunctions later in the lesson.

You'll have a chance to practise using them as well.

So I'll just give you a moment to write down those keywords and the definitions.

So pause the video and write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So we have three learning cycles in our lesson today.

For our first learning cycle, we're gonna gather ideas and notes from two non-fiction articles and start to get an idea of the similarities and differences between them.

For our second learning cycle, we're going to talk through who might use comparative and correlative conjunctions in order to create effective comparisons at the sentence level.

Then our final learning cycle, could expand on that sentence level comparison and think about how we can use inferences from the text to create whole paragraph comparisons of the two non-fiction texts.

So let's just start by thinking more broadly about a comparison before we look at the text themselves.

So comparison is a consideration or evaluation of the similarities or differences between two things or people.

When we talk about comparing texts, we mean we'll find the similarities and differences in how the texts approach certain ideas or themes.

Now might be useful to imagine that two writers are in conversation with one another and consider: do you think they'd say the same thing about a certain theme or idea, and how the writer has created subtle differences in meaning around a similar theme or idea.

Now, I always like to approach tasks by asking questions because I think it helps to find a way into the task without it seeming too intimidating.

And I think the analogy of a conversation is really useful to hold in your head when you think about comparisons, 'cause it might help you to consider what the subtle differences are within an overall theme, 'cause we all like to have slightly different opinions on something if we agree on the overall big idea.

And that's what I'd like you to bring to your comparisons, this idea of there being small differences within a big overall topic of conversation.

So let's start looking at our two texts.

The two non-fiction texts that'll we're comparing today are: "My Struggle with a Tiger," by Charles Jamrach, in "The Boy's Own Paper," Volume I, no.

3, February 1st, 1897, and Kevin Rawlinson's article, "Gorilla recaptured after escape from London zoo," which is published in the Guardian Newspaper in 2016.

Now, what I'd like you to start off by thinking about is what similarities can you see between the articles from the titles? Now, going through this to someone else who might talk about ideas together, if read this by yourself might just think about ideas.

So pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now Jamrach's article mentions a struggle with a tiger, and Rawlinson's article referenced the recapture of gorilla.

So might say that both articles suggest some sort of incident with an animal.

So we might start thinking the overall big idea that connects these two articles is animals, perhaps human interaction with animals.

Now as well as looking at the subject of the titles, we can also start to compare some of the information we're given around the titles.

So the contextual information they give us around the writer and the data publication.

So I'd like you to answer the following questions.

Who are the writers of the texts and when was the text written? Does this potentially change how the subject is viewed and presented? Remember, we're talking about animals, animal treatment and human interaction with animals.

So pause the video, answer the questions now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Let's talk through what you might have said.

Now the writers are Charles Jamrach and Kevin Rawlinson and Jamrach published his article in 1879 and Rawlinson published his article in 2016.

So we can see that Jamrach's articles published in the Victorian era, and Rawlinson's article was published in the modern era.

So if we're talking about animals, animal treatment, we might make the prediction that Rawlinson's article's likely to be more conscious of animal welfare and more sympathetic because the attitudes towards animals have evolved over time.

So now I'd like you to read the articles themselves.

There are copies of both articles in the additional materials.

So pause the video, read the articles now.

Welcome back, everyone, hope you enjoyed reading the articles and hopefully you might be picking up on some of the similarities and differences.

Now what I'd like you to think about now is what overall big idea about animals in captivity do you think both writers agree on.

Pause video, take a few moments to consider.

Welcome back, everyone, now as the Oak pupil, Izzy says, you might have thought that both articles suggest animals should be in captivity.

Even though Rawlinson's articles arguably more sympathetic, at no point to suggest the gorillas shouldn't be in zoos.

And they both agree that these animals pose a potential danger to the wider public.

So Jamrach shows the actual physical danger by stating the tiger attack members of the public, Rawlinson hints at it where writing the visitors need to be evacuated, which implies the gorilla posed a threat to them.

So now for a quick check for understanding, I'd like to tell me whether the following statement is true or false, is it true or false, that given when both articles were written, we might expect 'em to have the same views on animal welfare.

Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

Correct answer is false.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's false.

Why would we expect them to have a different view on animal welfare based on the publication dates? Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

Welcome back, everyone, they might have said that Jamrach's article's written over a hundred years before Rawlinson's article and subtle views on animal welfare have changed in that time period.

So very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic work, everyone, now for the first task of the lesson, we're gonna gather some notes and similarities and differences between the articles.

So I'd like you to say the similarities and differences and how both writers consider animals' captivity and public safety.

They might consider whether humans or animals are the focus, how the animals are recaptured and contained, how much animal welfare is considered, and how the bystanders are affected by the animals.

So pause the video, consider what similarities and differences you can see in how the articles present ideas of animals, captivity, and public safety.

Welcome back, everyone had some great discussions there.

Let's take a look at the notes from one of our Oak pupils, Izzy.

We'll start by thinking about the similarities between the articles.

So both articles talk about an animal escaping.

Jamrach talks about tiger escaping and Rawlinson talks about gorilla escaping.

Both articles present these events as serious and dangerous, with Jamrach accounting the tiger's attack on a young boy and Rawlinson saying the zoo went into lockdown, the visitors were evacuated.

And finally, both animals are recaptured, though as we'll see in a moment there are differing ideas on the nature of the recapture.

Now let's think about the differences.

So in Jamrach's article we might say that humans the focus, though the tiger escapes, were constantly drawn back to how the humans feel, what happens to the humans and how the humans react.

There's also less of a focus on animal welfare in Jamrach's article, the only thing we hear about the tiger's enclosure is that it has iron bars.

We have no information about the food or enrichment, which might make us think the settings seems inappropriate.

This lack of concern for animal welfare is highlighted in the recapture of the tiger, where the tiger is physically subdued by Jamrach, using a crowbar to contain it.

And finally, Jamrach shows the danger of the tiger by stating it severely injured or bystander.

So we know that public safety was obviously compromised.

In terms of Rawlinson's article, we might say the gorilla is the focus rather than humans.

We don't really get a sense of how the visitors felt, but we hear a lot about how the gorilla is treated, which shows a greater focus on animal welfare.

We hear about the enriched environment and how they keeps care of the animals.

This reflect how the gorilla is recaptured.

Since he uses a tranquilliser, it's arguably less harmful and least distressing way to capture the gorilla.

And finally, no harm is done to anyone in Rawlinson's article.

So we see that public safety was maintained.

Fantastic works so far, everyone.

We're on the second learning cycle.

We're going to look at how we can use comparative and correlative conjunctions for comparison.

So in learning cycle one we talked about the similarities and differences.

We made notes on our ideas, but now we want to think about how we can express those ideas in a written comparison.

To do so, we might want to use comparative and relative conjunctions to craft an effective topic sentence.

Now topic sentence will introduce the main idea of your paragraph.

So for example, the tiger's enclosure in Jamrach's article seems woefully inadequate.

A comparative topic sentence will give either similarity or difference.

So for example, the tiger's enclosure in Jamrach's article seems woefully inadequate.

Contrastingly in London Zoo, the Gorilla Kingdom seems much better suited to the animal's needs.

I'm gonna look at how you can craft this comparative topic sentences throughout this learning cycle.

Let's begin by looking comparative conjunctions.

Now comparative conjunctions, one of our keywords, means words or phrases that compare ideas in a sentence that show similarities and differences.

We can use them within our comparative writing.

So in order to use the comparative conjunction in a sentence we might start with our first idea by the articles, and that might be that Jamrach contains the tiger with a heavy blow from a crowbar.

Then we have our related idea from our second article, which might be, the gorilla is contained with a tranquilliser.

Now these two different ideas, so wanna comparative conjunction to show differences.

So might use words whereas, on the other hand, however, or contrastingly.

So a whole sentence might be, Jamrach contains the tiger with a heavy blow from a crowbar.

However, in the Guardian article, the gorilla is contained with a tranquilliser.

Now notice how the sentence is punctuated.

We have our first idea, then a semicolon, our comparative conjunction, a comma, then our second idea.

Now let's just talk through a second example.

So our second idea might be, in Jamrach's article, a young boy is severely injured.

We might compare that the Guardian article where the public are unharmed.

Now again, these ideas are different.

So we can use our same comparative conjunctions to create a sentence such as, in Jamrach's article, a young boy is severely injured, whereas in the Guardian article, the public are unharmed.

Now for a quick check for understanding.

So which of the following two statements use comparative conjunctions to create a comparative topic sentence? Is it A, Jamrach makes humans the focus of the story? Contrastingly the gorilla is the focus of the Guardian article, B? Both sources present escaped animals.

However, Jamrach presents a more thrilling story, designed to entertain, C.

In Jamrach's account the humans are the focus.

In the Guardian article, it is the animal that's the focus, or D, in the article by Jamrach, the animals are kept in unsuitable enclosures.

In the Guardian article, the zoo is much more focused on animal welfare.

So pause the video, make a selection now.

The correct answers are A and B, both sentences using comparative conjunctions through contrastingly and however to join the two ideas together and show the differences.

In sentences C and D, although we have two different ideas they aren't joined together with a comparative conjunction.

They're two separate sentences.

Now let's have a look at how to use correlative conjunctions.

So corelative conjunctions are made up of two or more words working together as a pair to link to similar ideas.

So again want to link the articles together.

So we have Jamrach and the London Zoo, and we have the idea that both them own wild animals.

So you might use a correlative conjunction both and in order to create a comparative sentence, so it becomes, both Jamrach and London Zoo own wild animals.

Let's look at a second example.

Now we know that both Jamrach and London Zoo own wild animals.

Therefore, we might use a correlative conjunction neither and nor to show that neither Jamrach nor the London Zoo have a problem with keeping animals in captivity.

Now for another quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do is select the two sentences with correlative conjunctions as the following options, so A, Jamrach keeps its animals in the crates from which they arrived in, London Zoo has a dedicated enclosure for its gorillas.

B, whilst both Jamrach and London Zoo have captive animals, there is a much greater commitment to animal welfare at London Zoo, or C, Jamrach's treatment of the tiger is neither ethical nor practical.

So pause the video, make your selections now.

The correct answers are B and C, since B uses both and, and C uses neither nor.

So very well done if you've got those right.

Fantastic work, everyone.

And now the second task of the lesson, where I'd like you to write two comparative topic sentences using conjunctions.

So I'd like you to use the sentence starters and the key ideas to help you.

So you might use the correlative conjunctions, both X and Y, neither X nor Y, whether X or Y.

An example might be, whether it's Jamrach's house or London Zoo, both contain wild animals.

You might use comparative conjunctions such as however, contrastingly, on the other hand, whereas.

An example might be, Jamrach describes the tiger as a ferocious creature, whereas, there's a greater compassion shown at London Zoo.

Now some key ideas from the text you might use as are subject to a comparative topic sentences are, Jamrach's animals are in small crates.

London Zoo has large enclosures.

Jamrach stops the tiger with a crowbar.

The gorilla at London Zoo is tranquillised.

The tiger causes harm, the gorilla doesn't.

So pause the video, create your comparative topic sentences now.

Fantastic work, everyone.

Now let's just take a moment to look back over your work and assess your comparative topic sentences.

So have you used comparative conjunctions to identify differences between the texts? Have you used correlative conjunctions to identify similarities between the texts? If you haven't, edit your work to include them.

So pause the video, look back over your work now.

Amazing work, everyone.

It was great to see people going back and looking at our examples to help them edit their work to make sure they created effective comparative topic sentences.

You're all doing really well, everyone.

We'll do a final learning cycle.

We're gonna bring everything we've done so far together and think about how we can use inferences to create effective comparisons.

So now that we have ideas and our comparative topic sentences, we need to consider how to craft the body of our comparison.

To do that, we need to find evidence from the text to support our points.

Consider what inferences we can make from them.

Now, inference one of our keywords is a conclusion reached on the base of evidence and reasoning.

So what conclusions can we reach based on the information or choices the rights have made or given us? So now I'd like us to return to the articles.

I'd like you to find evidence to support each of the following points.

Our points are: animal welfare, how animals are recaptured, and public safety.

So which quotations from each article show how the writer presents each of these topics? Remember we said that Jamrach's article doesn't seem as concerned with animal welfare as Rawlinson's.

How can you prove that? We said that Jamrach showed little regard for the tiger's wellbeing in recapturing the tiger, while the zookeepers did.

How can we prove that? We said that jam's articles that public safety wasn't a big concern while Rawlinson's article showed the zoo took public safety very seriously.

How can we prove that? Pause the video, find the evidence now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Let's talk through what you might have said.

So in terms of animal welfare, we might use a quotation, "iron bars in front of the den," from Jamrach's article.

From Rawlinson's article we might choose, "The animals were playing and swinging on a rope." In terms of recapture, we might choose, "three tremendous blows over the eyes" from Jamrach's article.

We might choose "tranquilliser guns" from Rawlinson's article.

Finally, in terms of public safety, we might choose, "Walking down the yard into the street, which was full of people" from Jamrach's article, and, "under lockdown" and "visitors were evacuated" from Rawlinson's article.

So now that we have our quotations, we want to think about what inferences we can make from them.

So we're gonna start with a quotation from Jamrach's article.

I'd like to think about what inference we can make from the following quotations.

So what conclusions can we reach by how Jamrach feels about animal animal welfare from "iron bars in front of the den," for example? And then I'd like you to tell me what the significance of that is.

So pause video, take a few minutes to consider.

Welcome back, everyone, let's talk through what you might have said.

In terms of animal welfare, video of the tiger having iron bars in front of its den shows there's no mention of any enrichment, therefore might infer it's an empty den.

The significance of that might be that Jamrach doesn't care about animal welfare or the enrichment.

In terms of animal recapture, Jamrach striking the tiger with "three tremendous blows over the eyes" might using physical violence to restrain the tiger.

The significance that might be he doesn't care about animal welfare because he's physically hurting the tiger.

It might also tell us he's unprepared to deal with a potential escape, says he has to resort to physical violence.

Finally, in terms of public safety, the image of "walking down the yard into the street which was then full of people" might tell us people vulnerable to the animal's potential escape.

That might be significant because it could just be that Jamrach's more concerned with profit than public safety.

Now I'd like us to do the same things we just did, but with quotations from Rawlinson's article instead.

So what inferences can we make about animal welfare, the recapture of the gorilla, and public safety from the following quotations? "The animals were playing and swinging on a rope." "Tranquilliser guns," "under lockdown," and "visitors were evacuated." And what might the significance of those inferences be? Pause the video.

Take a few minutes to consider.

Welcome back, everyone.

Some terms of animal welfare we might infer, the animals have toys to enjoy 'cause Rawlinson references a swing rope and that they're playing.

The significance might be that the zoo cares about animal welfare and enrichment.

In terms of recapture the gorilla, they use a tranquilliser a gun might infer, the gorilla is unharmed in the recapture.

The significance might be, the zoo cares about animal welfare.

It was prepared for an escape.

Finally, in terms of public safety, might infer from a lockdown and evacuation that people weren't really in any danger.

Significance might be, the zoo cares about public safety, it's prepared to deal with any potential problem.

Now, for a quick check for understanding.

Which of these is the best inference for the quote the "visitors were evacuated," is it A, "the visitors were unharmed and lucky to escape unscathed." B, "The zoo has effective procedures in place to deal with an escaped animal." C, "The zoo is a dangerous place and situations like this occur regularly." Pause the video, make your selection now.

The correct answer is B, "the zoo has effective procedures in place to deal with an escaped animal," 'cause shows the zoo acted in a calm manner and had a procedure in place.

So very well done if you got that right.

So now that we have our inferences, let's think about how we might turn them into a comparative paragraph.

So we might use discourse markers such as initially, furthermore, consequently, thus, in conclusion, these designed to signpost our argument to the reader and help to follow our train of thought through the paragraph.

Might use comparative conjunction as likewise, on the other hand, contrastingly, however, whereas, to show similarities and differences between ideas.

We might use correlative conjunctions as both/and, neither/nor, either/or whether/or to show connections between ideas.

Might use phrases this suggests or implies, emphasises, the use of, reveals, demonstrates, and, the writer effectively conveys, in order to show our inferences to the reader.

So before you have a go at writing your own comparative paragraph, let's deconstruct an example.

So an example might be, both Jamrach and Rawlinson offer an insight into how animals are housed and kept.

Of the tiger's enclosure, Jamrach only mentions the iron bars, which implies that Jamrach's only concern is keeping the tiger contained rather than providing enrichment.

On the other hand, Rawlinson talks of how the gorillas are playing and swinging, which suggests that they are in a suitable environment.

Thus, we might conclude the zoo cares about animal welfare and enrichment and Jamrach does not, which might offer a comment on the changing attitudes towards animal welfare over time.

So here we begin with a comparative topic sentence that use correlative conjunctions to join the ideas together about the articles.

It embeds evidence into the paragraph so the texts become part of the sentences, uses, which implies, and, which suggests that, to show inferences.

Use the comparative conjunction on the other hand to show a difference between the articles and it also use the discourse marker, thus, to show the reader how we're drawing conclusion from our inferences.

Now for a quick check for understanding.

So is it true or false? You should use discourse markers within your comparative paragraph.

Pause the video, make a selection now.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

Welcome back, everyone, they might have said, the discourse markers help the reader follow your argument and understand how your paragraph creates a cohesive whole.

So very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic work, everyone, with the final task of the lesson where I'd like us to use our notes from the lesson to write a comparative paragraph on either: how Jamrach and Rawlinson present the animals were recaptured, or how Jamrach and Rawlinson present attitudes of public safety.

Now when you're writing a comparative paragraph remember to begin with a comparative topic sentence, use discourse marker throughout the paragraph, use comparative and correlative conjunctions to show comparison.

Embed evidence from both texts and use inference to explain the significance of the evidence.

So pause the video, write your comparative paragraph now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now what I'd like us to do is consider Izzy's comparative paragraph on how public safety is presented.

And once we've read it through, I'd like you to give Izzy a what went well and an even better if.

So, Izzy said, the image of the yard being "full of people" hints that Jamrach cared more about getting a crowd and making money than public safety.

However, Rawlinson states the zoo visitors placed "under lockdown" and "evacuated," which implies zoo cares about the safety of the public and had proper procedures in place.

So pause video, give Izzy what went well and an even better if.

Welcome back, everyone, now for what went well you might have said, Izzy has selected appropriate evidence and made comparative inferences.

For even better if, Izzy hasn't opened with a comparative topic sentence, so what I'd like to think about now is what comparative topic sentence could we add to Izzy's paragraph? Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now we might add both Jamrach and Rawlinson reference the safety of the public in their articles to show the reader what the main focus of the paragraph will be.

Finally, I'd like you to check your own comparative paragraph to ensure you've met all the criteria.

So pause the video, take a few minutes to check your work.

Welcome back, everyone.

It was great to see people using Izzy's example as a way to check and improve their work.

You all did amazingly well today, everyone, here's a summary of what we covered.

A comparison is a consideration or evaluation of the similarities or differences two things or people.

It might be helpful to think of the writers in conversation with one another when comparing texts.

Should start a comparative paragraph with a comparative topic sentence and should use discourse markers and comparative and correlative conjunctions to compare throughout the paragraph.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson, everyone.

I hope to see you for another lesson soon, goodbye.