Hello, everyone.

Ms. Keller here.

I'm so glad that you could join me for today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be practising such a useful skill because we are going to be exploring how to write excellent model answers on conflict poetry.

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to create a written response which meets a success criteria.

So that means we are going to explore what makes a successful answer, and then we're going to have a go at producing a response that conforms to these top tips and criteria that we have come up with.

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

We have discourse marker, comparative, inference, and topic sentence.

So do take a moment here to pause the video and really familiarise yourself with these definitions because all of these words we are going to use quite frequently in today's lesson.

But before we move on, I would just like to draw your attention to that third word, inference, which is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

In short, it is an educated guess, but when it comes to literary text, it is so much more than that because it's through our inference skills that we are able to form our personal interpretations of the text and analyse how perhaps a certain use of language or structure conveys a certain attitude or meaning.

So when you are doing analysis writing, your inference skills are really important skills to have at the forefront of your mind.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, in the first half of this session, we are going to explore comparative writing skills.

So as I said earlier, we're going to look at what makes a fantastic comparative response.

And then in the second half of the lesson, we are going to write our own fantastic comparative response.

So let's start off with this practise question then.

Compare how poets present ideas about destruction and danger in "Belfast Confetti" and one other poem from the Conflict anthology.

So here is Laura's plan for one paragraph, and she has used a single paragraph outline in order to plan the paragraph.

So she's begun with a topic sentence.

Both "Belfast Confetti" and "What Were They Like?", which is her second poem, convey the horrors of the chaos of war.

And then she's got supporting details.

So she has chosen two different quotations from each of those poems. So we've got the reference to exclamation marks in "Belfast Confetti", symbolising the fear and the urgency.

We've got that word escape as well on line eight, which is part of a rhetorical question used by Carson to show the speaker's desperation to lead the chaos.

And then from "What Were They Like?", we've got the word charred on line 18, which implies complete destruction of the Vietnamese people or the remains were charred.

And we've also got from the end of the poem that adjective silence, because it suggests that nothing now remains of Vietnamese culture.

Now it's all silent.

And then for the concluding sentence, both poets describe the chaos and horror of war.

Carson drops the reader into the heart of the action, while Levertov takes a retrospective view.

So we've got that initial similarity there at the top, and then we've got a little bit of an expansion on that at the end, and actually meaning that Laura's able to find a difference there.

So now Laura has used this single paragraph outline to plan her response, she now needs to turn that into an analytical paragraph.

And using sentence stems can help you to convert your ideas from your plan into a full written response.

And in particular, there are four types of vocabulary that is really useful to have in our toolkit when we want to write a comparative analysis.

So the first one is discourse markers.

And these are a great way to signpost your argument because discourse markers show where we are, how far perhaps we've progressed through a particular argument or idea.

So initially suggesting that's where we're starting, furthermore or moreover to add ideas, in conclusion perhaps showing that we've reached the end of our analysis.

The second type of vocabulary then is comparative conjunctions.

So these are extremely useful to have when we are doing a comparative analysis because they signpost the relationship between the two texts and they actually indicate whether you are identifying a similarity because you might use words like likewise or similarly, or whether you're identifying a difference because you're using terms such as on the other hand, contrastingly, however, or whereas.

So these are really fantastic words to have.

Correlative conjunctions, which also show comparisons.

So if we look at these two different types, they both have the same function.

They both show comparison.

But if you notice, correlative conjunctions are all pairs.

So they're great ways to group more than one text together.

So both "Exposure" and "What Were They Like?" do this, or neither "Exposure" nor "What Were They Like?" do this.

So this is a really fantastic way to start grouping your ideas or grouping the texts together.

And finally, sentence stems that show inference and analysis.

And we've got that word inference there, our keyword, which if we remember was making these educated guesses, these personal interpretations based on the evidence that we have and our knowledge of context.

And what is really useful about these sentence stems is they're a fantastic way to start continuing your analysis after you have put in your quotation.

So you perhaps drop in your quotation from one of the poems. This suggests or this implies, this demonstrates, the writer effectively conveys.

And what is particularly good about these sentence stems is a lot of them use tentative language, which is really important when we are analysing a literary text because it means that we're not trying to assert that our personal interpretations are concrete facts.

So this suggests that perhaps the speaker has a conflict with their foe.

We're not saying this is obvious, this is evidently the right answer.

This suggests, or this may imply that the speaker feels a sense of inner conflict.

So these types of vocabulary are really important for us to bear in mind when we come to writing.

So let's read Laura's comparative paragraph.

"Both Carson and Levertov convey the horrors of war by focusing on the experiences of those who have experienced the destruction.

Carson explores the speaker's emotions while he is trapped in the conflict.

He describes how it was raining exclamation marks when the riot squad arrived.

Carson uses symbolism to convey the speaker's emotions here since we usually associate shock, horror, and fear with this punctuation mark.

Furthermore, they were raining over the speaker, which arguably illustrates how overwhelming the speaker finds the barrage of chaos.

Moreover, the speaker later questions, 'Why can't I escape?', suggesting he desperately wants to get away from the horrors he's witnessing.

Here, Carson effectively captures the terror felt by many during the Troubles as they watched familiar places they knew so well turn into war zones.

Similarly, in "What Were They Like?", two speakers reflect on how little they now know about Vietnamese culture after the Vietnam war.

Levertov describes the absolute devastation caused by the conflict, how the children were killed, the bones were charred and it is silent now.

The adjectives linked to death and destruction illustrate how all knowledge of the country is now lost since the future generations were killed and the remains were charred.

Finally, ending with the description of how Vietnam is silent now creates the image of a lonely and barren wasteland left behind.

Levertov actively protested against the Vietnam War and arguably here she conveys the devastating power of the nuclear weapons used by the US and anti-communist forces.

In conclusion, both poets vividly describe the horrors of war, yet do so from different perspectives.

Carson drops the reader into the heart of the action, whereas Levertov takes a retrospective approach looking back at what was lost to the war." So now let's deconstruct Laura's first paragraph.

So we'll just look at this first bit here.

So we're beginning with correlative conjunctions, which show that comparison.

We're grouping those poems together, both Carson and Levertov.

So we straight away are leading with a similarity and the key ideas of those poems there.

And then later on in the paragraph, we've got some discourse markers which actually signpost our argument.

So we've got furthermore and moreover, which actually show that we're building on our original points.

So if you notice all these different types of vocabulary, they make it really clear and signpost to your readers the direction that your analysis is taking.

So we began with a comparison, and now we're building on those initial points that we've made.

And then we've got these words to show inference and analysis.

We've got arguably, illustrates, and suggesting.

So we've got lots of signposts to our reader there that we are including those personal interpretations.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

Which set of sentence stems are missing from the grid? So pause the video and take a look at the information on the screen and decide what you think is missing.

And when you think you've worked it out, click play and I'll reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back and well done to those of you who managed to spot that correlative conjunctions to show comparison is what we had missing.

So those all-important pairs of comparing words.

So let's stop for our first practise task of today's lesson.

So just as we did together with Laura's first paragraph, picking out the discourse markers, picking out that tentative language that we were using to show inference, picking out the correlative and comparative conjunctions, I'd like you to do the same thing with Laura's second paragraph of that comparative response.

So on your worksheet and in the additional materials, you'll be able to find the second paragraph because it begins "similarly" and ends "into war zones".

So take a moment just to make sure you can locate that.

And what I'd like you to do is to identify where she has used the following: discourse markers, comparative and correlative conjunctions to show comparison, and language to show inference and analysis.

So perhaps grab yourself a different colour pen or a highlighter, or you can just underline, annotate.

But see how many examples you can find of Laura using this vocabulary in her answer.

And what I'd like you to do is to evaluate Laura's response as a whole and give her some what went well and even better if feedback.

So what was particularly effective about this response? And if she was going to complete a similar task in the future, what advice might you give her for next time? So pause the video here while you take some time to review Laura's second paragraph.

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

Okay, welcome back.

I hope that you found it quite useful there to go through a model response.

I often find it quite helpful to see an example that somebody else has done of a particular process or a particular task that I need to complete because I think it gives me lots of inspiration and also a really good grounding for how I might go about doing that task myself.

So here is how you could have annotated Laura's response.

So at the beginning there we've got one of those comparative conjunctions, similarly.

So we know that when she goes on to make this point about "What Were They Like?", it's a similar point to the point that she was making earlier about the other poem.

So straight away she's signposting that it's a similarity to us, which is fantastic.

And then later on, we've also got some correlative conjunctions.

Both poets vividly describe the horrors of war.

And another comparative one there at the bottom, Carson drops the reader into the heart of the action, whereas Levertov takes a retrospective approach.

And what's particularly interesting about what she's done here and effective I think, is that she's begun with a similarity.

So in conclusion, both poets do this, and then she begins to explore by looking at the nuances and the subtle differences how they perhaps achieve that same effect but in different ways.

Carson drops the reader into the action.

Levertov takes a retrospective approach, looking back.

We've also got lots of discourse markers.

So we've got finally there, showing that we're going to be talking about the end of the poem.

And then we've also got in conclusion at the end to show that this is coming up to the end of our analytical paragraph.

So we are expecting for Laura to be summing up everything she's covered in the paragraph.

And then finally, we've got lots of language to show inference and analysis.

So we've got arguably there, which is a great tentative word.

We could argue that essentially.

We're arguing it, but we are not stating it as a fact.

And we've got that word conveys, this idea that she's perhaps getting across a certain effect in her poem.

So over to you for a quick discussion then.

Take a moment to share your what went well and even better if for Laura.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Did you all have similar ideas for your what went well or even better if, or were you surprised to hear that you had lots of different advice for Laura? I don't think there's necessarily one way to give a what went well and an even better if because it's quite subjective.

But if I were Laura's teacher and I was marking this, I would probably be tempted to praise and make the what went well Laura's really clear analysis in these paragraphs and the way that she's using this comparative language to show that relationship.

I think she does that really effectively in this response.

And for an even better if, I think I would probably advise Laura next time to look for opportunities to use relevant links to context because I think here there were perhaps some opportunities for Laura to perhaps discuss the poets' in both cases personal links to the conflicts that they described, the Troubles and the Vietnam War.

So perhaps that is an avenue that Laura could explore next time round.

Okay, so we have made it to the halfway point of today's lesson.

So we have identified what makes fantastic comparative writing.

So now we need to have a go at producing some fantastic comparative writing ourselves.

So here are the beginnings of two comparative paragraphs.

Which student's approach to a comparative response is more effective? So we have got Sam's response over there on the left.

"So Zephaniah uses non-Standard English to represent his Caribbean dialect.

This suggests he's proud of his heritage.

It also gives the poem a conversational tone, making the speaker seem relatable.

Agard also shows that he's proud of his heritage by using non-Standard English.

He uses it to playfully explore the derogatory connotations of the term half-caste." And then we've got Jacob, who makes a similar point.

"Both Agard and Zephaniah suggest they are proud of their cultural heritage.

They similarly use non-Standard English words such as de, the, to represent their Caribbean dialect.

This also gives the poem a conversational tone, something that Agard uses to playfully explore the derogatory connotations of the term half-caste." So they're making a very similar point here, they're just doing it in different ways.

So here are both of the students' topic sentences.

So Sam said, "Zephaniah uses non-Standard English to represent his Caribbean dialect." And Jacob says, "Both Agard and Zephaniah suggest they are proud of their cultural heritage." So when writing a comparative response, it's a good idea to signpost that you are comparing two poems. So Jacob's topic sentence is more effective here because it uses correlative conjunctions to signpost that comparison, got that both.

So we know that Jacob is going to be discussing a similarity in this topic sentence.

And we should try to avoid comparing the texts by feature spotting, so leading with word analysis.

So if you look at Jacob's response, he's leading with a key idea.

The similarity that he's drawn out is that both poets seem like they are proud of their cultural heritage, whereas Sam is leading with a method here, with some word analysis.

So she's leading with that idea that Zephaniah uses non-Standard English, rather than focusing on the effect of doing that.

And instead it's much better, as we just said, to explore these connections between ideas and meaning.

So just as Jacob is doing there, focusing on those key ideas.

So let's explore how Jacob continued with his response.

"Whereas, Zephaniah conveys a sense of normality to the speaker, giving the impression of him as someone readers can relate to and thus empathise with.

Both Agard and Zephaniah were accomplished dub poets who often performed their poetry aloud to music, describing their own life experiences and exploring issues of injustice and discrimination.

Their use of non-Standard English arguably gives their poem a personalised feel, representing their pronunciation as they performed it." So if we just focus on this second chunk then, this next bit where he's expanding his response.

So when writing a comparative response, you should avoid writing everything that you know about one poem and then everything you know about the other poem in another paragraph, because this doesn't allow you to evidence that you are directly comparing them.

And instead this is where your comparative and correlative conjunctions really come into play because they allow you to weave ideas about both poems throughout each paragraph.

So if we just track this bit here, so in the section above where this bit started, we have been talking about Agard, then we've switched to talking about Zephaniah.

And then by the end, Jacob's actually managed to group them back together again.

So that was a really effective structure to this comparative paragraph.

So let's pause and check our understanding.

Sam's comparative response was more effective than Jacob's comparative response.

So pause the video while you have a think, and when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play.

Okay, welcome back, and well done to those of you who said false.

Jacob had the more effective response.

So let's see if we can justify why that was.

So have a look at these two possible justifications and decide which one you think best supports our ideas above.

So pause the video, 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, Jacob used comparative and correlative conjunctions to show similarities and differences.

So that is what is really important because if you remember, actually there wasn't really a lot of difference between Sam's points that she made and the points that Jacob made.

It was all about how those points were explained to the reader.

So now we are on to the final task of today's lesson, and it's time for you to have a go at writing your own comparative paragraph, answering this question: compare how poets present violence and aggression in "What Were They Like?" and one other poem from the Conflict anthology.

And it's really important that you remember to include the following: comparative topic sentences, leading with those big ideas; discourse markers to signpost your argument, but also to signpost analysis; correlative and comparative conjunctions to signpost comparisons; and comparison of language, form, and/or structure.

So pause the video and take as much time as you need to give this a really good go because remember that how you explain your ideas is just as important as those ideas that you come up with.

So really think carefully about the words and phrases that you are choosing to explain your ideas.

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

Okay, welcome back.

How did you find that task? It is a challenge, but as I said at the beginning of the lesson, it is such a useful thing to be able to do.

Writing a comparative analysis paragraph will really become very, very useful when it comes to your English studies and also in life.

It's a really useful skill to be able to evaluate and compare two different things.

So now it's time to read back through your work and see if you have included the following.

So these are all the things that we had on the success criteria on the previous page.

So when Izzy went back through the list, she realised that she hadn't used discourse markers to signpost her argument, so now she'll redraft her work to add some in.

So as you go through the list, anything that you notice that you are missing, this is a perfect opportunity for you to redraft and rewrite your answer to include any of this criteria that you've missed.

So pause the video here while you take some time to review and redraft.

Reviewing and redrafting is every bit as important as it was writing it in the first place because if we can begin to spot the things that we are missing out, then it's gonna be much easier for us to make sure that we include everything next time round.

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

Okay, so we have made it to the finish line of today's lesson, and a massive well done for all your hard work today.

It's never easy to do comparative analysis writing, but as I've said many times in this lesson, it is such an important skill to master.

So well done for trying so hard with it today.

So let's just summarise what we've covered in this lesson.

Topic sentences must be comparative when comparing texts.

Comparisons should be made between ideas, intentions, themes, and messages.

Correlative and comparative conjunctions are a good way to signpost your comparative writing.

Within paragraphs, evidence can move back and forth between the two poems and be linked with connectives, and drawing a direct comparison of quotations should take place at least once across the essay.

So I hope you have a fantastic day, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.