Hello, everyone.

My name's Ms. Keller, and I'm so glad that you could join me for today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be exploring how to build effective analytical paragraphs about the poems in your belonging anthology.

So, grab your copy of the anthology and let's get started.

So, by the end of today's lesson, we will have analysed a range of model answers to explore what makes an effective comparative analysis.

So, let's have a look at today's key words.

So, I'd just like to draw your attention to that first word there, compelling, because it's going to be really important when we come to thinking about what makes effective analysis writing.

Because effective analysis writing is compelling, which means it strongly captures the attention or interest, often persuading or captivating, it's hard to ignore.

So, that's really important to bear in mind.

So, do pause the video here for a few moments and make sure that you are familiar with the meanings of these words, because we are going to be encountering them quite a lot in today's lesson.

Okay, so how is the lesson going to look? Well, we're going to start off by comparing key ideas in the poems. And then, later on, we are going to explore how to write detailed and nuanced analysis paragraph.

So, I would like to start off by focusing on how we identify an overall argument.

So, let's explore what a question might look like.

Reread "Island Man".

Choose another poem from the anthology.

Compare how thoughts of home are presented in the two poems. In your answer, you could comment on how the poets use language, form, and structure, how the context of each poem shapes our interpretation.

So, I'd like to start off with a discussion.

So, we've got three questions here that are going to involve you unpicking the language of that question in a bit more detail.

So, take a moment to read it carefully and see if you can answer these questions.

Perhaps discuss it with the people around you, or if you're working on your own, that's okay.

Just make a few notes on your paper or in your exercise book.

So, pause the video here while you take some time to think and discuss it.

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

Welcome back.

So, let's explore how we answered these questions then.

So, number one, well done if you identified that the focus was how thoughts of home are presented.

Which text should you focus on? This will change from question to question.

So, in this case, it's "Island Man", and then it will always ask you to choose another poem from the anthology.

And finally, which aspects of the poem do you need to focus on or its language, form, and structure, and context.

So, let's imagine then we have been given this question about "Island Man" and thoughts of home.

Which other poem would you use to compare to an "Island Man" if you were going to answer this question, and why? So, take a moment to select which poem you would compare and perhaps discuss your choices with the people around you or make some notes on why you chose it.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So, let's see what some of our Oak students had to say about the poems they would choose.

Well, Aisha said, I choose "We Refugees" as both poems focus on feelings of dislocation.

And Alex said, I choose "I Remember, I Remember" as both poems are written in the first-person.

Well, which of their choices perhaps would lead to a more effective analysis? Well, arguably, that would be Aisha's, because Alex has fallen into the trap of feature-spotting, which means that he's chosen his comparison based on a similarity between the poet's use of language, form, and structure.

And while we do need to make sure that we're doing this in our response, it's always best to lead with key ideas.

It's time for us to think about how we might compare the poems. So, use the table below in order to guide your thoughts, but take a moment to read each poem carefully and decide what you think the focus of each poem is and how the poet conveys ideas about thoughts of home.

So, pause the video here while you get to grips with the key ideas in both poems, and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back.

So, let's just summarise how we might have completed this table then.

So, "Island Man", what arguably the focus of this poem is on the speaker's dislocation from his Caribbean roots having migrated to London.

And here, we could argue that Nichols conveys ideas about the thoughts of home by presenting the Caribbean as a vivid, colourful place that the "Island Man" visits in his dreams, compared to her descriptions of the UK as a dull, noisy, impersonal place compared to his homeland.

And then, what about "We Refugees"? Well, arguably, Zephaniah focuses on how easily people can become dislocated from their homeland as refugees.

And then, these ideas about thoughts of home.

Well, the speaker in this poem arguably loves their homeland even though it's a volatile place.

So, even though it's a place that perhaps is a bit dangerous and a bit risky to carry on living in.

And then, we got this idea that the speaker compares how we all feel about our homeland.

So, they compare perhaps their personal feelings about their homeland to how we all might feel about the place that we were born.

So, now we've got this key information about each poem.

Can you identify any similarities or differences in what we can see? So, pause the video here while you take some time to see if you can draw out those similarities and differences.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Could overhear lots of you drawing out those important similarities and differences.

So, let's just run through and see what we managed to identify.

So, starting with similarities then.

Well, actually, we've got quite a few similarities between these poems. Both of them focus on ideas of dislocation.

So, in both cases, the speaker feels or is physically separated from their homeland.

And then, we've got that similarity there in the idea that in "Island Man", they have migrated away from the Caribbean, and in "We Refugees", we've got this idea that the speaker is a refugee.

So, again, they have left their homeland.

And then, we've also got another similarity.

We've got this idea that both poems make this comparison between the homeland and another place.

There are constant comparisons throughout the poems. And differences then.

Well, we do have a difference in the way that the speakers or the poets present each of the speakers' homelands.

So, in "Island Man", the Caribbean is described as this vivid colourful place.

It is characterised by these cheerful bright descriptions.

Whereas in "We Refugees", the speaker loves their homeland, but it is described as a volatile and dangerous place.

So, we're getting a negative impression of the homeland.

So, two of our Oak students, Aisha and Alex, are attempting to compare the poems. So, Aisha says, "Island Man" explores the sense of yearning felt by people who migrated from their homeland.

"We Refugees" focuses on how people feel about their homeland, even if it is now a dangerous place.

And Alex says, both poems explore how migrants feel about their homeland.

Nichols' speaker romanticises his homeland compared to the UK.

Whereas Zephaniah focuses on refugees' love for their homeland despite the challenges it may face.

So, my question to you is this, whose comparison is most effective and why? So, pause the video here while you read through these comparisons again and have a think about which one is most effective, and perhaps discuss your reasons why with the people around you or make a few notes on your paper or in your exercise book.

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

Welcome back.

So, who had the most effective comparison here? Well, arguably, both focus on similarities and differences in the poem.

So, that's a real what went well for both of the answers here.

They are starting to compare both of these poems. However, Alex's response is more detailed, as it uses comparative conjunctions to indicate similarities and differences.

So, with Aisha's response here, we can see that she is comparing, because we're seeing that word homeland appearing twice.

So, we know it's a similarity, but she could have gone a step further and perhaps used a comparative conjunction like similarly to really signpost that relationship and that connection to the reader.

And that's exactly what Alex has done.

He has begun with both poems, grouping them together, and then later on, we've got that word, whereas, to show a difference.

So, let's have a look at two more responses.

So, Laura and Jun are attempting to compare the poems this time.

So, Laura says, both poems use comparisons to explore nostalgic feelings of home.

Nichols focuses on the experiences of one individual, whereas Zephaniah uses multiple experiences to encourage the readers to consider their feelings.

And Jun says, both poems explore how people reminisce about their homeland when they're dislocated from it.

Nichols' speaker wakes up in the UK after dreaming of the Caribbean, whereas Zephaniah list reasons why people love their homeland.

So, same question again then.

Whose comparison is most effective this time and why? So, pause the video here and click play when you're ready to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back.

So, whose comparison was most effective this time? Well, arguably, both answers this time are using those comparative conjunctions, which is a great sign that both students are signposting the relationship between those texts.

However, we could argue that Laura's is more compelling, because it is more detailed.

Because here, she is focusing on key ideas.

So, she is describing how the poems explore nostalgic feelings, the experience of individuals, and how Zephaniah uses multiple experiences.

Whereas Jun is simply focusing on what happens in each poem.

So, he could have challenged himself there to really draw out those links to key ideas in order to make his response more compelling.

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

So, why do we use comparative conjunctions? So, take a look at these options and decide which one you think is correct.

Pause the video while you have a think 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.

Comparative conjunctions indicate the similarities and differences between the texts.

So, now, it is time for our first practise task of today's lesson.

So, imagine you've been given this question.

Reread "I Remember, I Remember".

Select another poem from the anthology.

Compare how places are presented in the two poems. So, I don't need you to write a whole response at this point, but what I would like you to do is write a thesis statement to introduce your comparison of the two poems. So, here are some success criteria then for a really effective thesis statement.

Use comparative conjunctions to indicate similarities and differences.

Lead with key ideas and avoid feature-spotting.

So, keep your comparison related to those key ideas.

Show you have a good understanding of the poem without retelling what happens in it.

And make relevant links to the wider context of each poem.

So, pause the video here and take as much time as you need to write your thesis statement.

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

Welcome back.

So, let's have a look at how you might have written a thesis statement answering this question.

Both "I Remember, I Remember" and "My Mother's Kitchen" focus on the nostalgia associated with memorable places.

Hardi's vivid descriptions of setting explore feelings of dislocation and belonging experienced by people forced to leave their homes, perhaps informed by her family's experiences as refugees.

Hood also explores nostalgia, however he focuses on how people romanticise childhood memories compared to the challenges of adulthood.

It's possible this poem is semi-autobiographical since it was written while he was suffering from ill health.

So, let's have a look at how this response is meeting the success criteria.

So, we've got these comparative conjunctions, both, also, however, signposting the relationship between those texts.

It's leading with those key ideas, because we've got a description of the focus in each of those poems linking to emotions, linking to beliefs and attitudes and themes.

The writer of this thesis statement shows a good understanding of each poem.

And finally, we have got relevant links to the wider context there, thinking about what might have inspired both poets.

So, take a moment and just read over your response and double check that you have met all of these success criterias.

If you haven't, don't worry, this is a golden opportunity for you to redraft.

So, take a moment to see if you can add any extra detail to what you have written.

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

So, now, we have begun exploring how to form those initial comparisons.

Let's start having a think about how we might write this up into detailed and nuanced analysis paragraphs.

So, we're going to focus on creating a compelling argument and we've got that important keyword there compelling that we were discussing at the beginning of the lesson.

So, can you remember what this word means? So, pause the video while you have a think and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back.

So, well done if you remembered that compelling was something that strongly captured attention or interest.

It was also persuading and captivating in a way that is hard to ignore.

So, how can we ensure our comparative analysis writing is compelling? So, pause the video here while you take some time to discuss this with the people around you or make some notes, and click play when you're ready to feedback together.

Welcome back.

And can I say well done for the way that you approached that discussion there.

Had lots of fantastic ideas.

So, let's just summarise them into four top tips.

So, first of all, topic sentences.

These are the sentences that introduce each of our analysis paragraphs.

They need to be clear, comparative, and linked to the question.

Two, we need to support our ideas with judiciously chosen evidence from the poems. And judiciously chosen means using your judgement wisely.

So, perhaps not just choosing the first quote you come across in a poem that is relevant to your topic sentence, but perhaps looking for the best quote, the quote that most clearly proves that point.

Then, we need to provide a detailed comparative analysis of each poet's use of a language, form, and structure.

So, this is where we identify those methods and we think about the effect of those methods.

And finally, use relevant links to context to strengthen your interpretation.

And that word relevant is really important, because if our context isn't relevant to our topic sentence, it might do more harm to our paragraph than good.

We don't want to look like we're just bolting context onto the end because we have to, we want to use that context to help shape our interpretations.

So, let's build a strong and compelling analytical paragraph step-by-step using these four top tips that we identified.

So, here is a reminder of the question that we're going to use then.

Compare how thoughts of home are presented in "Island Man" and "We Refugees".

So, this was the one that we were exploring in the first half of today's lesson.

So, this first to tip.

Topic sentences need to be clear, comparative, and linked to the question.

So, Jacob said, both poets implied that the speakers have nostalgic feelings for their homeland, perhaps romanticising aspects of it when they reminisce.

And Sam said, both poets focus on how challenging life can be for people who have to start their lives again in another country.

They explore how important cultural identity is for effect.

So, here, both poet pupils are using comparative language.

They're starting with that word both.

However, only Jacob's response is linked to the focus of the question thoughts of home.

And actually, in fact, Sam is beginning to stray away from that and start thinking about cultural identity.

Also, the second sentence of Sam's response is a little bit vague and could be phrased more clearly.

We've got this idea of cultural identity being used for effect, but it would've been better if Sam was able to be more specific perhaps about what effects the poets are trying to create.

And actually, she might have been able to draw on a difference between those two poems, a subtle difference.

So, let's choose Jacob's topic sentence for our paragraph, because it was succinct and it was clear and comparative.

So, the second top tip then.

Support ideas with judiciously chosen evidence from the poems. So, we've got that topic sentence that we're going to be working with.

And then, Jacob has identified the following evidence.

So, from "Island Man", we've got this idea that the sun rises defiantly.

And from "We Refugees", we've got that pronoun I, first-person pronouns, which focuses on only individual experience.

However, Jacob has run into a bit of bother here and there are a few issues with the evidence that he has chosen.

So, I'd like to hand over to you to have a look at this evidence and see if you can work out what is wrong with it.

So, pause the video here and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Welcome back and well done if you managed to identify that Jacob had actually identified incorrect techniques and effects.

So, in his "Island Man" quotation, he had said that defiantly, it was an example of a descriptive adjective, when actually, defiantly is an adverb.

And then, in "We Refugees", his effect that he'd identified wasn't quite accurate and he misinterpreted perhaps some of the meanings in that poem.

So, yes, the poem does use first-person pronouns and that was correct, but the poem doesn't just focus only on individual experience.

And we know that in the title, "We Refugees", because we have got a first-person pronoun on there, but it is a plural first-person pronoun.

So, it is referring to more than one person.

So, what evidence could he choose instead? So, let's go back to the drawing board.

Take a look at both these poems and see if you can perhaps find some more judiciously chosen evidence that supports that topic sentence.

So, pause the video here and click play when you're ready for us to feed back together.

Welcome back.

So, here's an example of some more judiciously chosen evidence that he could have used.

So, for "Island Man", he could have found some adjectives that linked to that vivid colour imagery, because perhaps this is how the "Island Man" is romanticising his homeland.

So, he could have chosen blue or emerald.

There were lots of different examples of descriptive adjectives.

And then, for "We Refugees", he could have also focused on the descriptive adjectives, because again, there are lots such as musical, beautiful, ancient, that the speaker is using to describe their homeland.

And in this case, the adjectives are linked to the senses.

And actually, by choosing evidence more judiciously, it's enabled us to identify similarity in both poets' use of language.

Here, Jacob can now make a point about how both poets are using adjectives to have different effects.

So, let's assemble what we have so far.

So, we've got our topic sentence.

So, both poets imply the speakers have nostalgic feelings for their homeland, perhaps romanticising aspects of it when they reminisce.

And then, I've embedded those quotations in to form our next sentence.

Nichols creates a vivid image of a tropical paradise with descriptive adjectives like blue and emerald.

Whereas Zephaniah emphasises the majesty of the speaker's homeland using sensory adjectives such as musical and beautiful.

So, now, it's time to move on to that third top tip.

So, it's time to provide a detailed comparative analysis of each poet's use of language, form, and structure.

So, Jacob says, descriptive adjectives are often ambiguous, which means the reader can imagine their own version of each place in their mind.

What is inaccurate about Jacob's analysis here? So, pause the video and think really carefully about what he could do to improve this analysis, and perhaps discuss your ideas with the people around you or make some notes.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Well done if you spotted that he'd actually misinterpreted the effects of the language use in a way.

So, descriptive adjectives do help the reader to imagine their own version of each place in their mind.

That much we can argue is valid.

However, that word ambiguous there doesn't really link to that idea, because ambiguous means that something is vague or open to multiple different interpretations.

So, actually using the word ambiguous there contradicts the point he's making in the rest of the sentence.

So, can we help him to redraft this sentence and make it a bit more accurate? So, pause the video while you have a go at redrafting this sentence and click play when you're ready to feedback together.

Welcome back.

So, we could have said something like this.

Descriptive adjectives are often evocative, so they're evoking perhaps certain feelings or certain images, enabling the reader to picture the places clearly, blending the poetic descriptions with their own experiences.

So, lots more detail here in this redrafted version.

So, let's add that to our paragraph.

So, we've just popped that sentence on the end there.

So, now, we are on to the final top tip.

Use relevant, tentative contextual links to strengthen interpretations.

So, Jacob says, both poets have intercultural identities, so it's obvious that they would prefer other countries to the UK.

So, what is wrong with Jacob's use of context here? So, pause the video again while you take some time to think and perhaps give him an EBI for next time, what could he do to improve this contextual link? So, pause the video and click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Welcome back.

Well done if you've spotted that he isn't using tentative language.

So, actually what he's doing is presenting his opinion as a concrete fact, which gives the impression that he's jump into conclusions.

So, he has rightly identified that both of these poets do have intercultural identities.

Their cultural identity is a blend of more than one culture.

However, the next bit, saying, so it's obvious, means that he's almost implying that he knows what Nichols and Zephaniah actually think about their cultural identity, which we know that he can't know that.

So, can we help him to finish building the contextual sentence using this tentative language? So, if you see here, we are now ending with so it's likely.

That suggests that what follows will be a personal interpretation based on what we know about context, and not presented as a concrete fact.

So, pause the video here while you have a go at finishing this sentence.

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

Welcome back.

Could hear lots of really fantastic suggestions there.

So, let's see an example of how we could have improved this contextual statement then.

So, both Nichols and Zephaniah have intercultural identities.

So, it's likely that they may identify with diasporic experiences.

Nichols was born in Guyana and her writing is often influenced by Caribbean culture.

Although Zephaniah was born in the UK, his Jamaican heritage and the sense of cultural dislocation he felt growing up are common themes in his poetry.

So, now, we are not only using tentative language, but we're also starting to think about how each poet's writing might be influenced by their cultural identity, rather than perhaps just thinking about how it might have shaped their beliefs.

We are now thinking about how it shapes their writing.

So, let's pause here and check our understanding.

Can you complete the missing word from those top tips that we've been using in this part of the lesson? So, pause the video here while you have a look at the sentences and see if you can fill in those missing words.

And when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answers, click play.

Welcome back.

So, let's see what the missing words were.

So, number one, topic sentences need to be clear, comparative, and link to the question.

Number two, support ideas with judiciously chosen evidence from the poems. Number three, provide a detailed comparative analysis of each poets' use of language, form, and structure.

And number four, use relevant links to context to strengthen your interpretations.

Did you get all of those missing words? Well done if you did.

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

So, here is one of Alex's analytical paragraphs answering the question, compare how places are presented in "I Remember, I Remember" and "My Mother's Kitchen".

So, he says, both poets create a clear image of the setting.

In "I Remember, I Remember", Hood describes a magical, joyous place that the speaker loves to fondly reminisce about.

He focuses on the house he grew up in and the beautiful gardens of roses, violets, lily-cups, lilacs, and laburnums, creating a clear image that the reader can imagine.

Whereas in "My Mother's Kitchen", Hardi also describes the different elements of the setting in detail, but instead creates a cluttered, worn-out environment full of ugly and rusty crockery the speaker's mother has collected in a rush.

Here, the speaker's nostalgia helps to emphasise the mother's resilience to overcome challenges, creating a memorable home for the speaker despite regular displacement.

So, what I would like you to do is review Alex's response against the checklist we were using earlier.

And I'd like you to give him even better if feedback for anything he missed.

So, here's a reminder of those four top tips.

So, take a moment to read Alex's response carefully and check it against each of the things on this list.

So, pause the video for as long as you need and then click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Welcome back.

So, let's see how we managed to review Alex's response.

So, topic sentences, were they clear, comparative and linked to the question? Yes, I would argue that they were.

And what about then his evidence from the poem? Do we think it was judiciously chosen? Yes, I think it probably was judiciously chosen as well.

He'd used lots of detailed examples that were linked to his topic sentence.

What about the comparative analysis then? Was it detailed and did it focus on how the poets used language, form, and structure? Well, actually, I think this was probably the first place that Alex needed an even better if.

Arguably, he could have zoomed in on the writer's use of methods in a bit more detail to make his response more compelling.

And finally, using relevant links to context to strengthen his interpretations.

Again, I think this is probably an area of improvement for Alex, because he didn't link to the context of both poems and it's really important to make sure that you do that.

So, now, one final challenge for you.

Can you redraft Alex's response, so it meets all the success criteria? So, pause the video here while you use that even better if feedback to really help Alex to write the most compelling response.

You can pause the video and click play when you're ready to continue.

So, one final discussion question for you then.

What did you add to meet the two even better ifs above? Just take a moment to share your additions, your redrafts with the people around you, or if you're working on your own, perhaps grab yourself a highlighter or a different colour pen and underline and annotate where you improved that response.

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

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

We certainly have covered a lot in this lesson.

So, let's just summarise what we've covered.

Topic sentences need to be clear, comparative, and linked to the question.

Relevant quotations from the text are used to justify arguments.

Relevant contextual information can be used to develop arguments.

Responses should focus on the intention of the author to avoid retelling the story of the poem.

And finally, comparative conjunctions should be used to compare key ideas as well as language, form, and structure.

So, thank you for joining me today and I hope that you feel a lot more confident when it comes to building analytical paragraphs about belonging poetry.

Have a fantastic day, everyone, and I look forward to seeing you all again soon.