Lesson video

Hello there.

My name's Mr. Barnsley.

I'm really glad you joined me today, as we continue a deep dive into "An Inspector Calls." In today's lesson, we're actually gonna be focusing on writing and putting some of the great ideas that we might have about "Inspector Calls" down on paper.

We're gonna be focusing in particular, on using quotations really effectively and using context really effectively.

Now, I am gonna be expecting you to be bringing some prior knowledge of the text of "An Inspector Calls" to this lesson.

We will be revisiting, revising some ideas in this lesson.

So this shouldn't be the first lesson that you've ever studied on "Inspector Calls," because like I said, you are gonna be expected to have some prior knowledge that you are bringing to today's lesson.

I'm also gonna expect you to have a copy of the text 'cause you will be looking for quotations in today's lesson.

All right, I hope you're ready to get started 'cause I certainly am.

Let's go.

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

By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to use quotations judiciously and effectively embed context into "An Inspector Calls" essay.

So some keywords we're gonna keep an eye out for.

Topic sentences, they are the first sentences of any of our analytical paragraphs and they really state what that paragraph's main idea is gonna be.

What it's gonna focus on.

A thesis is an overarching argument to an essay and it should be supported throughout the entire text.

Context, these are the circumstances, the background or the setting in which a story or text is written or read.

If we're embedding something, it means we're incorporating evidence like quotes or context into our sentences without disrupting the flow of the writing.

And if we're using quotations judiciously, this means we're selecting and using them really carefully, really wisely to effectively support our analysis or our argument.

So there are three sections in today's lesson.

We're gonna start by understanding the success criteria of a piece of writing.

We're then gonna be focusing on quotations, which was one part of our outcome, and then we'll look at context, which was the second part of our outcome.

But let's start by understanding the success criteria of a piece of analytical writing.

So over to you then.

What do you think makes a successful literature essay? Pause the video.

If you've got a partner, you can work with them.

Otherwise, you can think through this question by yourself.

What I'd like to do is try and create a success criteria here for a brilliant literature essay.

Pause the video, have a think and press play when you've got some answers.

Welcome back.

I wonder if you spotted some of the similar success criteria that I'm gonna share with you on the screen.

So firstly, we want to make sure that we start with an introduction, we finish with a conclusion.

And both of these, we've got a three part structure that we can use to really help us write really interesting instructions and conclusions.

We want to make sure our whole essay is really well structured and it has a clear line of argument running throughout from that introduction through all of our analytical paragraphs to our conclusion.

We also want to make sure it's well written.

We want to use sophisticated phrases, we want to make sure our vocabulary choices are right for what we are trying to say.

We want to use evidence, and this is often comes from the form of quotations from the text, but these can be main quotations, ones that we analyse in details, and supporting quotations, ones that we don't really analyse but we used to justify our arguments.

But really important, these quotations are judiciously chosen.

They're chosen with purpose, with the idea of supporting the argument that we are trying to say.

We want to make sure we're analysing writer's methods.

These can be language techniques, it can be dialogue in a play, but it can also be structural features as well, which might include stage directions.

But the most important thing when we're analysing a writer's methods is that we're always linking it back to the writer's intention.

And that's the thing that's gonna be our clear line of argument.

What is the writer trying to do? How are they trying to make us feel? In this case, how is Priestley trying to make us as an audience feel when we watch his plays? We also want to make sure we're using context effectively.

We're wanting to think about when the play was set, when the play was written and linking this all the time back to context.

So we know what war in Britain was like.

We know what post-war Britain was like.

Okay, well, what is it about those societies that tells us a little bit more about Priestley's intentions? If we can apply this success criteria to model essays, it's a really great way of helping us embed it in our writing.

So look for it in other good examples and then that will help us understand what it should look like so we can bring it into our own writing.

Quick check then.

Which of the following could not be described as a writer's method? Is it A, language devices, B, historical context, or C, structural choices? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back and well done if you said historical context.

We definitely want to see this in an essay, but it isn't a writer's method.

So in a minute, we are gonna look closely in one of our own pupil's Izzy's response.

She's been answering the following question, "How does Priestley explore the impact of societal expectation of gender and class in 'An Inspector Calls?'" So let's start before we read Izzy's essay.

What ideas from the play would you include when you're answering this question? What ideas, what sections, what characters would you focus on? If you were wanting to talk about how Priestley explores the impact that societal expectations of different gender or social classes might have? All right, over to you to have a think about this.

You could do this in pairs if you want, or small groups if you've got people to work with.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself, you can just think through this independently.

All right, pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

You might have noticed if you were discussing with a partner or in groups that you didn't all agree with the same characters or the same ideas.

And that's great.

In literature, there's never just one way to answer a question and we're all gonna bring our different ideas and that's fantastic.

So in a second, we are gonna read Izzy's essay.

This is in your additional materials.

And as we read Izzy's essays, you could think, did Izzy have any similar ideas to the ones that you were thinking about or you were discussing? But also as we're reading, we're gonna try and consider why this essay is successful.

So some things for us to think about as we read this together.

What is Izzy's overarching argument? How does Izzy structure her response to ensure it's completely focused on what that argument is? Does Izzy's response make reference to the text as a whole? How else does Izzy's response meet our success criteria? I'm gonna turn the camera off now.

I am gonna read the essay to you so you can follow along in your additional materials.

If you'd rather read it to yourself, then you can pause the video now.

All right, let's take a moment to read this together and think what has Izzy done that's made her essay so successful? All right, follow along please.

In "An Inspector Calls," JB Priestley explores the impact of societal expectations surrounding gender, class and masculinity through characters like Sheila Birling, Eva Smith, and their interactions with the male figures of the play.

These characters highlight how social divisions and patriarchal authority affect people's lives and limit their opportunities.

Priestley critiques the rigid class, gender and power structures of Edwardian society and urges the audience to consider social responsibility and equality.

Sheila Birling as an upper class woman, initially conforms to the traditional expectations of her class and gender.

She's portrayed as pretty and pleased representing the superficial roles assigned to women in her position.

However, as the play progresses, Sheila begins to question the actions of those around her, including her father and fiance, both of whom embody traditional forms of male authority.

Her apology saying sorry and her distressed reaction marks a turning point showing that despite her class and gender, she's capable of moral growth.

Priestley dramatises Sheila's transformation through her increasing use of assertive language such as when she sharply tells Mrs. Birling to stop.

Arguably, her shift from passive to confrontational dialogue illustrates her rejection of societal expectations.

Priestley uses Sheila to suggest that younger generations, including women, have the potential to challenge not only class structures, but also male dominance.

In contrast, Eva Smith represents the working class woman whose life is shaped by both her gender and social status.

Her interactions with men such as Mr. Birling and Gerald Croft underscore how male authorities often wielded to exploit and oppress women like her.

Gerald's affair with Eva and subsequent abandonment reveal how men in positions of power view working class women as disposable.

Even the inspector whose moral authority is central to the play embodies a more progressive form of masculinity by challenging patriarchal systems and champion equality.

Eva's common name Smith symbolises the countless working class women whose voices were silenced by societal expectations.

Through her tragic story, Priestley reflects the historical intersection of gender and class critiquing the impact of such societal structures.

Mrs. Birling, on the other hand, embodies the societal expectations of class and gender, but also perpetuates patriarchal values by upholding the authority of men like her husband.

Her refusal to help Eva claiming that she had heirs reflects not only class prejudice, but also an internalisation of male dominated hierarchies.

By supporting traditional structures that oppress both working class people and women, Mrs. Birling becomes complicit in sustaining inequality.

Mrs. Birling's dialogue is characterised by dismissive tones as seen in her repeated command that she has done nothing wrong and it is all nonsense, which reinforces her refusal to accept personal or social responsibility.

It could be suggested that Priestley critiques her complacency and the ways in which upper class women reinforce patriarchal authority for their own benefit.

Through Sheila, Eva and Mrs. Birling, Priestley explores the harmful effects of societal expectations surrounding gender, class and masculinity.

Sheila represents the potential for change, while Eva and Mrs. Birling reflect the forces that uphold in equality.

Priestley challenges the audience to question traditional power structures and take responsibility for creating a fairer society.

Okay, let's see how we were understanding Izzy's argument then, shall we? Which of the following do you think best summarises Izzy's argument? Is it A, that Priestley critiques societal expectations of gender, class and masculinity highlighting that oppressive impact and urging change through responsibility and equality? Or is it B, that Priestley portrays all women as powerless victims of class and gender inequality without the potential to change traditional roles or societal structures? Okay, tricky question here.

Pause the video, have a think, A or B.

Press play when you think you've got the answer.

Yeah, really well done if you said that was A, okay? So really what Izzy's arguing here is that this is Priestley's critique of expectations that are placed on people because of their gender, because of their class, you know, and it's not just about women here.

We've got the critique of masculinity as well, which we know impacts both men and women but what he's really trying to do is highlight how these expectations are really oppressive for people and he's urging his audience to make changes.

And they do this through acting with social responsibility and trying to create a more equitable society.

So using the questions below, I want you to discuss why you think Izzy's answer was so successful.

Okay.

If you've got a partner you can discuss with them.

Otherwise, you can just think through this independently.

So let's think about how is Izzy structuring her response to ensure it's completely focused on what her argument is.

Does Izzy's response make reference to the text the whole or just the designated section? And how else does Izzy's response meet our success criteria? All right, if you've got a partner, discuss with them.

Otherwise, just think through these questions independently.

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

Welcome back.

Let's look at some of the things that you might have said when discussing why Izzy's answer is so successful.

Well, you might have said that she's got a really interesting thesis that's introduced at the beginning of her essay, but it weaves all the way through.

It's a clear argument that pins all of her ideas together.

You might have said she had really clear topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph.

It's really clear what each paragraph is gonna focus on and she also finishes her sentences by bringing that back, summarising what's happening in that each sentence.

And I'm trying to pin it back to the writer's intention, Priestley's intention.

She focused on three characters.

She didn't try and say everything she knew about the text.

This isn't your chance to say, look at me, look, I know absolutely everything about the text.

She's been really cautious and selected characters to keep her argument focused.

And again, she's also selected quotations well.

You know, again, I'm sure Izzy knows more quotations.

I'm sure she's learned lots of quotations from this text, but she's only used the ones that are relevant to the question and the argument she's trying to make.

She does analyse Priestley's dramatic methods, but she always links them back to the writer's intention.

She doesn't just say, Priestley does this.

She explains why, what's the impact? And finally, she uses context throughout to support her argument.

It's woven through her response.

It's never bolted on the end.

Well done if you picked out any of those things that made Izzy's response so effective.

So for our first task then you are going to give Izzy three bits of feedback.

So you can use some of the discussions that we've had.

You're gonna say two things she's done well and one thing that she could improve on.

For each WWW, what went well, or EBI, even better if, you should, A, explain what it is that Izzy has done well or what she needs to improve.

I want you to find an example of that from the essay and I want you to explain how your selected example is effective or can be improved.

So what you're not gonna do is just repeat ideas from the discussion we've had.

You can take those ideas, but you must find evidence and specifically explain how that bit of evidence proves that this is something Izzy's done well or something that Izzy needs to do better next time.

Let's have a look at one of Alex's examples.

He wrote, "Izzy has analysed Priestley's dramatic methods.

She focuses on Sheila's use of assertive language and Mrs. Birling's dialogue.

Izzy effectively links this to characterization and Priestley's intention.

All right, over to you then to find two things that Izzy's done well and one thing that Izzy could improve.

Pause the video, give this a go and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, before we move on to our next learning cycle, I want you to reflect on the feedback that you have given Izzy.

Can you look at the feedback and tell me, have you identified where Izzy has met the success criteria? Have you identified an area of improvement? Have you found a clear example from Izzy's essay? And have you clearly explained how this example meets the success criteria or how it can be improved? Take a moment to reread your feedback and see if you can make any improvements.

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

Okay, now it's time for us to look at quotations in more detail.

So when we're writing then a main body paragraph, an analytical paragraph, the way that we select and write about quotations is really key to creating a convincing argument.

So your quotations should always support your topic sentence.

It should be relevant, we want them to come from across the whole play.

You might be talking about a specific moment, but you want to show that this specific moment doesn't exist in isolation.

And even if you are talking about the beginning of act one, you want to show how that beginning of act one kind of is linked to the rest of the play.

Your quotation choices should be divided between main quotations and supporting quotations.

We're gonna think about what the difference is between those shortly.

So you may have noticed in Izzy's essay that she has used only one word quotations.

Now this can be really successful, particularly useful supporting quotations to support arguments.

It is a good idea to have a variety of both main and supporting quotations.

And this will really allow us to analyse a writer's methods in details.

In fact, I wonder how many of you picks up this as one of Izzy's EBI.

Something she could do better would be to use a kind of a wider range of quotations and not just those one word quotations.

So we've talked about main quotations and supporting quotation.

I did say we go through this, but before I tell you the difference, do you think you know already what they are? Why don't you pause the video.

If you've got a partner you can share some ideas with them.

Otherwise, you can think through this independently.

What might be the difference to main and supporting quotations? Over to you.

Welcome back.

I wonder if you said that main quotations are the quotations that you are gonna analyse in depth.

They're gonna be the ones that have dramatic methods in there.

They're the ones that you're gonna really want to kind of pull out, look at individual words in there.

Think about what those words mean, how they might make you the audience feel.

Why has Priestley chose those words specifically and not different words.

That's our main quotation.

And often those quotations might be slightly longer.

Our supporting quotations are ones that we embed, we build into our sentences.

They are used to show and support our arguments to show that, you know, we've not just made this argument up, our argument is informed by the text that we are looking at.

But they're not necessarily quotations that we're gonna analyse because they might not have lots of analyzable content.

They might not have lots of interesting things I can say about the methods in them, but they're still useful for proving my argument.

So I want you to think about how Izzy has used quotations in her paragraph.

Let's look at this paragraph together.

"Priestley dramatises Sheila's transformation through her increasing use of assertive language such as when she sharply tells Mrs. Birling to stop.

Arguably, her shift from passive to confrontational dialogue illustrates her rejection of societal expectations.

Priestley uses Sheila to suggest that younger generations, including women, have the potential to challenge not only class structures, but also male dominance.

So let's have a look here that Izzy has taken this kind of quotation and even though this is only one word, she has linked it to a dramatic method, okay? And that's this assertive language, this confrontational dialogue.

And she's acknowledged that this is a technique that Priestley has used.

She's analysed that one word stop.

She's used that as the evidence, but she's linking this back to Priestley's purpose.

He hasn't just used this assertive language and confrontational dialogue just because he fancied doing it, just because he thought it would be interesting.

He's done it because he's trying to show that Sheila is rejecting these societal expectations of gender that have been forced upon her.

Over to you though, to have a little bit of a think.

Is there a main quotation? Is there a longer quotation that she could have used that would've also allowed her to analyse Priestley's language choices and intention in even more depth? So you might want your copy of the play open here.

See if you can find any other examples of Sheila's transformation.

Maybe some longer quotations, maybe two, three words that will allow you to talk about other language choices at Priestley's.

All right, this is your opportunity to think about how you can develop Izzy's response further.

Pause the video, give it a go and press play when you are ready to continue.

All right, it's great to see you selecting some evidence there.

We're gonna continue this work of finding our own evidence is really important that we acknowledge that we're not all gonna find the same piece of evidence and that's absolutely fine as long as they support what we are trying to say.

So let's have a look, see if we can find more evidence to support Izzy as she writes, "In contrast, Eva Smith represents the working class woman whose life is shaped by both her gender and social status.

Her interactions with men such as Mr. Birling and Gerald Croft, underscore how male authority is often wielded to exploit and oppress women like her.

Gerald's affair with Eva and subsequent abandonment reveal how men in positions of power view working class women as disposable.

What do you think then? Can you find any further evidence? This is a great argument that Izzy has, but she's not used quotations here to justify, to support and to even analyse and develop her analysis further.

So over to you, text open.

What would you use here to develop Izzy's answer further? Here's a quick hint, if you're wondering where to look.

Look at Gerald's language in act two and this could be in page 26, page 39.

If you're using the Heinemann version of this text.

Over to you.

See what you can find.

Pause video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

We've been thinking about quotations.

Which statements then are true of supporting quotations? Is it A, that they should be analysing detail with reference to methods? Is it B, that they can be embedded into sentences? Is it C, that they don't need to be too long, one word is often enough.

Which of these statements are true when we think about supporting quotations, A, B, or C? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you think you've got the answer.

Well done if you said B and C.

A, of course, you're talking about main quotations where we want to look at methods.

B, yes, these should be short.

Often one word is enough and they can be embedded into our sentences.

Okay, onto our second task of today's lesson then, Lucas has created a topic sentence based on the same question.

How does Priestley explore the impact of societal expectation of gender and class in "An Inspector Calls?" Here is his topic sentence, "Priestley examines the complexities of masculinity through the characters of Gerald Croft and Eric Birling showing how societal expectations of male roles influence their actions and relationships.

So focusing on the male characters here.

We're gonna move on to the next slide to look at what the task is going to be.

So you may need to rewind the video if you want to kind of re-look at this as you do the task.

So here are five quotations from the text, "nasty" and "row." These are words that Eric uses to describe his interaction with Eva Smith in act three.

"Hate", Gerald says this to describe the women in the Palace Bar and that's act two.

"Nonsense", this is how Mr. Birling used this word to dismiss the notion of social responsibility during the family dinner in act one.

"Shy" and "assertive", these are straight stage directions, words to initially describe Eric and "inevitable", this is the word that Gerald uses, the word to describe his affair with Daisy Renton, Eva Smith in act two.

So here are five quotations from the text.

What I would like you to decide is which of these quotations do you think would best support Lucas' topic sentence and why? You can do this via discussion if you've got a partner or you can just think through this independently.

I think you should pause the video with these quotes on screen.

But if you do need to rewind slightly to look at the topic sentences again, then please feel free.

Okay.

Pause the video, give this task a go and press play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you had some really great discussions there or you were thinking through this very carefully independently.

Our own pupils gave this a go, and I want you to take a moment before we move on to reflect on the discussions you had, reflect on the discussions they had and see whose ideas you agreed with most and why.

So Aisha said that Eric's words "nasty" and "row" because they reflect how Eric's violent actions with Eva Smith are influenced by the societal expectation of male dominance.

When you compare this to the words "shy" and "assertive", they reveal that there is this internal struggle with masculinity and self-perception.

Alex said, Gerald's use of "inevitable" to describe his affair shows how societal expectations of masculinity justify male behaviour, implying that his infidelity is just part of his role as a man.

The nonsense quote from Mr. Birling isn't relevant as Lucas is focusing on Eric and Gerald.

Who do you agree with? Who do you disagree with? Who do you agree with most? Were these similar to your own discussions? Do you like any of these ideas that you want to make a note of? Time to pause your video, take a moment to reflect and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, we're moving on to the final part of today's lesson when we are gonna focus on context.

So when using context in an essay, we should make sure it is embedded throughout.

We should make sure it's relevant to the question and the argument that we are trying to make.

And it can be historical, it can be biographical, it can be about literary, or it can be about social.

So let's have a look at Izzy's first draught of part of her essay.

She wrote that, "Priestley dramatises this change through Sheila's increasing assertiveness, such as when she tells Mrs. Birling to stop.

Women in Edwardian society were expected to remain passive and obedient so this might be shocking.

This was also the period when the suffragette movement was gaining momentum with women fighting for the right to vote and greater equality.

Now the problem with Izzy's use of context here is it's not being embedded.

It's bolted on at the end of the paragraph and it's kind of presented in isolation.

It's information that could be relevant, but it's not being clearly linked to what Izzy is trying to say.

I think there are some good ideas in there that could be useful, but not in the way that Izzy's used them.

Let's look at a better example from Izzy's essay.

She writes, "Even the inspector whose moral authority is central to the play embodies a more progressive form of masculinity by challenging patriarchal systems and championing equality.

Eva's common name, "Smith," symbolises the countless working class women whose voices were silenced by societal expectations.

Through her tragic story, Priestley reflects the historical intersection of gender and class critiquing the impact of such societal structures." Let's have a think then.

How is this paragraph so much more improved than the last one we just saw? How has she used context in a more effective way? Pause the video, have a think in pairs or by yourself and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I wonder if you notice that Izzy has embedded this context.

You can see it in blue.

It's not just bolted on at the end.

It's in woven in with her argument.

It's really relevant to what she's trying to say, okay? It's not kind of additional information, it's not a kind of a history lesson where she's trying to give us more, you know, she's trying to teach us new things about what society was like at a time, but she's linking it to her argument and she uses both a range of historical, what life was like at the time and social, what was, you know, society like at the time to kind of support her argument.

So quick check then.

Which pupil has effectively embedded context into their paragraph? Is it Laura who says, "Sheila's increasing confidence demonstrates her rejection of her prescribed role.

Priestley shows that personal growth can lead to a broader societal shift.

The Edwardian period saw many women restricted to domestic life with fewer opportunities outside of the home." Or is it Jun who says, "Sheila's growing assertiveness reflects her rejection of the submissive role historically expected of women.

Priestley uses a character to show that societal change begins with individuals challenging inherited norms and embracing personal responsibility." A, Laura.

B, Jun.

Pause the video, have a think and press play when you think you've got the answer.

Really well done if you said B, Jun.

Okay, Laura's very much tagged onto the end doesn't quite link to her argument.

She's just telling us what was happening to women at the time.

Whereas Jun is using his knowledge of historical and social context and linking it to Priestley's intention.

So our final task today, Jun has given an essay a go.

He said, "Mrs. Birling supports male authority and reinforces inequality, dismissing Eva as having heirs and refusing to take responsibility.

At the time, upper class women were expected to uphold societal norms. Mrs. Birling reflects patriarchal values." This is the feedback he's been given about this paragraph.

Your context should be embedded into your paragraph.

You need to avoid bolting context onto the end of a paragraph as an isolated historical fact, and you should make sure that context is relevant to your overall point.

What I want you to do now is rewrite Jun's paragraph to include an effective use of context here.

All right, pause the video, give this a go and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Sam had a go at improving Jun's paragraph.

Let's see what she said.

She said, "Mrs. Birling upholds male authority and reinforces social inequality, dismissing Eva as having heirs and rejecting any personal responsibility.

Through her actions, Priestley critiques the complicity of upper class women in Edwardian society, who, bound by social expectations, often supported patriarchal structures to secure their own privilege and reinforce rigid class hierarchies.

So good from Sam here, really linking this historical information, which is that many, not all, but many upper class women because of societal expectations often ended up supporting the patriarchy because it afforded them privilege over the working class.

So yes, they suffered into the patriarchy, they didn't have as much freedom, they didn't have as much independence, but often, they supported the patriarchy because they felt at least it gave them some privilege particularly in the class hierarchy.

So really, really interesting context.

But it's all linked to the character of Mrs. Birling.

It's all linked to Priestley's kind of purpose, his intention to critique the complicit nature of upper class women.

Really well done.

So we can see that Sam has embedded the context and that context is really relevant to her paragraph.

So now I want you to self-assess your own paragraph then, please.

I want you to think, have you embedded the context throughout your paragraph and is it relevant to the paragraph and the point that you are making? Pause the video, take a moment to self reflect and then press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, that is it.

We have reached the end of today's lesson and what a fantastic job you have done.

It's been great revisiting and revising some ideas around gender and social class.

That's really great.

But I've enjoyed really focusing on how we put these ideas down on the page.

So we've learned that a successful essay will have a clear overarching argument.

We've learned that references to the text should link to your topic sentence and should come from across the play.

We've talked and discussed about main quotations and supporting quotations, and we know that main quotations should be analysed while supporting quotations are there to kind of support our argument.

We've also done some great work on context and thought about how it should be embedded, how it should be relevant, and include a range of different types.

Great work today, I've really enjoyed learning alongside you.

I hope to see you again in one of our lessons in the future.

See you all soon.

Bye-bye.