Hello, everyone, it's lovely to see you all today.

My name's Dr.

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

The lesson's called Analysing extended responses.

We're going to be talking through two model answers.

We're going to be thinking about what went well, but also what could be improved, and how we might go about improving some aspects of the answer.

Now you'll need a copy of the AQA "Worlds and Lives" anthology with you for this lesson.

So make sure you have that to hand.

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

So by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to analyse a model answer against a success criteria.

So we have five words there we're going to focus on as our keywords.

They've identified in bold throughout the learning material.

And I try to point them out to you as well so you can see them being used in context.

Our first word is misconception, and that means a view or opinion that's incorrect because it's based on faulty thinking or understanding.

We're going to be thinking about how misconceptions can affect our writing and how to overcome them.

Our second key word is dehumanisation, and that means the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities.

Our third keyword is oppression, and that means prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

Our fourth keyword is visceral, and that means felt in, or as if in the internal organs of the body.

And finally, our fifth keyword is antagonist, which is a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something.

Now these four words will all be found in the model answer today so you'll be able to see them used in context.

They're also very useful words to remember for considering questions that focus on ideas of misuse of power or misuse of authority.

So I'll just give you a few moments to write down those keywords and their definitions.

So pause the video and write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So we have two learning cycles in our lesson today.

And in each learning cycle, we're going to consider a different model answer.

Now both model answers are answering the question, compare the ways that ideas about power and authority are presented in "England in 1819" in one other poem from the "Worlds and Lives" anthology.

So we're going to be thinking about how the model answers might offer some useful ideas in terms of how to frame and conceptualise extended answer, but also how we might think about improving them in order to avoid misconceptions.

So let's get started with the first learning cycle.

Now, as I said, this lesson's all about looking at model answers.

And I want us to start by thinking about why looking at model answers is a useful exercise, what do you think you might gain from looking at them? Now if you're going through this with someone else, you might talk about ideas with them.

Going through this by yourself, you might just think about your ideas.

So pause the video because at a while looking at model answers is a useful exercise to do before you do your own extended writing.

Some great ideas there.

Now our Oak people, Izzy, says that looking at model answers is useful because it allows to see how we might frame certain ideas and magpie particular phrases as well as potentially allowing us to see how to avoid gaps and misconceptions in our work.

So looking at model answers allows to see how we can construct an extended answer and how we might use certain phrasing in order to help us craft our own answers.

It also helps us to see what doesn't work so well in extended answer, and now we can then use that knowledge to help us avoid that in our own answers.

So in your Additional Materials, there are two model answers that address the question.

Compare the ways that ideas about power and authority are presented in "England in 1819" and one of the poem from the "Worlds and Lives" anthology.

What I would like you to do is read through the model one answer.

So pause the video and read the model one answer now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now I want you to start thinking about the choices that Oak people made in order to construct that answer.

So I'd like to think about the following questions.

Number one, what do you think of the model's choice of comparative poem? Number two, did you choose quotations that you would've picked? Now if you're working with someone else, you might talk about ideas with them.

If going through this by yourself, you might just think about ideas.

So pause the video and answer the questions now.

Some great discussions there.

It was great to see people considering which quotations they might have chosen differently.

As we all respond to texts differently, we'll all have our own ideas for which image or which word might create the most evocative image in order to present evidence for our points.

For me, I think the two of the poems I might have considered choosing is comparison poems are Dharker's "A Century Later" and Elliot's "In a London Drawing Room." But I think the choice of Femi's "Thirteen" is what I ultimately would've gone with as I think both poems are really powerful and how they display the effect of the misuse of power and authority and there's enough difference between them to offer nuanced comparison.

So now let's deconstruct the model answer and think about what it's doing well.

Let's begin with the introduction.

Now the introduction is one of the most important components of your answer because it sets out your argument to the reader.

So you really want to show them you've understood the question and give an idea about how you think the text responds to that particular theme or idea that's given in the question.

So what I'd like you to do is read back through the introduction.

What do you think their argument is? Remember, the question is compare the ways that ideas about power and authority are presented in "England in 1819" and one other poem from the "Worlds and Life" anthology.

So pause the video, consider what you think the argument of the model one answer is.

Now one of our Oak people's, Laura, said, "The argument is that power and authority can result in the oppression of ordinary people." So we can see how the answers relating to ideas of power and authority because it's telling us that both texts consider the effects of the misuse of power and authority and how that causes oppression of ordinary people.

Now, oppression is one of our keywords, means prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

So the misuse of power and authority causes prolonged cruel or unjust treatment to ordinary people.

Now let's consider the body of the essay and deconstruct the first paragraph.

So the paragraph opens, "In order to explore how those with power can use it to oppress others.

Imagery of power imbalance is thread throughout both poems. Now what I'd like to think about is why is this an effective opening to a paragraph? For analytical paragraphs, we want 'em to open with a topic sentence that clearly explains the focus of the paragraph.

Can you see that in this opening? Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

They might have said that this is an effective opening to an analytical paragraph 'cause paragraph opens with a clear topic sentence that explains that the body of the paragraph is going to focus on imagery of power imbalance and its effect.

So we as the reader know exactly what to expect from this paragraph and how it relates the overall question of power and authority.

So now let's consider the body of the first paragraph against the checklist.

So the checklist for an effective analytical paragraph is it uses quotations to provide evidence from the text.

Use inference analysis to show how you've interpret the evidence from the text.

It considers the writer's intentions to always bring back to the idea that a text is a construction.

Use tentative language 'cause our interpretation is one idea about the text.

We never know of certain how the writer intended to be seen.

And because as a comparative essay, it compares the two poems. So the paragraph is used several quotations, such as thirteen, cornered, powerless, and lots.

It's important to use several different quotations to evidence your points as that shows your ideas whether it's the entirety of the text rather than one small portion of it and it makes your argument stronger.

It shows inference analysis.

Through the idea, the referenced age expressed the innocence and youth of the boy and the reference to lot shows the officers are the ones deciding the fate of the boy.

So continue being brought back to ideas of power and authority and how those in power affect those without power.

Exhibits writer's intentions when it expresses the view that Femi could be shown the dangers of institutional racism and what the misuse of power can cause on a wider scale.

Uses attentive language through words just arguably and could.

But at this point in the paragraph, it doesn't yet compare Femi's "Thirteen" to Shelley's "England in 1819." This is an important point 'cause you might choose to interweave your analysis all the way through your paragraph, or you might choose deal with one poem first and then consider the second.

Either way you choose is absolutely fine as long as there's an element of comparison within the essay.

So now let's consider the rest of the first paragraph.

Now here we immediately open with that comparative language with similarly, so we know the writer is going to show how both poems create similar ideas about power imbalance.

The paragraph then interweave some analysis by suggesting how the language in both poems creates the same image of predator and prey to represent those with power and those without power.

The paragraph use quotations through prey and cornered.

Use inference analysis.

Just that this image indicates the notion of people being hunted by those in power.

That this connection to prey reinforces the innocence of those oppressed and their unjust treatment.

Gives us writer's intentions when it's just that Shelly sees ordinary people as victims of those in power.

And uses tentative language through could and arguably.

You might also use words which may, might, or perhaps to show that tentative language.

Now let's consider the conclusion of model one.

What I'd like to do is read through the conclusion again and think about why it's an effective conclusion.

So you might consider the conclusion is designed to summarise your argument, but it's also an opportunity to link your argument to wider ideas and concepts.

So pause a video, think about why it's an effective conclusion.

They might have said the conclusion not only summarises the argument by reflecting on how the misuse of power by those in authority negatively affects the lives of ordinary people, but the conclusion also gestures to what it says about the nature of humanity.

It implies that humanity has always seen people who misuse their power and authority.

It's like to continue to happen.

Therefore, it reflects on human nature in general.

Now for a quick check for understanding.

So is it true or false that the model opens with an effective introduction? Pause a video and make a selection now.

The correct answer is true.

It does open with an effective introduction.

Now I'd like to justify that.

So is it an effective introduction, because A, it opened with a reflection on humanity and how we can see the perms as a comment on human nature, or B, it opened with a clear explanation of what the argument of the essay will be.

Pause the video and make a selection now.

Now a reflection on humanity is an important part of the essay, but that arguably fits better in the conclusion.

We've built up all your evidence.

Then you can see how it fits within the wider picture of human nature.

So the correct answer is it's an effective introduction because it opened with a clear explanation of what the argument of the essay will be.

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

Fantastic work, everyone.

Well, now the first task of the lesson.

So what I'd like you to do is read back through model one and then deconstruct it in order to turn it into a multi-paragraph outline.

This will help you see how the model's been put together.

And doing this backwards plan will help you when you come to create your own plan 'cause we have to see how the plan connects the actual essay.

So we're looking for a thesis statement, which offers an overall introduction to the essay.

Then each paragraph will have a topic sentence that explains the focus of what that individual paragraph is about.

They'll be supporting detail from the language, form, and structure within each paragraph.

We need a concluding sentence for each paragraph that summarises the paragraph.

Then we need an overall conclusion, which summarises the essay and gesture towards wider ideas about society.

So pause the video and create your multi-paragraph outline now from the model.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now let's look at a single paragraph outline that Laura created for paragraph two.

Which supporting detail she left out? So the topic sentence, Laura said, "Both poems use violent imagery in order to express the effects of power imbalance and the misuse of power." For the supporting detail, at the moment she said that the quotations are organs and blood, and now this creates a violent dehumanising image.

The concluding sentence, she said, "Thus, both poems critique those in power and apply that pressing others not only causes violence against ordinary people but, in turn, the process of oppressing others also reduces your own humanity." So pause the video and find out which supporting detail paragraph two is missing from the single paragraph outline.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now reading back through the paragraph, you'll notice that Laura has missed out the quotation leach and the anonymity of the police officers.

And that's an important detail for the paragraph 'cause it's just how the misuse of power corrupts and dehumanises you.

Amazing and work, everyone.

We're now to the second learning cycle.

We're going to consider our second model and how we might it.

So we thought about the model one answer in the first learning cycle and how it's an effective comparative essay.

Now we're going to think about the model two answer.

So in your additional materials you'll find the second model.

Pause a video and read through it now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now what I'd like you to do is based on our ideas for the model one answer, give the model two answer a what went well and an even better if.

As ever, if you're working with someone else, you might talk about your ideas with them.

If you're working through this by yourself, you might just think about them.

So consider what the second model answer has done well, but also how it might be improved.

Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

So for what went well, you might have said, "The model has chosen a suitable poem for comparison and it's made an attempt to choose suitable quotations as evidence from each poem." The even better if, you might have said, "The model hasn't analysed the use of structure and hasn't gone beyond surface analysis of the quotations." Always remember that language is just one aspect of poetry and the form and structure can provide rich areas for analysis and comparison.

That when you're analysing quotations, you want to think about the connotations of specific words, what language techniques have been used, the effect on the reader, and perhaps also offer an additional quotation to emphasise your point.

So let's deconstruct the elements of the model to answer and see where the misconceptions may be.

Now misconceptions from our key words, means the viewer and opinion's incorrect because it's based on faulty thinking or understanding.

So where's the pupil misunderstood what to include in analytical essay? Let's begin with the introduction.

If remember from the one one answer, we said that's an effective introduction 'cause it told the reader what the essay was going to focus on in relation to the two poems and in terms of the question.

Now the introduction of the model two answer is, "Both Shelly's 'England in 1819' and Femi's 'Thirteen' talk about ideas of power and authority in ways that are both similar and different.

They achieve this through the use of their language, form, and structure." So what I'd like to think about is why is that maybe not an effective introduction? Pause the video.

Take a few moments to consider.

Now while the introduction references the terms of the question, it doesn't say how the essay will answer it and merely gives a vague idea that they look at elements of the poems. So it doesn't give the reader a clear idea of what the essay will contain and how the two poems relate to themes of power and authority.

So now let's consider the body of the essay and think about where we think the Oak pupil has done well, but also where they could improve.

So what I'd like you to do is reread paragraph one and then complete the table.

Show what the Oak pupil has done well in the paragraph, but also where they could improve the paragraph.

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

Welcome back, everyone.

So let's think about what the answer's done well.

So the answer use of quotations, such as powerless and stabbed, and therefore it's using quotations from both poems, which is what you want to do in a comparative answer.

It attempts inference when it says those words just the ordinary people feel a sense of fear towards those in authority.

And attempts to use context to explain the differences when it considers who the oppressors are in both poems. In terms of what could be improved, the answer repeats a lot of similar vocabulary through the repetition of fear.

You want to extend your word choices to show your command of language.

There also could be more nuanced connections between the poems in terms of difference between the language used.

Feeling powerless is very different from being stabbed.

Finally, there could be an exploration of what the difference in context means.

So why does it matter that Femi is only referring to the police, while Shelly's referring to multiple institutions? So now let's think about the second paragraph.

So what I'd like to do is reread paragraph two and that paragraph opens, "The likely reason for this difference around the antagonist is the context of the poems." And then when you're finished rereading, I'd like you to consider which contextual points do you think are relevant and which could be more meaningfully explored.

So pause the video and consider the use of context now.

Welcome back, everyone.

They might have thought that the references to Shelly's romanticism and Femi's personal context are relevant to how each per responds to figures of power and authority.

The idea that Shelly would likely write by institutions, such as the police, if he were writing today is a well-considered personal response.

However, the ideas are on time difference and transition from army to police could be more effectively explored.

So what I'd like to think about now is how would you express ideas around time difference and the transition of authority more meaningfully.

So think about why those ideas are important, what does it say about society.

Pause the video, take a few moments to consider.

So now let's take a look at how one of our Oak pupils, Izzy, would reframe the context in a more meaningful way.

So Izzy said, "The transition from army to the police demonstrates how those in power continue to have institutions designed to establish control over the ordinary person.

The reflection on the misuse of power of those institutions in 1819 and in 2020 show society continues to at risk of corruption and ambition within those institutions that are supposed to protect them." So here, Izzy has considered what the connection between the poems is saying about the nature of institutional power, and it also comments on the nature of society and human nature.

Now let's look at how the essay approaches structure.

Because while it mentions the poetic structure of both poems, it doesn't actually analyse them.

So the essay says, "In terms of structure, the perms are very different.

Femi device 'Thirteen' up into four different stanzas, while Shelly wrote 'England in 1819' as one singular stanza.

There's no pattern to the rhyme or rhythm of Femi's 'Thirteen', while Shelly's 'England in 1819' has a regular rhyme and rhythm.

The only structural similarity between both poems is that they're both used enjambment, which just sense of continuation and makes the reader carry on reading.

So our topic sentence is designed to explain the main focus of the paragraph to the reader.

Here, the topic sentence is, "In terms of structure, the poems are very different." Now, while this does tell us the paragraph will consider the structure of the poems, it's a very vague sentence that doesn't give us a sense of what's different about the structure and how it relates to the question of power in the meaning of the poems. So the paragraph then goes on to list the differences between the poems by mentioning the difference in stanzas and the difference in rhyme and rhythm.

However, the answer maybe mentions these differences but it doesn't analyse how they might connect the meaning of the poems and why the two poets might have chosen different structural techniques.

Finally, the answer recognised that both poets use in enjambment and attempts to analyse it, but not in a meaningful way.

The purpose of writing a text is to have someone read it.

So it's not analysing a poem when you say the writer wants the reader to continue reading.

You need to think about how that continuation relates to ideas of power and authority.

Finally, let's consider the conclusion.

So the conclusion says, "Both poets use imagery of light towards the end of their poems. Femi's 'Thirteen' talks of stars and supernovas, while Shelly's 'England in 1819' ends on the word day.

This use of light imagery could imply there's hope for people against those who have power and authority." So what I'd like you to think about is how is this not an effective conclusion.

What misconceptions have happened here and what misunderstandings have happened? So pause the video, think about why it's not an effective conclusion.

They might have said, "It doesn't offer a summary of the argument." It said it seemingly offers a new point about light imagery.

It doesn't connect the ideas running through the rest of the essay.

It connects light imagery to hope, but supernova is the death of a star, so therefore more likely to connect it with the end of something rather than hope.

So misconceptions happened here around what the imagery represents.

So now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like to tell me is which Oak pupil summary of the misconceptions found in model two is accurate? So Sam said, "Model two choose the suitable poem for comparison, but does not examine the relevant context." And Jacob said, "Model two offered vague and surface-level comparisons between the poems rather than adding depth and meaning to their analysis." So pause the video, think about which one is the most accurate.

Now the model two answer did consider the context of the two poems. So therefore Jacob's answer, "The model two offered vague and surface-level comparisons between the poems rather than adding depth and mean to their analysis," is the correct answer.

So very well done if you got that right.

Amazing work, everyone.

We now the final task of the lesson.

So what I'd like you to do is reread the first paragraph of a model two answer.

It's on your screen now, as well as in the Additional Materials so you can refer back to it throughout the task.

So the first paragraph says, "Both poems create a sense of fear towards figures of authority.

Femi's 'Thirteen' says that a speaker feels fear, they also feel powerless in the presence of police officers.

Shelly's 'England in 1819' talks of people being starved and stabbed, which does they also feel a sense of fear towards authority figures.

This is one of the key differences between the poems. Femi' 'Thirteen' specifically points to an officer and a fed, which means police officer, while the antagonist of Shelly is 'England in 1819' are the king, the princes, and the army." So what I'd like to do is rewrite the first paragraph to develop the model answer.

And you might develop their points by considering some of the following ideas.

You might explain the effect of the words on the reader.

You might analyse the language more closely.

You might link to some relevant context.

You might link to another part of the poem.

Or you might give an alternative interpretation.

So pause the video and rewrite the first paragraph now.

Welcome back, everyone.

Now I'm just going to share a few ideas with you about how you might have gone about developing ideas in the paragraph.

And I'd like to think about whether you included the following ideas.

So which words could you use as synonyms for fear to extend the vocabulary? Did you consider the connections between the powerless boy in Femi' "Thirteen" and the actions being inflict upon the people in Shelly's "England in 1819," which also implies a sense of powerlessness? Did you think about the fact that Shelly's "England in 1819" is more explicit in its violent imagery and the inference we could make about the nature of power and authority in the 19th and the 21st centuries? And finally, did you think about the idea that there is still nobody to hold the antagonist accountable and what that might mean? So pause a video, return to your answer, and see if you considered those ideas.

Fantastic, everyone.

It was great to see some people extending their answers to include some of those ideas that perhaps they didn't consider the first time round.

You all did amazingly well today, everyone.

Here's a summary of what we covered.

Analysing model answers allows to explore how we might frame ideas and how to avoid misconceptions.

An effective introduction to clearly set out the argument of the essay in relation to the question.

An effective conclusion summarises the argument and gestures towards what it might say about society.

One misconception is to interweave quotations for both poems but not effectively analyse them.

Another misconception is to point out differences between the poems but not effectively analyse them.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson, everyone, and hope to see you for another lesson soon.

Goodbye.