Hello everyone, my name's Ms. Keller, and welcome to today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be analysing an extended and developed response about conflict poetry.

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

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to identify how a model answer meets success criteria.

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

We have nuanced, evaluate, uphold, challenge, and subtle.

So do take a moment to pause the video here and familiarise yourselves with these words because they are going to be very important in today's lesson.

But before we move on, I'd just like to draw your attention to two of the words, and that is the first word, nuanced, and the last word, subtle.

Now, you may have already spotted there that we actually have that word subtle in the definition of nuanced.

So let's just start by exploring what subtle is.

Well, it's an adjective that we use to describe something that is either less obvious or more complex.

So it's something that perhaps most people wouldn't notice straight away or that might need a bit more explanation in order for people to be able to understand it.

And that is where that important link comes in with the word nuanced, another adjective there, which means that is something that is characterised by subtle distinctions or variations.

So when we are writing, analysis writing, we are aiming for a detailed and nuanced analysis.

So in order to achieve that, we need to make sure that our analysis includes these subtle distinctions.

So we're exploring subtle similarities or subtle differences between the two texts.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, we are going to work through the structure of a comparative analysis and we're going to be exploring what makes effective writing in each of the sections.

So we're going to start off by looking at how we would create strong introduction.

Then we're going to look at how to write effective comparative analysis paragraphs.

And finally, we're going to explore how to use context to create a nuanced conclusion.

So in this lesson, we are going to be exploring some model answers from our Oak pupils.

So just to start off, I would like to have a quick fire discussion.

So with the people around you, or if you're working on your own, you can just make some notes.

Why do you think looking at model answers is a useful exercise? What can we gain from it? So pause the video here for 30 seconds or so while you have a think and take some time to share your ideas.

And when you're ready to continue, click play, and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Really fantastic effort there to start us off.

I was particularly impressed by how respectfully we were all listening to each other's opinions and that is fantastic.

So you might have said something along the lines of Izzy's response here.

It allows us to see how we might frame certain ideas and magpie, which is perhaps a more diplomatic word for take or borrow, particular phrases for our own work, as well as potentially allowing us to see how to avoid misconceptions.

So yes, we can get some ideas for perhaps effective sentence starters or vocabulary or ways of explaining things, but also it's useful for us to see what not to do.

So today, we are going to be looking at responses to the following question.

Compare how the poets present terror in "Extract from the Prelude" and "Belfast Confetti." So do grab your copy of the anthology, if you haven't already, because you will need it in today's lesson.

And if you need to, pause the video and have a quick read through of each of the texts to remind yourselves of the text we'll be using.

So first of all, I would like you to read Alex's response, so you can find it in the additional materials section of the lesson.

So pause the video here and read Alex's response really carefully because we are going to be working through it for the rest of today's lesson.

Pause the video here and click play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, so now you've had a chance to read through Alex's response, I would like you to take a moment to discuss it with the people around you or make some notes on your first impressions.

So do you think this response is effective, and why or why not? So pause the video again and click play when you are ready for us to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back.

I could hear lots of people zooming in on really specific examples of what you thought made Alex's response effective.

So well done if you were doing that in your discussions as well.

So here is what Izzy thought of Alex's response.

She said, "I think this response is effective because it shows a good understanding of both poems. It zooms in on words and phrases from the poems to provide a detailed analysis." So let's break down this response then into the different sections and see if we think that it is as effective as Izzy says and why.

So starting with the introduction.

So here is the beginning of Alex's response.

He says, "Both Wordsworth and Carson explore how terror can lead to inner conflict, permeating through someone's mind and affecting their perception of things they once found comforting and familiar.

In "Extract from the Prelude," the speaker encounters a natural phenomenon that causes unnerving feelings of the sublime.

Whereas in "Belfast Confetti," the speaker describes how the troubles have transformed the once-familiar city of Belfast into a chaotic war zone.

Although both poets explore different types of terror, there are similarities in their speaker's responses to it and also in the way each poet conveys the sense of overwhelming fear.

So over to you again then, what is effective about this introduction? So pause the video while you take some time to discuss it with the people around you or make some notes and when you're ready to go through it together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

I was particularly impressed to hear so many of you really zooming in on how Alex was using language to explain his ideas.

Because yes, your ideas and your connections are important, but how you explain and articulate your ideas is equally as important.

So let's have a look.

I would argue that there are three main things that Alex does in this introduction that makes it particularly effective.

First of all, he uses lots of comparative vocabulary to show the relationship between the poems. So we've got that correlative conjunctions there at the beginning, both Wordsworth and Carson.

So straightaway, we know that we are launching with a similarity, and then we've also got lots of comparative vocabulary later on.

We've got whereas, which indicates a different, different types, and then we've got words such as similarities and also which show that we are exploring things that the poems have in common, and particularly impressively, we've got the sentence, the last sentence there.

Although both poets explore different types of terror, there are similarities.

So really cleverly here, Alex has begun the sentence by telling us about a difference, but then actually found quite a subtle similarity that joins the poems together again.

So he also gave a brief summary of each poem that was linked to key ideas and we can see that there in the middle, the speaker encounters a natural phenomenon in "Extract from the Prelude." And in "Belfast Confetti," this speaker describes how the troubles have transformed the city of Belfast, and actually, really cleverly Alex is just touching on some contextual knowledge in both cases.

So we've got this idea that he links "Extract from the Prelude" to the sublime, which we know is a romantic convention.

And when he is talking about "Belfast Confetti," he links to the troubles, which we know inspired this poem.

And finally, the response directly addresses the question focus.

So all the way through Alex has peppered this response with words that link to that keyword from the question, terror.

So we do have the word terror twice, but then we've also got other ideas that we would associate with terror such as inner conflict, unnerving, chaotic, and overwhelming fear.

So all the way through this instruction, Alex is repeatedly reinforcing that this answer is relevant to the question focus.

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

So earlier, we identified three top tips for writing a strong introduction.

Can you fill in the missing words below? So pause the video while you have a read through and see if you can fill those missing words in.

And when you are ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's have a look then at these gaps.

So number one, use comparative vocabulary to show the relationship between the poems. Two, include a brief summary of each poem linked to key ideas.

And number three, ensure your response directly addresses the question focus.

So well done if you managed to identify all of those missing words.

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

And another of our Oak student, Laura, has written an introduction answering the same question.

So remember, we were exploring terror in "Extract from the Prelude" and "Belfast Confetti." So Laura says, "Wordsworth explores how terror can lead to inner conflict when his speaker unexpectedly sees a mountain and it troubles them afterwards.

Carson also explores how terror can lead to inner conflict as his speaker watched Belfast become a war zone.

They use language differently to produce different effects." So what I would like you to do is take some time to discuss with the people around you or make some notes thinking carefully about what is effective about this response and how can it be improved.

So here we are really aiming to give Laura a what went well and an even better if.

It's really important when you're reviewing somebody else's work that you are constructive with your feedback.

And what that means is, okay, we aren't looking at things that perhaps could be improved next time, but it's really important to make your suggestions in a way that is respectful because we're remembering that this is somebody else's work that they have tried really hard with.

So we need to make sure first of all, that we are being respectful in the way we phrase our suggested improvements.

But even more than that, that we are suggesting the specific things that Laura can do when she redrafts because there's not much point giving people any advice, and even better if we don't, then perhaps make some suggestions for what they could do next time to make it better.

So do bear that in mind.

So pause the video here while you take some time to review Laura's work and when you are ready to go through the feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

It was really impressive to see so many of you being very constructive with your feedback.

So well done if you made a particular effort to do that.

So let's explore this response in a bit more detail.

So first of all, for what went well then, Laura did address the question focus quite specifically here with lots of words linked to that idea of terror.

And arguably, she also identified a key similarity between the poems because she reflected on how terror can lead to inner conflict and how we see that in both of the poems. And finally, I think that she had a very good knowledge of what happened in each poem.

She summarised each poem quite succinctly.

So for her even better if then, I would argue that the similarity could possibly have been explored in a bit more detail.

We've got this perhaps more obvious similarity, but maybe there was an opportunity here for Laura to explore some subtle differences because yes, in both cases, terror does lead to inner conflict.

However, the speakers in both poems are experiencing a very different type of inner conflict and also a very different type of terror.

So perhaps she could have reflected on that a bit more.

And also this last sentence, arguably it should focus on ideas and not language.

What is the argument of the essay here? So instead of saying they use language differently to produce different effects, which is arguably a little bit vague and also something that she's going to come onto later, she could have summarised perhaps why she thought the poems were different.

Maybe this was an opportunity to link to context.

So just take a moment here then which EBI do you think would make the most difference to Laura's response if she made those changes and why? So pause the video and just have a quick fire discussion with the people around you or make a few notes and when you're ready to continue, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, so now we have explored creating a strong introduction.

It's time to move on to the main body of a comparative response, and this is our comparative analysis paragraphs.

So in your comparative analysis paragraphs, this is where you make each of your mini arguments analysing how the poets use language, form and structure to convey their key ideas.

So you've introduced your thesis or your overarching argument in your introduction, and this is where you start to break that down into your mini arguments.

So here is Laura's first analysis paragraph.

And my question to you is this, what is effective about her response? So take a moment to read through the response and discuss with the people around you or make a few notes and when you're ready for us to discuss it together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's just read through it together and then we'll explore it in more detail.

So both poets describe the cause of the terror very differently.

"Carson begins, 'Suddenly as the riot squad moved in, it was raining exclamation marks.

' This gives the beginning of the poem a quick pace, making it seem like everything is going at a hundred miles an hour, showing how overwhelming everything is.

Wordsworth describes terror slowly as a huge peak upreared its head and towered up over the speaker.

This is gradual and less effective as mountains aren't nearly as scary as the chaos of a war zone.

Carson's descriptions are much more intense compared to Wordsworth's, meaning that readers would more likely engage with his poem." So let's start off then by thinking about what was effective about this response.

So well done if you were picking up on the idea that throughout the response, she is identifying some similarities and differences, we've got this idea of the quick pace versus Wordsworth's much slower introduction of the terror.

And we could also argue that her ideas are supported by judiciously chosen evidence from the text.

And what I mean here is that she's chosen the best quote to support her response.

Perhaps not just the first quote she could remember, but the best one because it's really helping to prove the point that she's trying to make.

So now we've explored what's good about this response, how could she improve it? So take a moment to discuss some constructive feedback for Laura here.

Press pause and click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back.

I could hear lots of people discussing the part of the text that I think perhaps needs the most improvement, and I think that's towards the end of Laura's response.

Arguably in this last sentence, Laura begins to review the poem.

Her personal interpretations of the text perhaps wandered away from this focus of analysing terror and they're not really evaluating.

Yes, we can say perhaps that one presents terror more effectively than the other.

But I would argue here that Laura has strayed into thinking about what she personally finds scary with these phrases like mountains aren't nearly as scary.

And arguably, comparing two texts isn't about proving which text is better.

It's not about trying to find out which one people would enjoy reading more.

It's about thinking all the time about this question focus.

So instead of falling into the trap of simply reviewing the text, it's far more effective to evaluate them in relation to this question focus.

So in order to do this, you could ask yourself the following questions, which poet most effectively conveys the speaker's sense of terror? And here we're getting that most effectively.

So we are making a value judgement.

We are evaluating and saying perhaps which one we think did it better, but we are not simply saying which poem we preferred, and also how do they convey terror similarly or differently.

So I would like you to reread the second paragraph of Alex's response that we can find in the additional materials and take some time to discuss the following question, what makes it a more effective response than Laura's? So pause the video here, take some time to read through the response independently and then share your ideas with the people around you or make a few notes.

Pause the video for as long as you need to and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

So let's break down this response then and work out what's particularly effective about it.

Well, to begin with, Alex evaluated the text instead of choosing simply which one was best.

And he did this by focusing on what each one does most effectively.

So if we see here, Carson effectively builds up a sense of urgency.

So the value judgement here is that "Belfast Confetti" is the most urgent seeming of the two poems. Whereas in Wordsworth's poem, he manages to draw out this idea that Wordsworth cleverly conveys the speaker's sense of growing horror.

So where "Belfast Confetti" was the most urgent, perhaps this poem was best at creating that slow burning sense of fear.

He also explores subtle differences in detail, considering how and why the poets have taken different approaches.

So if we look towards at the end of the paragraph, by introducing the cause of terror in different ways, each poet draws on a different type of fear.

So he's unpicking that difference and thinking about, okay, so what is the result of what each poet is doing? And then even more cleverly, he actually then tries to link it to what he knows about the context.

So Carson focuses on urgency because the troubles was perhaps quite a chaotic time and he wants to convey that sense of panic.

Whereas Wordsworth's slow burning fear perhaps links to ideas of the sublime, which we know we might expect to see in this poem because it is a romantic text.

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

So this time, true or false.

When comparing two poems, it's important to decide which you think is best.

So pause the video here while you make your mind up.

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.

So now it's time to justify your answer.

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

So pause the video again and click play when you are ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

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

We should avoid simply reviewing the poems and instead focus on how and why we think the poets took subtly different approaches.

Okay, so it is time for the second practise task of today's lesson.

So here is Laura's second analysis paragraph.

So we went through her first one together and this is the next one she wrote in her response, "Both poems describe feelings of discomfort and confusion.

We can see this in the line 'were a trouble to my dreams' because the speaker describes how the mountain has caused him nightmares.

This is an example of inner conflict.

Carson also describes the speaker's discomfort and confusion, ending the poem: 'What is my name? Where am I coming from? Where am I going? A fusillade of question marks.

' This creates a sense of confusion as there are lots of questions like gunfire.

Both poets do focus on confusion and discomfort, but they present it differently." So your task here then is to review this paragraph, giving Laura a what went well and an even better if and then use that feedback to rewrite the paragraph and improve it.

So it's really important that you're given that constructive feedback here because it's precisely those constructive suggestions that you are going to need to use in order to rewrite this paragraph.

So pause the video here and take as much time as you need to read it carefully, review it and redraft.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So let's explore then the feedback that we had for Laura and perhaps how we could have improved the response.

So a what went well.

I would argue that she identified a good similarity, linked directly to the question focus.

However, I think the next time, it'll be a really good idea if Laura could break up some of those larger quotes that she'd included in the paragraph and zooming in on particular keywords and phrases to analyse methods.

So let's explore how that might look in practise.

So here is just an example of how you could rewritten this paragraph.

Both poems and similarly, drawing on feelings of discomfort and confusion.

Wordsworth's speaker describes how thoughts of the mountain were trouble to his dreams. And this was a point where Laura moved on, but here we're going to dig deeper into the language.

This implies that the experience has stayed with him for some time, perhaps causing nightmares.

He focuses on the inner conflict the experience has caused the speaker as the memories moved slowly through his mind.

Once again, Wordsworth conveys a sense of slow burning, yet deep rooted terror.

So we actually had another opportunity to put in an extra quotation there just by analysing that language in detail.

Carson also leaves us with a description of the speaker's discomfort and confusion, ending the poem with a series of rhetorical questions, described as a fusillade of question marks.

Building up the questions here contributes to a sense of confusion, as it implies the speaker is questioning things he perhaps knew to be true before the chaos began, such as, where am I coming from? Where am I going? The use of the noun fusillade is very effective as it connects the paramilitary chaos linking to the gunfire, while also symbolising how overwhelming the terror and confusion is here for the speaker.

Although both poems end with a similar emotional message, the intensity and pace of how it's described explores how fear can be overwhelming in different ways.

So notice that how much more detail and nuanced Laura was able to get into that response just by unpicking those key quotations.

So now we are on to the final part of today's lesson and we're going to explore how to write a nuanced conclusion.

So in your conclusion, it's a good idea to focus on the following.

First of all, summarising the similarities and differences that you identified in your response so far.

And a really good way to do that is if you've been using a single paragraph outline to plot each of your paragraphs to go back over that plan and check that you included everything in your conclusion when you're summarising, you should also consider why you think the poems take such similar or different approaches, so linking to the writer's intentions and any relevant links to wider context that help shape your interpretation of the poems. So over to you for a discussion.

How does the wider context help to shape our interpretation of a literary text? So pause the video here while you take some time to discuss it or make some notes and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting suggestions there.

So let's just summarise some of the fantastic responses that I overheard.

So first of all then, context can help to shape our interpretation because knowing about a writer's life and experiences can help us to infer what may have inspired them to write a certain text or convey their ideas in a certain way.

Knowledge of the time and text was written or set can also inform our interpretations as it gives us an insight into the attitudes or beliefs at the time.

And both of these things can help us to consider whether the writer is upholding or challenging norms, expectations or stereotypes.

So what I mean by that is knowledge of our writer and knowledge of this world that the text was born into gives us a bit of an insight perhaps about what we might have expected to see in a text like this.

And then when we are analysing it, we can begin to think, well, is this matching up to perhaps what our expectations of the text were or is it challenging our expectations? So let's re-read Alex's conclusion found in the additional materials.

This is the last paragraph of his response.

So take some time to read through that response.

And then I would like you to read through Laura's conclusion here and think about how the two compare.

So which is more effective and why? So pause the video here while you take some time to read these conclusions and compare them.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So I hope you have had a chance to familiarise yourself with both of these responses then.

So let's start with Laura's response.

So I would argue that overall Alex's response was more effective and probably because Laura's conclusion lacked a lot of important details about the significance of Carson living in Belfast during the troubles.

She does acknowledge that she knows that.

However, she's not really considering why that might have affected the way that he chose to write the poem.

And also, again, identifying that Wordsworth was a romantic writer, but not really digging deeper into the ideals or conventions that we might have expected to see reflected in his work.

Also, it might have been a good idea to consider how these contextual factors shape the way that the poets convey their ideas.

So really thinking about the types of language we might have expected to see and perhaps attitudes towards issues or themes or emotions.

So now we've had a look at Laura's response, let's compare it to Alex's response and think about what makes Alex's response more effective.

So first of all, he begins with this summary of the similarities and differences, and it's more specifically related to the question focus than in Laura's response.

Both writers explore feelings of terror.

We straightaway got that signpost to the question focus.

And also we've got different perspectives, but there are similarities in the way they describe the causes of terror.

So we've got this idea that he's drawing out that subtle similarity from a difference.

Also, each poet's depiction of terror is linked to Alex's contextual knowledge of the poem or the poet.

So Carson conveys terror directly and intensely because this could link to his personal feelings that he experienced living in Belfast during the trouble.

So we've got that link there to how that context might have shaped Carson's creative choices.

And same again when it comes to Wordsworth.

So Wordsworth focuses on the introspective, the internalised nature of terror, and this could link to romantic ideals, which focus on self-discovery and the unnerving nature of the sublime.

So again, we've got that link of this is what I expected to see and this is how I noticed that in the text.

So let's pause and check our understanding one last time.

How can context help to shape our interpretation of the text? Take a look at the answers, pause the video while you have a think.

And when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play and we'll carry on.

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

It gives us clues as to what may have inspired a poet to write in a particular way.

And it can help us infer whether a writer is upholding or challenging attitudes or beliefs with their work.

So now we are on to the final practise task of today's lesson, and I would like you to write three top tips for producing a nuanced conclusion.

And just as before, they need to be specific and constructive things that you can do in your writing.

So think carefully about how Alex's response used comparative language, wider context, personal interpretations and discourse markers.

So pause the video here, take another look at Alex's conclusion, write your top tips, and when you're ready to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's share some top tips from our Oak pupils then.

So Jacob said, "I'm going to start my conclusion with a discourse marker, in conclusion or to summarise, to indicate to my reader that I finished my analysis." Andeep says, "I'm going to use my single paragraph outline plan to help me summarise the similarities and differences I've covered to ensure I don't make any new points in the conclusion." And finally, Lucas says, "I'm going to use the words challenge and/or uphold to ensure I discuss how I think a certain writer is responding to the attitudes or beliefs about a particular topic in their poem." So we have made it to the end of today's lesson and a massive well done for all your hard work.

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.

Context can be used to develop arguments and shape our interpretations of a text.

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

And comparative vocabulary should be used to compare the language, form and structure of poems. So thanks for joining me in today's lesson.

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