Hello, everyone, my name is Ms. Keller, and I'm so glad you could join me for today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be analysing extended and developed responses on belonging poetry.

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

So by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to identify how a model answer about Edexcel Belonging poetry meets a success criteria.

So let's explore today's keywords.

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

And I'd just like to draw your attention there to a couple of pairings.

First of all, nuanced and subtle, because if you notice we've got that word subtle in the definition for nuanced, because nuanced means something that is characterised by subtle distinctions or variations.

And a subtle distinction is something that is less obvious or more complex.

So we know that both of those words there are linked to this idea of less obvious ideas.

And then secondly, we've got another pair, uphold and challenge.

We've got a pair of antonyms there, they have opposite meanings.

Uphold means to support, or maintain a belief or decision or idea.

Whereas challenge is the opposite, it means to question it, to dispute it.

So those pairings will be really important in today's lesson, so do bear them in mind.

Perhaps just take a moment here to familiarise yourself with these words and their meanings because we're going to be encountering them quite a lot in today's lesson.

So, how is today's lesson going to look? Well, it is split into three parts.

In the first part, we're going to focus on creating a strong introduction.

And then we're going to move into the body of the response, so we're going to focus on writing effective comparative analysis paragraphs.

And finally, we are going to focus on using context to create a nuanced conclusion.

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

So before we do that, I'd just like to think about why it is that we look at model answers.

So pause the video here, and take some time to think.

And perhaps discuss this with the people around you, or make a few notes on your paper if you're working on your own.

But why do you think that looking at model answers is a useful exercise? So pause the video here, and click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back.

So here is one of our Oak pupils, Izzy, and she said that she thinks it's useful to look at model answers because, "It allows us to see how we might frame certain ideas and magpie," which is a word that means take or borrow, "Particular phrases for our own work.

As well as potentially allowing us to see how to avoid misconceptions." So it's a great way for us to build a list of things we should do, and perhaps things we shouldn't do, things we should avoid.

So today, we are looking at responses to this question, compare how the poets present identity in "Kumukanda" and in "Wales Wanting to be Italian." So I'd like to start off by giving you a chance to read through Alex's response.

So you can find a copy of Alex's response in the additional materials section of the lesson.

So pause the video here while you take some time to carefully read through this response, because we're going to be working through it in today's lesson.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So now, I would like to hand over to you for a quick discussion.

Do you think that this response is effective, and why or why not? So take a moment to share your impressions of Alex's response with the people around you, or make some notes if you're working on your own.

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

Welcome back.

So, did we think that it was effective? Well, Izzy said she did think that the response was effective, because it showed good understanding of both poems. Zoomed in on words and phrases from those poems to provide a detailed analysis.

I wonder if that came up in any of your discussions, or if you agreed with those ideas.

So let's have a look at Alex's response in more detail, starting off by considering the introduction.

So he says, "Both Chingonyi and Dharker explore how people perceive their cultural identity.

In "Kumukanda," the speaker is forced to immigrate from his homeland to the UK, and reflects on how this impacted his cultural identity.

Whereas in "Wales Wanting to be Italian," the speaker dreams of escaping her mundane life in the UK by fantasising about how it could be different in another country.

Both poets explore links between belonging and cultural identity, however they do this in different ways.

For Chingonyi, cultural identity is something the speaker feels is out of his control since his mother's decision to emigrate resulted in feelings of dislocation from his homeland.

Whereas Dharker's speaker feels she can choose her cultural identity since she explores other more exciting cultures she yearned to belong to." So my question to you is this, what is effective about this introduction? So pause the video here, and really zoom in on words or phrases that Alex has used that you think helps to make this introduction effective.

Perhaps share your ideas with the people around you, or make some notes if you're working on your own.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of people identifying some fantastic examples of language and phrases that Alex has used here to make this introduction so effective.

So let's just go through some of the key things that you might have identified.

So first of all then, Alex uses lots of comparative vocabulary, which shows the relationship between the poems, the similarities, and the differences, and is constantly signposting that all the way through this introduction, which is fantastic.

So we start there with those correlative conjunctions, both and and, to group the poems together.

And we've got another both later on, so again, signposting those similarities.

And then we've also got some words, whereas and however, which suggests that he's now talking about difference.

So it's really clear to the reader here that Alex is focusing on both similarities and differences.

He also gives a brief summary of each poem linked to the key ideas.

So he doesn't fall into the trap of necessarily just telling us what happens in each poem, but he makes sure that that summary is linked to this idea of cultural identity.

And finally, the response directly addresses the question focus.

And if we look here, we can see lots of references to identity.

So it makes it really, really clear to the reader that Alex is directly responding to that question.

And actually using the keywords from the question is a great way to make sure that your analysis or that your comparative writing isn't wandering away from that question focus.

Because it is actually quite easy to do that.

Sometimes we get really into what we're writing, perhaps get a bit carried away, and we realise that we've strayed quite far away from what that question wanted us to respond to.

So those keywords are a fantastic way of really grounding our response in relation to that question.

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

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

Can you fill in the missing words? So pause the video here while you take some time to have a think.

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

Welcome back.

So let's see what these missing words are.

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

And ensure your response directly addresses the question focus.

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

So now it is time to move on to our first practise task of today's lesson.

So now we've had a look at Alex's response.

I'd like to have a look at another of our Oak pupil's responses, Laura.

So this is Laura's introduction.

She says, "Both Chingonyi and Dharker explore how a person's disconnection to a place can result in conflict surrounding their cultural identity.

In "Kumukanda," the speaker leaves Zambia as a child, resulting in them feeling dislocated from their cultural identity.

Whereas Dharker's speaker yearns to have been born in a different country to change her personality.

Both poets explore similar ideas using different literary methods.

So what I would like you to do is to review Laura's introduction carefully, and think about what is effective about the response, but also how it can be improved.

So feel free to work with the people around you, perhaps in pairs, to discuss your ideas.

Or make some notes if you'd prefer to work on your own.

But essentially, we're aiming to give Laura a what went well and an even better if.

It's really important to be constructive with your feedback, especially that even better if.

We need to make sure that we're giving Laura solutions, not problems. So we're not just pointing out perhaps what's wrong with the response, but we are suggesting specific things that Laura could do when she redrafts to improve it.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Can I just say a massive well done, because I could overhear lots of you being really constructive with your feedback? So that is fantastic.

So let's have a look at what we might have said, starting with the what went wells.

So first of all, this response addressed that question focus directly.

We've got those keywords there, cultural identity, so we know that it's signposting to the reader that it's directly answering that question.

Secondly then, it went straight in with a key similarity between the poems, which was fantastic.

Both Chingonyi and Dharker explore.

We know straight away that we've got that similarity because we've got the correlative conjunctions.

And finally, Laura demonstrated a really good knowledge of what happened in both poems. And in both cases she was relating that to cultural identity, or identity in some sense.

So that was fantastic.

So over to the even better ifs then.

So arguably, the similarity could be explored using comparative language to show subtle differences.

And finally, that last sentence I would argue was perhaps a little bit vague.

Could it perhaps have focused instead on ideas and not language? That way it would've helped to link back to Laura's main argument.

So instead of saying both poets explore similar ideas using different literary methods, Laura could have perhaps focused on the fact that they're exploring similar ideas, but perhaps what those subtle differences might be.

So just take a moment to discuss with the people around you, or make a few notes.

Which of these two EBIs do you think would make the most difference to Laura's response, and why? So pause the video here while you take some time to discuss it or have a think.

And when you're ready to continue, click play.

Okay, so we've made it to the second part of today's lesson.

So now we're focused on introductions, it's time to think about writing effective comparative analysis paragraphs.

So we're thinking about the body of the response.

This is the main bulk of your essay, and it's where you make each of your mini arguments, analysing how the poets use language, form, and structure to convey their key ideas.

So here is Laura's first analysis paragraph.

So I'd like you to start off by thinking what is effective about her response.

So I'll read it out.

And as you're listening, perhaps consider what you think is really good about it.

So, "Both poets associate cultural identity with actions.

Chingonyi describes the tribal procession that includes dancing and crossing the water to return grown, Which suggests behaviour is an important part of tribal life.

Dharker describes how the speaker associates certain behaviours with different cultures, describing how the French shrug and pout, while Italians speak without embarrassment as they lounge by a Vespa.

The speaker associates other cultures with self-confidence.

Chingonyi's descriptions are more effective, as Dharker seems to just draw on stereotypes.

I think readers would prefer Chingonyi's poem because it is more educational." So just take a moment to discuss with the people around you or make some notes, what is particularly effective about this response? So we're aiming for a what went well.

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

Welcome back.

So let's explore what you might have identified then as a what went well.

So Laura does identify some similarities and differences between the key ideas.

We've got this both poets associate cultural identity with actions.

And we've got this idea of behaviours in both cases.

And I would argue that ideas are also supported by judiciously chosen evidence.

We can see here that Laura is not just necessarily dropping in a whole line or two lines of poetry, but actually, she selected really important key words from across a number of lines in order to demonstrate her point.

And this is a really fantastic way of judiciously using evidence, because it shows that you're just using the parts of those quotations that are most important to proving your point.

So now we've done the what went wells, let's think about even better ifs.

How could Laura improve this response? So same again, over to you.

Either discuss it or take some time to think on your own and make some notes.

But click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

And well done again for being really, really constructive with that feedback.

Heard lots of people suggesting solutions and giving some really good advice.

So let's just explore some of the great ideas I overheard.

Well arguably, this bit at the end here, the personal interpretation begins to review the poems instead of evaluating.

So actually, I would argue that Laura is perhaps strayed away from focusing on the poet's use of language form and/or structure to just thinking about which poem perhaps she likes more, or which poem she thinks readers might like more.

And actually, comparing two texts isn't about proving which one's better.

It's not about saying which one's more interesting, it's about saying which one is perhaps focusing on a key idea more effectively or in a more engaging way.

That is fine as an evaluative statement, but we're not necessarily just focusing on which one we think readers would like more.

That's more a review than an analysis.

So instead of reviewing, it is far more effective to evaluate the text in relation to the question focus as we were just saying there.

You could ask yourself the following questions, which poet most effectively conveys the speaker's sense of identity? How do they convey identity, similarly or differently? So what I would like you to do is reread the second paragraph of Alex's response.

Which you should already have open there, or if not, you can find it in the additional materials.

And I'd like you to ask yourself the following question, what makes it a more effective response than Laura's? So take some time to read through that poem carefully, and then perhaps to share your ideas with the people around you or make some notes.

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

Welcome back.

So let's go through it together in a bit more detail.

"Firstly, both poets associate cultural identity with certain behaviours.

For Chingonyi, these behaviours are more ritualistic, about the tribal procession that includes dancing and crossing the water to return grown.

Chingonyi's use of verbs here effectively depicts these behaviours as an important part of life in the Luvale tribe, forming crucial milestones in the life of tribe members.

The speaker seemingly confirms this in his concern that Tata's community would view his identity as unfinished because he didn't get to participate in these rituals before leaving Zambia.

Dharker also explores how behaviours are important, somebody's cultural identity.

Similarly to Chingonyi, she uses verbs to dramatically emphasise how the speaker associates certain behaviours with different cultures.

Describing how the French shrug, pout, and make themselves understood without saying a word.

While Italians say, "Bella, bella" aloud without embarrassment as they lounge by a Vespa, smoke, and wear impossibly pointed shoes.

The speaker seems to associate French and Italian culture with confidence and self-assuredness, things the speaker desperately desires to be.

While both poets draw the same link between behaviour and cultural identity, Chingonyi focuses on how the speaker is lacking something because they haven't performed key Luvale rituals.

Whereas Dharker's speaker seems to view these behaviours as additions to herr identity that she yearns to adopt." So let's go through this response, and explore what is effective about it, starting with how Alex is evaluating these texts instead of choosing which is best.

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

So here he's focusing on Chingonyi's use of verbs, and how they're effectively depicting behaviours as an important part of life in the Luvale tribe.

And then later on when he is talking about Dharker's poem, he focuses on how Dharker is using verbs to dramatically emphasise how the speaker associates certain behaviours with different cultures.

So in both cases, these adverbs effectively and dramatically are really helping Alex to be able to evaluate those texts.

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

So if we look at that last sentence there, while both poets draw the same link between behaviour and cultural identity, so he's starting with that similarity, and then when he digs a bit deeper, he's able to find a difference.

Chingonyi focuses on what is lacking, while Dharker focuses on these behaviours as an addition.

And we've got that word whereas there in order to signpost to the reader that we've got a difference.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

True or false this time.

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

So pause the video while you take a moment to think.

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

Okay, welcome back.

And well done to those of you who said false.

So, why is it false? Well, because we should avoid simply reviewing the poems, and instead focus on how and why we think the poets took subtly different approaches.

So remember, we're always aiming to evaluate or analyse over reviewing.

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

So here is Laura's second analysis paragraph.

So she writes, "Both poems reflect negatively on the speaker's own identity by comparing it to other identities that each speaker yearns for.

Dharker's speaker desperately wants to be someone else, and describes how she's dying to be French, wanting to declare you're from somewhere like Zanzibar, and longing to be Italian.

These descriptions show she's unhappy with her current life.

Chingonyi's speaker also seems unhappy with his life, describing his immigration to the UK as growing up in a strange place.

This implies he misses Zambia and doesn't like living in the UK." So what I would like you to do is review Laura's paragraph, giving her a what went well, and an even better if.

And then when you have given her some feedback, I would like you to use that feedback to rewrite the paragraph and improve it.

So add in anything that you perhaps think that Laura has missed.

So pause the video here.

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

Welcome back.

So here is perhaps some of the feedback you might have given Laura.

So, what went well? I would argue that she had a really good use of supporting detail.

The quotes she'd chosen were judiciously chosen, and they really did help to support her point in the topic sentence.

And she'd also used lots of fantastic comparative language in order to signpost the similarities and differences between the two poets.

So even better if, I think that arguably Laura could have done a little bit more with those quotes.

So she could have really zoomed in on the language, identifying and analysing literary methods.

And also, there was a point where perhaps she might have started to stray from the question focus.

And it's really important for her to keep using those key words linked to the question in order to ground that response in relation to the question.

So let's have a look at how we might have rewritten Laura's paragraph in order to improve it.

So everything that you see here in black is the original paragraph.

And then everything in green is something that I've added.

So both poems reflect negatively on the speaker's own identity by comparing it to other identities that each speaker yearns for.

Dharker's speaker desperately wants to be someone else, and describes how she's dying to be French, wanting to declare you are from somewhere like Zanzibar, and longing to be Italian.

Dharker's use of verbs here emphasises how unhappy the speaker is with the culture she has grown up in, and how she yearned to belong to a different culture in order to escape its monotony.

And here, verbs is signposting that the keywords in those quotations are dying, wanting, and longing.

So just identifying those types of words there is really, really helping to add detail to this analysis.

Chingonyi's speaker also seems unhappy with his life, describing his immigration to the UK as growing up in a strange place.

This adjective, so again, we are zooming in on what type of word strange is, implies he misses Zambia, and doesn't feel like he has a cultural connection to the UK.

Since he views this place as alien, we could argue that the speak feels disconnected from his cultural identity, but doesn't view it as something he can change, since even later in life and in the poem he still feels more culturally connected to Zambian culture than his life in the UK.

So here at the end, we've added lots more detail to this discussion of the speaker's relationship with the UK and with Zambia.

And also there at the end, even better, we've been able to jump forward in the poem to discuss how the ideas progress, which is also a fantastic way of adding detail to your analysis.

So just take a moment for a quick fire discussion then.

Which of your rewrites did you think made the greatest improvement to Laura's paragraph, and why? So pause the video here, and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, so we have made it to the final part of today's lesson.

So we have explored strong introductions.

We are now feeling a lot more confident when it comes to writing effective comparative analysis paragraph, so it's time for us to attack that final part of the response, the conclusion.

And in particular, we're going to be exploring how to use context to create a nuanced conclusion.

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

Summarising the similarities and differences that you have identified in your response so far.

Considering why you think the poems take such similar or different approaches.

And any relevant links to wider context that help shape your interpretation of the poems. So let's just pause here, and think specifically about this last point.

How does context help to shape our interpretation of a literary text? So just take a moment to discuss this with the people around you, or make a few notes.

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

Welcome back.

So first of all, you might have been discussing this idea that 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 particular way.

So knowing about their life, knowing about their experiences helps us to perhaps infer and interpret what their influences might have been.

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

Particularly when we are studying poems that were written perhaps a couple of hundred years ago, we might expect to see different attitudes or beliefs when it comes to, for example gender, or when it comes to growing up, or identity.

So these are all important things to think about.

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

And we've got that important pair of words there from the beginning.

This idea, are they agreeing perhaps with the norms or expectations of the time that they were writing or perhaps what we might expect from somebody who had the experiences that they did? Or are they challenging these norms, and expectations, and stereotypes? So it can give us a real insight into the attitudes of the poet.

So now it's time to reread Alex's conclusion.

So bring up Alex's response again.

Remember you can find it in the additional materials.

And this is the last paragraph of his response that we're focusing on now.

And what I would like you to do is read Alex's conclusion, and then read Laura's conclusion below.

And my question to you is this, how does it compare to Laura's conclusion? Which is more effective, why do you think that is? Perhaps thinking really carefully about what went wells, and even better ifs in both cases.

So pause the video here while you take some time to read both of those conclusions and compare how effective they are.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So let's start off by focusing with Laura's conclusion then.

So, what did we think of this conclusion? Well, you might have said something like this.

I would argue that Laura's conclusion lacks key details about the significance of the poets intercultural identities in terms of how it may have inspired their poetry.

So what was good about this conclusion is, yes, Laura did know lots about Chingonyi, and about Dharker, and their lives, and perhaps how they view their own identities.

And that is fantastic that she had that knowledge, but it was perhaps what she was doing with that knowledge that could have been improved.

She missed a golden opportunity here to link the poets intercultural identities to how it might have inspired the way that they've depicted each of their speakers identities.

So perhaps that's what we were missing.

And also, it might have been a good idea to consider how these contextual factors have shaped the way each poet conveys their idea.

So she could have also thought about perhaps how the writers were using language to discuss cultural identity might actually link to each of the poets own perceptions of cultural identity, both their own cultural identity and cultural identity more generally.

So now, let's have a look at Alex's conclusion, and see what makes it so effective.

So he starts off by summarising the similarities and differences.

And arguably, this is more specifically related to the question focus identity than perhaps it was in Laura's response.

And if we see that we've got lots of references to cultural identity.

So he's really signposting those keywords from the question.

And also, each poet's depiction of identity is linked to Alex's contextual knowledge of the poem and the poet.

So we've got that signpost in there again at how these differences in the way that they've depicted cultural identity links to a potential difference in what he knows about the poets.

So as it continues, he gives us a summary in each case of the poet's wider context, their life and their experiences.

So Chingonyi left Zambia as a young boy, so perhaps the feelings of dislocation could reflect Chingonyi's own feelings of identity.

Whereas Dharker emigrated as a young child, but she appears to have embraced her intercultural identity.

So again, this could link to how her speaker views identity as something you can choose.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

How can context help to shape our interpretation of a text? Pause the video while you make your mind up, and click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

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, but it also helps us to infer whether a writer is upholding or challenging attitudes or beliefs with their work.

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

And what I would like you to do is write three top tips for producing a nuanced conclusion.

So just as we were doing before with those even better ifs, they must be specific things that you can do in your writing.

So things you might want to think about is, how did Alex use comparative language? How did Alex use context? How might he have included personal interpretations? And how did he use discourse markers? So do feel free to have another read over Alex's conclusion if you need to.

So pause the video here while you take some time to write your top tips.

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

Welcome back.

So let's have a look at how some of our Oak pupils responded, and the top tips that they came up with for writing a nuanced conclusion.

So Jacob said, "I'm going to start my conclusion with discourse marker, in conclusion or to summarise, to indicate to my reader that I've finished my analysis." Andeep said, "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 Lucas said, "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." Some really great tips there.

I wonder if you had anything similar in the tips that you came up with.

So we've made it to the end of today's 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.

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 the poems. So thank you very much for joining me in today's session.

Have a fantastic day, everyone, and I hope to see you all again soon.