Hello everyone.

My name's Miss.

Keller and welcome to today's lesson.

In this lesson, we are going to be focusing on writing an extended response about Robert Louis Stevenson's, "The Strange case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".

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

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to create a written response which meets a success criteria.

So let's explore today's keywords.

We have nuanced, feature spotting, tentative language, discourse markers and redraft.

So do take a moment to pause the video here and make sure you are really familiar with all of these words, because we're going to be encountering them quite a lot in today's lesson.

But before you do, I'd just like to draw your attention to that second word there, feature spotting, because this is a trap that we can sometimes fall into when we're doing analytical writing that prevents us from writing in as much detail as we can.

So feature spotting is leading an analytical paragraph by identifying methods or techniques used by a writer.

So your opening sentence would look something like Stevenson uses a metaphor to, now, while this isn't necessarily incorrect or an invalid way of writing, it's far more effective to begin by discussing the meanings or the effects that are created in a text.

So it would be much better off saying something like Stevenson presents Hyde as animalistic.

And then later on, once we've given our evidence, we can go on to analyse the language because actually, analysing the language is how we prove our point.

It isn't the bulk of the point that we are making.

So do bear that in mind as we go along today's lesson.

So how is the lesson gonna look? Well, in the first half of the lesson, we are going to get straight down to business and write our response.

And then when we've done that and we have an extended response, we're going to practise reviewing, reflecting and redrafting to make that response the very best it can be.

Today we are gonna be answering the following question, how does Stevenson present dehumanisation in this extract and in the novel as a whole? So let's start by focusing on the extract that we've been given.

So today we're going to be working with an extract from chapter eight of the novella and you can find it in the additional materials.

So do take a moment to locate and read it through carefully.

And when you've done that, I'd like you to summarise what happens in the extracts.

'Cause it's really important that we fully understand this extract before we move along.

So pause the video here, take some time to read, come up with your summary, and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

So how could we summarise what happens in the extract? Well, you might have said, this extract highlights the lack of humanity people perceive in Hyde, Utterson and Poole discuss how Hyde makes them feel and their suspicions of him in contrast to their positive view of Jekyll.

So let's use our summary then to build a list of things that we're going to try to identify in our response.

So here I've highlighted some of these key ideas.

So we've got that lack of humanity focus.

We've also got this idea that both of these characters are discussing how Hyde makes them feel.

So again, a bit of an insight into people's perceptions of Hyde.

And then we've also got this idea that they're talking about how Hyde makes them feel in contrast to their positive view of Jekyll.

So here we've got a list of things when we come to annotating the extract in a moment, that we are going to be trying to identify.

So first of all, focusing on that lack of humanity.

And then secondly, focusing on how that contrasts with people's perceptions of Jekyll.

So take a moment to reread the extract from chapter eight, identifying any useful quotations linked to the points above as you are reading.

And I've just popped a reminder of that question there at the bottom of the screen.

So pause at the video here and click play when you're ready for us to go through the text together.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of great quotations I overheard you discussing there.

So let's just bring together some key ideas.

So first of all then Hyde lack of humanity.

So you might have selected the moment where Paul views hide like a creature.

And he says, that thing was not my master.

We've got that word thing there, very dehumanising language.

We've also got the use of dehumanising pronouns.

It, he's not calling him a he, he's not recognising that he's a man, he's saying it.

Paul also uses animalistic language and he describes a feeling of horror at seeing Hyde.

And he says that masked thing like a monkey jumped from among the chemical whipped into the cabinet.

It went down my spine like ice.

So first of all, we've got that comparison there to a monkey.

So that animistic language and also that metaphor describing that feeling of horror, how it went down his spine like ice.

And finally, Utterson believes Hyde will behave violently when they discover him.

He says, you and I are about to place ourselves in a position of some peril.

So he perhaps perceives this lack of humanity in Hyde, he thinks that he's going to respond to being discovered with violence and aggression.

So onto this second point then.

So how does this contrast with people's positive perceptions of Jekyll? So things you may have selected from the extract.

First of all, Paul describes Jekyll and hides contrasting features.

He says, my master is a tall fine build of a man.

And this was more of a dwarf.

And actually this is a run in theme throughout the novella with people really focusing on how small Hyde is in comparison to Jekyll.

And perhaps this could almost place them in a sort of hierarchy.

Hyde is lesser than Jekyll.

He also won't believe that this creature could be Jekyll.

And he says God knows what it was, but it was never Dr.

Jekyll, showing that he has such a low opinion of the creature and perhaps such a high opinion of Dr.

Jekyll, that he refuses to believe that they could be one and the same.

And finally, Utterson associates Hyde with evil and he says evil, I fear founded, evil was sure to come of that connection.

So he associates evil with Hyde, and actually it's because of the connection he feels perhaps that Jekyll's reputation has been dragged down to Hyde's level.

So now over to you for a discussion.

Now we've got our examples from the extract.

It is time for us to start thinking about the rest of the novella.

So, can you think of any examples linked to Hyde's inhumanity and or how he contrasts with Jekyll from the rest of the text? Pause the video here while you have a think.

Make some notes or discuss it with the people around you.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back, I overheard some really fantastic suggestions there.

So let's just summarise some of the parts of the text you may have selected.

So first of all, in chapter one, we get this idea that Enfield thinks he's not easy to describe and he notes how he must be deformed somewhere.

He gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point.

And actually Enfield is one of many characters who struggled to pinpoint what they dislike about Hyde.

And they see something that runs through the novel.

People don't quite know what it is, but they know that they've got this ominous feeling about him.

They think there's something not normal about him.

There are also lots of references in the Novella linking Hyde to the devil.

In chapter 10, he's called the devil and the child of hell.

And also Lanyon Reed's Satan's signature on Hyde's face in chapter two.

So again, we've got another running thread there that perhaps he's something more than human.

He is some sort of evil hellish creature.

We also have references throughout the novella to Hyde's lack of humanity and mercy, the way that he trampled calmly over the child in the first chapter of the novella, and also the animalistic apelike violence that he displays when he murders Sir Danvers Carew.

And we could contrast this with descriptions of Jekyll from the novella that emphasised his respectability.

For example, when Utterson notes that there's every mark of kindness on his face, and also the description of how his friends are intelligent and reputable men.

So did you manage to find any of these examples? Did you find some other examples? Perhaps if there are someone here that you didn't get when you were making your notes, take some time to note one or two of them down before you move on.

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

So before writing, it's a good idea to plan because this will help you response to stay focused and linked to your thesis, your main argument throughout.

And your overall essay structure should look something like this, an introduction, three main points, which we call the body of the response, and then a conclusion.

So in your introduction, it's a good idea to move from the general to the specific and include your thesis statement.

So you start by summarising the novella as a whole.

Then you move to this specific question focus, and this is where you state your main argument.

And then these three points are going to explore that thesis statement in more detail.

And each of these should be a paragraph in its own right, including a topic sentence, supporting detail with methods identified and analysed, any relevant links to context and a concluding sentence.

And then finally, your conclusion.

So this is where you move back out from the specific detailed examples to the general.

And we start discussing the novela as a whole once again.

So you summarise your main argument, your thesis statement, and leave an impactful for closing statement.

And your conclusion is a great place to explore the writer's intentions and any relevant links to wider context.

So let's pause here and check our understanding.

Once you've annotated the extract and identified key quotes, you should do what, pause the video here while you make your mind up and click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

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

Once you've annotated the extract, found your key quotes, you should identify relevant examples from the rest of the novella.

So now it's time for the first practise task of today's lesson, and it's time for us to plan our response.

So what I would like you to do is make notes about what you intend to include for each section.

So this is a good place to select your key quotes.

Think about that thesis statement and make notes of any key contextual information that you think you're going to include.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So I hope you had some time to make your notes there.

So here's an example of how you could have planned your response.

So in the introduction then, we could have said Stevenson presents Hyde as inhuman, depicting him as animalistic and ruthless emphasising contrast Sir Jekyll's respectability critiques Victorian attitudes to immorality and repressed desires.

So we've got that thesis statement there.

Hyde is presented as inhuman contrasted to the respectable Jekyll.

And we think possibly that Stevenson may be doing this to critique Victorian attitudes to immorality and repression.

So then the main body, how are we gonna explore this idea in more detail? So points one and two have been taken from the extract.

So first of all, Paul views Hyde as something less than human, and we've got that dehumanising language, that thing.

And then the second point, Hyde is depicted as a feral wild animal who behaves in an uncivilised, aggressive way.

And we've got that simile, masked thing like a monkey.

So we've got this idea that first of all, he isn't viewed as human, but moreover that he's actually viewed like a feral wild beast.

And then point three, which has been taken from the rest of the novella, it'll be a good idea to make the link that Stevenson contrasts hides wild aggression with Jekyll's respectability throughout.

So this is where we can draw on those different descriptions we were looking at earlier.

So first of all, this idea that Hyde has this ape like fury, how he trampled calmly over the child compared to Jekyll's kindness and his intelligent reputable friends.

And then finally for the conclusion, Stevenson's novella can be read as a warning to Victorian readers about the consequences of acting on immoral behaviour in secret.

So we've got that link to the top where we suggested that he might be critiquing Victorian attitudes to immorality and repressed desires.

And if you notice in the instruction and the conclusion, we've got really great opportunities there to get in some of that contextual knowledge.

So have you included a thesis statement in your introduction? That's really important, so double check that you've got one.

Have you made notes on the evidence that you're going to use to support each of your points? And finally, does your conclusion link to Stevenson's intentions and or that wider context? So do take a moment to review your plan.

Feel free to add in anything that you can see here that you think you might have missed.

Okay, so now we've done our plan, it is time to write our response.

So here is a reminder of that question there at the top and also a reminder of what your response should include.

So remember to begin with that clear thesis statement, exploring ideas linked to the question focus.

Then we need to be aiming for at least two analytical paragraphs, ideally at least three, exploring how Stevenson depicts dehumanisation.

Remember, we need to be focusing on the extract and other parts of the novella.

And finally, we need to end with a clear conclusion, summarising the points we've made and linking to the writer's intentions and or the wider context.

So pause the video here, take as much time as you need to give this a really good go.

And when you're finished, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So you have written your extended response and a massive well done.

This is not an easy thing to do.

So I hope you're feeling really pleased with yourself that you've managed to achieve this.

So while you're thinking about completing this task, I'd like to think about how you felt during, at what points in the task did you feel confident and perhaps when did you feel less confident? So here are some of our Oak pupils and how they felt.

So Aisha said, I felt confident when planning the response, but felt a little stressed later on because I lost track of time and hurried to finish.

I wonder if any of you might be able to relate to Aisha's feelings there.

And Andeep said, I felt confident writing my thesis and making initial points about the extract.

However, I had to stop and find evidence from the rest of the novella, which slowed me down.

So again, I wonder if any of you were able to relate to Andeep's feelings about completing the task there.

So then they dug a little bit deeper into these feelings that they had and thought about perhaps what they could do next time in order to overcome this and avoid feeling this way.

So Aisha says, next time I'd make note of key timings on my plan to ensure I stay on track while writing.

So by doing this, she's gonna be able to overcome that portion of the task where she felt less confident when Andeep said, next time I'd use a multiple paragraph outline to do all my planning before I start writing to avoid having to break my flow.

So before we move on, I'd just like you to have a think about what you could do next time to help you feel a bit more confident.

So just make a few notes or discuss it with the people around you.

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

Okay, so we've made it to the halfway point and we've done the bulk of the writing now.

So we've written our response and now it's time for us to review, reflect and redraft.

So in this part of the lesson, we're going to review our response.

We're going to reflect on how effective each part was and we're going to redraft to make improvements.

So a quick fire discussion then, why do you think reflecting on your work is important? So have a think, pause the video and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

So here is how some of our Oak pupils discussed this topic.

So Sam said, it helps us to think about what went well, also what we can improve for next time.

It really helps us to consider the clarity of our argument and how we are expressing our ideas to the reader.

And I think she's right, it's really good to take a step back once you've completed a task because now you don't have the pressures that you perhaps felt while you were writing it, while you were writing, it was important just to get your ideas down, whereas now you can look at your work as a whole and perhaps see things that went really well and you definitely do next time and perhaps see things that you might avoid doing.

And so Sophia says, it helps us consider the choices we made and whether they were effective because again, as we are writing, we might not always be explaining things in the clearest way.

We perhaps might not have chosen the best evidence to support our arguments.

And this is something we can see with the benefit of hindsight.

So the more we do this, the more that we're going to be able to build that all important personal list of do's and don'ts the next time we do the task.

So let's start by considering the structure of your response.

So a reminder of the structure we were talking about earlier.

So we began with that introduction where we moved from the general to the specific.

Then we had those three points that made up the body, and then we had the conclusion where we moved from the specific back out to the general and we began to think about writers' intentions and the wider context.

So take a moment to review your response.

Have you included each of these elements? Perhaps make a note of where you have in the margins or somewhere near to where that paragraph is.

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

Okay, welcome back.

So did you manage to include each of these elements in your response? Well done if you did and if you didn't, don't worry.

That's the point of this part of the lesson.

We are going to be redrafting, adding in all of those things that we missed.

So just make a note of any parts you are missing at this point.

But when we come to redrafting later on, and that's what we're going to be doing in this part of the lesson, we're going to be building a to-do list, perhaps of things that we might want to redraft.

So you can start it here if you need to.

So let's reflect on each part of the response in detail, starting with the introduction.

So over to you then, what do you think makes a good introduction? Have a think, take some time to discuss it.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting discussions there.

So let's summarise what makes a good introduction.

So you may have said a good introduction provides a brief introduction to the overarching message of the novella in relation to the question focus.

So it just gives us a brief run through of what the important things we perhaps need to know about the novella are.

And it might identify initial examples and consider how they drive the message.

So we are thinking about what the message could be and how Stevenson is trying to get that across to the reader.

So take a moment to have a look at your introduction.

Have you included all of these things? And again, as we were doing earlier, make a note of anything you might need to add later on.

So remember, we need that thesis statement, the introduction to the novella and perhaps some initial arguments about how they drive the message.

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

Okay, so on to the main body of your response.

So you should have either two or three or more points here.

And each one should include your topic sentence, supporting detail and concluding sentence.

So over to you again then for a discussion.

What can we do to ensure each of these parts of the analytical paragraph is effective? So I want you to think about what makes a good topic sentence, what makes for good supporting detail, and what makes a good concluding sentence? So pause the video here while you have a think.

Take some time to discuss it and click play when you're ready for us to feedback together.

Okay, welcome back, again some really interesting suggestions there.

So let's have a look at how we can make each part of our analytical paragraph really effective.

So first of all, topic sentence.

Well a good topic sentence should link to that thesis in the introduction because that thesis is something we want to be trying to weave all the way through the response.

It should also avoid feature spotting.

Remember that term we discussed at the very beginning of the lesson? That's where you lead your paragraph with an identification of a method.

For example, Stevenson uses a metaphor too, and remember we said it was much more effective to lead with the effects of the language or the meanings that are created.

And that link to the thesis and also an effective topic sentence will start to use evaluative words.

So you might say, Stevenson effectively does this.

Perhaps it makes it more dramatic when Stevenson does this.

We're starting to add that evaluative language.

So we're thinking already about how effective that might be, how well it helps Stevenson to drive the message of the novella.

Supporting detail then, it must be accurately copied.

This is our evidence from the text, so we need to make sure we get it down correctly.

It also should link to the topic sentence.

It's really important that the detail supports the main argument of the paragraph.

And a really great way to use your supporting detail in your analytical paragraph is to zoom in on keywords and phrases.

So don't just stick in your quote and move on.

Actually really unpick the language that Stevenson is using.

Which particular words or phrases within that quote really help to drive your point? And finally, the concluding sentence.

So it's really important that we summarise the points that we've made in the paragraph.

It's also really important to only use relevant context.

We don't have to use context in every single paragraph.

We do need to make sure we're using it in our response, but it doesn't need to be there in every point we make.

So only use it if it's relevant to the point you are making.

We need to avoid simply bolting it on, because remember, we've got that opportunity and the conclusion to use relevant context as well.

And another way to really make the most of your concluding sentence is to link to other parts of the novella, particularly when you're discussing those examples from the extract.

Can you think of any links to other descriptions in the text? So just as before, have a look at your main body, have a look at your analytical paragraphs and decide, have you included everything? And perhaps make a note of anything you might need to add or redraft later on.

Pause the video here while you do that and click play when you're ready for us to continue.

Okay, and on to the conclusion.

So over to you again then, what makes an effective conclusion? But also what should you avoid doing in the conclusion? So pause the video here where you take some time to discuss it, make some notes, and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

So what makes an effective conclusion and what should we avoid? So first of all, it's really effective to start off by summarising the points you've made throughout your response because your conclusion is your opportunity to bring that argument together.

You should also consider the themes and messages in the text.

So how do the examples you've identified drive or reinforce these themes or messages? So this is where you're really moving from the specific back out to the general.

And you should also consider why the writer made these creative decisions.

What do you know about their influences or their life? And also how was their writing shaped by the context it was written or published in? So what were values like, what were belief systems like at the point where this text was produced? And you should also avoid making new points or introducing new evidence here because you aren't gonna have the space or the time this last bit to really explore it in enough detail.

This is just where we're focusing on the points we've already made.

So just as before then, have you included everything? And if not, make a note on your list of things to redraft when we get to it.

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

Okay, so now it's time to pause and check our understanding.

So which of the following statements is true? Pause the video here while you make your mind up and click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back and well done to those of you who said C, you should refer to context in your response only where it's relevant to do so.

And if not, refer to it in your conclusion.

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

So we really wanna be thinking about those notes that we've been making all the way through, which area of your response would most benefit from being redrafted? So look at all the things that you noted down that perhaps you'd missed or you wanted to improve and choose just one area of the response.

So do the majority of your redraft link to the instruction, for example, or one of your analytical paragraphs.

So once you've decided which section you're going to redraft, rewrite it out in light of the discussions we've had.

So thinking really carefully about how you can maximise the level of detail you are using, how you can make it as effective as you can be.

So you should think really carefully about how you're going to make it effective.

You should look for opportunities to upgrade the vocabulary.

And here's a really useful vocabulary bank of different types of words that you might want to include.

So pause the video here where you take some time to rewrite this section of your response.

And when you're finished, click play and we'll feed back together.

Okay, so let's consider Izzy's reflection on her rewritten response.

So she says, I found that my introduction and thesis statement were both very clear and nuanced, which gave me a strong foundation for my analytical paragraphs later on.

However, I think that my conclusion had wandered away from my original focus.

So when I redrafted, I focused on drawing out the examples I'd made throughout the response and considering how my knowledge of the wider context helped to shape my interpretations of the ideas and attitudes conveyed in the text.

So over to you, take some time to discuss or make some notes.

Which of the changes that you've made today do you think has made the most impact to your response overall.

So pause the video here or you take some time, have a think, discuss it, and when you're ready to continue, click play.

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

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

An excellent introduction could start with a brief summary of the text and it's overarching message.

It should then have a specific statement about the focus of the question followed by a thesis, an overarching argument.

Topic sentences need to be clear, linked to the question and led by key ideas, not feature spotting.

Context can be used to develop arguments and an effective conclusion will summarise key points in the response and consider the writer's intentions.

So thanks very much for joining me today.

I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Have a fantastic day everyone.