Hi everyone, this is Mr. Chandrapala and I'm really looking forward to working with you today.

We're gonna be working on reviewing a comparative response to unseen poetry.

A lot of the time students will say in their poetry classes, that writing all of that knowledge that they have, that they really understand for these poems, which are so complex, is difficult, not because of the complexity of the poems, but because of the comparative response.

Hopefully by the end of today you'll feel a lot more comfortable with that.

Let's get into it.

So as ever, we start with our outcome, which is to reflect on and rewrite an extended comparative response.

Our keywords for today include the noun transience, which is the state or fact of lasting only for a short time.

The act of reflecting, which means to think deeply or carefully about something.

We're gonna be thinking with clarity, which is an adjective, which means the quality of being clear and easy to understand.

I wanna be practising rewriting, which is the act of writing a text again in order to improve it or change it.

And finally, we'll be trying to write effectively, which means producing something successful with a desired or intended result.

So we're gonna start off today by reflecting on a comparative response.

So we're gonna be reading through one of our Oak pupil's responses to the question, compare how Laskey and Robertson present ideas of transience in "Nobody" and "Donegal." Izzy's extended answer is in the additional materials.

I want you to pause the video, I want you to find that and I want you to read it now.

When you've done that, hit play.

Well done everyone.

Really pleased to see so many of you already just on that first read, just with a pen in your hand beginning just to underline key phrases that you thought were interesting.

We're gonna first though discuss why do we think reflecting on your work is so important? Why would we focus on it? Pause the video, have that discussion with your partner, and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas there, everyone.

So Sam, one of our Oak students says, "Well, it helps us to think about what went well, but also what we could improve for next time.

It really helps us to consider clarity of our argument and how we are expressing our ideas to the reader." And he's so on the money there.

Sam knows that actually if we're reflecting on our work, we're thinking about what we can do to make it better.

How we know that though we may never see the same question again, the skills are gonna be the same.

Sofia agrees and says, "Yes, it helps us consider the choices we made and whether they were effective." That quality of being effective, being successful in what we intended to do.

So just a quick check for understanding here.

True or false? Reflecting on your work is an important exercise.

Pause the video, select true or false, and then hit play.

Well done.

So many of us have gone for true, but can we justify it? Is that because reflecting on our work helps us to see where we misunderstood the task and where we can improve it, as said in part A? Or is it option B? So reflecting on our work helps you see what worked well in your answer as well as how we might improve our work.

Pause the video, select A or B, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done everyone.

The answer is B.

We're really critically looking at our work so that we can think about how we can improve it in the future.

So we're just gonna put all of that together now.

For our practise task, I'm going to ask you to answer the following questions about Izzy's extended answer, which you found in the additional materials and have already read.

I need you to answer, what do you think the argument of the response was in relation to transience? Did you understand how both poems connected to the ideas of transience in the response? And what do you think was effective in the response? Pause the video, complete that practise task and when you're ready, hit play.

Excellent work there everyone.

So let's take some feedback.

Alex has responded to these questions.

How well do your answers align with his responses? For the first, what do you think the argument of the response was in relation to transience? Alex said, "Well, I'm not entirely sure what the argument was really." Izzy stated that both poems considered ideas of transience, but I was never quite sure what those ideas were.

If there's anything that Alex wrote down that you really like or actually that you sort of disagree with, pause the video, add that, and when you're ready, hit play.

For the second question, Alex wrote for the question, did you understand how both poems connected to the ideas of transience? He said, "Well, I understand that Izzy thought Laskey's 'Nobody' was asking the reader to make the most of their life, but I didn't exactly know how that related to transience and I got the impression that Robertson's 'Donegal' was about a father and a daughter, and I don't understand how that related to transience." Alex is making some really coherent points here that Izzy's work hasn't clearly linked back to the arguments that she needs to make related to the question.

For the third question, what do you think was effective in the answer? Alex praised the fact that Izzy had noticed some really interesting similarities and differences between the poems, such as their use of narrative voice, perspective, and natural imagery.

And he's really right to praise those things.

The discussion of narrative voice perspective, the natural imagery, it means that Izzy is looking at some of the key methods of both poems and thinking about them really carefully.

That deserves a lot of praise.

If there's anything that you need from those answers, add them now and when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic everyone.

We're now going to work on rewriting a comparative response.

So we've reflected on Izzy's extended response and we're now going to consider how we can rewrite it.

But again, let's pause.

Why do you think rewriting is an important part of the review process? Pause the video, have that discussion with your partner, and when you're ready, hit play.

Some lovely ideas there, everyone.

So rewriting is an important part of the review process for so many different reasons.

As Alex points out, "It allows us to put our reflections into practise and consider how we might improve our work further." So let's start off by looking at Izzy's introduction.

"Both Laskey and Robertson use different techniques such as different narrative voices and different structural devices throughout their poems to present ideas of transience." Well, I want you to pause the video, talk to the person next to you or jot some ideas down for yourself.

And I want you just to give this introduction of what went well and an EBI.

What do you think is successful? What do you think could be improved at? When you've done that, hit play.

Some lovely discussions there.

Really interesting partner talk.

Let's see.

So in terms of the what went well, we can see that it has specified some of the ideas that will be looked at throughout the answers, such as different narrative voices, which is really promising.

But it hasn't offered a specific idea about how Laskey and Robertson present ideas of transience.

That's almost left quite vague.

It's pointing at the features, but it's not really relating them back to the transience, which is the key word of the question.

So if we just go back to Laskey's "Nobody" and Robertson's "Donegal," I want you to think about their experiences or their explorations of the transience of life.

What is the difference in their approach in presenting this issue? Pause the video, have that discussion.

Maybe reread the poems. Maybe one of you read Donegal's, sorry, "Donegal" by Robertson, one of you read Laskey's "Nobody." Have that discussion for yourselves and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really careful reading there.

I can really see that people were getting into it.

Let's see what we could have said.

Sam had a look at Laskey's "Nobody" and said, "Well Laskey's 'Nobody" is arguably about how we need to make the most of opportunities in life." I really liked that idea from Sam.

Alex was having a look at Robertson's "Donegal" and agreed with Sam's reading of Laskey's "Nobody" but said that Donegal is different because it's about the changing nature of parent-child relationships.

The fact that there's a transient nature to them, we can't pin them down exactly.

So these two have between them have got key understandings of how transience is explored in each poem.

So we might rewrite that introduction.

We may rewrite it to something like, "Both Laskey's 'Nobody' and Robertson's 'Donegal' explore the concept of transience in their poems. Arguably Laskey's 'Nobody' invites the reader to consider the impermanence of life in order to remember to make the most of every opportunity in life and not let life pass them by.

Whilst Robertson's 'Donegal' is musing on the idea that children's relationships with their parents change as they grow older and more independent." So here what we've been much more confident in doing is making it really clear how this links back to that idea of transience, linking each poem to that rather than being unspecific.

Sorry, rather than being vague and unspecific.

So what we're going to do is we are going to go through the main paragraphs of the essay and break them down.

I want you to start off by rereading the first paragraph, which is focused on natural imagery.

Once you've done that, you're going to discuss with your partner the what went well and EBI.

If you're working with a partner, maybe one of you looks at the what went well, the other of you looks at the EBI.

Or alternatively, you can both do that.

If you are working independently, you're going to be doing this entirely by yourself.

We will take feedback then.

So pause the video, have a go at doing that, and when you're ready, hit play.

So in terms of the what went well for that first paragraph on natural imagery, we can say that Izzy has recognised the images of snow and a beach might be metaphors for the transience of nature.

In terms of how she could improve, we could probably say the references to humanity's impact on nature don't seem supported by anything else in the poems. Now how could we rewrite that paragraph to make it more effective? Pause the video, discuss that with your partner, and when you're ready, hit play.

So we could rewrite the second half of the paragraph to refocus it on how it might relate to missed opportunities and the changing nature of relationships.

I know a lot of you were saying that exact same thing, so adding that note if you weren't maybe on that line may be really helpful.

How do you think the transience of nature might relate to these poems though? How do you think nature being transient relates to each of the poets work? Pause the video.

Again, have that discussion.

Maybe again, one of you looks at Laskey's "Nobody." The other of you looks at Robertson's "Donegal." And when you're ready, when you've got your independent ideas on each of those individual poems, then you come together.

Pause the video, have that discussion.

Fantastic work there, everyone.

Again, really close individual reads, some really in-depth thought there.

So Sam was thinking about it and said, "Well, maybe the transience of nature reflects how the world around us is constantly changing and that lives and relationships change with it?" I really like the idea from Sam because actually he's really grasped the sense that actually the parent-child relationship as presented in Robertson's work is really clearly demonstrating the fact that actually our relationships are constantly in flux so I think that that's a great point.

We're now going to reread the second paragraph on voice.

Again, once you've read it, I want you to discuss the paragraph, giving it a what went well and an EBI.

One of you will do the what went well.

One of you will do the EBI.

Or if you're working independently, you'll have to do each.

Once you've done that, hit play.

Okay, let's go through.

So in terms of the what went well, it's really impressive that Izzy has identified that both poems use different narrative voices.

But Izzy hasn't explored how these different narrative voices produce an effect on the reader.

So what do you think the effect of the different narrative voices is? What do you think the purpose of that is? Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting discussions there everyone.

Let's see what you could have said.

So well, Sam had a look at this and said, "Well, I think Robertson's use of the first person makes it feel more personal and shows how transience affects us individually." Alex was having a look at Laskey's work and said, "Well Laskey's use of the second person invites the reader to reflect on their own life and consider whether they are making the most of it." It's a really good reflection by both of them and they've looked at each poem individually.

You're now going to have a look at the third paragraph on perspective.

Again, I want you to read it and then give the paragraph a what went well and EBI.

Once you've done so, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

So in terms of the what went well and EBI, we could have said that the what went well was that Izzy had identified a similar shift in perspective in both poems. However, she could improve her work still by specifying how and why the change in perspective might lead the reader to ask questions.

So what questions do you think the shift in perspective makes you think about? Pause the video, have that discussion, maybe split the two poems up and when you're ready, hit play.

Some lovely discussions there and I think the poems do prompt different questions.

Sam points out that Robertson's shift in perspective makes him consider how others see my relationships and whether they see them differently to me.

Whilst Alex was looking at Laskey's work and said, "Well, Laskey's shift in perspective makes me wonder whether my life is just passing me by or whether I'm actually living it." Let's hope Alex is.

So we're now going to read the fourth paragraph on structural devices one more time.

Again, a what went well and an EBI and when you're ready, hit play.

So in terms of our what went well, as a lot of you have already pointed out, you've been really excellent in breaking down Izzy's answer, you said that Izzy has carefully considered the use of caesuras in Laskey's "Nobody" but hasn't considered why Robertson hasn't used caesuras.

So we're almost spotting the technique and discussing it in Laskey's, but almost not considering its lack of it in Robertson's.

So let's just think about this.

We can all think about this.

Let's all have that discussion.

Why do we think Robertson chose not to use caesuras? Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

So we could have said that Robertson's decision not to use caesuras reflects how quickly time is passing the father by and how quickly his relationship with his daughter is changing.

So for our conclusion, we want to gesture to how the poems connect ideas of transience to human nature and wider society.

But why might we express that or how might we express that, rather? Pause the video, have that discussion and when you're ready, hit play.

Excellent discussion there everyone.

Really pleased to see so many of you getting into it, thinking about how we can improve it.

So as Sam points out, we could say that both poems ask us to reflect on the idea that we need to make the most of our lives and relationships and not just take them for granted.

And I think that Sam is absolutely on the money there.

We definitely want to be expressing that as part of this response.

So in the additional materials you'll find a rewritten version of the model answer.

All I want you to do is pause the video and read that rewritten version.

Once you've done so, come back.

So having read the rewritten version, I want you to discuss the following questions with the people next to you.

First of all, do you understand the argument of the response? Do you think both poems have been given equal consideration? And do you understand how the ideas of transience in the poem might relate to human nature and wider society? Once you've had that discussion, hit play.

Fantastic to hear so many thoughtful and well-considered discussions there.

Loads of you were considering how the argument was markedly improved in Izzy's second response, and actually how she was beginning to understand the ideas of transience and what that means for wider society.

It's really gonna put you in a good place for your own work.

So let's just quickly check our understanding by matching each sentence to the appropriate feedback.

On the left, you can find two sentences that are almost from an answer.

And then on the right you'll find two sentences, which are the feedback.

All I want you to do is to pause the video and to match them up to the correct feedback.

Once you've done so, hit play.

Fantastic work there everyone.

I could see people really thinking with their exemplar cap on.

So this shift in perspective really makes the reader question things.

It's clearly not a personal response enough.

It's a little bit too vague, a little bit too general.

We could say it for almost any poem and we really don't want that to be the case.

Whilst the second, I think Laskey and Robertson have used these images to comment on humanity's negative impact on nature doesn't really connect to the meaning of the rest of the poems. So again, is a little weak.

So we've now reflected and rewritten Izzy's response, but it is now time to think about and reflect on what you would still like to work on in terms of writing an extended response.

So I want you to pause the video and consider the following questions when thinking about your own things you would like to include in your own extended response.

How well do you think you can create an argument? How well do you think you can include a personal response, making sure that your work isn't too vague? And how well do you think you explain the effect on the reader? And finally, how well do you consider comparisons between poems? This is the thing that people find so difficult, but one of the things that Izzy is really confident with doing is using those comparative conjunctions, that correlative conjunctions to make sure that she's continuously contrasting the poems. Pause the video, answer those questions to reflect on what you need to work on, and once you've done so, hit play.

Some really good reflections there from everyone.

I've been so impressed.

Let's take some feedback.

So I want you to consider how you might ensure that you consider these aspects of future work.

Could you make sure that you consider what questions the poems make you ask about yourself? That may be even just writing a quick note in the margins as you're reading the poems for the first time.

You may need to consider why one poet chooses to use a particular technique whilst the other one decides against using a particular technique.

Remember that was one of our big takeaways for Izzy's work where she didn't talk about the caesuras in one, but talked about the caesuras in other.

Well, okay, but why are the caesuras not present? That in itself is worth commenting on.

Can you consider why poets might choose different narrative voices? Narrative voice is such a complex and interesting thing to discuss.

Make sure that you're doing it in each of your poems. So let's summarise our work for reviewing a comparative response to unseen poetry.

We were looking at reflecting on our work and why it was an important part of understanding what went well and what we could improve on.

We wanted to rewrite our work with a chance to improve it based on our reflections.

We realise that when writing comparatively, we need to explore the similarities and differences in how the poets create meaning.

And when considering a personal response, you may ask yourself what questions the poems cause you to ask.

You've all been such reflective students during this process and I'm really proud of the way you've done that.

I think it'll really help you build much more deeply developed comparative responses going forward.

Thank you so much for your efforts today, and I look forward to working with you soon.

Bye for now, everyone.