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

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

There are some basic things that make writing comparative responses to unseen poetry really easy and something that I think you'll all be able to take away with you as you progress towards your GCSEs.

This is a really easy guide on how we're going to do it, so I'm really hoping that you're able to take a lot out of this.

Let's get into it.

So our outcome for today is that I can write a confident and clear comparative response.

To do that, our key words are going to be the now, nuance which is a very slight difference in appearance, meaning or sound.

The noun transience, which is the state or fact of lasting only for a short time.

The adjective effective, which is for something to be successful in producing a desired or intended result.

The adjective generic, which is something that is relating to a characteristic of a whole group or class of similar things.

And the adjective tentative, which means writing in a way that shows you are not certain.

Now, we are going to start off by writing effective introductions.

So we're gonna be writing an answer to the question, compare how Laskey and Robertson present ideas of transience in 'Nobody' and 'Donegal'.

I wanna start off by exploring how to write an effective introduction.

But first of all, why do we think it's so important to write an effective introduction? What makes introduction so important in your essay writing? Pause the video, talk to the person next to you or maybe draught some ideas on your notes and once you're ready, hit play.

So drafting an effective introduction is so important because it allows us to really clearly state right at the top of our essay, why we are arguing what we're arguing, and what we're going to be arguing.

You probably wanna start off with what you are arguing and then why you are going to be arguing it.

As Izzy points out, it's our introduction that introduces our argument to the reader, so it needs to be clear.

That element of clarity is really going to help us.

It's gonna drive your thinking forward.

So, why don't we have a look at Lucas's opening here responding to a question about transience.

What could be improved about it? Lucas just says, well, the poem 'Nobody' presents the idea of life being transient.

So does the poem 'Donegal.

' what do you think we could improve about this? Pause the video.

Have that discussion with your partner.

When you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic work there, everyone.

Now one of the things that I would say about Lucas's work is that whilst he's trying to compare both poems, he's not actually using comparative language, which is something that is within the remit of the question.

So I may, as his teacher say, Lucas, it could be really helpful if you say both the poem, 'Nobody' and 'Donegal' compare ideas about transience.

That could be one way we improve it.

So that means he needs to use a comparative or a correlative conjunction to make it the opening sentence stronger and link his ideas.

But also, the issue is that his idea is quite generic at the moment.

He needs to identify a smaller variation in a wider similarity to make his point much stronger.

This is that idea of something being nuanced.

Rather than being generic, we want to be nuanced in the way that we approach something.

So, let's start off by considering correlative and comparative conjunctions.

Using correlative conjunctions alongside comparatives allows your comparison to become more nuanced and to link ideas together.

So for example, here we're gonna be working on correlative conjunctions and we know that poem one is gonna be Laskey, poem two is gonna be Robertson, and our idea is the fact that explore the transience of life and how our opportunities and relationships are constantly changing.

Well, here, all I need to do is I just need to put both before Laskey and between Laskey and Robertson, or I could put neither Laskey nor Robertson and consider a difference.

Here, in this first example, I'm trying to show a similarity.

So I've used both and.

Whilst in the second example, I'm just saying, neither Laskey nor Robertson consider our lives, opportunities or relationships to be static and permanent.

In the second example, I'm still expressing a similarity, but I'm saying something that both Laskey and Robertson do not do.

In order to express the similarities or differences between ideas, you can use comparison and contrasting conjunctions.

Comparison conjunctions are used to show similarities and contrasting conjunctions are used to show differences.

So in order to express the similarities or differences between ideas, you can use comparison and contrasting conjunctions.

What I want you to do is I want you to decide what comparison and contrasting conjunctions you can think of.

So remember, comparison conjunctions express similarity, contrasting conjunctions express difference.

Pause the video now.

Discuss with your partner what conjunctions you can think of which express comparison for similarity and contrast for difference.

And once you've done so, hit play and we'll go through.

Some excellent ideas there, everyone.

Let's see if we can add anything to your already fantastic collection.

So for comparison conjunctions, I could say similarly, likewise, equally, also, all of which express similarity.

For contrasting conjunctions I could say, whereas, in contrast, alternatively, and however.

If there's anything you need from this slide, jot it down now, almost create that table and once you've done so, hit play.

Great work there.

These conjunctions are gonna be really helpful for structuring your essay.

We don't want to be like Lucas and fall into that trap of not being comparative because we don't use these words within our introduction.

So when we're analysing poetry, it's good to practise to explore smaller variations or connections within a wider similarity in the poet's ideas and messages or their use of devices.

So, if we have a look at an example from Andeep he said, both 'Nobody' and 'Donegal' consider the transience of time.

This is quite a generic similarity to be pointing out.

It's quite broad, so we maybe need to nuance it a little bit.

He's identified that this is a similarity, but I'm going to challenge you all to discuss with your partner or in your class or independently, jot down some ideas on how you think he could add more nuance to the connection between the poems. So you are really looking here for a similarity that has a slight difference between them.

Pause the video now, have that discussion, and when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic.

This is really hard and I know it's something that a lot of students really struggle with.

So hopefully, this will make more sense of it when we go through this model.

So if we encourage Andeep to actually add a little bit more nuance, he says, okay, well I'll change my initial idea and say, both 'Nobody' and 'Donegal' consider the transience of time and how if we're not careful, our lives will pass us by and we will miss out on opportunities.

This is now far more focused, it's far more nuanced and developed, because Andeep has begun to consider and reflect on the potential message of both poems in relation to transience.

It's a much more specific way of looking at the poems. So let's just have a quick check for understanding here.

I want you to select which statement does not include correlative conjunctions or comparatives.

Is it A, Laskey shows the importance of seizing the day, Robertson reflects on our ever-changing relationships? B, Laskey and Robertson reflect on the transience of nature and how the world is constantly in flux? Or C, neither Laskey nor Robertson considers our lives and relationships to be static and eternal? Pause the video, select A, B, or C for a statement which does not include correlative conjunctions or comparatives.

And once done so, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

So we can say A is the one that doesn't include that comparative or correlative conjunction, whilst B and C both expresses similarity through their correlative conjunctions.

So, we're just gonna practise putting this together now.

Below I've got Sofia's introduction to the question, compare how Laskey and Robertson present ideas of transience in 'Nobody' and 'Donegal.

' Sofia said, both Laskey and Robertson explored the concept of transience through musing about our lives and relationships.

What I need you to do is to extend Sofia's introduction to show a nuanced difference between the poems. She has managed to include comparative correlative conjunctions.

But what I need you to do is to really nuance that so it's not so generic.

Pause the video, have a little bit of time to do that, and when you're ready, hit play.

It's fantastic to see so many different responses to that.

Let's go through what you could have said.

If there's anything you like on the next slide, make sure to note it down.

So Alex was having a look at extending Sofia's introduction and wrote, in addition to Sofia's initial thing, both Laskey and Robertson explored the concept of transience through musing about our lives and relationships.

Laskey's 'Nobody' asked the reader to reflect on how they live their life, whether they are missing out on opportunities, whereas Robertson's 'Donegal' muses on the changing nature of a parent and child relationship, as the child grows and begins to approach adulthood.

What you'll notice about this is that whilst Alex starts off with that similarity between the two through the correlative comparative sentence, actually what he goes on to do is to express a contrast between them.

Notice the use of whereas, which allows him to pivot into 'Donegal.

' Pause the video now and see if you can nuance your work like that or if there's anything you would like to magpie from Alex's work.

Once you've done so and added to your work and improved it, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

I'm really pleased with the way that you've dealt with that.

Introductions are always so hard, but the back blank page is always something that people get really worried about, but you've overcome that issue.

Let's move on to the next part.

So we're now focusing on expressing our ideas.

We're going to consider how you might express your ideas within the body of your response.

So if you are looking at Laskey's, 'Nobody' and Robertson's 'Donegal' and you want to discuss the fact that you've noticed that both use enjambment and you think it means they're both talking about a sense of continuation and progression, you need to think about how you're going to express that.

I want you to pause the video and discuss with your partner how you think you could do that within your writing.

Once you've done so, hit play.

A really interesting range of responses there.

So, I've got two students here, Lucas and Laura, who have spoken about how they think they could do that.

I want you to decide which sentence you think is most effective in discussing that enjambment.

Lucas said, well, arguably both Laskey and Robertson used a continuation of the lines through enjambment to reflect the progression of time.

Laura said, enjambment is used in both poems and it is used to show a sense of progression.

Pause the video, see which one you think is more effective, and once you're ready, hit play.

What I was really pleased with with the way that you were thinking about that was that both candidates, both Laura and Lucas use that term both, don't they? They both tried to include that comparative conjunction to show a similarity and loads of you picked up on that.

Several of you were starting to think about Lucas's.

Some of you said that Lucas's is better because it's longer.

Lucas's response is a longer response, but that isn't the thing that makes it better.

What makes it better is the fact that he's used tentative language.

Remember, tentative language is a language which shows that we're not totally certain of something.

We can be tentative while still being clear and Lucas has managed that.

So let's break down Lucas's sentence.

He said, arguably both Laskey and Robertson use the continuation of the lines through enjambment to reflect the progression of time.

Well, in arguably, he's used that tentative language, hasn't he? He's shown that he is uncertain of it.

It's one way of interpreting it.

He's then used that correlative conjunction, both and, to show the similarity between the two.

He's used the active voice and he's explained the effect of the continuation of the lines of enjambment in the phrase, to reflect the progression of time.

He's explained why both poets have done it.

It's a really well phrased sentence, and this is something that I would be looking for you to do as well to make sure that you've got that sensitive language, that correlative conjunction, that active voice, and then explain the effect.

You may want to take that down as a note for how you would think about structuring your own responses.

Sofia's sentence on the other hand says, enjambment is used in both poems and it is used to show a sense of progression.

It's not that Sofia's doesn't have any thinking about it.

I said it was Laura, initially.

Apologies, Sofia.

So Sofia's response, it uses the passive voice, which isn't as academically correct and certain and assertive as we want to be.

It doesn't mention both of the poets.

It mentions both poems, but not by name, just sort of in that vague, generic way, which isn't particularly helpful.

And it repeats that word used, which means that actually, we're not being totally sophisticated in our response.

It also doesn't explain why.

To show a sense of progression, it's just a little bit more vague than I would be looking for.

It's trying to explain the reason, but it doesn't go far enough.

So I'm not quite happy with Sofia's work there and I'd probably be looking for her to improve it.

So, if you are thinking about your way of doing things, I need you to consider this as your success criteria for expressing your ideas clearly.

Making sure you have an active voice, use correlative conjunctions, you reference poets' names, you explain your idea, and you use tentative language.

But why do you think those are the parts of an effective sentence? Why do you think those are so critical? Pause the video.

Have that discussion, and when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic, so it is absolutely linked to as what a lot of you were saying there.

It's about making sure that our argument is clear and making sure that we're focused continuously.

The active voice provides clarity.

The correlative conjunctions link the poems together.

The references to the poet's names allude to the fact that it's constructed by a poet.

They have intention.

The explanation makes our argument clear.

And the tentative language demonstrates that we are exploring possible interpretations.

So, let's just have a quick check for understanding here.

Which of the following statements are true? A, using tentative language in your writing makes your argument seem less convincing? B, using tentative language acknowledges that we are exploring the possible intentions of the writer? Or C, we should use repetitive language in our analytical writing to make it seem more memorable? Pause the video now and decide which of those options you would select.

Once you've done so, hit play.

Fantastic work there, everyone.

It is B, using tentative language acknowledges that we are exploring the possible intentions of the writer.

We don't know the exact intentions of the writer, so we have to use tentative language.

We can't say for definite what they were trying to do.

So, we have a snippet from Sofia's answer for the question that we're answering today.

She said that enjambment is used in both poems and it is used to show a sense of progression.

Caesuras are also used in Laskey's 'Nobody' to show a pause in the poem.

Irregularity is used in both poems to show a sense of unpredictability.

I want you to rewrite Sofia's answer so that it includes tentative language, it includes correlative and comparative conjunctions, it includes the active voice, it uses poets' names, and it avoids repetition.

Pause the video now.

Have a go at restructuring her work.

We went through Lucas's, which will definitely help you improve that first sentence.

Then the next two, I want you to have a go at alone.

Once you are ready, hit play and we'll take some feedback.

I know that improving someone else's work can feel really challenging sometimes, but I'm so impressed by the way that all of you were getting into that.

Let's take some feedback and see if we can improve and extend your responses even further.

So Alex was having a go at this and has written something really impressive, but I want you to see if you can provide him an EBI.

He's forgotten to include something here.

Think back to our success criteria as I'm reading this out so you can see what EBI you can give him.

Alex said, well, both Laskey and Robertson use continuation of the lines through enjambment to reflect the progression of time.

Similarly, both Laskey at Robertson use irregularity and the lack of a pattern to mimic the unpredictability of life.

However, Laskey uses caesuras in 'Nobody' in order to create a moment for the reader to pause and reflect, while Robertson does not use caesuras in order to present a continual flow of time.

So, what do we think Alex has forgotten to use here? Well, he's forgotten to use tentative language.

So we might add in tentative language by just including the words arguably or could or might or may.

Those modal verbs particularly allow that sense of uncertainty to come through or that lack of true knowledge, that understanding that we are just making an interpretation.

We're still being assertive, we're still being confident in our expression, we're still being clear, but we're showing that we don't know it all, which is really important because your interpretation is a good one, no doubt, but maybe not the only, in fact, definitely not the only one.

Pause the video now, see if you want to add anything to your own response using the improvements that we have on the board.

And once you've done so, hit play.

Excellent work there, everyone.

Really pleased with the way that you've got on with that.

Let's now move to the final part of our lesson.

We're now starting to have a look at writing our comparative response.

So there are two things I need you to consider when writing a comparative response.

I need you to remember to create an introduction that introduces the reader to your argument by showing the similarities, but also the nuanced differences within those similarities.

And I need you to make sure that you are expressing your ideas in a way that is coherent and convincing to the reader.

So let's just have a quick check for understanding here.

I've got Sam and Izzy's introductions and I need you to decide which is a more effective introduction.

Is it Sam who said, both Laskey and Robertson consider the transient nature of our lives and our relationships through their poems? Or is it, Laskey considers the ideas of transience in 'Nobody' and how we should all seize the day? Robertson does something different.

Pause the video, select which one you think is more effective, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done, everyone.

I think it's really clear that Sam's is the better one.

Not only has he included that correlative conjunction, he's also made sure to have a focus on that key theme.

So does Izzy in that she has found a similarity and she's tried to focus on that key theme, but I don't think that she's used that correlative conjunction, so I'm not as happy with that introduction.

In your additional materials, you'll find copies of Laskey's 'Nobody' and Robertson's 'Donegal.

' I want you to read the poems and then answer the question for today, which is compare how Laskey and Robertson present ideas of transience in 'Nobody' and 'Donegal.

' You have to consider, there's use of structural devices in both poems, the use of active language in both poems, what the images of snow and a beach might be metaphors for, and the use of perspective in both poems. You will also want to include the use of voice in both poems. This means that you are discussing not only structure, but form and language.

Those last two bullet points are really about the form of the poem, and that is so critical.

Once you've done that and had a really good go at it, I'd say at least spend 10 to 15 minutes writing.

Once you've done that, hit play I we'll take some feedback.

Excellent work there, everyone.

I know that it's really challenging when you're trying to write an introduction and two arguments and a conclusion, but you've done really well there to have a go at doing this with these unseen poems. Let's take some feedback now.

So, I want you to read through your answer and see if you have considered the following ideas.

Did you compare the use of the second person narrative voice in 'Nobody' to the use of the first person narrative voice in 'Donegal?' Did you compare the use of metaphorical language to show the transience of time and nature in both poems? Did you consider the use of enjambment and irregularity in both poems? The fact that the enjambment demonstrates that continuation of life, whilst actually the irregularity, particularly in Laskey's work, almost provides that moment of reflection? Did you consider why 'Nobody' uses caesuras, but 'Donegal' does not? Did you consider how the active verbs have a sense of tension and strain behind them? And did you consider how both poems end with a change in perspective? Why would they do that right at the end of the poem? What could that be about? Pause the video now.

See if you can add anything to your work in a different colour pen using those prompt questions.

And once you're ready, hit play.

It is always such a privilege to work with such a thoughtful bunch of young people.

I've been really impressed with the way that you've extended your thinking there using those prompt questions.

So, let's take our summary for today on writing a comparative response to unseen poetry.

A comparative introduction should use correlatives and comparatives in order to create links between ideas.

A comparative introduction therefore might offer smaller variations in a wider similarity between poems to offer a more nuanced view of things.

That comparative introduction needs to offer nuanced differences between those poems. We're also expecting effective analytical writing to include active voice, tentative language, and an explanation of ideas, whilst less successful analytical writing may include passive voice and repetition.

What I was so pleased with was the fact that so many of you were using those more effective analytical elements as part of your writing today.

Unseen poetry is always something that students find really hard, but the way that you have all dealt with it has been superb.

I've been really impressed by your resilience throughout.

Thank you so much for putting your best foot forward here.

I've been really impressed and I really look forward to working with you all again very soon.

Bye for now, everyone.