Lesson video

Welcome to today's English lesson.

I'm Mrs. Crompton.

Our focus today is summarising ideas across two texts.

We will be working with "Journey to the Source of the Nile" by Christopher Ondaatje and the "Bazaars of Baghdad- Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan" by Isabella Bird.

You will need a pen and paper.

Take a moment to make sure you've cleared any distractions away and have everything you need to hand.

To begin with, we're going to play a game of spot the similarities and differences.

On the screen, you can see two images.

Both images depict groups of people.

What other similarities or differences can you find? Pause the video at this point and aim for up to five similarities or differences between the two images.

Over to you.

Resume when you're ready.

And welcome back.

So why are we spotting the difference? Well, the skill of summary is all about identifying key information and ideas.

Our next step is just to rehearse the comparative phrasing we're going to need when it comes to writing up those ideas.

So on the screen, you can see a few sentence starters.

Both images depict, whereas in order to introduce difference and similarly, in order to obviously introduce similarities and I would like you to record these sentences and to rehearse using them by thinking about the images we've just been working with.

Okay? Now I do want to stop and talk about the final bullet, which says both images demonstrate, and then in brackets inference and big picture.

What's interesting about the skill of summary in English is that we also need to do a little bit extra and in doing so, what we need to do is to synthesise.

And that means to combine, we take some information from one text and some information from another, combine that together, and with our own interpretation and thinking, we talk about what we have learned or understood from the information.

Now that usually is linked to big picture type ideas where we've learned something about human nature, we've learned something about society.

So just to point out that there is that final step within summary in English, where we also infer and interpret.

So it's not just about identification.

Okay? Pause at this point.

The purpose of this exercise is to revise the phrasing, to rehearse the sentence constructions, use the similarities and differences exercise we did initially with the images to help you complete the sentences.

Over to you, resume when you are ready.

Welcome back, now in terms of our question and actually dealing with texts, we are suitably warmed up now.

Let's have a look at the question together.

Summarise what you learn about the differences in the environments.

In terms of a question, we have differences as the particular area that we're focusing on, not similarities, differences.

And the other thing that we need to comment on is the focus of the question, the environments.

In an unseen extract, it might be that you are only commenting then on one paragraph, that could be the only relevant section that deals with environment.

That wouldn't be a problem.

And I point that out because I have cut the extracts and just put in some relevant sections for us today.

But I want you to bear that in mind, the scale of summary is not about starting at the top of the text and working your way through every single idea.

It is about selecting the right information in relation to the focus of the question.

Let's have a little bit more support here.

In terms of summarising ideas, then, we have three key skills we're going to demonstrate in our answer.

We're going to make a statement.

The environment is, whatever the environment is when we start to look.

We're going to select two supporting quotations from our first source text, the Christopher Ondaatje piece.

Two, that's all.

Supporting, not rich, supporting quotations that support the focus of the question.

And then we're going to talk about what we have learned or what we can infer from that information.

As you read through the extract, you've got a little reminder of the skills.

On this first reading through you're gathering information.

I'm not asking you to write the answer at this point.

I am asking you to plan your answer.

So what you need to prioritise is the selection of relevant supporting quotations.

It might be that you have more than two initially.

Whittle those down before you resume the video for the next step.

And then we can focus on two in particular.

Okay? So control is over to you.

I'll leave it on the first screen.

Make sure you've got the question down before anything else, and then work your way through the slides until you are asked to pause again.

Over to you.

And welcome back.

So now what we're going to do is exactly the same thing with the Isabella Bird extract that I have selected for you.

Statement, evidence, inference, two relevant quotations.

However, now you have the knowledge of what you're going to say about the Christopher Ondaatje piece.

So you can start to select your evidence with that in mind so that you are building interesting points of similarity/difference.

In this case off focus is difference.

So it's going to be difference.

Okay? So control is over with you.

Off you go.

As soon as you're happy that you've worked your way through, you'll get to the pause slide again, and I will be waiting with the next step.

And welcome back.

So now we're ready to write up our response.

Summarise what you learned about the differences in the environments.

And there are just a few things that I want to share with you about writing this up.

I'm going to give you two options.

Some people prefer option one.

Absolutely legitimate.

One difference is.

Give your evidence, give your interpretation.

You can see we've got statement, evidence, interpretation, exactly what the skills are.

Then we say, however, in contrast, conversely, in source B statement, evidence, interpretation.

Not a problem, do that twice.

And you've covered what I've asked you to do.

Some people find that quite tricky to fit it into that pattern and they prefer to actually talk about the statement and interpretation and quotations all in one.

So what they do is they think about source A, they have that two quotations in mind and think about what they want to say about them.

Make a statement, give their quotations, link the quotations, offer an interpretation of the whole.

Then they bring in, in contrast and feed through them like that.

If that's your preference, that is fine, too.

So we've got option one or a combined effort for option two, where you weave the two quotations together.

Not a problem.

In terms of the beginning, I'm going to give you an overview statement.

I want us to have the overview at the beginning.

Both texts are set in crowded environments, okay.

To start with a point of similarity and then we're going to go onto, however.

At the end, what I want us to do is to remember that we need to comment on what we learned.

What we learned from the text is, and this is a really good opportunity to try to think about some of the ideas that we've discussed previously.

It's man versus nature, or what we learned from the text is that despite thinking X was going to happen, we find that Y has happened.

And that also shows us combining and interpreting the ideas that are presented.

Okay.

So what I will do is to give you control of this so that you can write them the different options, make your decision as you are writing.

When you next come to me, you should have a completed response and we will then review that response against a model answer.

Over to you, you have control.

Welcome back.

So as we look at the model answer, make sure that you are ticking through where you have focused on our criteria.

So that is statement, supporting evidence, inference.

I will then give you control of the screen so that you can review the model answer at your leisure and also further refine and revise your answer.

Okay? So both texts are set in crowded environments.

In source A Ondaatje describes how the ferry was packed with buses, petrol tanks, bans land cruisers, Jeeps, fuel tankers, cars, and people, and tells us how they were pressed up against the front of the ferry, along the sides and against the rails.

I've got two pieces of evidence selected that supports my statement.

This suggests just how cramped and uncomfortable the environment is, and also how shocked Ondaatje is by what he sees.

So we've got an inference at the end.

In contrast, so we've got the language of comparison.

Bird describes how the bazaars that she sees are sometimes wide and airy and other times ramshackle in appearance.

So that's the point of difference.

This suggests how there are differences in the level of comfort based on the different classes of people.

So there's also difference within the text.

In fact, she describes how they are of enormous extent and very great variety, suggesting she is impressed by what she sees.

Whereas the ferry is the only option for Ondaatje, and we quickly understand how he does not feel comfortable in his location.

So bird likes where she is and she can go to different places, Whereas Ondaatje feels quite trapped doesn't he? And he doesn't like the environment he's in.

That point of comparison is woven in.

Finally, Bird tells us the old narrow and filthy bazaars in which the golden silversmiths ply their trade are of all the most interesting, which suggests that there is beauty, even in the most dingy setting.

Ondaatje, too can see some beauty in the environment when he admires the brilliantly coloured clothing of his fellow travellers, but he is not able to see past the decrepit nature of the vessels.

There are differences again, although they both liked some things, ultimately Ondaatje doesn't like where he is.

So that difference is highlighted, even though I've started it with a similarity.

The modern traveller cannot cope with this environment.

Whereas the pre-1900 female explorer embraces her situation.

This is my stepping back conclusion.

So the modern traveller cannot cope with this environment, whereas the pre-1900 female explorer embraces her situation.

This subverts our traditional expectations of the explorer figure.

So at the end, what I've learnt is it's not the person I thought it was that was going to be the more intrepid explorer, and that's my conclusion.

So what you can see is all of the criteria have been met.

Combination of similarity and difference.

Control is now over with you to review, revise, refine your own responses.

When you've completed, I'll be waiting for you at the other side.

And welcome back.

All that remains for me to say is thank you for your focus today.

Don't forget to complete the exit quiz and enjoy the rest of your learning.