Lesson video

Hello there, Mr. Barnsley here.

Great to see you today.

Thank you for joining me in today's lesson.

In today's lesson, we are gonna be working together to plan and write an essay all about justice and the character of the Inspector in "An Inspector Calls." You're gonna want to make sure you have your copy of the text at hand because you're gonna be looking for evidence to support your argument.

And of course, this definitely should not be the first time you are studying "An Inspector Calls" lesson.

I'm gonna be expecting you to bring lots of prior knowledge to today's lesson.

All right, I'm really excited to see what you are gonna write today.

So let's get started.

So let's look at today's outcome then.

By the end of today's lesson, you are gonna be able to write a response, not just any response, but a nuanced response, all about how Priestley uses that character of the Inspector to challenge some of these traditional notions, these traditional understandings of justice and punishment.

We're gonna be bringing all of our learning together today.

So there are four keywords, that first one you saw in the outcome that's nuanced.

And that means that our responses today are gonna include lots of subtle details.

We're gonna try and make our writing here really complex and interesting.

And by complex what do I mean here? It can mean many different things, but here it means involving lots of different but related parts.

So we're bringing lots of things together to make our answer more nuanced, more interesting.

We're also gonna aim to be evaluative in our writing today, and that means we're gonna make a really informed judgement.

We're going to be basing our ideas on careful analysis, consideration of the text, and coming up to our own thoughts and making our own judgement.

And we're also looking for a critical response.

And this is gonna be a really thorough explanation of your understanding of a text.

Keep an eye out for these words and let's try and make our responses today as nuanced, as complex, as evaluative and as critical as we can.

So, three learning cycles today, we're gonna make sure we understand what a nuance response might look like.

Then we're gonna move on to planning and then writing our response.

Let's dive in straight away by thinking about what does a nuance response look like.

So the question we're gonna be answering is, how does Priestley use the Inspector to challenge traditional notions of justice and punishment? So over to you then to start us off.

What initial ideas come to your mind when you see this question? What kind of sections of the text, what points might you want to make? What plot points, what characters might you focus on? What ideas do you want to say? What is Priestley's message? Alright, if you've got a partner, you can discuss with them.

Otherwise, you can just think through this independently.

Over to you to pause your video, have a think, put some thoughts together and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Now, whenever we have a question like this, I like to say there are no right answers.

And of course there are many different right answers in English.

There's never one right answers.

But of course there are often more appropriate answers.

There are better answers.

There are a range of different things that are appropriate for this question.

So we can't just say anything that we know about an inspector of course.

We do have to be quite careful and work through the knowledge that we have of the text and decide what is most appropriate for this question.

So here are just some of the ideas, some of the discussions you might have been having.

So you might have talked about how the Inspector looks at collective blame.

He doesn't blame one individual.

Talk about the Inspector being a moral authority, not just a legal figure.

You might have even gone further and talked about his prophetic warning and thinking about him as almost a divine judge.

You might have talked about, and that links to these ideas of mystery, his mysterious nature, the supernatural qualities.

You might have also talked about different forms of punishment, punitive punishment, rehabilitative, or even psychological punishment.

And we see this a lot through the Inspector's interrogation.

So here are just some of the ideas that come to mind for me when I look at this question.

I wonder if you've said something similar.

So if we want to make a statement about the Inspector and his challenge to traditional notions of justice and punishment, they might look like this.

So in Priestley's "An Inspector Calls," we see the Inspector's presence as a challenge to the legal concept of punishment and justice.

So we're gonna think about how we might interrogate that statement in order to develop a nuance response 'cause I think it's a great statement.

It's clearly written.

It's very clear to me what this student is trying to argue, but I think we can take it further if we want to be nuanced.

So a nuanced response then is going to go beyond the surface level understanding.

And I think a surface level understanding, I think we can all agree that the Inspector as a character kind of, or Priestley uses the Inspector as a kind of a construct as a vehicle to critique the legal system.

I think we can argue that.

But we want to go beyond just that.

We want to have multiple layers of meaning.

We want to acknowledge that you and I may have different kind of opinions, we might have different viewpoints.

We might think the Inspector represents different things.

And by doing that, we're really gonna acknowledge the complexity of this text.

Okay? We're gonna acknowledge that there isn't just one way of reading, there isn't one way of interpreting, there isn't one way of responding to this text.

And likewise, there isn't one way of responding to the question either, because the way that people interpret the Inspector in this case for this question is different.

And that's gonna help us have these multiple layers and acknowledging the complexity.

So some ways that we can develop a nuanced response, things we might want to consider, particularly for this question, can we look beyond just the description of the Inspector? Okay, let's consider how his presence as a whole challenges different ideas around justice and punishment.

Is "An Inspector Calls" only a critique of legal justice or can we go further than that? Can we, for example, can it be read to suggest that actually the expectation of any form of justice is futile? So it is actually a critique of not just legal justice, but the idea of justice kind of as a whole, particularly as it ends and we see that no character actually faces any real justice.

Or do they? Is the Inspector the only character who challenges these traditional ideas of justice and punishment, or do other characters also contribute to this critique? So yes, this is a character about, this is a question about the Inspector, but we wouldn't want to just speak about the Inspector.

We want to bring in our knowledge of other characters and how they respond to the Inspector and what, you know, their responses show about ideas around justice and punishment.

Alright, let's check then, which of the following would we expect from a nuanced response? Is it A, a service level understanding B, acknowledgement of complexities or C, consideration of multiple meanings.

Pause, video, have a think and press play when you've got an answer.

Welcome back.

Well done if you said both B and C.

A bit of a trick question there.

We do want those complexities, we want multiple layers of meaning.

We want to go beyond the surface level.

So over to you for our first task in today's lesson.

I want you to answer the following questions because they're gonna help you to start thinking in a nuanced way, which will allow when you write at later in the lesson and you'll be able to bring these ideas to your piece, to your response.

So how does the Inspector use language to reshape the understanding of justice and responsibility? How does his challenge to traditional justice allow him to assert moral authority over his family? How does Priestley present the Inspector as subverting, turning it on its head, subverting conventional ideas of law enforcement? And to what extent does the play's structure and Priestley's use of dramatic irony guide the audience's perception of justice? Alright, I want you to now pause the video, give these four questions a go, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Welcome back.

How was that for you? Okay, what we're gonna do before we move on to planning and writing is we're gonna take a moment to just reflect on the work we've just done.

We're gonna do that by comparing our work to some model responses from one of our Oak pupils, Jun.

Now as we're doing this, I'm gonna read each one individually and then I'm gonna give you an opportunity to pause the video, compare your answers to Jun's, and if you like any of Jun's ideas, you can even note them down.

So let's look at the first one.

How does the Inspector use language to reshape an understanding of justice and responsibility? So Jun wrote, the Inspector alters the audience's perception of justice by using moral language that challenges the idea of legal justice, encouraging them to question societal responsibility and the limitations of traditional punishment.

Pause the video, compare, take some notes.

Question two, how does his challenge to traditional justice allow him to assert moral authority over the family? The Inspector's supernatural presence and moral authority allow him to challenge traditional justice, positioning him as a force beyond the legal system, guiding the family to confront their ethical failings.

Pause the video, reflect and make notes.

Question three, how does Priestley present the Inspector as subverting conventional ideas of law enforcement? Priestley presents the Inspector as a maverick archetype, subverting conventional law enforcement through his unorthodox interrogation style.

He challenges the Birlings with probing questions, prioritising moral judgement over legal procedure.

Pause the video, reflect, take notes.

Last one, question four.

To what extent does the play's structure and Priestley's use of dramatic irony guide the audience's perception of justice? Priestley's use of dramatic irony, highlights the Birlings' hypocrisy and failure to understand justice.

The structure, with the Inspector's timely revelations, contrast their belief in legal justice with the growing awareness of moral responsibility, shaping the audience's view of justice as a social and an ethical issue rather than just a legal one.

Last time, pause the video, reflect and make any notes that you wish, and then press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

It's now time for us to focus on planning our response.

So one way that we can plan our essays is by using a multi-paragraph outline.

Of course, there are many different ways, but what I really like about this is it helps me prepare a really clear and logical argument, making sure all my ideas are interconnected and it also gives me an opportunity to note down some of the key things that I want to remember.

Okay, so we're gonna be practising using a multi-paragraph outline today.

You can see how it works for you and how it feels for you as you practise planning essays.

So let's start then by reminding ourselves some of the key points about essay planning.

The first one is, what are the differences between a thesis statement and a topic sentence? Why don't you pause the video, have a think, pairs or independently, remind yourself what is the difference between thesis statements and topic sentences.

Pause the video, give it a go and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back.

Did you mention that thesis statements are the overarching argument of the entire essay? Okay? They cover every kind of.

They want to be general enough so it can cover all of your more specific arguments that you want to talk about.

It's got to be overarching.

That means it has to be supported by the entire text.

Okay? Your overarching argument needs to show that you understand the text as a whole.

This is in contrast to topic sentences, which are much more specific.

These are gonna be focused, they're gonna explain the purpose of individual paragraphs or individual sections of your essay.

Now each of these topic sentences together, kind of almost, if you treat them as a mathematical equation, if you add all of these together, they will support your overarching argument, your thesis.

They will work together to prove your overarching thesis is true.

This means that each individual topic sentence can be supported by specific moments, specific plot points, specific characters.

They can be a little bit more focused because as long as each topic sentence covers different parts of the play or different characters, they will, when you add them together, show you understand the text as a whole.

So, thesis statement is at this more general level, it's an overarching argument supported by the entire text.

Each topic sentence can be more specific working together to prove that thesis.

And of course, they can be a little bit more specific and be supported by specific moments in the text in the play.

So let's do a check then.

Which of the following is a topic sentence? Is it A? Throughout "An Inspector Calls," Priestley to uses the character of Inspector Goole to subvert traditional ideas of justice and punishment? Or is it B? Arguably, Priestley uses prophetic language to emphasise the Inspector's role as a divine judge.

A or B, make your choice now.

Pause the video, press play when you've got an answer.

Welcome back.

I hope you've said B there.

Yes, this is a topic sentence because it's really specific to that paragraph.

We're gonna focus on prophetic language.

We're gonna be focusing on the Inspector's role as a divine judge.

A really specific focus there for that section of the essay.

Whereas A is a thesis, okay? It's much more of an observation about the text as a whole.

Okay? You know, across the text, Inspector Goole is used to subvert traditional ideas of justice and punishment.

One of the ways is that he's presented as a divine judge.

So that's a topic sentence.

Well done if you've got that correct.

So once we've decided our thesis, once we picked out our topic sentences, two to three topic sentences, we want to select some supporting details that are gonna help us prove those topic sentences.

So these should be references from the text that support to prove our topic sentence.

Within this, we want to identify key methods, whether these are language techniques, dramatic methods, as this is a play, key words, things that are gonna really help us remember to talk, to analyse Priestley's technique.

And we want to decide which of these are gonna be main quotations, the ones that are really analyzable, that we are gonna pull out multiple layers of meaning.

We're gonna zoom in on individual words and think about how they might make an audience respond, and which are gonna just be our supporting quotations.

Ones that we're gonna embed into our response that help prove our argument, but actually don't need a deeper analysis.

Now, all of that, this is gonna be written in concise note form.

We don't want to write in full sentences here because otherwise we're just writing our essay.

These are just notes to remind us of the things that we want to include in our essay.

So supporting details should be: A, found from across the play.

B, identify main and supporting quotations.

C, identify methods and keywords.

D, written in full sentences.

Pause the video.

A, B, C, or D.

What do you think? Press play when you've got answers.

Well done if you said A, B, C, and D.

B and C, really clear there.

We want to identify which quotes we're gonna analyse and which are just gonna support.

We're gonna make sure we know which methods and keywords we want to be using.

A might have been a little bit confusing.

So in an individual paragraph, you don't necessarily need.

So for one specific topic sentence, you might not necessarily need supporting details from across the play for that.

It might focus on a specific moment.

But across your essay plan, you are gonna want to show that you have got supporting details from across the play.

'Cause you want to show that you understand the text as a whole.

So each individual paragraph, maybe you might have a range of quotations or they might be from a specific moment.

But certainly across your whole plan you want to be showing you've got supporting detail from across the play.

But definitely not D.

We want to be writing in note form to keep things brief.

So concluding sentence, the last part of our plan.

The job of these is to make it clear through discourse markers that the paragraph has reached a conclusion.

You want to focus on the writer's intention.

Of course, throughout our writing we always want to be thinking about what is Priestley trying to tell his audience.

But if, you know, the concluding sentence is the best time to bring all of that together and really make sure you are focused on Priestley's intentions, and you basically, you are summarising the paragraph without repeating the topic sentence.

So here's an example.

Ultimately Priestley reinforces the Inspector's divine role by using his prophetic language to suggest that true justice transcends legal systems, positioning the Inspector as a moral force that exposes societal wrongs.

So this has that discourse marker.

Ultimately it shows that I'm about to summarise.

It focuses on what Priestley is trying to do, and the whole thing is really summarising the argument of that paragraph.

So, which would serve as the strongest concluding sentence for a paragraph on the Inspector as a divine judge? Is it A? As stated in my topic sentence, Priestley presents the Inspector as a divine judge through his prophetic language.

Is it B? Thus, through the Inspector's divine role, Priestley is perhaps exploring the relationship between morality, justice, and the limits of the legal systems. Or C? This brings me onto my next point about the presentation of the Inspector as a maverick archetype.

A, B, or C? Pause the video, make your choice and press play when you've got an answer.

Welcome back.

I hope you said B there.

B does the best job of summarising without repeating and focusing on Priestley's message.

Okay? And A, I think, lacks Priestley's message.

They're just saying what Priestley does and really they're just summarising that topic sentence.

And C doesn't work at all.

Okay? It's not doing any summarising.

It's actually moving on to the next point.

So B absolutely is our best concluding sentence there.

So your second task now is to move on to planning.

You are gonna plan an answer to the question.

How does Priestley use the Inspector to challenge traditional notions of justice and punishment? You don't want to spend too long on your plan 'cause you want to give yourself enough time to write, but you do need to be giving yourself at least 5, 10 minutes planning time so that when you move on to writing, you can feel really, really confident that you know exactly what you want to say and exactly what you want to cover.

So pause your video now.

Give yourself some time to plan and press play when you are done.

Okay, welcome back.

It's almost time for us to write, but before we do that, I would like us to self-assess our plan.

So can you check that you included the following: A thesis which presents an overarching argument.

Topic sentences that explain the individual focus of your paragraphs.

A range of supporting details from a variety of moments in the text.

Context as part of your supporting details.

And concluding sentences that summarise the paragraph and link back to Priestley's intentions.

Pause the video, reflect on your plan, make any improvements, and then press play when you are ready to start writing a response.

Okay, welcome back.

The moment we have been building up to, it is time to get writing a response.

Before we do that, I want to make sure we understand the difference between a surface level understanding and surface level responses in our writing and how we're gonna push to a deeper analysis.

So in a surface level understanding, we're gonna show we understand the text, we have a point of view on it, but to push it deeper, we're gonna aim for nuance.

Remember, that is critical.

We form a judgement.

We have various levels of meaning, layers of meaning and understanding.

We have a clear argument and we stick to it.

Whereas we are gonna have a deeper level of analysis, a deeper thesis, something evaluative, something critical, and we're gonna hang our argument on there.

So we're gonna look at those different layers of meaning and perhaps evaluate which we agree with and which we disagree.

So you need to, in any response, show you understand the plot, the characters and the writer's purpose.

But actually we want to make sure all of our response, it has a razor sharp focus on the writer's central message.

And then we think about plot points and characters that support that.

So we don't just talk about any plot point or any character.

We only use the ones that really link to this sharp focus on the writer's central message.

Your ideas show an understanding of the conventional interpretation of the text.

You understand kind of the, I guess the reading of the text that most people understand.

Whereas for a deeper analysis, you might have your own interpretation or you certainly start to look at multiple different ways that this text may be read.

Of course we are gonna do some, we're gonna identify the writer's language choices and we use accurate terminology, but actually for a deeper analysis we only select the terminology that really enhances our argument.

We don't just say, the author is use simile here, just because we recognise simile.

We only kind of focus on those similes that are really gonna develop the argument that we are trying to make.

Likewise, we want to show, we can comment on form, structure and language, but we want to make sure this is really interwoven and we're only making this analysis when we've got something relevant to say that links to our argument, that links to our thesis.

We want to be thinking about the effect of the language, form or structure.

But again, keep thinking what is my argument? Yes, I want to be talking about the effect, but only if it is tightly linked to my overarching argument.

And again, we want to talk about context, it's appropriate, we try avoid using general comments, we try not to bolt it on, if we're, you know, at service level.

But to go deeper, we want to be really highly selective.

We're using kind of our context to help us evaluate different interpretations and how different people might view this text.

All of our use of context is gonna support our overarching argument.

You can see that reoccurring theme there, can't you? Everything that we are doing, we are taking back to our thesis.

We are taking back to our topic sentences.

We are making sure that they are chosen because they are developing our arguments further.

So I want you to select two of the three criteria below it, that you would expect to see in a response that contains deeper analysis.

Is it A? Interwoven analysis of language, form, and structure.

B, use of contextual information being appropriate.

Or C, use of contextual information is highly selective and tightly linked to argument.

Pause the video, make your selections and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

I hope you've got A and C there.

Of course, we want our contextual information to be appropriately chosen, but we want to go further than that.

We want it to be highly selective, and this key thing, we want it to be linked back to our argument.

All right, over to you now.

It is time for you to pause the video and write your response to the question you can see on the screen.

Things I want you to remember: An introduction with a thesis, your overarching argument.

At least two analytical paragraphs which have clear topic sentences.

Great if you can fit a third in.

Judicious use of embedded quotations.

Remember, some of those quotations we will analyse in detail, some will just be used to support our argument.

We want to analyse Priestley's methods, the language techniques, the dramatic techniques that are used.

But we want to make sure all of those comments are tightly focused on our thesis.

We want to make sure our context is used, but always has a sharp focus on Priestley's purpose.

And we want to make sure our conclusion really considers what Priestley's overall intention is and what impact the text might have today.

All right, I know you can do this.

You know so much about the text.

You've had so many interesting thoughts and discussions.

It's now time to put it all into practise.

Alright, pause video, best of luck and press play when you think you are done.

Okay, that's it.

Well done.

How does that feel? I hope you are really, really proud of the piece of writing that you have created.

Before we finish today's lesson, let's take a moment to assess our work.

What we're gonna do is reread our work and we're gonna identify where we have done the following.

Where have we included that clear thesis? Where have we used clear topic sentences? Where have you offered inferences that show that nuanced understanding those layers of meaning? Where have you embedded quotations judiciously? Where have you included analysis and methods, but particularly where they have linked back to your argument? Where have you used subject terminology, again to enhance your argument, not just as a bolt on? Where have you interwoven your analysis and methods? Where have you interwoven that context with a sharp focus on Priestley's purpose? And where in your conclusion, do you summarise your thesis, and again, have that really clear focus on Priestley's message? Why don't you take a moment to reread your essay, identify all of these strengths.

But of course if you feel any of these are missing, now is the time to add them to your response.

Alright, pause the video, reflect on your answer, and press play and you are done.

Okay, that's it.

We have reached the end of today's lesson.

I hope you are really proud of yourselves.

I'm sure you have written some fantastic essays on punishment and justice.

In today's lesson, we've learned all about how nuanced responses go beyond that surface level analysis and they consider multiple layers of meaning.

We looked at planning responses and we've really thought about how our thesis should present that clear overarching argument.

And our topic sentences then are more specific, they focus on individual ideas, but all of our topic sentences together will help us prove our thesis.

We talked about how we can use supporting details and how it should include relevant textual references, but also analysis and methods.

And we know that all of our comments, every single comment that we make in an essay should link really tightly to our thesis to make sure that everything is interwoven, interlinked.

And that is what's gonna create this really deep and nuanced response.

Alright, fantastic work today.

I hope you are really proud of yourself and I hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future.

Bye-bye for now.