Lesson video

Hello and welcome to today's English lesson.

My name's Mrs. Butterworth, and I will be guiding you through the learning.

Now, this lesson is all about writing a response, specifically a response on "An Inspector Calls," and theatrical traditions.

I will be here to guide you every step of the way.

So, shall we get going? So in this lesson, you will write a response on "An Inspector Calls," and Priestley's engagement with theatrical traditions.

Now, before we dig into the lesson, let's look at those all important keywords.

Those words are nuanced, complex, alienate, and theatrical traditions.

Now nuanced, we want our responses to be nuanced, and this means that they are complex and interesting, and they also explore the subtle details of a text, for example.

We also want our responses to be complex, and this means involving a lot of different but related parts.

So in an essay, complex might look like multiple interpretations or exploring different perspectives.

Alienate means to make someone feel isolated or distance from others, often challenging their views.

And then finally, theatrical traditions, which will be really important for our essay question.

Now these are established practises and techniques used in theatre, so they're often linked to specific styles or movements.

So for an example, in an spectacles, we might look at the theatrical tradition of expressionism.

Now, the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to begin by conceptualising a nuanced response.

Then we're going to move on to planning the response together before finally writing it.

So let's begin by conceptualising a nuanced response.

So our question is, "How does Priestley draw on different theatrical traditions to convey his political and moral message in "An Inspector Calls"? Now in a moment, I would like you to discuss what initial ideas can you think of in response to the question? So you'll want to think about the specific theatrical traditions that Priestley arguably draws on.

You might want to consider his political and moral message.

What is it specifically? You might want to think about specific characters or moments in the play in order to answer this question.

You may also want to think about specific ideas, contextual ideas.

So there's lots of things that we can start thinking about for that question.

So, what initial ideas can you think of in response to the question? So you'll need to pause the video to discuss this, or if you're working on your own, you can think quietly to yourself or even write down some ideas.

Pause the video, and off you go.

Fantastic.

So many different ideas there.

And I think that's really important to acknowledge.

There's not a single way to answer this essay question.

You can all bring something different, and interesting, and complex to the question.

So that's great that there's so many different answers.

But let's just look at a few examples.

So you may have discussed Brechtian theatre and alienation, the lighting as an example of both naturalism and expressionism, and how Priestley kind of straddles both of those theatrical traditions.

You may have thought about morality play characterization, so that idea of vice and virtue, the cyclical structure and unresolved ending, and Eva Smith's absence as a reinvention of the "everyman" character, and the alignment with socialist realism.

So there's some really interesting things to say about that, isn't there? Possibly.

A statement about theatrical traditions and Priestley's message might be, "In 'An Inspector Calls,' Priestley uses theatrical conventions to challenge the audience's moral complacency and highlight the need for social responsibility." So we're going to think about how we can interrogate that statement even further in order to develop a nuanced response.

So a nuanced response is one which goes beyond a surface level understanding, it takes multiple layers of meaning into account, and acknowledges the complexity of the text and question.

So to develop a nuanced response, we might want to consider the following ideas.

Can we identify specific theatrical conventions and consider whether Priestley uses or subverts them, and to what effect? Do the play's constructions influence the audience's response to Priestley's moral message and support his for political agenda? Could it both engage and alienate an audience? I think that one's a really good example of where nuance can come in, because we could argue both, couldn't we? That Priestley's play could both engage and alienate audiences at the same time.

And that's where that nuance and complexity comes in.

Okay, which of the following would we expect from a nuanced response? Can you pick A, B, or C please? Pause the video to come up with your answer now.

Okay, well done to everyone that said.

Are we ready? B and C.

So a little bit of a trick one there.

The acknowledgement of complexities and consideration of multiple meanings.

So we are onto practise task A.

I would like you please to answer the following questions to begin to develop a nuanced response.

The questions are, "How does Priestley both use and subvert theatrical conventions?" So you can see here we're really aiming for that nuance by thinking about how he uses and subverts those theatrical conventions.

"To what extent does the play's construction influence the audience's response to Priestley's political and moral message? And could it both engage and alienate the audience?" And number three, "How does the use of dramatic conventions enable Priestley to challenge the audience's understanding of morality and responsibility?" So, make sure you've got everything you need to complete this task.

And when you are ready, pause the video and get answering those questions.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone.

We are really starting to develop those nuanced responses and nuanced explorations of the text.

So we're going to look at how Alex has answered the questions.

So the first question, "How does Priestley both use and subvert theatrical conventions?" Well, Alex has said the following, "Priestley uses naturalism to ground the characters in their social realities, creating a relatable world.

However, he subverts these conventions through the use of Brechtian techniques such as the inspector's direct address to the audience, which interrupts immersion and encourages critical reflection.

The juxtaposition forces the audience to question the moral and political implications of the character's actions." So I'd like you just to spend a few moments considering to what extent do you agree with Alex and why? So pause the video to give yourself time to reread his answer and just think about to what extent you agree and why.

Off you go.

And here's Alex's answer to the second question.

"To what extent does the play's construction influence the audience's response to Priestley's political and moral message? And could it both engage and alienate the audience?" And Alex said, "The play's cyclical structure and unresolved ending forced the audience to reflect on the persistence of social justice.

While it engages those sympathetic to Priestley's views, techniques like dramatic irony and the inspector's didactic role may alienate those resistant to the political message reinforcing the critique." So again, just spend a few moments thinking, to what extent do you agree with Alex and why? So pause the video so you can reread his response and consider your own opinions on it.

Off you go.

Okay, and the final question, "How does the use of dramatic conventions enable Priestley to challenge the audience's understanding of morality and responsibility?" Well, here's Alex's answer to that.

"Priestley employs conventions of the morality play with the Birlings representing vice and the inspector embodying virtue.

Through dramatic irony and the Birlings' moral failings, Priestley challenges the audience to reflect on their own responsibility in a class-based society, positioning the Birlings as villains to underscore the consequences of selfishness and ignorance." Some really great answers from Alex here.

So final reflection, just pause the video, reread Alex's answers, and decide to what extent do you agree and why? Off you go.

Okay.

Great.

We already have so many different ideas for this essay, which is fantastic.

Some really good nuanced and complex ideas.

So now we're going to move on to plan the response.

So one way to plan your response is to create a multi-paragraph outline that looks like this.

So you can plan your thesis statement and then your paragraph.

So within those paragraphs you can plan your topic sentence, your supporting details, and your concluding sentence.

And by planning this way, it means that you really help to formalise and organise your ideas.

So by the time you come to write, it's actually very easy because most of it has been done and the thinking has been done already.

So I'd just like you to discuss, please, "What is the difference between a thesis and a topic sentence?" So what is the difference between a thesis and a topic sentence? Pause the video to come up with your answers.

Off you go.

Okay.

Great.

There's some really good understanding there.

So, I'm gonna show you some answers and hopefully you came up with something similar.

So a thesis is found at the start of an essay, in the introduction.

The topic sentence is found at the start of every main body paragraph.

The thesis introduces your overarching argument.

The topic sentence introduces the main idea of your paragraph.

Okay, so we can see here the thesis is at the start, it's all about introducing your argument.

Where the topic sentence is much more specific, it introduces the main idea of your paragraph.

In a thesis, you would talk about an idea supported by the whole text.

And a topic sentence is focused on a specific part of the text or idea.

So let's see if you can identify a topic sentence.

So which of the following is a topic sentence, A or B? Pause the video to come up with your answer now.

Okay, so who's feeling confident? So the topic sentence is B.

Arguably, Priestley uses Brechtian techniques to politically engage his audience.

But you need to say why now.

So why is B the topic sentence? Pause the video to come up with your explanation.

Okay, shall we share an answer? So, sentence A makes an observation about the whole text.

So throughout "An Inspector Calls" Priestley draws on theatrical traditions to support his political agenda.

It's much more general and it refers to the whole text.

Whereas, B conveys an argument that a single paragraph will focus on, and it's much more specific.

So you can see that the paragraph is going to focus on Brechtian techniques.

The next thing we need to think about are those all important supporting details.

Now your supporting details should include the following, analysis of writer's methods, so this will be a note form.

It should support the topic sentence.

It should come from across the text.

So don't just pick one lump of text.

You want them to come from across the text.

And it also needs to include relevant context.

So let's look at an example.

So you can see here in the supporting detail, we've got some analysis of writer's methods.

And you'll notice it's in note form.

The inspector breaks fourth wall, repetition of "we" forcing audience to reflect critically.

So I now know when I'm going to write this that I'm going to talk about why Priestley breaks the fourth wall, the repetition of "we," and what that makes the audience do.

We can also see that it supports the topic sentence.

So it talks about the ending is unresolved, as to which is typical of Brechtian theatre.

So you'll notice that the topic sentence is all about Brechtian techniques.

So you can see that within that supporting detail, there is reference to that topic sentence.

You can see that it comes from across the text, so we've got an example from Act 3 and Act 1.

And there is some relevant context added in.

So it's a type of political theatre.

So you've got that literary context there and it aligns with Priestley's socialist ideas and 1945 audience.

So again, we've got that political and historical context there.

So, let's see what you remember.

What should you ensure when selecting supporting details for an essay? Is the answer A, B, or C? Pause the video and come up with your answer now.

Okay, are we ready? Who's feeling confident? Lots of you? Well, excellent, because it was actually A and B.

You're supporting details should link to the topic sentence, and your supporting details come from across the text.

So a very well done to everyone that spotted those two answers, A and B.

Shall we keep going? So let's just quickly remind ourselves of those all important concluding sentences.

Now, concluding sentences will make it clear through discourse markers that the paragraph has reached its conclusion.

It will focus on the writer's intentions, and it will summarise the paragraph without repeating the topic sentence.

So let's look at an example.

So let's read it through together first, and then we'll see how it has been successful.

"Ultimately, Priestley's engagement with Brechtian techniques encourages the audience to critically examine their own social responsibility, prompting reflection on the flaws of capitalist society and urging a call for change." So we've got that discourse marker there, "ultimately," which shows that the paragraph is reaching its conclusion.

We've also got that focus on the writer's intention, so "Priestley's engagement with Brechtian techniques encourages the audience," so it is talking about what Priestley is trying to do and how he wants the audience to respond.

So we're really thinking about those intentions.

And then finally, it links to the topic sentence without repeating it.

So you can see that it's talking about Brechtian techniques, which is in the topic sentence, but it's much more tightly focused on these techniques in linking to audience and the writer's intention.

Okay, so we have three concluding sentences here.

So which would serve as the strongest concluding sentence for a paragraph on Priestley's use of Brechtian techniques? Would it be A? Would it be B? Or would it be C? Pause the video so you can read those answers and come up with the correct one.

Off you go.

Okay, so let's have a look and well done to everyone that picked B, because B is the most effective because we've got that discourse marker in "thus," so "Thus through the use of Brechtian techniques." And then Priestley invites the audience to critically reflect.

So we've got that emphasis on the writer's intention and it references the ideas in the topic sentence without repeating them.

So, it's over to you now to complete your planning.

So I would like you, please, to create a multi-paragraph outline to answer the question, which is, "How does Priestley draw on different theatrical traditions to convey his political and moral message in 'An Inspector Calls'?" Let's just read that through again.

How does priestly draw on different theatrical traditions to convey his political and moral message in "An Inspector Calls"? Quite the tongue twister, that question.

So there is your multi-paragraph outline.

So pause the video to complete your planning task.

Off you go.

Well done.

Good job, everyone.

Now I know for some of you, you might not like to plan your essays or think that planning is a waste of time, but I promise you, a really good plan will elevate your essay writing.

It is really the best way to go about writing a response.

So it's really important you practise this.

Because it just helps to organise all of those wonderful ideas, and do half of the work before you even start writing.

So look at those plans and just self-assess for me, please.

Please check that you have included the following.

Have you included a thesis which presents the overarching argument? Have you included topic sentences that explain the individual focus of your paragraphs? Have you used a range of supporting details from a variety of moments in the text? Have you included context as part of your supporting details? And then finally, have you included concluding sentences that summarise the paragraph and link back to Priestley's intentions? So as ever, you'll need to pause the video and just really check that your plan does all of those things.

Off you go.

Okay, so we have thought about our initial ideas.

We have planned the response.

So all of the hard work's done really.

We now just need to move on to writing the response.

So before you write the response, I just want to make sure that we understand the difference between that surface level understanding and that deeper analysis which we're aiming for.

So surface level understanding is you understand the text and have a point of view.

But that deeper analysis is all about that nuanced understanding with a critical response.

And we know from that first learning cycle what that nuanced understanding looks like.

You have a clear argument that you stick to, whereas a deeper analysis, you have an evaluative argument or a critical response to hang your argument on.

So you may be exploring different perspectives and different interpretations at the same time.

Your argument shows that you understand the plot characters and the writer's purpose, but we want deeper analysis, which means you have a razor sharp focus on the writer's central message and how the plot and characters support this.

And then finally, you show an understanding for the conventional interpretations of the text.

Whereas in a deeper analysis, your own interpretation of the text and your argument centres around this.

So again, you are able to explore some of those more interesting interpretations that maybe the reader hasn't even thought of.

And again, moving on to the idea of the difference between surface level understanding and deeper analysis, you can identify the writer's language choices using accurate terminology.

But with that deeper analysis, you will select the terminology that enhances the argument.

So you won't just use terminology for terminology's sake, it will be all about enhancing that argument.

You can comment and form and/or structure as well as language.

So for deeper analysis, you will have interwoven analysis of language, form, and structure.

So this might be that you make a comment about a specific quotation, but you also link to the structure of the text as well.

So perhaps where that quotation is in the text or why that quotation is at the end, for example.

Your comments focus on the effect of language, form, or structure.

But for detailed deeper analysis, your comments link tightly to the overarching argument.

So you're always linking back to that thesis statement and that central argument.

And then finally, for a surface level understanding, your use of context is appropriate and you avoid general comments, and context is used to support analysis and is not bolted on.

So we all need to make sure we're doing that.

But for a real deeper analysis, you need to be highly selective of what type of context you use.

And you use it to evaluate different interpretations and support the overarching argument.

Okay, so lots we need to be doing in these responses, and I'm sure there's lots that you are already doing.

But for now, I would like you, please, to select two criteria you would expect to see in a response containing deeper analysis.

So two criteria you would expect to see in a response containing deeper analysis.

Pause the video to come up with your answer now, please.

So, a round of applause and are very well done to all of you that got A and C, interwoven analysis of language, form, and structure, and the use of contextual information is highly selective and linked tightly to argument.

So we have reached that time.

We are at our final practise task, which means it is over to you to write your response.

So let's remind ourselves of that question, "How does Priestley draw on different theatrical traditions to convey his political and moral message in 'An Inspector Calls'?" And remember to include the following, an introduction with a thesis that explains your overarching argument, at least two analytical paragraphs which have clear topic sentences, judicious use of embedded quotes, quotations, analysis of methods which are tightly focused on your argument, and the writer's intention.

Your context is interwoven throughout with a sharp focus on Priestley's purpose.

Always remember, Priestley's purpose and intention.

And then a conclusion that consider Priestley's overall intention and what the impact of the text might be today.

So don't forget you have those wonderful plans that you completed in learning cycle two.

So now it's just time to write your response.

So make sure you have everything you need and pause the video, and I look forward to seeing what you write.

Off you go.

Excellent work, everyone.

That is, you should be incredibly proud of yourself.

I think whenever you write a full response, it is a very proud moment.

So you should definitely be congratulating yourselves there.

So, let's spend a minute just rereading and reflecting on our work.

And I'd like you to assess your work by identifying the following.

Where have you included a clear thesis statement, used clear topic sentences, offered inferences that show a nuanced understanding of the text, used embedded quotations judiciously, included analysis of methods which is focused on your argument, subject terminology to enhance your argument, interwoven your analysis of methods, interwoven that context with a sharp focus on Priestley's purpose, and included a conclusion which summarises your thesis? So as I said, just reread your work and assess and identify where you have done those following things.

Pause the video and off you go.

Well done, everyone.

Like I say, you should be so proud of yourself for writing a whole essay.

And I think that aim to make them nuanced and complex has been really great as well.

And I'm starting to see that in your work, which is fantastic.

So we know that a nuanced response means going beyond surface level analysis and considering multiple layers of meaning in the text.

When planning a response, your thesis should present a clear argument.

Topic sentences should focus on individual paragraph points.

Supporting details should include relevant textual references and analysis of methods.

And finally, that all comments in an essay should link tightly to your overarching argument.

So again, very, very well done.

I cannot wait to do this all again with you soon.

So do join me then.

Goodbye.