Hello everybody, it's Mrs. Wear stream English and today we are going deep into AQA paper one question three. [music] I am going to cover absolutely everything you need to know [music] to smash this question in an exam from what it is you have to do the mark scheme. We're going to look at a practice question and [music] I'm going to show you a model answer. So let's do this. The first thing that's important for us to keep in mind about question three is what is it we've got to do? But because the question never changes. It's always worded the same. And it's always worded as you now need to think about the whole of the source. This text is from the beginning of a story. How has the writer structured the text to interest you as a
reader? You could write about what the writer focuses your attention on at the beginning of the source. How and why the writer changes this focus as the source develops. Any other structural features that interest you. Now, there's a couple of things here. First of all, the this bit about this text is from the beginning of a story. That can change per question because obviously the extracts they give you aren't always from the beginning of a story. They really often are, but they aren't always. Sometimes it is the entire story. Sometimes it's from towards the end. Sometimes it's from towards the middle. So pay attention to that information of whereabout it is in the story because that is going to mean
different things for the narrative order. if we're dealing with the very beginning versus the middle versus the end. And I'm going to talk more about specifically the beginning and what that means when we look at our practice question. But if you're looking for more general advice on what difference do the different parts of the stories make, you want to have a look at my video on a freight tags pyramid. Another important thing in the wording of this question is that you are thinking about the whole of the source. Now, they do say the whole of the source, but they don't require you to talk about the entire text. Generally speaking, the text they give you can be broken down into like a kind of beginning, middle, end of the
extract, right? And so, you want to make sure you cover two of those three, the beginning and the middle of the middle of the end, or the beginning and the end. And again, as I keep talking about this question, I'll explore that concept in more detail. But just the key point to keep in mind at this time is that although it says the whole of the source, that doesn't mean that if you don't talk about a specific chunk of the text, you're not going to be able to get full marks because you are. The wording of the actual question itself is [snorts] hideous. And I really, you know, I empathize with AQA because what they want to actually ask you is, hi, please write about literally anything to do with structure that you can see going
on. just just tell us everything you can see going on please. But they couldn't word the question like that. So instead they've worded it as how has the writer structured the text to interest you as a reader. Now the problem with that wording is it leads some students astray because they think okay I'm looking for the exciting stuff, the drama stuff. I'm looking for where I as a reader am completely caught up in the story. But they also perhaps are people that do not read or do not like to read and so they read the extract and they're like this is so boring. This is there is nothing interesting in this. Who on earth would choose to read this when they could be watching insert whatever popular TV show
is currently on Netflix? That's not what they mean. What they mean is you of course find this interesting. Everybody would because everybody loves books and everybody loves everything. What they actually mean by interest is effect. They mean how has the writer given you different pieces of information that then affect how you have understood the text, [clears throat] the order that the story is written in and how you have understood that. That is what they really mean is what has it made you as the reader think and what has it made you feel. Has it made you think I don't like him? I don't like her. Has it made you feel scared? Okay, fine. You might not actually be sitting there scared, but you can tell that's what they were
going for. They're trying to make you feel scared. They're trying to make you laugh or angry or whatever. You can tell that's what they're going for. And so that is the effect that they're trying to have on you as a reader. And then finally, these three bullet points they have all the time. And again, as I'm going to show you when I go to do the practice question, they really are handing you the key to how to do well with this question. Writer's focus is everything. It's like one of two techniques that are should always be talked about and are the key to this question. Talking about how it develops is the key to getting full marks in this question. Any other structural features that interest you? There's sometimes
going to be other structural features. That's basically what they're saying there. And again, in our practice question, we're going to look at some of those other structural features. So, this is the basic outline of what question three looks like and will always look like in paper one. For the mark scheme, we're going to start by looking at the bottom end where we obviously don't want to be getting marks and then we're going to look at the top end and what makes a difference there. Now, don't be thinking just because you want to get a grade nine and you want to get seven or eight out of eight that this isn't worth your time and you should skip along. No, pay attention here because this is the what not to do
section of the video essentially. So, if we look at the level one and the level two and what they say you're doing. So level one shows a simple awareness of structural features, simple comment on the effect of structure, simple references, simple use of subject terminology, not always appropriately. A key word to take away there is simple. Imagine Homer Simpson was answering this question. What would he spot? There is a man. The man is eating bread. The man likes the bread. That's all this story is about. You're basically only spotting the really obvious explicit plot things going on and that's about it. At level two, you show some understanding of structural features. You attempt to comment. You select some appropriate
examples. You make some use of subject terminology. Now, interestingly, uh well, no, it's not really interesting. It makes sense when you think about it. The most common mark achieved for this question is four out of eight because four out of eight is the pass and most students who take this exam just pass. So this is the category that most people will fit into. They're attempting to talk about the structure but they're not doing it very well. One of the big reasons why they could not do be not doing it very well is just they're wrong. The thing they have said about the text is incorrect. um that is an obvious way you can go wrong and something you want to keep an eye out for. The second big reason why
people can often end up in level two is that they are halfway there. They've got the right idea, but they perhaps miss the mark in some way by not explaining in enough detail, by not getting something quite right. It's always about like you're trying to do it, but you're not quite there or you're saying something generic. You should never ever say in this question that it makes the reader want to read on or it interests the reader. Which leads me on to my third uh way that people do this wrong. And that is generic comments. Never ever ever make that comment. It makes the reader want to read on. It interests the reader. It gives the reader information. That's true of any text ever. And so you're not showing specific
understanding of this text. A lot of students when I say don't be generic, okay, fine. They'll avoid saying it makes the reader want to read on, but they still will be really vague and generic in other ways. Like they'll say something like, "We learn a lot about the character and what they're feeling." Okay, number one, why did you not say the character's name? The text is right there. Say their name. Don't just call them the character and what they're feeling. Why have you not told me what they're feeling? You're reading the text. Be specific. Be detailed. Don't just tell me the writer shows us what the character is feeling and this interests us as a reader. No, tell me George is feeling angry about his pet
dying and this shows us the importance of the pet to his life. Be specific to the text you are talking about. An important thing to keep in mind is that although they break it down into the three different bullet points, each bullet point itself isn't making a whole heap of difference. It's that overarching statement really that is everything. Um examiners look to that first. Um they'll ask themselves, you know, are you showing some understanding and comment or is it a simple limited comment? That's the key of what they'll look at first cuz the distinction in the mark scheme is not very high. It's two marks. That's it. So what they'll do first of all is they'll look at these overarching comments on the side and
decide overall which one does your answer fit into? And then they'll go, okay, of these bullet points, do you have them all, in which case you're at the top end? You, you know, you're four out of eight, or do you only have some of them? And actually, some of the bullet points are for the next level down, in which case you've actually got three. That leads me on actually to talk about level three. Because another really common mark that students get is the uh five. With a question that's out of so few marks, it's not really possible to be like, oh, this is a grade nine, this is a grade eight, this is a grade seven. because of course how you do in the other questions like in question four and question five will
have a humongous impact. So you could get eight out of eight in this and still come out with a grade six overall because you know you didn't do very well in any of the other questions. That being said, if you scored six out of eight in this question and you matched that level of performance across every single question, you're at the grade 8 n boundary. Some years you would have been a grade nine. Some years you would have been a grade eight depending on the grade boundaries of that year. So a general goal that I would give to everybody trying to get a grade nine in this question is that a minimum you want to be getting grade six. Ideally you want to be getting seven or eight. Keeping in mind again if you find this
question incredibly difficult. Getting a grade six. You just need to try and do a little bit better perhaps in the questions you know that you can do really well at. make up those two perhaps in your question five or your question four or question two. You're not going to make it up in question one. Everybody gets four out of four. Going back to my earlier point though, I kind of went off in a little bit of a tangent there. If you've gotten five out of eight, if you've gotten just into level three, what your teacher is basically saying to you, you are sometimes showing a clear understanding, but you're also sometimes in the level two of showing some understanding. So, that's a really important reflection for
you to have when you're looking at your question three answer because you need to be asking yourself, what parts of my answer am I getting right? Am I getting the level three for? And that's good versus what parts of my answer are the level two or am I attempting and it's not quite working. Make sure you're really clear on that. And if you aren't clear, speak to your teacher, ask for that clarification there as well. In terms of then getting the six, as I've already mentioned, that is, you know, the lowest we want to be aiming for to go for a grade nine. That is, as I've already mentioned, it basically means you've got all of the bullet points for this question. So, you show a clear understanding of structural features.
You explain clearly the effect of the writer's choices of structural features. You select a range of relevant examples and you make clear and accurate use of subject terminology. So, you're just getting everything right. You know, you just you're correct and you're clear and you're specific. It sounds so easy to do, but it's so hard to do in reality because of the timings of this question. So, this question being eight marks, you want to spend about 10 minutes writing your answer and you would have spent a little bit of the 15 minutes reading time thinking about your answer and planning your answer as well. At the level four, for the seven to eight, this is that really elusive concept. Now, what I mean by elusive is like it's hard
to pin down. It's hard to name. The French would call it the the X factor would call it the X factor. It's that idea of being perceptive. What does that mean? I basically explain perceptive is like you're like Sherlock Holmes. You spot the stuff that nobody else does. You know, you look at somebody's hand and you spot there's a tan line where a wedding ring used to be and you conclude they, you know, have been in a hot country and are divorced. Whatever it is that Sherlock Holmes does in his amazing little way, you see the meaning being created, the effect being created that an English teacher reads it and goes, "Wow, that's good. I wish I could explain it to you in a more concrete way. I wish I could give you a
formula to being perceptive. I wish I could say to you, do this, this, this, and you are perceptive, but it's going to come down to you in the moment. It's going to come down to the text, and it's going to come down to how well you've understood that text. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm going to show you some tricks, but there is a reason that being perceptive is at a grade N standard, and that is because it is an incredibly hard thing to do. Now, the bullet points for our level four, seven, and eight out of eight are that you are analyzing the effect of the writer's ch uh writer's choices of structural features. Notice this is our first time seeing the word analyze. So remember analysis, if you
don't know what analysis is, watch my video on it. But for now, analysis is how you break down the effect created. It's also about you selecting a judicious range. So that means you've just chosen really, really well. Like you've gotten the best. If there were four different quotes that could have been used to exemplify your point, you chose the best of the four. And then make sophisticated and accurate use of subject terminology. Don't get caught up on this concept of sophistication, okay? You don't need to go away and learn a bunch of really fancy Latin and Greek terms that nobody's ever heard of. That is not going to make a difference. Let me black it out. I want you to flat out ignore that word because the honest
reality of marking this question is they don't mean it. You could have an answer that only looked at writer's focus and you can get 100%. And again, I will show you how to do that. What it should say instead is that you make really purposeful use of subject terminology. What I mean by that is you are truly analyzing the techniques that you've identified and they are really directly relevant. You've really identified what exactly is creating the effect at the different points. So purposeful means it's there for a reason. So you have identified the techniques that are really being used for a reason. Another important point to note for this question is that you get absolutely no marks for talking about language. This
is a really important thing to keep in mind because a mistake I did see as an examiner was students wrote language analysis for basically their entire answer and had next to no structural and they ended up with scores in the level one because they just didn't say anything about structure. If you feel like you don't understand the distinction between those two, watch my video on that where I go through that distinction. But for now, I'm just going to say structure is about the order the story is told in. Language is about the words in the story. Make sure you are looking at the order the story is told in. You're not analyzing the words in the story. We're now going to have a practice of uh looking at a past paper
question three and I'm going to talk you through how I'd answer that question and I'm going to show you a model answer. I'm doing June 2017. That is the Rosabel paper. That is the paper that I was an examiner for and is therefore forever imprinted on my mind and one of my dying thoughts will probably be about Rosabel and that damn hat. So when it comes to approaching this question, one of the first things we want to pay attention to is where AQA have said this extract comes from. And in this case, we're dealing with the beginning of the story. The reason that is important is of course because of the fact that that means we're dealing with an exposition. And we can think about, okay, what is an
exposition trying to achieve? Now, if you've never heard the term exposition before, that just means the beginning of a story. But the general idea of what an exposition does is that it introduces characters, introduces setting, and foregrounds key ideas like the themes, the relationships, the plot points. Foregrounding just means that uh the writer makes a particular idea really stand out to you as a reader. And the reason that they're doing that is because you need to know that piece of information because it's going to help you understand something later. So when you write your question three answer, you should constantly be using the words introduce and foreground. Like it introduces this idea or it foregrounds
this idea. The other thing to keep in mind, as I've already said, is that whatever extract you've given, you can roughly split into three sections into a beginning, a middle, and into an end. And where you put those uh kind of lines will be down to you, but essentially it's going to come down to how something develops. So whatever it is you identified as being introduced or is being foregrounded in that very opening of the opening, how does that then build as the text goes on? Don't get thrown by the word development. It just means what's the new information you're getting? In the beginning, you were told this. In the middle, you're told this as well. And because you know that and that you're able to conclude that all these
different nuggets of information that the writer is giving you in their story, what order are those nuggets being revealed to you in and why is it in that order? So let's have a look then at this actual Rosabel extract. You're not going to analyze anything in that little box in your actual answer. However, AQA have put it there to really help your reading comprehension and make sure you've understood the text correctly. So, they don't leave you to figure out that we're dealing with the early 80 early 1900s. They don't leave you to figure out that Rosabel is workingass. Um, they don't leave you to figure out that she's at works in a hat shop. They just tell you that stuff. So, don't skip past that
box. Read it because it helps give some basic reading comprehension that does then make a difference when you're trying to read the story. So, what I'm going to do now is I'm not going to read this out. Instead, what I want you to do first is pause this video, read this, and I want you just to think for yourself before I reveal my ideas. I want you to think for yourself what is being introduced. Is there a setting being introduced? Is there a character being introduced? And what key ideas are being foregrounded? Once you've done that, unpause me and I'll start talking about this section. So, there are two main things that are foregrounded in this section. one that uh somebody would spot if they were going to get a clear
relevant answer and one in the perceptive aisle that is that first of all Rosabel is poor. We're told that in the box at the top anyway she's lower class but that is also shown in this section. She doesn't have a lot of money because of the fact that you know she would have sacrificed herself for a good dinner. She didn't have any money for tea cuz she bought a bunch of violets. Usually somebody who buys flowers that doesn't necessarily exclude you from then being able to buy herself something to eat. So it suggests she hasn't got a lot of money. The perceptive idea is about Rosabelle's idealism versus her grim reality. Now, let me explain what I mean by that. If you think someone is idealistic, it means that they have
these ideas about life and they place living to those ideas about life above anything more practical like eating. So in Rosabel's case, she's idealistic because of her love of beautiful things and also it suggests that her love at perhaps like expensive things with the whole jewelry shop um and the silver and the opal and and how expensive that is, but also the beauty with the violets too. When I come to write my answer, I am not going to be analyzing the metaphor of fairy palaces. I am not going to be analyzing the connotations of opal and silver because that is analyzing language. Instead, I am going to be commenting on why tell us this at this point. Why give us that information at this point of the story? And I am
going to say that is because the goal here is to introduce Rosabel. And so it's introducing a key aspect of her personality and that is the fact that she is idealistic. However, by also foregrounding Rosabel's poverty, it also shows that her ideals for beauty and expensive things don't match her actual reality. She can't afford it. She can't live the life she wants to live. And that grim reality is what you get with that juxtiposition of the description in the bus with the sickening smell of warm humanity and her feeling stifled like she feels trapped by her actual reality of where she has to be and all that kind of stuff. So what I've done here is the very first key step to question three is
that I have figured out how has the writer structured the text to interest me as a reader. I figured out what are the nuggets of information that I have been given. What I haven't yet done is attach those nuggets of information to a technique. What structural device has the writer used to convey those nuggets of information to me? That's your subject terminology. Now there are two different techniques that nine times out of 10 you are going to only need basically they will be the only things you will talk about and that is narrative viewpoint and writer's focus. Now writer's focus if you're not familiar with what that is I've got a video on it that you can see in more detail as I talk you through how to
analyze writer's focus. Ditto narrative viewpoint I've got a video on it where you can look at how to analyze narrative viewpoint in more detail. I know I've referenced a lot of my different videos in this video and I've put the links to them all in the description. So, just have a look there. But what I will say for the purposes of right now is that the poverty is conveyed via the narrative viewpoint and the uh idealism and grim reality is also via the narrative viewpoint and the writer's focus. And that's a really important thing because what the writer is doing is combining techniques in order to create an effect. And that is again a perceptive seven or eight out of eight thing to be able to comment on. Not just
one technique in isolation, but how multiple techniques build on one another. So in the case of this extract here, the third person narrative viewpoint. That is why I know Rosabel is poor because the narrator is the one who tells me Rosabel bought a bunch of violets. it the narrative viewpoint is able to focus on her external actions telling us the things that she is doing and that is what tells me she is poor. The second thing is that the narrative viewpoint also is internal and it's limited. Again, check my video for more details, but that basically means the narrative viewpoint is focused on Rosabel. Even though it's third person, it's roabel's thoughts, Rosabelle's feelings, Rosabel's viewpoint, if you
will. That means that the negative perception of the people on the bus isn't our third person narrator. That's Rosabel's negative perception. And the positive perception of the jeweler shops is Rosabel's positive perception. And therefore, the internal narrative viewpoint is what conveys Rosabel's idealism, but also how that doesn't fit with her much more grim reality as well. That contrast between Rosabel's idealism and the grim reality is also shown in the writer's focus because it starts off with a focus on shifting from Rosabel to a focus on the setting with like the street outside and the jeweler shop and giving us Rosabel's perception of that. It then shifts focus to character to the people on the bus and um the bus itself
and Rosabelle herself, the bottom of her skirt and her petticoat. It contrasts the setting outside and the idealism of that setting outside to the reality of the inside of the bus. And again, it's really important both of those techniques are creating the effect that it's the internal narrative viewpoint plus the writer's focus that is able to create that sense of the contrast between her idealism and the grim reality. You can't do it with just one or the other. It has to be both that do that. I'm saying this is like our beginning of the text. I'm now going to shift to the section I'm saying is like the middle of it. And again, I want you to pause and start by reading this section through yourself and start
identifying what you think is being foregrounded, but more importantly, what is being developed? We said here the initial ideas set up are Roosevelt's poverty and Roosevelt's idealism versus the grim reality. How is that built on in this next section? Are there any new nuggets of information we get that increase our understanding of Rosabel's poverty in some way or increase our understanding of um Rosabel's like idealism and the reality that she lives? And are there any new ideas introduced as well? So, make sure you pause, read through, think about all that and then unpause to hear my thoughts. Now, the first thing that we've got here that we won't have necessarily at all in all different practice questions is we've
got a flashback. Okay? You don't always have a flashback. This is something specific to this text. So, it's worth knowing what a flashback is. Um, but don't necessarily think it's going to be in every single practice that you do. Now, a flashback, the clue is in the name. It's where in the text shifts from being in the present to talk about something that happened in the past. And the goal of a flashback is to help us understand the present through the past. Okay? So by telling us about what happened 20 days ago, we are going to be able to better understand what's going on right now. So that's the thing we need to keep in the back of our minds as we read a flashback is how is what I'm learning here helping me better
understand the present. And that is of course key to being able to show that development as well. A new piece of uh information is foregrounded in this bit and that is the fact that Rosabel has experience in a hat shop. You know, um we're told that the excuse about somebody changing their mind about a hat um had worn so thin and that shows, you know, she she works retail. She knows how retail works. She knows that's a fake excuse, whatever. So, she definitely has experience in a hat shop. The next thing though is actually a development. We also learn about how her idealism that we learned about earlier affects how she views her customers. Like if we look at that description of the girl along uh line 19, a girl with
beautiful red hair and a white skin and eyes the color of that green ribbon shot with gold they had got from Paris last week. Like there's such a sense of beauty and opulence in that description that matches the description of the setting we had earlier. So, what we can see is that we're getting a development here because we know the way that Rosabelle is viewing this girl is not because she fancies her or something like that. It's because of how idealistic Rosabel is. And of course, what we learned earlier is the way that that is conveyed is through the narrative viewpoint and writer's focus. And that is still true here. The narrative viewpoint is of course still third person, but it's that limited
internal focus on Rosabel that means that all of this positive description of our girl is actually Rosabel's positive opinion. We've also had the writer's focus shift from that macro of all the different things that went on in the day, the multiple different customers to a micro of one specific customer that she looks at in much more detail, which shows that this one specific customer is significant for Rosabel. This was like perhaps the most important thing of her day. Another development that we get is that Rosabelle is a hard worker who goes the extra mile. She had run up breathlessly when she thought about a big untouched box. When the woman came into the shop, Rosabel took the pins out of her hat, untied her veil, and gave
her a hand mirror. So, not only does she have experience in a hat shop, as we were told at the beginning, but that's then developed by us understanding that Rosabel is a hard worker. If we think about the poverty we learned about earlier, there's a new dynamic coming out here. Yes, she's in customer service, but there is also a subservience here. So that means she's like lower than, she's less than, she's inferior and therefore has to serve this girl. This girl is all beauty and opulence and amazing while Rosabel is the one who has to run around trying to make her happy. So there's that kind of power imbalance there. All of that is conveyed with narrative viewpoint and writer's focus. It's the narrative
viewpoint on the external actions. Things like she had run up breathlessly cut the cords. So, you've got that narrative viewpoint telling us and Rosabelle's actions and showing her hard work, but also the shifts in focus between our girl with the beautiful red hair and Rosabelle. So, you've got the dialogue from the girl of what is it I want Harry versus Rosabel meanwhile taking everything out of her hat, helping her. So, the girl is not paying any attention to Rosabelle. She's talking to Harry over there. Meanwhile, Rosabelle is doing everything for her. Roosevelt has essentially been faced with a girl who has the life she wants. And we know it's the life that she wants because of the beginning of the story.
So the beginning of the story has affected our understanding of the middle of the story. The final chunk I'm going to talk about is the bit that I would say is like the ending. Pause me, read this chunk, have your ideas considering everything we've talked about so far. What else can you see being developed in this final section? and then when you're ready to hear my ideas, unpause me again. We have a lot of development going on in this last little chunk. There's a development here. First of all, in looking at how the poverty of Rosabel affects how she responds to the girl's behavior, and also the reverse, how her experience in this flashback has affected how she then feels when she's on that bus in the evening. So, first of
all, if we think about how the poverty we learned about in the beginning affects her response in this ending, that sudden ridiculous feeling of anger, we know that she's angry because this girl is essentially like being really inconsiderate and mocking Rosabel and making her experience a life that she can never have. We know Rosabel's poor. We know she really wants this life of wealth and opulence and we know she hasn't got it. The second thing is how does her experience during the day affect how she feels in the evening? Well, if you think about what she's been through during the day, again, everything that we've had conveyed via our narrative viewpoint and writer's focus, we have learned that she has been
working her butt off, but in return has been disrespected. So, if we think back to actually that description of the bus and all the like sickening smell of humanity and the people that are insignificant, it's almost like Rosabelle was projecting onto them the negative feelings she has about her own class and therefore herself. All of that is conveyed with the narrative viewpoint and the writer's focus. It's the internal narrative viewpoint with the sudden ridiculous feeling of anger. That's how we know that Roswabel is upset about this. But also, it's the writer's focus shifting from our girl, um, it suits you beautifully. She smiled again, she's very kind of happy about everything she's doing. She's very
carefree versus Rosabelle who's, you know, obviously really upset about everything. And if we think about the effect that this has on us as a reader as well, we're not liking this girl anymore. this girl who was initially introduced with the beautiful red hair. We might have really liked her in the beginning, but now we're thinking, but she is being an unpleasant person. And that is a deliberate thing being done by our writer because we have this contrast between the girl and Rosabel. And that is really making us develop our feelings about the girl and develop our feelings about Roosevelt. Liking Roosevel, liking the girl less. Now the reason I've put contrast, structure and foil there is because in any extract one of those
three or more of those three can be at play. Now a foil is when two characters are designed to be like direct opposites of one one another. And that is what I think is going on here. It is not an accident that both Rosabelle and the girl are girls of a perhaps similar age but completely different classes. So it's like we're supposed to be contrasting the life of Roosevelt with the life of this girl. However, you could also call it contrast. You could all it also call it juxtiposition. So what I'm going to show you now is a model answer written by AQA themselves. This is what they put in the mark scheme for the seven to eight out of eight of this question. But I am then also going to show you my version that I think
frankly is better and more authentic to the kind of answer that actually gets eight out of eight. When we're looking at this answer, there are three key areas we want to be keeping an eye out for that really make the difference. So, first of all, that the answer states what the writer does. Second, that it states what the story is telling the reader. And third, for the highlevel marks, it explains how these different pieces of information affects the reader's understanding. So, if we read through this, I'll show you in this model answer where it does all of those different things. At the beginning, the writer focuses on the private thoughts of Rosabel, who is traveling home after a hard day's work at a hat shop. That is
just telling us what the writer does. Her social situation is immediately established as we learn she would have sacrificed her soul for a good dinner. That is what it tells the reader. Time is then used as a structural feature as Rosabel experiences a flashback. We're going back to stating what the writer does, what technique it is that they use, and the focus narrows as she reflects specifically on serving a girl with beautiful red hair. It's telling us what the writer does. The rest of the text involves the reader in the directness of their exchange through dialogue, telling us what the writer does, and we witness Rosabel's public persona of a servant shopgirl in real time, telling us what it tells the
reader. Ah, no, I went for too darker green. Rosabelle's external actions in this section, together with her earlier, more private internal thoughts, now provide the reader with a fully rounded character. So, there's two things going on here. First of all, there is a stating of what the writer does, but also there is an explanation how the different pieces of information come together to affect the reader's understanding together with her earlier thoughts now provide the reader with a fully rounded character. I'm not convinced that's the best idea ever. To me, that sounds a wee bit generic, but there you go. In the final line, the red-haired girl tells her boyfriend she's going to wear her new hat when I
come out to lunch with you, which takes us back to the beginning. That's that different understanding, how the different pieces of information build our understanding that Rosabel could not afford a decent meal. This circular structure, that's what the writer does, manipulates the reader into favoring Rosabel and possibly disliking the redhead girl at Revolution and wealth. What AQA say makes a 7 to eight out of eight answer is that by and large you're stating what the writer does. You also will sometimes tell us what it tells the reader and you will have a little bit the thing that makes it seven or eight out of eight of explaining how the different pieces of information combine. My argument, however, is that the
reality of eight out of eight is that actually you need way more of the green and the blue in reality than what AQA have done in their model answer here. In reality, if a student had had a chunk like that where they just told you a bunch of stuff, that's like, you know, a five out of eight, that little chunk there, because they're just telling you they do this and they do this, then they do this, then they do this. They're not telling you what it tells the reader. And that is why I'm now going to show you my model answer. Now, my model answer breaks down into three paragraphs. A paragraph about the beginning, a paragraph about the middle, and a paragraph about the end. At the start of the text, the writer
foregrounds Rosabel's poverty through the use of third person narrative viewpoint. So, what I've done there is in a single sentence, I have told you what it tells the reader that she is poor and I have also told you how they have done it. You'll notice I then provided evidence. So the evidence obviously in a language question I would then be looking to analyze that evidence. For a question three I'm just looking to exemplify the point I'm making. So I say they foreground Roosevelt's poverty. I need a quote that shows her poverty. I say it's through the use of third person narrative viewpoint. That quote also needs to be third person narrative viewpoint. The details of her actions at this point
also help us to better understand her idealistic personality. Again, I do the same thing where I both say what the writer does and I also say what it tells the reader. I also make sure I'm specific. Notice that little detail there as she chooses flowers over food. That's obviously what my quote was showing. So, I've like summarized the key takeaway from that quote. Essentially, I've made sure my answer is clearly specific. If I took that sentence for a second and I just edited it, the details of what the character is doing help us better understand their personality. That is vague as hell. That is level three bottom end kind of answer. But I specifically say the details of her actions at this point
help us to better understand her idealistic personality specifically because she chooses flowers over food. So I've made really specific references to this exact story. So it's clear what I'm saying about this exact short story. This idealism is further reinforced by the limited narrative viewpoint as the lordry focus on the setting with jeweler shops with fairy palaces can be inferred as Rosabel's opinion and shows her love of beauty. Now notice again here I have referenced a kind of language point with the lordry uh description of the setting but I've described it as lordy focus on the setting. So I'm not analyzing the lordetry language itself and how it creates a positive effect. I'm just
stating it's a positive effect. take my bloody word for it because I'm not allowed to analyze language and instead I'm going to focus on telling you why it's lordy at this point and that's the key thing there. I take say what the writer does and then I say what it tells the reader. So it tells us her love of beauty. The writer then shifts from the external setting outside of the bus to the internal of the passengers on the bus. And the description also shifts to being porative with lines like sickening smell of warm humanity again demonstrating Rosbell's negative view. This juxtaposition between the idealism of the beauty outside and the grim reality that Rosbel faces suggests to the reader that her life is not meeting
her desires. That last line there, that's my first blue. Okay, where I am looking at how multiple techniques are combining in order to create an additional effect. Now, this is what you will often find in your answers. This color coding where it keeps going green, yellow, green, yellow, green, yellow, green, yellow, blue, because obviously to be able to look at how different pieces of information come together, you have to look at the different pieces of information separately first. The text then has a flashback which develops Rosabel's character as we see her position in wider society. Firstly, there is a shift in focus to the people Rosabel has met during the day. And the text micro focuses on one character, a
girl with beautiful red hair. Here you can see I'm doing all the same things as I've already done. I'm using terminology like flashback, like micro focus. That's part of the terminology linked to writer's focus. Again, if you didn't know that, check out my video on writer's focus. And I'm using those techniques to explain what it tells us as a reader. And I use a quote to just kind of like exemplify that point as well. Because I've already had one paragraph, I'm able to bring in the blue much sooner. Given our earlier understanding of Rosabelle's admiration for beautiful things, we can see from the limited viewpoint here that the focus on the girl reflects Rosabelle's positive initial impression of her. I
cannot stress enough, it is the blue chunks that are taking me from 6 out of 8 to 8 out of eight. It is the linking. It is the patterns. It is the development that is the key to being perceptive in this question. However, the third person viewpoint also shows the power imbalance between them as we are given a focus on the dialogue of the girl asking what is it exactly that I want Harry while also being told the external actions of Rosabel who took the pins out of her hat and tied her veil and gave her a hand mirror. So again, you're seeing me go back and forth between yellow green, yellow green, yellow green. We've got the third person narrative viewpoint. We've got a focus on the dialogue. We've got the external
actions of Rosabel all being used to tell us the power imbalance between them. You green and yellow are holding hands. You should always immediately after stating what the writer does, state what it tells the reader or immediately after telling us what the reader is told, state how the writer does it. Those two need to immediately follow on from one another. Of course, I should say you're only going to be able to get seven or eight out of eight with the blue if you've already got the yellow and the green right. Those have to be gotten right first and then you can develop to the higher level with the blue. Considering what we learned earlier about Roosevelt's poverty, this power imbalance takes on a deeper
meaning as we can see a contrast in the life and experiences of the wealthy women compared to poor women. So I'm talking about there how that kind of theme is foregrounded between the contrast between the different classes of society. And again, I'm comparing what we learn in the beginning to what we learn in the middle. I could stop there and get full marks based on what I've written so far because I've got my yellow and my green and my blue. My second paragraph in particular is really rich in the blue. Half of it is about how the different pieces of information affect the reader's understanding because I keep comparing beginning and middle, beginning and middle and I would be able to get out of eight out of
eight. I don't need to write anymore. However, for you all, I have written one more just so you can see how I would write about the ending. And again, I could keep this paragraph about the ending and just the paragraph about the middle and get four marks. Or the paragraph about the beginning and the paragraph about the end and get four marks because you only need two. Right, last paragraph. This contrast heightens towards the end of the text. So, that is already me giving a little bit of a blue hint there because I'm already talking about how something's going to develop towards the end of the text as the writer uses the internal narrative viewpoint of a sudden ridiculous feeling of anger seized Rosabel to show that
Rosabel is not only aware of but angered by the power imbalance between them and the inconsiderate disrespect the girl shows her. So, that is what the reader does followed by what it tells the reader. You're getting the hang of this now, right? I say the internal narrative and then I say what it tells the reader. The information the reader gained at the start of the text serves to explains Rosabel response. Blue. We know that Rosabel loves beautiful things and desires a wealthier life that she does not have. Therefore, when the hat is put on her and told it suits you beautifully, she feels mocked and reminded the life she cannot have, hence the anger. This section of the flashback could also perhaps explain Rosabel's
porative perception of the people on the bus. The imagery of one meaningless staring face served to highlight the insignificance of the people, perhaps suggesting that Rosabel is projecting onto them the feeling she has about herself and was made to feel earlier in the day. It also continues to heighten the class difference as the final line of the text refers to the girl going out for lunch, echoing and contrasting the opening line of the extract in which Roswell barely had anything to eat. Now, you can see here why I have shown you this paragraph as well. is basically all blue because of course by the time you've reached the end of a text you're looking at the most development from the beginning and the middle and because I
wrote about the beginning and the middle I could compare to both. I could compare to the beginning and I could compare to the middle. Like let's say for example I kept my paragraph about the middle and the end and I didn't write my one about the beginning. I could still keep this comment about the porative perception of the people on the bus. That's absolutely fine. I can still keep that and it would still give me that that blue understanding there. I would perhaps just have added in a little more yellow at this point because of course in my first paragraph I stated what the writer did. I stated it was the internal narrative viewpoint that shows Wabel's opinion whereas so I didn't bother state
it here because I'd already done it. Whereas if I didn't have a paragraph about the beginning I would have had a little bit more yellow. The challenge of this question as I've already mentioned is doing it in [music] the time allowance. So the key for you now going forward is to a practice keeping in mind all the different strategies I've taught you today about how to answer this [music] question, but b to keep trying to do it in timed conditions, [music] giving yourself that 15 minutes reading time and then maximum of 10 minutes to actually write your answer. I hope that was helpful and see you