Welcome to this free video lesson by tautly.co.uk, which is for IGCSE First Language English Paper 2, looking at Section A, Directed Writing. If you would like to download the resources for this video lesson, including this PowerPoint and taking a review quiz, then the link is in the description. You can find all of this and more resources for your IGCSE on my website, taughtly.co.uk. I've also got teaching resources on there as well if you are a teacher. and I've been branching out. I've got some videos on there for IB English A language and literature and I'm thinking about doing some IGCSE literature videos too so if those would be useful to you do comment down below and let me know. Beginning first of all with some background information about directive writing. Directive writing will appear in your Paper 2, and Paper 2 is worth 50% of your overall grade for IGCSE First Language English. On your Paper 2, you will have two sections, Section A, which is Directive Writing, and Section B, which is Composition, where you will have to write either a narrative or a description, your choice. Now, both of these questions are worth 40 marks, so you should spend an equal amount of time on both questions, one hour on section A and one hour in section B. So you can see here, this is the rough breakdown. So for Directive Writing, you should spend 10 minutes reading and planning, 45 minutes writing and about five minutes to proofread afterwards. Because you get two different marks for Directive Writing then, a reading mark and a writing mark, we're going to split this lesson up into exactly that. So we're going to begin with reading skills and then writing skills. Do stick around for the whole video lesson because I have got an A-STAR exemplar too. Firstly, let's get our brains into action. I'm going to show you guys a bunch of pictures and I want you to try to guess based on the pictures what will our topic be. So try to name what you see, what object or place or person, and can you guess the overall topic? Clue? The topic has got two words in it. Let's have a look at vocabulary. Here are some of the words that you could have used to describe the pictures that you are seeing. Reusable water bottle, waste sorting, recycling, bags for life, public transport, endangered or extinct, but rhinos are endangered, spray cam, sun drying, tree planting, air quality, rainforest, collectivism or protest, organic. Based on these pictures then, what is the topic? Remember there were two words, so it's not just environmentalism or sustainability. It's a little bit more specific than that. What is the topic? The topic is green shopping. So green shopping refers to the practice of making environmentally friendly and sustainable choices when purchasing goods and services. Basically, how can you shop in an environmentally friendly way? Here is our question, and you might recognize this from my paper two tips and tricks video. If you haven't already watched that video, do watch it. It tells you everything that you need to know for your paper two. So here is our question. Now we know that Cambridge for Directive Writing usually want us to have a particular opinion. They want us to argue a particular side. Sometimes that's really obvious. Sometimes they will literally say write a letter to your boss arguing the benefits of podcasts. So you just go benefits of podcasts, the pros of podcasts. Sometimes you have to go hunting for it a little bit and it's less obvious. Here is our question. What side does Cambridge expect us to argue? Write an article for your school or college magazine with the title, Small Change, Big Difference. In your article, you should evaluate the views given in both texts about saving upon it. Give your own views based on what you have read about whether your school or college can make a difference and how. Base your article on what you have read in both texts, but be careful to use your own words. Address both of the bullet points. Okay, so just to give you a little hint, the two texts that you're going to read are basically, can small changes make a big difference to the environment? The title of your article. Basically, can individuals make a difference? So does Cambridge agree with that or disagree? Here are some hints. Firstly, the title of your article is Small Change Big Difference. Yes, it's got a question mark, so there's room for debate. However, clearly Cambridge are trying to push you to have this perspective that small changes can make a big difference. And also in terms of this part here, whether your school or college can make a difference and how. Now the and how does definitely suggest that they can make a difference and you need to suggest methods for making a difference, right? So this is the perspective that's hidden away a little bit that mostly Cambridge would expect you to argue to get higher reading marks. Small changes can make big differences and your school and college can make a difference. That is the perspective they are pushing onto you here with this question. Now, if we get down a little bit deeper into the two texts, so Cambridge will always give you two texts that are on the same topic, but that have some sort of debate at the heart of them. There is a central debate, an issue that they are arguing for or against. So let's have a look at our two texts. As we have a look at them, we're going to look at what are their two sides. We're going to have a look for what explicit arguments they are making and maybe for some ways that we could counter argue, how we could argue that actually small changes can make a big difference. Explicit ideas and counter arguments. Okay, so text A, green shopping won't save the planet. So immediately here we're seeing its perspective. This text is an article about individuals and the environment. So the topic individuals and their impact on the environment. It's easy being green. Too easy. From adorable, reusable shopping bags to plastic-free beauty products, the proliferation of green goods makes doing our bit for the planet fun. Indeed, a poll released recently found that most Americans, for example, are shopping for the good of the planet. 76% said that they bought a product specifically because they thought it was better for the environment. Okay, so some of the explicit ideas here. Shopping won't save the planet. That's basically said in the title, save planet. That lots of the things that we try to do to save the planet are too easy or just fun, but not actually probably that practical. And some of the things that we do, the examples it gives are the shopping bags and beauty products. But it does imply that most people do want to make a difference because 76% of Americans want to buy something that is good for the environment. Okay, so these are explicit ideas. Now, we've got this argument here about whether or not individuals can actually do anything. I'm already seeing that although it's saying oh it's too easy being green and we're just doing frivolous wasteful things for fun because we think it's going to help the environment, actually doesn't this part here with the 76% of Americans show that most people really do want to make a difference? Imagine if you mobilised If you got 76% of the population to do something, what a huge change that would make. It would no longer be small change, big difference. It would be big change, big difference, right? So already I'm starting to see a way that I could counter-argue the ideas in this article. Let's have a look now at text B. Once again, we're thinking of explicit details and arguments that it's making about the debate, ways that we could counter-argue it or the ways that we could use it to counter-argue text A. How could a school make a big difference getting inspiration from this text? Giving up hope won't save the planet. The following text is an interview given by a well-known conservationist. We are destroying the world at a very rapid rate. Many people are giving up hope and thinking, well, there's nothing I can do on my own. Rainforests are disappearing everywhere. Big dams are draining whole countries of their water supply as water becomes more precious than gold. There's mining, there's fracking, there's drilling for oil. We're in the middle of a great species extinction. We're losing biodiversity everywhere and we're burning fossil fuels very, very fast. Now, in terms of explicit ideas, how does this one differ from text A? Well, its primary argument is that if you give up hope, that definitely won't save the planet. Maybe buying reusable shopping bags won't save the planet, but you know what definitely won't? Doing nothing, right? Giving up hope is the worst option of all. There's also this idea as well that the danger is so great. There's this rapid rate of problems that are accumulated. So we really need to act fast and decisively. And it also lists lots and lots of ways in which our environment is at risk. So we've got the rainforests depleting, we've got issues with water supply, the way that we're getting our energy through mining and fracking and species becoming extinct. So these are some of the things that you could pick up on. Like how could schools help this situation? For example, could schools move over to electric buses? Wouldn't that make a big difference? Could we try to invest in zoos and maybe have like biology classes or something like that going out to local zoos and supporting those kinds of programs? And most of all, shouldn't we instill hope in our young people? Because the worst thing that can happen is that people don't try at all. So here you can see how I'm approaching these two texts and going through I'm thinking what are they arguing? How are they different? What side does Cambridge want me to argue? What are the arguments that they're making and how can we start to unpick and challenge some of the ideas in these texts? Now I'm going to ask you to go through and read text A and text B in detail, and I want you to do the same as what we just did back here. So I want you to highlight any explicit details from both texts. What arguments are they making about green shopping? How are they differing in this central debate, this issue of individual action versus collective action? This is what's at the heart of these two texts, right? And if you can, start challenging the ideas, start probing. Where can you pull apart some of their arguments? Where can you see how the ideas that they're discussing, actually, you could really use those in a school to make a big difference. If you want to download these texts, I'll put a link to the past paper in the description. I'm not going to reproduce it just because it's not mine, it's Cambridge's material, but I'm happy enough to link elsewhere for you guys to download that. Okay, so now let's head over. I'm going to read it out loud. As I read it out loud, highlight explicit details. Where are we seeing this debate of individual versus the collective? And where can we use some of the ideas in this text to suggest how a school could make a difference to the environment? Text A Green shopping won't save the planet. The following text is an article about individuals and the environment. It's easy being green. Too easy. From adorable, reusable shopping bags to plastic-free beauty products, the proliferation of green goods makes doing our bit for the planet fun. Indeed, a poll released recently found that most Americans, for example, are shopping for the good of the planet. 76% said that they bought a product specifically because they thought it was better for the environment. Shopping habits have become one manifestation of how saving the planet has become a matter of personal change rather than of collective action. See that big debate idea there. However, every example of major environmental progress, reducing acid rain, improving air quality, restoring the ozone layer, has been the result of national legislation, national laws, or a global treaty. We reduced acid rain by restricting industry's emissions, not by all going out and sprinkling bicarbonate on sensitive forests and lakes. Ozone-champing CFC chemicals were banned by international laws, not by everyone giving up spray cans and air conditioning. Environmental progress is made by forcing people and industry to stop doing environmentally bad things and start doing environmentally good things, not by relying on individuals' green goodwill. Recycling figures are up in most countries, but acquiring consumer goods, buying things, a very environmentally damaging pursuit is also up. In the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra, recycling is the last resort after all. Just to be clear, recycling, cutting energy use, buying locally and the rest of what you can do agenda is better than the opposite. I use public transport, easy in cities of course, walk almost everywhere, recycle, sun-dried clothes, keep the house cold in winter and hot in summer, some sacrifice for the sake of the planet, let me tell you. The problem with the emphasis on changing individual behaviour is this, it makes too many of us believe we have done our part. In her new book, Green Gone Wrong, journalist Heather Rogers calls the emphasis on individual green acts, especially shopping, rather than collective ones, lazy environmentalism. But it's nearly ubiquitous everywhere. When Rogers gives speeches about garbage, someone always tells her they thought, we could cure our environmental ills by consuming the right products, she writes. The message that we cannot consume our way out of climate change or shop our way out of crashing fisheries or vanishing species or depleted seas isn't as much fun as buy green. Compared with the scale of the disaster, changing individual behaviour is pathetically inadequate. So do we agree with this? Changing individual behaviour is pathetically inadequate. Hmm. That seems very, very central, too. Let's see how text B compares. So remember, in case you forgot, how is it responding to this debate of individual versus collective action? What explicit arguments is it making? And how could you apply all of this to schools? How can we use these ideas to show that schools can make a big difference? Text B. Giving up hope won't save the planet. The following text is an interview given by a well-known conservationist. The rainforests are disappearing everywhere. Big dams are draining whole countries of their water supply as water becomes more precious than gold. There's mining, there's fracking, there's drilling for oil. We're in the middle of a great species extinction. We're losing biodiversity everywhere and we're burning fossil fuels very, very fast. We are breeding billions of animals just to eat them. This means that whole habitats are being destroyed to grow grain. Fossil fuels are being used to take the grain to the animals, the animals to slaughter, and the meat to the table. In addition, the animals are producing masses of methane gas, and that's a very virulent greenhouse gas which speeds up climate change. We need to start thinking about how everybody can lead more sustainable lives. The wealthy need to start thinking about their environmental footprint. What do I buy? What do I eat? What do I wear? How was it made? Where did it come from? I'm thinking whether they need all the stuff they buy, the meat they eat and the plastics they use. I'm thinking right now it's been all over the internet about Taylor Swift's carbon footprint last year with all of her private jets. I support an environmental project for young people called Roots and Shoots. It started with 12 high school students in Tanzania and now has members from kindergarten to university in 100 countries. The project's main message is that every individual, every school or college, every community makes a difference every day. How different is this message to text A? Every group chooses itself three projects that are important to the area around them and that can make things better for people, for animals and for the environment. Everything from planting trees to recycling, from reducing waste or changing what money is spent on within their organisation to growing organic food. Young people care about the planet and their future on it. We have a window of opportunity for making some changes, slowing down climate change, but it's going to require a lot of effort. If you haven't already, do make sure you've highlighted your explicit details because in five seconds I am going to show you the mark scheme and I'm sure you wouldn't want to spoil it for yourself, would you? Here are the explicit ideas from text A. So these are things, by the way, that you can highlight in the text, things that it argues. Obviously, you don't need to read in between the lines. Explicit ideas. People use shopping as a way to save the planet. Personal behaviour hasn't made a difference before. Only countries and big companies can make a difference. The examples given suggest that individual efforts are pointless. Compulsion rather than choice is necessary, forcing people to do it rather than giving them the option. Recycling won't work and consumption is the real problem. So yes we can keep recycling stuff but if people keep buying more than they need then actually that's the bigger problem. Individual change is not the answer. It's misguided to think that individuals can make a difference and people just need to accept some sacrifices. It's not fun. Remember, how can we apply these to a school? How can we counter-argue some of these points? Now onto text B, and once again, can we apply any of these to our school magazine article? Text B, explicit ideas. The damage done to the environment can seem overwhelming. Eating animals damages the environment. Individuals need to live more sustainably. Campaigns can be started in local schools successfully, like Roots and Shoots. Local campaigns can make a difference. Lots of ideas are available to make a change, and we shouldn't underestimate the effort involved. Now notice as I keep pointing out to you, the debate is individual action versus collective action. Is individual action pointless? Is it only collective action that can make a change? Now we've had a look at explicit ideas and basically to get a higher mark you need to have lots and lots of explicit ideas assimilated, woven, the whole way through your writing, right? Over here you've got a range of relevant explicit details so you know everything you're picking out is relevant to the question and you've got quite a lot of them. Over here you've got relevant explicit details but not a range anymore and over here you've got a few relevant explicit ideas but this really isn't the most important part of the reading mark scheme when the examiner is deciding what marks give you. Actually, the most important part is this word here, evaluation. So what do Cambridge mean by evaluation? Let me explain and then we'll come back to this mark scheme. So Cambridge view evaluation as this. Understanding the implicit, not-spoken attitudes, ideas or logical fallacies at the heart of a writer's argument, thereby giving an effective counter-argument. So basically you are seeing a hole in their argument. You are seeing an area that they haven't quite extended that you could extend it into, applying it to schools and therefore give an effective counter-argument and that will be evaluation. Basically, evaluation is an effective counter-argument against a specific point that a writer makes. And as I said earlier, Cambridge will often have one side that they expect you to argue more than the other. It's usually not very balanced. If they are kind to you the way that they were in the November paper, they might actually just tell you what side they want you to argue. The benefits of podcasts. For this one, it's not quite so obvious. Most of the reading marks are for arguing that individual action is still important, but you can gain some evaluation points actually for some of the implicit attitudes that argue why it is a little bit hopeless, but most of the evaluation points are for this one side of individual action. So, evaluation, an effective counter argument. Now, if you get one evaluation mark, so one effective counter argument, that puts you automatically in this band here. The examiner has to give you at least 10 out of 12. Basically, for one evaluation point, you would get 10 marks. For two evaluation points, you would get 11 marks. And for three evaluation points, you would get 12 marks. Then over here for four plus evaluation points, you would get into the top band. Now, obviously that's a little bit simplified, but basically that's what it is. If you get one evaluation point, the examiner really does kind of have to put you in that band, unless your answer is really short and doesn't have a lot of details. But that is a pretty hard and fast rule with Cambridge. Now, if you're wondering, OK, but what about the other bands? Over here, you have got no evaluation points, but you are giving your opinion on the topic. Notice here, thereby giving own opinion on the topic. And you have got lots of details. Over here, you have got details with no evaluation and no opinion. So that's basically what the mark scheme looks like and how the examiners mark you and that's why it's so important to have some evaluation because then you are guaranteeing yourself 10 out of 50 marks. What does that evaluation look like? Let me give you three examples. This is the explicit detail mentioned in text A. It says text A explicitly argues that only countries and big companies can make a difference. So this is what it says explicitly. Now, how can you argue against the implicit attitudes in that idea? How can you evaluate? Now, if you said any of these three things, you would get a mark for evaluation. And if the rest of your writing had lots of details and some opinions in, therefore, the examiner would have to give you 10 out of 15. So how can we counter-argue? Let's see. If you said that both individuals and collective actions are necessary, it's everybody's responsibility. It's not either or. It's not just individual or just collective. It can be both. It's not a zero sum game. That's one mark for evaluation. Accumulated small differences can lead to a big difference, or the butterfly effect idea. This idea that, okay, I might be one individual making a change, but what about if I then encourage my mum and my dad to do it, and they encourage all of their workmates, and then their workmates encourage all of their family members and friends? You can see how that would very quickly ripple out. Finally, even governments and companies are ultimately consisted of people, right? What is the government? It's not a rock. It's a collection of people, a collection of individuals. Therefore, it's important to bring everyone on board, to get everyone to care about the environment. Because you never know who will be influential in the future. What if you've got the future Prime Minister of England in your school class? And you're saying that individual action doesn't matter, but you've just encouraged the future Prime Minister that the environment really matters. So that would challenge the ideas in Text A. See here, we're challenging, we're probing and we're debating with the ideas. That's why we've got three evaluation marks. What's that? 12 out of 15, thank you very much Cambridge. Now do return to our list of explicit details. Return to your text, text A and text B. Have a look at those explicit details and just like we did here, how could you counter-argue against these explicit details? What arguments could we make in favour of individual action to save the planet? And based on these ideas, how could a school specifically make a difference to the planet with collective action? Come on, put your brain in gear, do actually pause the video now and write down some of your ideas and then you can compare yourself to the mark scheme and see if you got any evaluation. Pause the video now and then we will go through the mark scheme. Now these first evaluation points we've already read, stronger together argument. But you'd also get some evaluation points if you spoke about green is only a trend. It's just a marketing strategy. It's insincere. It's a fashion statement. That vested interests like businesses, big corporations push environmental products for profit. Maybe schools could challenge big businesses to be more ethical in their advertising. Even if it's trendy, it helps. So what if people are just buying it for fun, if it helps the planet? Like, why do we necessarily care about people's intentions here? Don't we just care about the end result, perhaps? Thinking especially about schools, if you educate people when they are young, those changes will really stay with them for the rest of their life, also known as brainwashing. So educating future generations is important because they will lead the change. If you start people young, such behavior will continue as adults because it will become a habit. And you don't have to be older to make a difference. A five-year-old planting a tree could have just as much as an impact as a 50-year-old buying a bag for life. Some more evaluation points. How many have you got? We should stay positive because even if it makes us feel better to do something, it's better than doing nothing. Even if green shopping doesn't do much, it still can help to boost the effect of global treaties. Even if it's very, very minor, it's still better than nothing, it can still spread awareness, it can still push for global treaties to be made even if people care about it. Why do governments do anything? To get elected. So if lots and lots of people care about the environment, they might start pushing environmental issues to get elected. things will improve if we reuse and reduce not just recycle. So recycling does work as long as we also reuse and reduce and also working with the government works better than protesting. Don't know if I agree with that one, but... Hard work. It's hard work, but it's rewarding for you and the ecology, you know, your environment and animals and plants. And how about this one? It's not an option, it's a duty. This idea of, oh, it's hard. So what if it's hard? You don't have a choice. What are you going to do if our planet implodes? That wouldn't happen. If our planet can no longer sustain human life, what would you do? Do you even have a choice? It's kind of like a false choice, really, isn't it? Don't let these things stop you. Because personal problems are petty, you shouldn't be put aside. Oh no, you're feeling helpless and anxious about it. It's not about you, it's about a planet that's got billions of people on. Doing nothing doesn't help. Going green isn't just to boast to your friends but to actually help the planet, so this idea of you're not just doing it to show off, you're actually trying to make a real difference. And you could also argue, this is like counter arguments more so for the other side, for TextBeat, that there's no point in doing anything because people will do nothing if they think it's too great a challenge. So if you keep making it sound hopeless, well then people will think, okay, cool, there's nothing I can do, I'll just sit back and wait for the world to burn. The industry is so powerful, it will always do what it wants. Can we argue against breaking up monopolies and overly powerful companies? And people are usually selfish and won't change if it affects them. So if you've got even one point on these two slides, congratulations, you've got 10 out of 15 marks. Nice job. Now, this is what Cambridge said about the reading marks in their examiner report for summer 2021, which was when this exam paper was set. Candidates achieved high marks for reading where there was some probing, some poking, and evaluation of the ideas in the reading material. So we are always challenging the ideas. You're not just taking it as, oh, text A is right. You're trying to find reasons why perhaps they haven't thought the whole issue through. Less successful responses provided a straightforward listing and reproduction of the points in the texts. So people who didn't do very well just summarized, they just listed out the ideas, they reproduced it, they didn't add on any opinion, they didn't evaluate, they didn't challenge. More effective responses here focus carefully on the arguments in the text, with the highest marks being awarded to those which handle the central dilemma of whether individual action can help to save the planet with confidence and perceptive evaluation. So to score really highly, you need to focus on both of those texts, on the specific arguments that they're making, not just talking about the issue of the environment or green shopping off schools more generally, but really directly challenging those two texts. Now moving on to writing skills for Directive Writing and the sun is setting so my lighting is rapidly changing, apologies if I was really, really white in that last little bit. As the sun goes down, my light becomes brighter, I look like a ghost. never mind okay so you also get 25 marks for writing so 15 marks for reading 25 marks for writing so we really want to be focusing on writing not really a big surprise seen as paper 2 is your writing paper um basically your writing marks are essentially the same as for narrative and descriptive except that you also get a mark for structure so for your paragraphing and organizing of ideas So do make sure that you are paragraphing every time you've got a new topic, create a new paragraph. But it's also in terms of not just copying out the arguments in the same chronological order that they appear in text A and text B. You're trying to find like areas where they're both talking about the same thing and including them together in the same paragraph. perhaps you might have a paragraph all about the environment, well obviously all about the environment and meat consumption, you might have a paragraph all about the consumerism and shopping and purchases and a paragraph about what specifically schools can do to improve. So really think about what arguments you're grouping together and why and not doing things chronologically. You're also getting marked for your register. What tone of voice are you writing in? Do you actually sound like you're a magazine? Do you actually sound like you're a student writing for a student magazine? So is that effective? Have you used precise vocabulary and is your spelling punctuation grammar almost always accurate? Over here you will be mostly accurate, over here you would be generally accurate, frequent small errors but I always know what you mean, and over here lots and lots of serious errors where sometimes I don't understand what you mean. Most students will score in this band or this band on the exam in my experience marking this paper. For both paper 1 and paper 2, whenever you get one of these types of questions, I'm thinking about question 3, the extended response on paper 1, and this one, section A, directed writing, you should always unpick the VORPF. The VORPF means Voice, Audience, Register, Purpose and Format, and this is a method of helping you to figure out what writing style will work best for the task you've been given so that you can really maximise your writing marks. When I talk about voice, then I mean who are you writing as? Audience, who are you writing to? Register, how formal or informal should your language be? Purpose is why are you writing? And we know that the purpose for this question will always be to discuss, persuade or argue. And format, what type of text have you been asked to write? We know for this question it will always be a letter, a magazine or a speech. Now what is the VORP for our question? So V, voice. We are a student, we'd assume, because it says write an article for your school or college magazine. The audience, well obviously it's going to be to other students, but don't forget who else would read a school magazine? Also teachers, also parents. The purpose, to inform them about this topic and to persuade them that they can make a difference. The register, Well, the register here is going to be semi-formal, lively, chatty, but a serious topic. You know, we're talking about the environment, so we're not going to crack too many jokes, it might be inappropriate. And also based on the fact that parents and teachers will be our secondary audience, we don't want to be too informal. I mean, this is just some advice generally for Cambridge. Don't write using slang. Don't use gonna, wanna. Always use proper, standard English. Always use correct spelling, punctuation and grammar because this is an English test, right? And also don't use emojis. I can't believe I need to say that, but especially for letters, people always seem to put smiley faces. Don't do that. And finally, the format. We're being asked to write a school magazine article. So we know that magazines are usually more semi-formal, more bouncy, and more excitable in their tone. General advice for magazine article writing. I have got a full video talking about magazine articles and also how to write the other text types that might come up on your exam. I'll try to remember to link it, but if I don't remember, just go into my channel and search in there, writing the six text types. Magazine articles, they tend to be more semi-formal. Imagine a 40-year-old cheesy maths teacher. You know this type. I know the type. Now, it depends what your topic is. If your topic is slightly more lighthearted, you can be funny and witty. You can use alliteration and puns in this chatty tone with your reader. But our topic today is a bit more emotional and serious because it's about the environment. So therefore, your language could be a bit more emotive and dramatic. If you are in the UK and it helps you to think about it like this, the tone of a magazine article is more similar to a British tabloid newspaper, like The Sun or The Mirror. My general advice here for writing, do make sure that you are using paragraphs correctly and that you're grouping by theme or argument and that you're not just copying the structure of the two texts. Don't ever copy words or phrases from the text. Always use your own words. That's just a good bit of advice for Cambridge. So for your summary, for language analysis, for extended response, and for this question, do make sure that you're using your own words. The tone for this question is usually semi-formal and lively. It might be dramatic lively or it might be humorous lively but they do usually want you to have a little bit of oomph to your writing. Don't make up any facts or statistics, it won't get you any evaluation points making up a random statistic like... 50% of students wish that they could be more environmentally friendly. I think sometimes teachers teach their students to do this. I don't like it. It doesn't add anything. You get no evaluation marks. Don't do it. And do avoid just summarizing and agreeing with what you've read. We should be probing and challenging the ideas in our text to get a high reading mark. This is what Cambridge said on their examiner report about what got a high writing mark. The most effective responses paid specific attention to the audience and style required for the task. These were lively but evaluative in style, using ideas from text to create and structure arguments and often employing rhetorical devices such as questions, exclamations and calls to action. So maybe some rhetorical devices like a rhetorical question. A tome which reflected the familiarity between the writer and the audience worked well for some. So remember, you are a student writing for other students, so showing that relationship that you've got this shared environment, that you both go to the same school. So for example, Cambridge say, is there really nothing we young people can do to save our own futures? Are we relying on wealthy adults and greedy corporations to save our planet? Other choices were made in favour of a more informative style, with some exhortation at the end to rally support and take action. Let's not leave it to everyone else. Organise, educate and push for a change before it's too late. So these are examples that Cambridge pointed out that they really quite liked. Now we're going to read the exemplar that I wrote for this particular question. As we read it, do have a think what marks do you think it got for reading and writing and why? And why is this a good example? If you would like to download this example, then the link is just below in the description to my website. You can get there for free. Small change, big difference. It has never been more critical to tackle the climate change issue, and yet some would argue that individual action is meaningless. Some critics would scoff at our Knightsbridge high water bottles, roll their eyes at our school allotment, and dismiss our move to electric school buses with a wave of their hand. Yet I know that students, parents, and teachers passionately feel that our changes can make a big difference to the planet. Notice here that I've given the name of the school. I made this up. And I've listed things that, you know, a school could be doing. So I've made it up that they've got these water bottles, they've got a school allotment where they grow vegetables and that they've got electric school buses. All of this makes it sound like I really go to this school as well as being relevant and on topic. And also notice as well, I'm using collective pronouns, our, because I am a student writing to other students and then recognizing my secondary audience of parents and teachers here. Though there is an issue with the commercialisation of green issues, that doesn't mean that we should give up entirely. If large corporations want to cash in on recycling and protecting endangered animals to improve their brand image, it still promotes awareness of these issues. True, the problem comes when individuals buy from a so-called green company and then think they've done enough and that they don't need to act anymore. But our community isn't built of lazy environmentalists. What's lazier than doing nothing at all? Most young people do care and want to get involved. If 76% of people buy products for the environment, doesn't that show the eagerness to get involved? Isn't it better to harness the will of people who want to help, but don't yet know how to do it efficiently, rather than mock them for being part of the capitalist machine? Schools are the perfect place to begin cultivating the global citizens of tomorrow. Nowhere can collective action be made more evident than in a school as we see that each of us individuals form classes and our classes form year groups and year groups form a high school with over 1,000 passionate students. Knightsbridge could start a campaign to raise awareness of climate issues such as the impact of meat on the environment and the dangers of reliance on fossil fuels. After all, we've introduced Meet Free Mondays. Imagine not just our 1,000 current students becoming ambassadors of these issues, but the network of people we will interact with throughout our lives, from future friends we've not yet met, to workmates at the successful careers we're all surely destined for. Through our global citizenship lessons, we have all learned that truly impactful change comes from a governmental level. Just think of banning CFC chemicals, which were destroying our ozone, or reducing acid rain through cutting emissions. Yet we must realise that governments and corporations are also formed from people, and it could be us as leaders of the future. Not only that, but we also have the power to influence these entities by lobbying the government or by choosing which party we vote for at elections. We shouldn't act helpless as though these institutions are entirely out of our influence. Ultimately, tackling this impending climate disaster will take hard work, but it is not a luxury to decide whether to get involved or not. It is our duty, our moral imperative to save our planet. If not us, then who? As the younger generation, no one has more to lose than us. Now is not the time to give up hope. Now is the time to understand that saving this planet will require individual and collective effort. It's not either or. Let's encourage our prefects, teachers, school leaders and parents to invest not just in their children's educations, but into the very planet that sustains our ability to breathe clean air, admire cerulean skies and accomplish our dreams beyond the present day. together. Well then what marks do we think it got for reading and writing and why? Now we're going to mark the exemplar and we'll do it separately one mark for reading one mark for writing just as your examiner would do. As we grade it for reading them go through and anytime it's got an explicit idea you should give it a tick. Anytime it has got an evaluative counter-argument of implicit ideas, write eval. And anytime it is developing ideas by adding on extra information like opinions on the topic, but it's not quite evaluation, write dev for development. So tick eval, evaluation, dev, development. Here is an example of one paragraph that I marked. So beginning down with the explicit ideas. So this idea of recycling and of endangered animals that we don't need to act anymore and environmental and lazy environmentalists, the 76% as well. These are all explicit ideas that we have got directly from the text. Some development, I've developed that it is commercialization and that young people do want to get involved. These are opinions or ideas that I've developed. But then in bold, I have got my evaluation and you can see I've got three evaluations in this one paragraph. So evaluation four, it still promotes awareness of these issues. What's lazier than doing nothing at all. And this last one here is talking about this idea that you're saying that basically people don't really care and can't make a difference, but 76% of people want to make a difference. So that's counterintuitive there. So you get an evaluation mark for that as well. Where would we score it then for reading? So for reading, this would score 15 out of 15 marks. Why? The candidate challenges ideas in both texts, interweaving ideas throughout their writing, shows a sophisticated understanding of the debate at the heart of the text about the tensions between individuals and larger institutions in tackling climate change. Yes, I did write this and mark it myself. And I did write this having a comment about myself and I enjoyed every second of it. Okay. Let me have what I can get. 15 out of 15 marks here. Remember if you're getting four plus evaluation marks, you're probably going to be getting into this band. And this example has got at least two evaluations in each of the main body paragraphs. So it would definitely be in the top of the top band. Now we will grade it for writing. So anytime you have got a spelling punctuation or grammar mistake or just something that just sounds a little bit weird, you'll give it an underline. A V for impressive vocab, an R for an effective register that really sounds like a student magazine. Let's have a look at one paragraph together here. So impressive vocabulary. This is vocabulary that is used to great effect. It sounds good in the context it's used and it's correctly used. Cultivating global citizens, evidence, reliance on fossil fuels, ambassadors of these issues, a network of people we've not yet met and careers we're all destined for. These bits of vocabulary are very precisely and effectively used in their context. Next, we have got register. So where am I making it sound like I am a school magazine and I am also a student just like you? Firstly, I've given the school a name, which some students just wouldn't even think to do sometimes. I'm also using collective pronouns like us and our and we. I'm talking about shared knowledge, like things that we all know the school has done, like introduced a meat-free Monday. Think about you and your classmates, you've all got this shared history and these kind of shared in jokes, like I was talking about the electric school buses earlier on. So you might want to make something like that to reference. We've also got contractions like weave. So rather than saying we have, saying weave that sounds a little bit more informal, but not too informal. And we've got exclamation marks too here, making it sound more lively and bouncy and appropriate for a school magazine. So thinking about writing, what mark would you give it and why? Well done, me. I've awarded myself full marks again. God, it's a good day to be me. So 25 out of 25 marks because the candidate writes with consistent accuracy. If you found any grammar mistakes, let me know. Let me know. And ambition in both vocabulary choices and sentence structures. It's got a sophisticated style with flair, capable of expressing abstract ideas. Paragraphs are structured by argument and built to a conclusion. Register is effective for a school magazine article. So this would be a full mark answer and obviously an A star answer. Probably is more than you need to do to get full marks, but just so you can see what the top top one would look like. Finally now onto our revision card, what are your key takeaways? Make sure that you group your paragraphs by arguments. Don't just copy the chronological order of the text, think about what themes your paragraphs will address. Remember that you have to write a speech, letter or article and it will be to discuss, to argue or to persuade as your purpose. Always be critical and probing of ideas. Don't just summarise and agree. Do challenge the ideas in the text. That is how you will get a high reading mark. The tone will usually be more semi-formal but lively. Never ever use slang though. Remember to identify the verb in your question, that's your voice, audience, register, purpose and format. Do not copy from the text, always use your own words. Remember to analyse the question to decide what perspective Cambridge want you to have. What point of view, what side are they expecting you to take more so than the other? And remember to include explicit details from both of the texts. You want to make sure that you're showing that you do understand both texts, so don't just ignore one of the texts. I really hope that this video lesson has been useful to you. You can see how long I've been filming it by the way that the sun has been going down. It's actually the second time that I filmed it because the first time the sound didn't record, so please do like it because... because... If you like this video, like, subscribe, leave a comment, ask me questions down below. Don't forget to go over onto my website taughtly.co.uk for more videos, lessons and resources like this. Hopefully I'll see you there. Bye.