The document provides guidance on writing comparative text responses. It discusses three main structures for comparative essays: 1) discussing each text separately and then comparing them, 2) alternating between discussing similarities and differences, and 3) integrating comparison throughout by discussing one text and then the other on the same theme. For each structure, it provides an example outline. It emphasizes the need to demonstrate thorough understanding of both texts individually as well as compare and contrast them.

2. Comparative text responses share many features with
analytical text responses on a single text. Each
response:
• is a coherent essay, with an
introduction, body paragraphs and a
conclusion
• takes a position on a given essay topic
• presents a line of argument about, and
a consistent interpretation of, the texts
• includes detailed textual evidence,
including brief quotations, to support
the argument and reasoning.

3. On the other hand, comparing two texts requires a
balancing act – a balance between the two texts, and
between writing about an individual text and writing about
two texts together.
Some of your analysis will focus
on a single text, showing your
in-depth understanding of
characters, plot, narrative and
language. Other paragraphs will
compare and contrast both
texts.
This will be particularly
important in your final
paragraph or two.

4. The following sections show you
ways to structure your
comparative essays, appropriate
language for comparing and
contrasting texts, and strategies
for analysing the main types of
topics.

5. The diagrams and explanations on the following slides
show you three main ways to structure a comparative
response. Each structure ensures that your essay is
coherent – that is, it develops an argument in a consistent
and logical manner.
Note that the boxes in the flow charts indicate the overall
structure, rather than the number of paragraphs required.
The in-depth discussion of each text might cover two or
even three paragraphs, depending on paragraph length
and the overall length of your essay.

6. This is the most straightforward structure. It
ensures that you deal with both texts in
detail, and that your response focuses on
the ideas, issues or themes identified in the
introduction.
It does restrict your comparison of the two
texts to the final paragraph or two, so
remember to make this part of the
response just as detailed and thorough as
the rest.

7. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2
Discuss both texts, indicating similarities and
differences, finishing with one or two concluding
statements

8. The introduction ‘sets up’ your
discussion by stating your point of
view, or main contention, in response
to the topic.
You might also wish to add a
brief conclusion to sum up and
restate your position on the
topic.
In the body paragraphs, link back to your
main contention; the final sentence of a
paragraph is a good place to make this
link.

9. • more detailed
discussion of
similarities and
differences
between the
texts.
• more fluency, as
there is a smooth
transition from
discussion of
one text to the
next
This structure is slightly more complex than
the block approach above. If you can become
comfortable with it, your responses should
have:

10. In this structure, you can devote more
space to a side-by-side comparison of the
texts, examining both similarities and
differences.
As in your detailed discussion of each
individual text, your comparison of the two
texts must be supported by textual
evidence.
You might emphasise similarities or focus
on differences and contrasts, depending
on the topic and your interpretation of the
texts.

11. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2
Discuss both texts, in a concluding paragraph
In a transitional paragraph, discuss similarities and
differences

12. This structure organises the paragraphs according to the
ideas discussed, rather than discussing the texts one after
the other.
Comparison of the two texts occurs throughout the
response, rather than just in particular paragraphs.

13. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons
Discuss one key similarity or difference
Discuss another key similarity or difference
Discuss both texts in a concluding paragraph
Discuss another key similarity or difference

14. To give this response more shape and
coherence, you could begin with similarities
and move on to consider differences, or vice
versa.
Planning is very important when using this
structure, as each key similarity or difference
needs to be clearly identified in a topic
sentence.

15. If you adopt this
integrated approach,
avoid shifting back and
forth between your texts
too many times in each
paragraph.
Write in detail on one text, then discuss the same
point in relation to the other
You still need to convey a
thorough understanding
of each text, as well as
examine the similarities
and differences between
them.
As in the previous two structures, it is very
important that you write in depth and detail on
each text.

16. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1
Discuss both texts, indicating similarities and differences,
finishing with one or two concluding statements
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2

17. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1
Discuss both texts, indicating similarities and differences,
finishing with one or two concluding statements
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2

18. Introduction: state your argument in response to the
prompt with brief reasons
Discuss one key similarity or difference
Discuss both texts in a concluding paragraph
Discuss another key similarity or difference
Discuss another key similarity or difference

19. 1. KNOWLEDGE OF CHARACTERS AND
THEMES
Mark
Thorough and insightful understanding of the ideas, characters and
themes in both texts.
9-10
Thorough knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both
texts.
7-8
Knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes constructed and
presented in both texts.
5-6
Some knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts. 3-4
Limited knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts. 1-2

20. 2. ANALYSIS OF HOW THE AUTHOR CONSTRUCTS
MEANING
Mark
Complex discussion and critical analysis (using correct metalanguage) of the
structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct
meaning.
9-10
Well-developed discussion and critical analysis (using correct metalanguage)
of the structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct
meaning.
7-8
Discussion and some analysis (using correct metalanguage) of the structures,
features and conventions used by each author to construct meaning. 5-6
Generalised discussion (using some metalanguage) of the structures, features
and conventions used by each author to construct meaning. Little analysis. 3-4
Minimal, if any, appropriate identification of the structures or features or
conventions used by the authors to construct meaning. 1-2

21. 3. INTERPRETATION Mark
Construction of a sophisticated, precise comparison and argument: ideas are
ordered into a logical structure and links are made between paragraphs/ideas.
9-10
Construction of a well-developed, careful comparison and argument: ideas are
ordered into a logical structure and usually links are made between
paragraphs/ideas.
7-8
Construction of a somewhat pedestrian comparison and argument: ideas may
be expressed in paragraphs and sometimes link.
5-6
Generalised comparison of both texts. Ideas are ordered into paragraphs but
do not make links between each idea/argument.
3-4
Little evidence of an ability to analyse and compare texts. Retelling rather than
analysis.
1-2

22. 4. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Mark
Considered and accurate use of textual evidence to justify the
interpretation.
9-10
Careful use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation. 7-8
Suitable use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation. 5-6
Some use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation. 3-4
Limited reference to the text. 1-2

23. 5. EXPRESSIVENESS AND FLUENCY Mark
Highly expressive, fluent writing with sophisticated control of the conventions
of written English.
9-10
Expressive, fluent writing with good control of the conventions of written
English.
7-8
Generally expressive, fluent writing with reasonable control of the conventions
of written English.
5-6
Coherent writing with some control of the conventions of written English,
though there may be numerous errors.
3-4
Simple expression of ideas and limited control of the conventions of written
English. Not fluent.
1-2