Hi! If anyone could point out general flaws with my comparative language analysis on NAPLAN testing, I'd really appreciate it, regardless of how brief your comment is! Thank you so much in advance! I have a SAC on Wednesday and my teacher won't mark any more of my essays because I gave her too many 
Essay is also attached in .doc format if you prefer that!The articles are here, but don't read it if you don't want to, I just need general advice!Recent conducting of NAPLAN testing has sparked debate regarding its usefulness and appropriateness in a school environment. Joanne Wyn's opinion piece, 'NAPLAN testing does more harm than good' (The Conversation, 20/5/2014) contends the NAPLAN system is implemented poorly and needs to be removed or reformed. The Australian's editorial, 'Tracking students' basic skills' (13/5/2014), refutes this view by claiming that the benefits of the test outweigh the minor disadvantages. Meanwhile, Nicholson's cartoon (The Australian, 20/5/2013) suggests that the harms of the NAPLAN tests are numerous and worrying.
Wyn commences with a neutrally expressed explanation, portraying herself as an unbiased informant, priming the reader to be more receptive to her views. The later use of statistics: “90% of teachers reported...”, coupled with her acknowledgment of the opposing argument: “The results aren't universally negative...” accentuates this effect, positioning the reader to perceive Wyn as an open-minded and well-informed source of “research”. She proceeds to adopt a more dubious tone as she utilises a damning epithet, “blunt tool”, engendering readers' doubt as to the validity of the NAPLAN system. Adopting an authoritative tone through “our team”, Wyn attributes a diverse range of “negative” attributes to the NAPLAN, including “stress”, “insomnia”, “hyperventilation”, “profuse sweating...”, insinuating that the NAPLAN is causing considerable harms to the health and well-being of students. This is particularly powerful to parents or relatives of school-aged children, generating in them feelings of trepidation as they fear for their children's health, which the NAPLAN appears to jeopardise. The highly medical language also carries sinister connotations, as the reader is likely to associate arcane conditions with severity, compounding this anxiety which Wyn aims to evoke.
In addition, Wyn suggests that the NAPLAN endorses the total subversion and corruption of the educational system; the traditional role of schools, that is, to educate according to each student's needs, is undermined as the NAPLAN promotes “[inflexibility]” and is claimed to fail to “conform to the ethical practice of “do no harm”, “[straying]” from the “learning and teaching approaches that emphasise deep learning”. The critical tone Wyn uses when describing said flaws with NAPLAN invites the reader to share her condemnatory stance against it. She raises the possibility, however, of reforms in lieu of abolishing, framing herself as a progressive pragmatist who is opposed to the “negative [impacts]” as opposed to the NAPLAN itself, which, she admits “is designed to improve the quality of education young people receive in Australia.” Concluding with a comprehensive summary of her viewpoint, that it “undermines” education, leaves a memorable and lasting impact on the readers, who can empathise with the desire to act “in the best interests of … children”.
The Australian's editorial begins cynically, inviting the reader to view the “habitual naysayers” contemptuously, thus lessening the gravity of their opinion. In this way, The Australia's editorial directly rebuts Wyn's opinion piece in a sardonic manner. Claiming that those in favour of Wyn's viewpoint “[recycle] their gripes” implies that they are pessimists who oppose only to oppose, simultaneously insinuating that their views are unsubstantiated. This compels the reader to perceive them as illogical and their views, invalid. The editorial emphatically disparages claims of excessive stress, appealing to utilitarianism by elucidating the importance of identifying “students struggling to reach acceptable standards”, which to readers, will much more likely be seen as a pressing issue in comparison to the meagre, temporary “stress”.
Building upon this utilitarian appeal, The Australian proceeds to admiringly list the NAPLAN's benefits - “the program has given schools and parents essential information...”, juxtaposing with the disadvantages which are listed, contrarily, glibly - “critics complain, narrow the teaching...”; the stark contrast in tone encourages readers to feel that the benefits far outweigh the “[critic's complaints]”. In addition, the editorial evokes and exploits trepidation by hinting at the possibility of students “leaving school without being able to read, write and do simple calculations”; the prospect that children may be crippled in these vital, everyday skills is a daunting one, particularly to parents or relatives of children, which The Australian, similar to Wyn, targets especially, albeit with a conflicting viewpoint. When confronted with this potential, readers are likely to agree with the notion of “drilling older children on paragraphing, punctuation...”, which The Australian purports is one of the myriad advantages of the NAPLAN. Compounding the possibility of widespread illiteracy is the alarming fact that “too many students could not meet minimum standards”, dramatically increasing the gravity of such a danger in the reader's consciousness. Concluding similarly to Wyn's piece, the editorial appeals to parents' desire to act “in the interests of students”, leaving a profound memento of the editorial's underlying contention.
Concurring with Wyn, Nicholson purports, in a scathing yet flippant fashion, the notion of the NAPLAN warping education into a meaningless competition. Every word on the board is spelled erroneously, barring “NAPLAN”, suggesting that meaningful education is being sacrificed to cater for NAPLAN. It insinuates that the teachers, depicted left of the board, are failing to teach in a manner which adds value; instead, they coach for the test specifically, hence the child's familiarity to the unconventional acronym. The distressed expression of the child implies, as Wyn's piece advocates, that the NAPLAN causes unnecessary stress in students due to the teachers' unfulfilled, high expectations, as indicated by their disappointed, angry demeanour.
The editorial stands in staunch opposition to Wyn and Nicholson's texts, but adopts the more facetious and sardonic tone of Nicholson. While Wyn's piece aims to rationally convince the reader by means of leading logic, the other two mainly argue through emotive rhetoric, aiming to persuade with humour and sarcasm.
Home
Help
Search
Login
