ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: Chavi on September 02, 2010, 11:22:28 pm
-
Hey forum. I tried to write this under conditions as exam revision for the finals. Any criticism/feedback would help me heaps, because my teacher can be vague/insufficient with the marking. Again, much appreciated (link to article below)
Insight exam 2009 – Media Analysis
“Are computers compromising education?”
The recent decision to ban computers in the classroom has attracted controversy in a local Victorian school. Responding to the controversy generated by the ban, the school’s principal lists the many dangers of technology in a learning environment, in an effort to persuade the community to the merits of the new school policy. In an energetic and authoritative piece, the open letter denigrates the excessive use of computers by students, and urges the target audience, namely parents, to understand their detrimental effects in the learning place.
An accompanying visual depicts a group of students studying around a table filled with books. A teacher inquisitively instructs the enthusiastic pupils – a typical educational interaction seemingly lost through the use of technology. A large book is placed in the foreground to remind students of the issue at hand: the importance of traditional study – without external sources of aid, such as the internet. Indeed, such an intimate studying experience may seem foreign to technological active youth, thereby alienating some of the younger readers. On the other hand, the appeal to nostalgia reminds parents of their own learning experiences, replete with lively classroom interactions and a minimal emphasis on technology. This allows them to consider the merits of a tech-free learning environment, by drawing on their own education experiences.
The principal assuages parents’ fears with a diplomatic tone, by calmly explaining the rationale behind the ban. Claiming that the community’s qualms vis-à-vis the new policies are “unfounded”, the educator attacks the “technological revolution” as dishonest and “so called”. This is part of an effort to persuade parent that the transition to technology in the school system has been overhyped, sensationalized, and to an extent, disingenuous. Employing monetary terms to discredit technology use, the article claims that the students are “short changed”, and “robbed”, whilst computer maintenance is described as an “unaffordable inconvenience” and a “wasteful expense.” Thus, parents are made to feel that their children are not receiving value for their money, and that computers in classrooms are just an unnecessary and costly “expense”. The cliché “short changed” highlights the principal’s candid and colloquial style in a bid to connect and identify with the school community, whilst convincing students that technology is cheating them out of their education.
This is starkly contrasted with the positive tone and friendly adjectives used to describe traditional study. Referring to the importance of “quality teachers” in fostering “essential social and intellectual skills”, the principal argues that classroom interactions are paramount to enable children to “flourish”. The heavy emphasis on students’ wellbeing serves to assure parents that the principal has made his decision with the best intentions for their children. The term “flourish” implies that students will only thrive and prosper in a tech-free environment – hence turning parents further against classroom computer use.
Pointing to evidence from a leading social theorist, the principal backs up his claims by presenting the views of an expert on the issue. This further lends credibility to his arguments, and makes parents more inclined to accept them as factually accurate and logical. Stating that students’ brains are becoming “deadened” by “visual fireworks”, the article portrays the depressing situation of childhood overexposure to technology – at school and at home. Stating that the constant visual focus could have “damaging effects on the brain,” the principal attempts to scare parents into agreeing with his decision and the ban. This appeal to parental values can alarm parents into taking similar disciplinary actions at home, in order to protect the wellbeing of their children.
Concluding that the technology revolution is a “fad” and has been “sold a lemon by the government”, the principal launches a final attack on the ever increasing use of technology in the education system, by describing it as a temporary phenomenon and a popular trend. This convinces parents that their children are not losing out in a tech-free classroom, and that the government plans to bolster computer use represent a false and superfluous promise.
In a forthright and defensive piece, a local school principal rails against the excessive use of technology in schools, and points to its detrimental effects to support the school ban. Parents are positioned to agree with the new policy, and perhaps to consider their children’s use of technology outside the classroom as well.
Word count: 711
-
It's from the insight exam 2009, found here - http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,17548.0.html
and another analysis on this same article: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,18361.msg186014.html#msg186014
-
Indeed, such an intimate studying experience may seem foreign to technological-active (I think this two words should have a hyphen in between, just like 'tech-free') youth, thereby alienating some of the younger readers.
Do you mean intimidating instead? :P
...the educator attacks the “technological revolution” as dishonest and “so called”.
Think there should be a hypen in 'so-called', but if that's a quote, don't change it.
Claiming that the community’s qualms vis-à-vis the new policies are “unfounded”, the transition to technology in the school system has been overhyped, sensationalized (American spelling), and to an extent, disingenuous.
I actually haven't heard of vis-a-vis before... (but it's just me)
This is part of an effort to persuade parents that
“unaffordable inconvenience” and a “wasteful expense".
Watch punctuation
This is starkly contrasted with the positive tone and friendly adjectives used to describe traditional study.
'This is a stark constrast between the positive tone and friendly adjectives used to describe traditional study.' somehow sounds better to me because somehow I don't like passive voice...
hence turning down parents further against classroom computer use.
This is starkly contrasted with the positive tone and friendly adjectives used to describe traditional study. Referring to the importance of “quality teachers” in fostering “essential social and intellectual skills”, the principal argues that classroom interactions are paramount to enable children to “flourish”. The heavy emphasis on students’ wellbeing serves to assure parents that the principal has made his decision with the best intentions for their children. The term “flourish” implies that students will only thrive and prosper in a tech-free environment – hence turning parents further against classroom computer use.
This paragraph on classroom social interactions need further expanding
Stating that the constant visual focus could have “damaging effects on the brain,” the principal attempts to scare parents into agreeing with his decision and the ban.
You repeated 'stating' at the start of a sentence twice consecutively. Replace it with 'claiming', 'testifying', 'asserting' etc.
(E.g. The principal testifies that the constant visual focus could have “damaging effects on the brain" so as to scarecompel parents into their agreement of his decision and ban.)
that the government plans plans of the government to bolster computer use represent a false and superfluous promise.
outside the classroom arena as well
I think your arguments are pretty straightforward which is good. :) There are a few loopholes that you can always still work on though.
Hope that helps
\Edit: Just read the article and that "short changed" has a hypen in it too. Don't forget your hypens!
Also, you fail to mention how 'alliteration' is used by the principal to convince the parents. (E.g. come to a computer-centred classroom etc.)
-
Thanks for the feedback. I see that most of the issues raised are syntactical rather than content-based. When typing up a handwritten essay, I'm normally lax on punctuation - which may not bet a good thing, given that I and many of us will be abandoning handwriting after VCE.
I received a 9.5 for this from my teacher (although I do concede she can be lenient). He main advice was to lengthen the conclusion to include some extra analysis - thus a quantitative issue, rather than a content based one.
Also, you fail to mention how 'alliteration' is used by the principal to convince the parents. (E.g. come to a computer-centred classroom etc.)
I think that alliteration is a language technique rather than a persuasive technique, and although worth mentioning, with hindsight I don't see how it is integral to the analysis?
-
9.5 is an extreme act of generosity considering the vagueness and useless sentences that don't analyse anything, length of piece, repetitious use of some terms, forced conclusion. I did this same article a while back as well, it wasn't as loaded with persuasive techniques as some of the VCAA exams are IIRC. Is your teacher an assessor? If yes, i hope she gets my piece :D
-
vagueness and useless sentences that don't analyse anything, length of piece, repetitious use of some terms, forced conclusion.
The conclusion can be expanded - care to provide me with examples of some of your other "concerns" (that may be worthy of an analysis in themselves)
-
The recent decision to ban computers in the classroom has attracted controversy in a local Victorian school. Responding to the controversy generated by the ban, the school’s principal lists the many dangers of technology in a learning environment, in an effort to persuade the community to the merits of the new school policy. In an energetic and authoritative piece, the open letter denigrates the excessive use of computers by students, and urges the target audience, namely parents, to understand their detrimental effects in the learning place.
Compare your long-winded and completely unnecessary introduction with my quickly whipped up one which is more concise and succinct.
The "technological revolution" has come under renewed criticism following the recent prohibiting of computers in classroom environments. In a reasonable and didactic tone, Principal A.Jones' letter entitled "Are Computers Compromising Education?" urges parents to realise the detriments of this so-called "phenomenon".
-
Introducing the issue and even paraphrasing the introductory statement will not lose you marks. Indeed, extreme brevity is generally frowned upon - and I don't see anything lacking in the intro that I wrote - contention, content, tone, audience and purpose are all there. What makes it 'completely unnecessary?' I think you're just trying to wave your perceived superiority around by finding non-existent flaws in the pieces that are posted up here.
-
I'm just speaking from past experience, where i have actually lost marks writing introductions like that. Your 'subtle' attempt at belittling me is just plain rude after i give up my time to provide you with feedback, which you asked for in your original post. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
-
I didn't find your criticism constructive (bordering on arrogant actually).
Compare this by the first response:
Just read the article and that "short changed" has a hypen in it too. Don't forget your hypens!
Also, you fail to mention how 'alliteration' is used by the principal to convince the parents. (E.g. come to a computer-centred classroom etc.)
to your responses that simply attack without helping or elaborating
-
Gosh, I apologise for sincerely trying to help then.
-
You may be indeed correct, and my piece is an utter piece of crap: vague, clumsily written and verbose to the extreme, to quote one of your posts.
But simply telling me that without actually pointing our what/where the flaws lie seems a tad gratuitous.
-
I think the conclusion is a tad short; you could, instead of just stating that 'parents are positioned' summarise how? i.e. summarising your analysed techniques and what not. IMO I also believe that you should change 'parents are positioned' to something which describes the writer attempting to position them into one of agreement or something like that (though what I just typed is quite badly phrased as I am half asleep LOL); as you are never sure as to whether or not the readership is actually persuaded or not; in retrospect you can definitely not make that assumption.
Another example is when you stated that "This convinces parents that their children..". You MUST add that 'this MAY convince parents' as you cannot assume; you are merely analysing the language used and stating the POSSIBLE effects.
Just my 2c though.
-
I reckon around 8/10, but there's definitely potential for higher marks here. For now, work on analysing the image a bit more by providing more on global positioning, as you do with the article. Syntactical issues have been raised, but I'd also like to take it a step further by saying that your piece lacks flow. To work on this, figure out better ways of linking your sentences together. I can't really comment on word count since I don't know the article, but optimally, you'll want this to be a bit longer as well, since your analysis is fairly good, and it'd be a shame for you to lose marks based on not covering enough content. Also, as Andiio suggested, your conclusion is a bit short - I would also summarise the main techniques, just to remind the markers that you've done a good job and to give the piece a sense of closure. Disagree with Andiio's point about positioning though: "parents are positioned" implies an attempt to influence, rather than an absolute effect.
The recent decision to ban computers in the classroom has attracted controversy in a local Victorian school. Responding to the controversy generated by the ban, the school’s principal lists the many dangers of technology in a learning environment, in an effort to persuade the community to the merits of the new school policy. In an energetic and authoritative piece, the open letter denigrates the excessive use of computers by students, and urges the target audience, namely parents, to understand their detrimental effects in the learning place.
Compare your long-winded and completely unnecessary introduction with my quickly whipped up one which is more concise and succinct.
The "technological revolution" has come under renewed criticism following the recent prohibiting of computers in classroom environments. In a reasonable and didactic tone, Principal A.Jones' letter entitled "Are Computers Compromising Education?" urges parents to realise the detriments of this so-called "phenomenon".
I wouldn't say Chavi's is perfect, but I far prefer it to the ridiculously minimalist alternative you provide. =/
-
Chavi, please tell me whats better?
1) Getting someone to go through your work, being strict and telling the truth.
or
2) Getting someone to go through your work, and letting things slide?
I doubt that an exam assessor will be as harsh as 99.95, but its better to consider all views on your writing and improve on all of them...Whether he came across as arrogant or not, he took his own time to read your analysis and comment on some minor flaws.
What I think of your essay:
- Your sentence structure doesn't flow as well as it should + The piece is a bit short.
- Some grammatical errors (hyphens)
Other than that, its decent.
7.5-8/10
-
I reckon around 8/10, but there's definitely potential for higher marks here. For now, work on analysing the image a bit more by providing more on global positioning, as you do with the article. Syntactical issues have been raised, but I'd also like to take it a step further by saying that your piece lacks flow. To work on this, figure out better ways of linking your sentences together. I can't really comment on word count since I don't know the article, but optimally, you'll want this to be a bit longer as well, since your analysis is fairly good, and it'd be a shame for you to lose marks based on not covering enough content. Also, as Andiio suggested, your conclusion is a bit short - I would also summarise the main techniques, just to remind the markers that you've done a good job and to give the piece a sense of closure. Disagree with Andiio's point about positioning though: "parents are positioned" implies an attempt to influence, rather than an absolute effect.
The recent decision to ban computers in the classroom has attracted controversy in a local Victorian school. Responding to the controversy generated by the ban, the school’s principal lists the many dangers of technology in a learning environment, in an effort to persuade the community to the merits of the new school policy. In an energetic and authoritative piece, the open letter denigrates the excessive use of computers by students, and urges the target audience, namely parents, to understand their detrimental effects in the learning place.
Compare your long-winded and completely unnecessary introduction with my quickly whipped up one which is more concise and succinct.
The "technological revolution" has come under renewed criticism following the recent prohibiting of computers in classroom environments. In a reasonable and didactic tone, Principal A.Jones' letter entitled "Are Computers Compromising Education?" urges parents to realise the detriments of this so-called "phenomenon".
I wouldn't say Chavi's is perfect, but I far prefer it to the ridiculously minimalist alternative you provide. =/
Oh oops! Not the parents are positioned part sorry, but as in other parts such as the 'This convinces parents..'. That's what I meant :P
(Was up late last night, apologies!)
-
I think 99.95's comments can come off as really arrogant, not saying that they are but they can appear that way. I get where you're coming from Chavi. I agree that his comments are more attacks on your piece than actual constructive comments. Get lynt.br to have a look, he goes through and shows you what you can improve instead of just telling you what you did wrong. I think its just the way 99.95 critiques stuff, most people just aren't used to it and would rather not even hear it.
Chavi, please tell me whats better?
1) Getting someone to go through your work, being strict and telling the truth.
or
2) Getting someone to go through your work, and letting things slide?
I doubt that an exam assessor will be as harsh as 99.95, but its better to consider all views on your writing and improve on all of them...Whether he came across as arrogant or not, he took his own time to read your analysis and comment on some minor flaws.
What I think of your essay:
- Your sentence structure doesn't flow as well as it should + The piece is a bit short.
- Some grammatical errors (hyphens)
Other than that, its decent.
7.5-8/10
There's a difference between being strict and giving constructive comments, and being strict and just degrading aspects of the piece. Most people would rather not even hear the latter as it just makes you lose confidence, morale and self-esteem. I think 99.95s comments for chavi did just that, having a teacher give you 9.5 and then a student making a joke of it would really annoy you. 99.95 is probably a good person but can come across way too harsh and even condescending when it comes to critique. That's just my opinion don't take it personally 99.95. Some people can handle your comments and others can't, it's just the way it is unfortunately.