Hello once again. This is a comparative language analysis we were set for class. I'm not sure if I can post up the original article, but if I do, I'll update the thread. Please anyone feel free to tear this a part. I didn't do too much proof reading as I had already taken about 2.5 hours to write this over a few days, and figured I should find out my worst mistakes so I can fix most of them as I am doing my language analysis, in case I have minimal time to proof read. We discussed this article a little bit in class, but most are my ideas. A score out of 10 would be amazing too - aiming for a 50 here! Thanks!
To access the article, search "don't ban the exam bronwyn leigh" in Google, first link (pdf)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Speaking in a serious yet sympathetic tone, Bronwyn Lee, in her article “Don’t ban the exam”, posted in educational magazine ‘Learning Now’, wastes no time to contend that examinations should remain as a formal assessment tool for Year 12 students. She logically argues that the throwing of exams to “the dustbin of history”, as is being suggested, is inessential, using anecdotes, informal language and pictorial evidence to position the reader to feel more comfortable to support her argument. In this informative opinion piece, accompanied by letters posted in the subsequent issue of ‘Learning Now’, Leigh outlines reasonably the issues with fairness of assessment of alternatives to the exam, such as a thesis, and uses emotive imagery to remind the audience of the value exams have in the preparation of young adults for life.
Leigh is very forward with her contention from the very first glance of her piece, with the large printed, rhyming title “Don’t ban the exam”, allowing the audience to be positioned to feel a sense of security in the author’s argument, as she is not ‘sitting on the fence’. Her opening anecdote, almost seeming as a contradiction to her contention, recalls her own experiences of “sleepless pre-exam nights” and “panic”, with the included visual looking out over desks set out for an examination from a students’ point of view. This evokes further comfort in the reader, and adds credibility and believability to Leigh's argument, as she effectively explains and proves to the audience why exactly she is qualified to make such a large statement - that is, she has seen the daunting side of exams, and has been and lived through it before. Adding further credibility to her argument is of her current status, lecturing in “education studies at a number of universities for over thirty years”. Throughout her argument, Leigh constantly alludes to the fact that the banning of exams are an unnecessary change. She notes attackingly that the “push” to ban exams is “supported by very little research”, this comment taking much credibility from the opposition’s argument, leaving readers feeling uneasy about trusting a side that doesn’t have a leg to stand on. So as not to offend, Leigh passively states that she is “not so sure” that “other forms of assessment” will as much of a true indicator of “student knowledge and ability”, with this comment revealing a caring element to Leigh’s argument, as if she has all students’ best interests in mind. This reassures the audience that they are reasonable to side with her, and that with exams used to assess student performance, students can be assured “deep learning”. She includes logically that exams have been “reliably used in education since the mid-nineteenth century”, and so change would be absurd. This idea is supported by the visual, whose familiar image of wooden tables evokes an ‘old and reliable’ mentality in the minds of the readers, assisting those reading to consider the awkward situation of moving to a less reliable system that will not help every student “achieve their best”.
Leigh, in an alarmed and serious tone, remarks on the important life skills that exams instill in students. In response to claims that no people have to “work under exam pressure in the ‘real world’”, Leigh rebuts these claims directly, with an informal remark that “like it or not”, “stressful situations are... part and parcel of everyday life”. The informality assists the author to adopt a more down-to-earth and relatable persona, with the bluntness of the statement positioning readers to be jolted into a sense of reality that this world is abundant with pressure, and that a part of quipping young adult’s well for this, examinations are compulsory. This theme of the necessity of examinations is further engrained into readers with Leigh’s use of emotive imagery, inviting the readers to imagine doctors checking their “reference book” when dealing with “bloodied, distraught accident” victims, and teachers needing to “get back” to students in regards to their questions, effectively positioning readers to feel a sense of fear at the fact that this may become a reality, should exams be banned. This argument contrasts heavily with that of the opinion of Jonathan Rivers, who believes that the keeping of exams, and not replacing them with a thesis, will result in a “sacrificing” of “student learning”. He believes that, as readers of Learning Now, new methods of assessment should be found, contrasting to the seemingly ancient examinations, and that readers “should be promoting skills” with a thesis assessment. These statements position the reader to feel contempt towards Leigh and her argument in that the reader may feel as if Leigh cannot be bothered changing the current system. This idea of a needed replacement may be carried through to the visual’s old feel, with wooden tables, aligned chairs, evoking a sense of action in the reader that the current system requires a revamp.
In a logical tone, Leigh asserts that exams are beneficial, as though some students “cram”, it allows students to focus themselves for a “relatively short amount of time”, indicating the value that exams have in the fact that stress experienced by students is not as prolonged as other forms of assessment. This point of view is complimented by Deborah James, as in her letter, tells a powerful anecdote of her sister doing her thesis in university. The repetitious phrase of how her sister did not “sleep”, “eat” or “go out” hammers into the audience’s mind that the fact that the “pressure” experienced is immense, with exams “over long before a humungous thesis is”. This description, and especially the use of the exaggeratory adjective “humungous”, adds negative connotations to the idea of a thesis, leaving it hard for the audience to support a move to ban exams altogether. The visual further evokes the ‘don’t fix what isn’t broken’ mentality with the almost reliable and reassuring site of desks and chairs, with Leigh herself also remarking that it is “unreasonable” for “Year 12 students” to rise to such a task. In relation to the quality of learning achieved, Leigh also remarks almost patronisingly at the opponents argument that students who do not prepare well for exams are “unlikely to be enthusiastic” about the idea of a thesis, with this making a joke of the opponents argument, almost positioning readers to laugh at and take pity on those who wish to ban exams.
A major argument agains the banning of exams is that of the quality and fairness of assessment, which Leigh, in a reasonable and argumentative tone, questions rhetorically. She asks what could stop schools from “exploiting the system?”, if thesis’ were marked by students’ teachers alone, evoking shame in those who still believe exams should be banned. Leigh recognises the difficulty in marking these theses “fairly and consistently”, while Jonathan Rivers attempts to evoke action, as he believes current educators are too lazy “to try something new”. Brian Stanfield recognises the danger in adopting a thesis as a form assessment tool, with him instilling fear in readers who, through his argument, become aware of the fact that “private tutors” could be hired to help write students’ theses, manipulating the system, and widening the gap between the “socio-economically advantaged” and “disadvantaged”. These realisations evoke a sense of abhorrence towards the idea of a thesis, and a sense of appreciation towards what exams have been and still are, summed up by the visual’s caption - “still a fair and accurate way to assess students”. The “still” indicates strongly that exams have no need to change, reinforced by the images displaying of evenly spaced and sized tables and chairs, representative of quality. Leigh further asserts that she always has the students’ best interests in mind by stating that “every student” should be helped to “achieve their best”, evoking feelings of trust and camaraderie towards the author, positioning her argument more likely to be sided with.
Bronwyn Lee’s persuasive piece, “Don’t ban the exam”, effectively persuades her audience of educators that the banning of examinations is unnecessary. Her mostly logical argument is effective the whole of the piece, with the accompanying letters mostly echoing her blatantly obvious contention, evoking her audience to defend the fair and trusted assessment tool that is the examination.
Home
Help
Search
Login
