Heyyyy. Could someone pretty please give me feedback and a mark out of 10 for this comparative language analysis I've attempted?
Article one:
http://theconversation.com/naplan-testing-does-more-harm-than-good-26923Article two:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/tracking-students-basic-skills/story-e6frg71x-1226915103476Cartoon:
http://nicholsoncartoons.com.au/naplan-not-used-effectively-by-teachers-cartoon-2013-05-20.htmlThanks in advance!
Sidenote: Let's just pretend "The Conversation" and "The Australian" are underlined as they were originally but formatting doesn't translate over to AN posts.
---
In a scathing opinion piece first featured in online news medium, The Conversation, entitled “NAPLAN testing does more harm than good”, director Joanna Wyn details the findings of the University of Melbourne’s Youth Research Centre’s recent study into the impact of standardised testing like the NAPLAN on the students who take it. With concern, she propagates the message that these tests were conducted at the detriment of those whose abilities are being examined and must thus undergo scrutiny by her audience of authority figures in the Department of Education as well as “parents, school principals and teachers.” In contrast, The Australian’s editorial “Tracking basic skills” firmly establishes the NAPLAN’s benefits far outweigh the complaints of those who are averse to it. The newspaper’s argument is supported by the accompanying cartoon by Andrew Nicholson featured a year prior to the editorial’s initial publication on May 13, 2014.
Wyn portrays the NAPLAN as a standardised test that no longer succeeded in meeting the demands it had been designed to. By employing the colloquialism “blunt tool” in reference to this test, the writer draws an analogy between the NAPLAN and a blade that had lost its sharpness through extended usage. This analogy suggests that, similar to the blade, the NAPLAN had lost its efficacy. Shifting from her scathing criticism of this test to concern as she conveys absences on test days are consistently reported by schools amongst those “whom the tests are designed to help”. Reprising her absolute and strident language in decreeing the test was “not conducive to learning”, the writer suggests the opinions she expressed were unequivocal and not up for debate by the readership. That the author should enumerate the stakeholders’ interviewed in this study, including “students, parents, teachers and school principals” insinuates that the majority of individuals with any affiliation to the NAPLAN concur with the view Wyn harbours. She therefore positions her readers to deduce the NAPLAN was perceived by the majority as an inefficacious means of measuring students and schools and was no longer of a satisfactory standard.
Amplifying the effect of NAPLAN testing through an extensive description of the impact, the author manoeuvres the readers to infer these tests are harming children. She cites a previous study conducted by the University of Melbourne while affirming “90% of teachers reported that students felt stressed” before the NAPLAN. Wyn reiterates this allegation through her avowal that the “majority [of test-takers] reported feelings of stress”. In culmination, the director’s use of a statistic and her comment generalises the state of these children prior to testing, implying no child was spared from these feelings of anxiety and apprehension. This claim appeals to the reader’s love and desire to protect these children from harm. Wyn anticipates whatever doubt the readership may harbour regarding her claims regarding these children and their purportedly detrimental responses to the NAPLAN through her enumerations of symptoms including “insomnia, profuse sweating… and migraines” which enable the audience of educators and parental figures to infer to be indicative of stress. Thus, when the author asserts educational testing must be implemented with “the best interests of children” in mind and ultimately “do… no harm” to them she insinuates that these children would benefit from a reformation of these standardised tests. Therein, the writer seeks to elicit the concern and anxiety of parents and educators while simultaneously manoeuvring her readership of authority figures within the Department of Education to assume responsibility for the stress these children purportedly undergo. To this end, the reader is positioned to call for an overhaul and amendment to NAPLAN testing.
The accompanying photo of a little girl as she writes in what the audience infers to be a NAPLAN task-book portrays young children like her to be the victims of this standardised test. The ribbons in her hair are atypical of young girls and connote innocence. That her focus should be, not on the camera, but on the paper before her, insinuates she was oblivious to the detrimental effects the NAPLAN supposedly inflicted upon her. The audience of educators and namely parents are positioned to substitute this child for their own. Thereby, this visual image appeals to the desire of the audience to protect their beloved children from the perils of the world around them of which they are ignorant. In essence, Wyn capitalises on the concern the readership feels in order to induce them to respond to her rhetorical question of whether this stress is “worth” whatever advantages may be associated with the NAPLAN in the negative.
Both Wyn and The Australian juxtapose the two extreme views held about NAPLAN testing in order to undermine the opposition and their argument. Wyn contrasts the focus of those for and against this form of standardised testing and the contributions they made to improve this system. In the process, the director of the Youth Research Centre subtly commends those against this system who “made suggestions about… how to lower levels of [student] stress”, establishing these individuals were not simply making unsubstantiated and trivial complaints for the sake of doing so. She thereby conveys those against the NAPLAN were justified in their concern and should be lauded for seeking to eradicate the education system of its perceived flaws. By comparison, Wyn scarcely mentions the response of “those in favour”, implying whatever contributions they made to the discussion were irrelevant and that these individuals were so easily contented with something the reader assesses to be trivial – the acclimatisation of children to standardised testing – that they neglected to see the bigger, underlying problem. In essence, Wyn vilifies this party and thereby seeks to disenfranchise the readership from “those in favour” because they are positioned to perceive this party as disillusioned about standardised testing. Similarly, The Australian juxtaposes those for and against the NAPLAN. However, where Wyn commends those who made complaints, The Australian employs loaded language to render these individuals as nothing more than “habitual naysayers” who “recycle[e] their gripes.” These terms undermine the nature of the complaints articulated by those averse to the NAPLAN, connoting they were unimportant and trivial. This has the effect of maligning those against this system of standardised testing. That the newspaper should juxtapose the “stress” those against the NAPLAN claim students feel with the “stress [of] leaving school without being able to read, write and do simple calculations” insinuates this test serves a greater purpose in ensuring no student is left behind in the educational system and must thus be retained. To this end, the newspaper endorses retaining the NAPLAN test which it suggests is in the best interests of children in the long term, in spite of the pressure it may place them in in the short term.
The newspaper portrays these standardised tests as important to ensuring all children are taught at an acceptable standard and that they did not fall behind their peers. The repetition of synonyms for important, such as “essential” and “necessary”, reiterate The Australian’s stance that these tests provided teachers and schools with vital information that the newspaper conveys would enable these schools to cater to the needs of students by locating areas for improvement. Their use of the colloquialism “pinpoint” in referring to how the NAPLAN allows schools to find areas for improvement to meet propagates the idea that taking this standardised test allows schools to cater their teaching to the students. This idea, that their children would be given personalised teaching as a result of the NAPLAN, appeals to the audience of parents who want to ensure their kids do not fall behind their peers and are thence given every chance to succeed. This view is supported by the Nicholson cartoon which features a child proudly displaying some writing on the blackboard to a group of teachers which the audience infers he has written. That this message should be addressed to the “teechars” establishes those under scrutiny through the NAPLAN were not the students, but rather, the teachers who had taught them. Therein, Nicholson suggests the stress these children endure prior to these tests was unwarranted as the results are purportedly indicative, not of student ability, but rather, the aptitude of the men and women who teach them. The abundance of spelling errors such as “teechars”, “failld” and “tessed” in the message jokingly establishes this child did “not meet the minimum standards” of education – a fact that casts blame, not o the smiling child who was seemingly unaware of his error, but rather, at the teachers responsible for his failure. Therein, Nicholson echoes the message of The Australian in its editorial – that the NAPLAN was necessary in ensuring teachers taught to an acceptable standard and children were not permitted to fall behind their peers. Therein, the newspaper manoeuvres the readership to endorse the retention of the NAPLAN which they are encouraged to perceive as beneficial to children in the long run.
In closing, both Wyn and The Australian claim to have the best “interests of students” in mind. In essence, both parties appeal to the love of the audience. Where Wyn capitalises on this love to position her readers to consider the wellbeing of their children and seek to protect them from undue stress, The Australian conveys this stress was a necessary evil to ensure these students were given every opportunity to succeed in the long run.
Home
Help
Search
Login
