VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 4

<< < (3/4) > >>

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on January 26, 2018, 02:35:54 pm ---In response to an opinion piece by Rufus Norris which argues that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private schools this is a really minor point but try to avoid quoting the background info box word-for-word if you can, to show off your understanding of the text :) ,Karen Eslea, head of learning and visitor experience wrote a letter to the editor from Turner contemporary school. In a tone that can be described as not necessary urgent yet hopeful, eslea contends that  teaching the arts should be encouraged in young children of all ages (this is Eslea's main contention that differentiates her opinion from Norris', which she's responding to. It's a subtle point, but important to note if you can!) so that creativity helps society become a happier place the creative thinking ability nurtured through this education can be used to create a more understanding and thus, a more united and happier society - for example. Be as precise as possible, especially in reference to the contention.

Elsea condemns the country's disregard for creativity and the arts Same as above: Elsea is complaining that there isn't much focus being placed on teaching creativity and the arts to children. So this is more of a demographics issue.. "That a country should disregard the views of more than 18% of its population..." Avoid starting a sentence with a quote, especially a long one like this - it can throw the reader off balance. Also, ensure you analyse every quote you mention.  she calls the current situation "staggering" as there is a greater potential for  creativity and divergent thinking in students you've paraprased the actual text itself here. What's the 'reader effect' of the word 'staggering' in relation to Elsea's contention? . Elsea uses a second statistics,when 98% of pre-school children are ranked genus..", to show the levels of creativity that children have Great quote selection - now really dissect it!
 98% is a huge, huge number. And the fact that they've been labelled 'genius'.. that's a big number of geniuses! So what's the reader effect?
 For e.g. perhaps they'll feel astonished at the enormous talent in the country's youth waiting to be unleashed, but disappointed that this is all going to waste due to the country's lack of interest in capitalising upon children's creative capacitie . She describes it as "decreasing" Don't quote without analysis. She uses a rhetorical question,"why not use it now?, to portray hope and to show that it is not too late to...? (Same point as MissSmiley).she then follows this up with words such as "happier","healthier" and "fairer", to display the potential that society potential in what? Be as precise as possible. You could try exploring the connotations of these words, or the image they conjure in the readers' minds.has if children and adults learn from each other.Also she states that "investment in these highly creative members of society can pay today if we let them, Why wait for the future" to show the benefits that can occur by engaging and fostering the arts. This is too much of an empty statement. Look at the message embedded in this quote. Elsea is focusing a lot on the implications for the present if we make creative education accessible for all ages. Think about why she might be doing that. Why the emphasis on the present? Then think about how the reader might feel about the issue.


--- End quote ---

You've got a good understanding of the argument - great job. That is, after all, the most important bit to nail first!
Just remember to be as precise as possible in your analysis. Every time you're analysing a piece of textual evidence, think 'how', think 'why'. Keep the writer's contention in the back of your mind to aid with this process, because that puts everything into perspective.

Anonymous:
Thank you

Anonymous:
Amid recent discussion regarding approaches to education, Karen Eslea, the head of learning at an art gallery, has written a letter-to-the-editor in response to Rufus Norris’ opinion piece. Building upon his view that arts education should be encouraged in all schools as an investment for the future, Eslea employs a concerned tone to allege that the current impact children can have is being overlooked. Ultimately, Eslea aims to enhance the general public’s value in art and youth contribution.

From the outset, Eslea accentuates the loss to society caused by ignoring children’s abilities using a concerned and grim tone. The inclusive ‘we will be poorer for it’ is intended to instil a sense of loss in the reader and in turn make the reader feel that the country is missing out. This is backed up by the statement that ‘capability’ is ‘decreasing’ as kids age. Eslea’s later tonal shift when highlighting the ‘investment’ readers can make that ‘can pay today’ is an attempt to mitigate the audience’s previously captivated sense of loss. Through this juxtaposition between loss and gain, she eases the audience while simultaneously fueling their belief in childhood contribution. Furthermore, having described a future with childhood intelligence utilised as ‘happier’, ‘healthier’, ‘fairer’ and ‘inclusive’, Eslea elicits a sense of community by envisioning a world where children are ‘deeply engaged’ in ‘their communities.’ This string of romanticised and positively connoted language depicting the future engenders the audience to consider the immense benefits to the community and in turn side with her contention.

Eslea consistently promotes the power of children throughout her letter, positing that their abilities are currently undervalued. The use of the tricolon ‘skills, creativity and ideas’ when showcasing their capability is an attempt to stress this very view. This is further enforced by the repeated idea of the ‘divergent thinking’ and ‘creativity’ these ‘highly creative members of society’ are capable of. Through being repeatedly exposed to these desirable characteristics, the audience is invited to have a stronger belief in the abilities of children. The author insures to completely remove doubts in readers’ minds by providing the statistic ’98% of pre-school children are ranked ‘genius,” This statistic in combination with her company’s view that children can make an ‘enormous contribution’ to society adds authenticity to her argument that children are more capable than commonly believed. Lastly, the pejorative ‘staggering’ used when positing that the country disregards ‘18% of its population’ is aimed to strongly condemn the action of ignoring a big part of the population. This in conjunction with her portrayal of the importance of children breeds a sense of concern in the audience and positions them to believe that possibly the most important section of the population is not heard.

Overall, Karen Eslea advances the potential of children while ensuring the general public understands what society is missing out on. Through igniting fear for wastage of knowledge on one hand while using colourful language to describe power on the other, Eslea ultimately aims to generate a sense of value of the contribution of young kids and in turn advocate for an increase in involvement of children in the United Kingdom.

Lear:
My first time posting and forgot to tick the not Anonymous box ._. ^
Just a side question, am I allowed to analyse previous weeks (1-3) or is that passed?

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Lear on January 26, 2018, 10:17:20 pm ---My first time posting and forgot to tick the not Anonymous box ._. ^
Just a side question, am I allowed to analyse previous weeks (1-3) or is that passed?

--- End quote ---

I don't see why not! I'm sure there will be plenty of users willing to correct previous pieces  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page