Here is a sample language analysis... tell me what you think, and if you can, rate it!
I have only just finished handwriting it,
then typed it, so it hasn't been checked by a teacher yet.
Don't expect much... if you look at the time of this post you'll know why some of the essay is a bit wishy-washy.
Oh and must I say a big thank you to those who helped me figure out that 'persuasive technique'!!
And this essay does use metalanguage.. quite explicitly.
The case for/against a national curriculum.
Newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposal for a national curriculum, as part of his policy statement on the future direction of Australian education, has garnered much debate in recent media. A Herald Sun opinion piece, entitled “Why should schooling change at every state border?”, was written by the Deputy Principal of Narrenwood Secondary College, Stephen Buckle, in response to this debate. Using a prudent and credible tone, Buckle argues that Australia needs to adopt a “common curriculum” in order to achieve unity across the country and thus provide students with more educational opportunities. Quite on the contrary, an opinion piece titled “A single curriculum is not the answer” and written by an un-named writer for The Age, contends, in a sceptical and forthright manner, that we do not necessitate a “Canberra-controlled curriculum” that would support neither diversity nor independence. A cartoon by Job supports this latter view; reinforcing that Rudd is only proposing a “bureaucratically dominated” system that would only act as a detriment towards Australian students' schooling experiences.
From the onset, Buckle permeates and imbues his credibility by placing the matter into a political context and initiating a contemplative but sustained tone of voice. By juxtaposing the seemingly “sensible idea” with the negative imagery in that it has caused as much as a “furore” as if the Government put “cannibalism on the curriculum”, Buckle aims to position readers to feel receptive towards upholding a more upbeat reaction to the proposal. In assimilating the community's “furore” with the assumed power of the Government, Buckle may compel readers, particularly those who are closely attached to the education system, to see that the Government has not taken advantage of its power and has instead attempted to derive a solution that works best for the nation. Buckle goes on to weave alliteration and antithesis into one sentence; stating that, he states that, having students in “Bunbury and Bundaberg” learn “entirely different things” in “entirely different ways” is cognisant of the incomprehensible nature of the current system. In highlighting this, the writer aims to enlist the support of the general readership; coercing them to see that there should be more cohesion and unity in our educational approach. The repetition of the “b” consonant to project 'sameness', regardless of the different states these suburbs are in, is put into stark contrast with the repetitive phrase “entirely different”. Thus, the cumulative effect of these literary elements working in unison is clear; Buckle would expect readers to isolate themselves from those who caused the “furore” and instead consider sharing Buckle's stance. The writer goes on to intertwine reputable expert evidence with a metaphorical phrase – asserting that a “new” report from the Australian Council of Educational Research deduced that several of our curricula have “all the consistency of our century railway gauges”. Through this, readers are encouraged to compare the novel findings with the “century” grade railway gauges, which also serves to build up Buckle's credibility as an authoritative figure who is seemingly up-to-date. Buckle then outlines that the existence of eight different educational pedagogies leads children to become “hapless victims of ruthless social engineering exercises”. Through the use of negatively-charged emotive terms “hapless” and “ruthless”, along with the emphasis on the negatively-connotative “-less” suffix, Buckle is able to channel readers' sympathy, as the statement would no doubt resonate with parental readers. Furthermore, derogatory language - “alleged 'educators'” - and alliterative phrases - “curriculum crimes” - help Buckle to put the matter into perspective. In embedding the term “educators” in quotation marks, the writer is able to position readers to see that our education system is flawed and most definitely needs attention. The effect of this stance is heightened by the derisory adjective “alleged”, as well as the fact that there are, exaggeratedly, “curriculum crimes” existent in society. Thus, it is through these literary techniques that the reading audience is able to see the full extent of the issue, whereby Buckle strikes fear and concern within the reader.
Moreover, there is a tonal shift to a more abrupt and brusque manner of speech, whilst maintaining the same rationality; stressed through tersely syntactic sentences. By outlining “Nor does crossing the Nullabor transform the rules of grammar” and “curriculum experts in Maths and Science know it”, the writer is able to fulfil a dual purpose. Readers are drawn to identify that the current education system lacks cohesion and unanimity, whilst also being alerted by the abruptness of the sentence structure. Buckle goes on to use a dose of anaphora; repeating the phrase “it makes no sense” at the beginning of each successive sentence, in order to encourage the audience to see the ineffectiveness and peculiarity of the current system. Thus, the writer upholds the ability to put the issue into perspective and therefore appeal to the masses and readers' sense of morality in order to win over their support. To conclude, Buckle weaves anaphora, juxtaposition and parallelism to end on a high note. The recurrent phrasing of “it does not mean...” serves to quell readers' suspicions and ultimately refute opposing arguments, whilst the comparison to the one-off phrase “it does mean...” demonstrates that Buckle's viewpoint is assured and considered. Within the same paragraph, Buckle also tends to use a parallel structure in his language; including the phrase “exactly the same” amidst the lack of proper conjunctions, in a bid to encourage readers to draw comparisons to the notion of 'difference'. Therefore, it can be seen that, as members of the general readership, Buckle's careful and mindful use of language enables him to strongly convey the ultimate need for a national curriculum.
In stark contrast to Buckle, the un-named writer of the additional opinion piece opts for a judgmental but terse tone to suggest that a national approach to education would not work in favour of individual students. However, it can be deduced that the writers do utilise similar literary elements; for instance, this writer uses brusquely syntactic sentences, similar to Buckle. By opening with the short statement “Education is not generic”, the writer is able to set their to-the-point attitude straight, whilst also simultaneously coercing readers to acknowledge that educational pedagogies must take into consideration, the unique abilities of each student. The effect of this stance is coupled with the antistrophes that the writer also includes in the opening paragraph; the recurrent use of the phrase “not the same” demonstrates that a “single curriculum” would not be able to cater for each child's different needs. Thus, the writer positions readers in such a way as to consider to that many factors must be taken into account for a curriculum strategy to be deemed successful, whilst readers are also inadvertently coerced to compare this writer's views with those of Buckle's. Positive imagery - “choice”, “diversity” and “a chance of real innovation” - is compared to negative imagery - “stagnation” and “a single mindset” - in the same sentence. In effect, the writer's clever antithesis is likely to encourage the audience to see that a national educational strategy is not the “answer”, for it would not allow for diversity and other benefits that would entail – contrary to Buckle's beliefs. The effect of this point of view is built upon when the writer casts aspersions upon the proposed national curriculum and implants doubt into the readers' mind. This is achieved by the embedding of the word “solution” in quotation marks – which exhorts readers to not only question Mr Rudd's ideology and work, but also fear for the futures of the children, because the target audience would predominantly consist of teachers, parents and other adults. Thus, the culmination of such quoting, along with forceful and strong language - “it is completely the wrong way to go about fixing this problem” - is that the reading audience is left in a state of bewilderment and doubt over the proposed plans, whereby the writer is able to appeal to readers' sense of responsibility over the lives of their children, where applicable. Similar to Buckle, this writer also demonstrates the profound use of anaphora, through the repetitive use of the term “for” to begin each successive clause. In this case, the writer exemplifies and generalises that “citizens [would be] happy to pay the price for choice, for independence, for diversity”. Thus, it is through this that readers are positioned to feel receptive towards the fact that a national curriculum is an unneeded entity. To conclude his/her piece of prose, the writer utilises inclusive terms to put the issue into perspective for the readers. By merging the negative connotations in the phrase “the real losers” with the inclusive phrase “our children”, parental readers would be urged to see the drawbacks that a single curriculum may have on our children. The second-person-objective - “you” - is also used in the concluding statements, in order for the writer to effectively argue that the current system is “much better” than Mr Rudd's planned “Orwellian alternative”.
An insightful cartoon by Job reinforces the second writer's viewpoint that a single curriculum would be detrimental to Australian students' experiences. Depicted in the cartoon is an “Australian National Curriculum” 'in-out' machine, whereby people enter as children and exit as 'adults'. The 'difference' in the children's clothing, appearance and height is compared to the generic and one-and-the-same nature of those who leave the entity. This is not only an attempt to broaden the debate, but also an attempt to coerce readers to comprehend that a single curriculum for Australian students would not allow for diversity, individuality and difference; similar to the second writer's opinion, but dissimilar to Buckle's opinion. The adults, on the other hand, are pictured with suitcases, moving along a conveyer-belt. Likewise to a supermarket conveyer-belt, Job's conveyer-belt has been included to illustrate the wrongful 'express' and 'quick-fix' service that a national curriculum would seemingly provide. Also pictured in the cartoon is a waste-pipe with educational text books a part of the wastage; which seeks to encourage readers to become more accepting of the second writer's view that a national curriculum would invariably waste one's schooling experience. Hence, Job's artistic visual imagery accentuates the negativity of Mr Rudd's proposal and reinforces the latter writer's sentiment, whilst also drawing the audience to frown upon Mr Rudd's plans.
Stephen Buckle's opinion piece, written in response to the growing debate about the proposed national curriculum, is a plainspoken but credible piece of prose that strongly contends that Australian students would be benefited by plans that explicate and exude “Australian values”. The un-named writer's opinion piece, on the other hand, argues against Buckle's case and suggests that a single pedagogy for the nation would only have a debilitating effect on students, for it would lack difference and diversity. However, whilst a cartoon by Job does reinforce this latter view, readers are still able to grasp a definitive idea of the political spectrum as well as Mr Rudd's plans for a seemingly unified educational system.
Home
Help
Search
Login
