Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:40:24 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 13  (Read 4676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
[2016 LA Club] Week 13
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:51:26 pm »
+2
This week, I've chosen something with a slightly nuanced contention to give you guys some practice in dealing with more complex arguments. You should find it fairly easy to get a sense of this editor's stance, but articulating this contention in a concise way might be a bit of a challenge. There are also some really typically basic techniques here (e.g. inclusive language, use of statistics, etc.) so see how you go conducting analysis on these without lapsing into generic statements like so many students would if this were in the exam.


Background: The following editorial appeared in the online journal 'The Conversation' in response to growing calls in the media for changes to the way tertiary institutions select candidates for their teaching courses. Many have argued the current ATAR cut-off point is too low, whereas others have said that the declining clearly-in scores is because universities have so many non-Year 12 school leavers applying for courses.


Teaching needs to attract better recruits

In 2015, only 42% of teacher education offers were made to Year 12 applicants with an ATAR of at least 70. In several universities the percentage was much lower. Similar numbers apply to students who applied post-Year 12. We should not be taken in by those who argue that the rising numbers of non-Year 12 entrants obviates the problem.

The proportion of entrants in undergraduate programs with ATAR scores less than 50 doubled over the past three years. Over the past ten years, we have reached a point where almost everyone who applies now finds a place in a teacher education program. Over the same period, Australia’s performance on international tests of student achievements has declined significantly.

It is time to drop the rationalisations and face the fact that we have a problem. We are not doing enough to ensure teaching is an attractive profession that can compete with other professions for our best graduates.

We should consider diverting funding for teacher education from universities to a national teacher education authority. Its primary responsibilities should be to ensure that:
• supply of new teachers matches demand
• teacher education services are purchased from accredited providers
• funded courses attract sufficient students from the top 70% of the age cohort
• teacher education program accreditation is conditional upon evidence that graduates meet specified high standards for professional knowledge and performance.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2016, 09:42:46 pm »
0
In response to the growing calls in the media for changes to the way tertiary institutions select candidates for their teaching courses, the editorial ‘Teaching needs to attract better recruits’ appeared in the online journal ‘The Conversation’ arguing that more needs to be done to ensure that teaching is a profession that attracts best graduates.

The author uses an authoritative, matter-of-fact tone to lend weight to his/her argument. Using the limiting adjective ‘only’ to describe the percentage of teacher education offer made to applicants with ATAR ‘at least 70’, the author implies that a higher standard is needed. The assertion that the percentage is ‘much lower’ in several universities is designed to exacerbate the problem in the reader’s mind. Calling for the reader to be not ‘taken in’ by those who insist that there is no such problem, the author implies that their arguments are deceptive yet outwardly plausible, thereby encouraging the reader to be sceptical about the argument that ‘rising numbers of non-Year 12 entrants obviates the problem’. The author proceeds to highlight the problem. The use of the cliché ‘reached a point’ indicates that there had been a continuing decline. The subsequent assertion that ‘almost everyone’ applying for a teaching course gets accepted depicts the admission process for teaching courses to be extremely unselective, which is likely to engender worry in the reader regarding whether the current criteria filters out incompetent recruits for teaching. The author also proclaims that Australia’s performance on student achievements tests ‘declined significantly over the same period’ in order to encourage the reader to infer that the lacking of competent recruits for teaching is at the heart of the problem. The reader is hence positioned to agree that the way tertiary institutions select candidates for their teaching courses needs to be changed.

It would be great to have some feedback on this. Btw I'm an EAL student  :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2016, 01:25:27 pm »
0
The editor plays on the populist view that ATARs are an indication of student intelligence. His blunt averment that “only 42%” of those accepted into education courses had “an ATAR of at least 70”. The term “only” implies that many more gain entrance with an ATAR that was much lower than this number. Indicating the proportion of entrants gaining entrance into these courses “with ATAR scores less than 50 [has] doubled”, the editor intimates the declining standard of entrants is a recent concern and not one that has historically been a problem. The successive nature of his enumerations amplifies the association between the changing perception of teachers and the declining standard of prospective teachers. The editor couples this with their equivocal proclamation “it is time” to, as he colloquially terms it, “face the facts” and seek a solution. In effect, this manoeuvres the reader to more critically scrutinise the declining aptitude of those seeking entry into teaching courses; their emphasis on “time” implies that exigent action is required if the audience wishes to circumvent the corollaries of this decline. By presenting them with several suggestions as to how they may rejuvenate interest in teaching as a prospective career, the editor implies that recognising there is a problem is not enough; the reader must be willing to act immediately. Thus, the editor compels their audience to want to personally contribute to the reformation of how university applicants view teaching as a profession as they are positioned to perceive that their involvement is vital to the success of this cause.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2016, 06:24:20 pm »
0
Yup I haven't been contributing because I have been busy failing in all my subjects haha

Growing concern over the declining quality of teaching degrees, and therefore candidates, has escalated in the past year, as calls for changes in ways tertiary institutions select candidates for their courses are put to the spotlight. In response to this, an article published on ‘The Conversation’, ‘Teaching needs to attract better result’ aims to refocus and address the issue of the declining quality of the teaching profession, advising for an establishment of a ‘national teacher education authority’ to maintain national standards within the teaching profession, rather than for surplus funding in tertiary institutions for teacher education.

Immediately within the headline ‘Teaching needs to attract better result’, the author conveys himself/herself directly his view upon the topic in a frank and open manner. However, by introducing the figures such as, “only 42% of teacher education offers were made”, the author seems to be creating a more distant and observational list of facts which premise his analysis, further highlighting his credibility as a professional voice within the article.

This objective and serious tone is maintained, until he asserts his own professional evaluation – “We should not be taken in by those who argue”. This serves to canvas his analysis of the “problem” he paints from the distant figures that have often surfaced in debates surrounding the decline of teaching quality. Readers of ‘The Conversation’ are more likely engaged with the ideas surrounding the topic, therefore, by showing interest and simply outlining where diverging opinions of the topic have come from, the author invites his readership to understand, also, the implications of his own views, portraying himself as logical and honest in his presentation.

Building on from this, his declaration that “It is time to drop the rationalisations” signals to his readers the need to act and respond. Almost a stark contrast to the cold and regimented figures correlating teaching quality with the “significan[t]” decline in the performance of students by international standards, the author actively engages the readers, involving them with his use of the personal pronoun “we”. Similar to his appeals in framing the topic at the beginning - "we should not" in contrast to his call for action - "We should consider"; likewise here, the author is seeking to coerce his readers to adopt his suggested solution to the stated problem following, which he addresses as an urgent and pressing issue being spoken about, yet something of which “ We are not doing enough” to mitigate the growing concern. As the author lists in a straightforward matter, clear and succinct dot points of the criteria on which his proposed ‘national teacher education authority’ would heed, the author distinguishes his own voice to better allow for readers to accept his solutions as professional and trustworthy. Not only that, the author is also addressing a particular group of his readership who may have direct influence in taking his advice to put it into action. As the author strongly elicits within them a sense of duty toward the issue he is also aligning their "primary responsibilities" to enforce these ideas into action. Thus, from a professional point of view, the author positions his readers to view his ideas as contribution toward a much larger picture, which the readers should also try to emulate by following his advice.

michael leahcim

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2016, 06:25:08 pm »
0
:-X ugh forgot to put it under my name there

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2016, 10:35:41 am »
+3
In response to the growing calls in the media for changes to the way tertiary institutions select candidates for their teaching courses, the editorial ‘Teaching needs to attract better recruits’ appeared in the online journal ‘The Conversation’ arguing that more needs to be done to ensure that teaching is a profession that attracts the best graduates. great, succinct summary of all the necessary info. This is basically the exact structure you'll want to use in the exam, with maybe an extra sentence or two talking about any additional material, or furthering the author's contention a bit. Or (for EAL) you can just tack this sentence on to the start of your first paragraph, since I believe you guys don't have to do intros if you don't want to. I'd still say it's good to have a general opening statement like this though.

The author uses an authoritative, matter-of-fact tone to lend weight to his/her if in doubt, say 'their,' or just pick one gender and stick with it argument any time you find yourself using the words 'the author's argument/contention' in your analysis, always follow it up with '...that...' i.e. 'this back's up the author's argument that the teaching profession deserves better' as this is more likely to be worth marks. Really general statements like 'this lends weight to the contention' can come across as too vague. Using the limiting adjective ‘only’ to describe the percentage of teacher education offer made to applicants with ATAR ‘at least 70’, the author implies that a higher standard is needed Excellent! Was hoping someone would pick up on this!! The assertion that the percentage is ‘much lower’ in several universities is designed to exacerbate the problem in the reader’s mind could be more specific here. How is this exacerbating the problem? And what part of the problem is it exacerbating? Calling for the reader to be not ‘taken in’ by those who insist that there is no such problem, the author implies that their arguments are deceptive yet outwardly plausible, thereby encouraging the reader to be sceptical about the argument that ‘rising numbers of non-Year 12 entrants obviates the problem’. The author proceeds to highlight the problem. bit short for a linking sentence; this breaks up the flow a bit. Merging this with the next sentence would help here The use of the cliché ‘reached a point’ not sure this is a cliche(?) indicates that there had been a continuing decline why is this important? How is it contributing to the author's argument? What are the audience being made to think/feel here?. The subsequent assertion that ‘almost everyone’ applying for a teaching course gets accepted depicts the admission process for teaching courses to be extremely unselective, which is likely to engender worry in the reader regarding whether the current criteria filters out incompetent recruits for teaching v. good! The author also proclaims that Australia’s performance on student achievements tests ‘declined significantly if you're analysing this here, I'm not too sure you need to mention it earlier (i.e. '...indicates that there has been a continuing decline') what you've got here seems a lot stronger over the same period’ in order to encourage the reader to infer that the lacking of competent recruits for teaching is at the heart of the problem. The reader is hence positioned to agree that the way tertiary institutions select candidates for their teaching courses needs to be changed. Great para conclusion
This is an excellent snapshot of analysis - I'm loving the clarity of your explanations. It seems like you're actually prioritising how the author is persuading readers (like you're supposed to!) rather than just isolating techniques like so many students do. There were a couple of points that were a little bit vague or abrupt, so paying attention to the overall flow (which isn't too big a deal for L.A. but certainly is for T.R. and Context) would help in this regard. Other than that, there's not much to fix here, which means you're probably ready to start dealing with some more difficult material (i.e. some of the comparative tasks or visual analysis from other weeks) :) Keep up the good work!

The editor plays on the populist view that ATARs are an indication of student intelligence. His blunt averment that “only 42%” of those accepted into education courses had “an ATAR of at least 70”. sentence fragment The term “only” implies that many more gain entrance with an ATAR that was much lower than this number. Indicating the proportion of entrants gaining entrance into these courses “with ATAR scores less than 50 [has] doubled”, sentence structure is a bit confusing here; it'd probably be easier to have 'indicating...' add on to the previous sentence rather than occur at the start of this second one. the editor intimates the declining standard of entrants is a recent concern and not one that has historically been a problem. The successive nature of his enumerations quote? Which part of the material are you dealing with here? amplifies the association between the changing perception of teachers and the declining standard of prospective teachers. The editor couples this with their equivocal proclamation that “it is time” to, as he colloquially terms it, “face the facts” and seek a solution. In effect, this manoeuvres the reader to more critically scrutinise the declining aptitude of those seeking entry into teaching courses; their emphasis on “time” implies that exigent action is required if the audience wishes to circumvent the corollaries of this decline. v good :) By presenting them with several suggestions as to how they may rejuvenate interest in teaching as a prospective career, the editor implies that recognising there is a problem is not enough; the reader must be willing to act immediately. Thus, the editor compels their audience to want to personally contribute to the reformation of how university applicants view teaching as a profession as they are positioned to perceive that their involvement is vital to the success of this cause.
Excellent use of vocab, and your 'how'/'why' statements are spot on! Only a few minor issues at the start (and that 'Verbing X, the author seeks to Y' structure is a little bit problematic - you don't have to avoid it entirely, but be careful that it's not interrupting the progression of your analysis when you do use it.)

Growing concern over the declining quality of teaching degrees, and therefore candidates, has escalated in the past year, as calls for changes in ways tertiary institutions select candidates for their courses are put to the spotlight. In response to this, an article published on ‘The Conversation’, ‘Teaching needs to attract better result’ aims to refocus and address the issue of the declining quality of the teaching profession, advising for an establishment of a ‘national teacher education authority’ to maintain national standards within the teaching profession, rather than for surplus funding in tertiary institutions for teacher education. great intro :)

Immediately within the headline ‘Teaching needs to attract better result’, the author conveys himself/herself directly his view upon the topic in a frank go for the gender neutral 'they/their' if you need a pronoun, though the expression here is a bit confusing and open manner what point are you trying to make here? That the title conveys the author's contention? Is there anything else you could say about it? Any persuasive language features or suggestions that are evident here. Merely plucking out a statement or a heading and saying 'this communicates the author's views' is a bit too general. However, by introducing the figures such as, “only 42% of teacher education offers were made”, the author seems to be creating a more distant and observational list of facts which premise his analysis, further highlighting his credibility as a professional voice within the article. again, this point feels quite vague, and acknowledging that statistics provide credibility is a somewhat limiting statement. It's one of those devices that almost everyone will comment on, which is not to say that it's wrong, but I guarantee the assessors will be sick of reading it (along with 'the inclusive language makes readers feel included' or 'the rhetorical question encourages readers to revaluate their stance on the issue.') Try and be more specific, if possible, or combine this with a bit of close language analysis to make it stand out.

This objective and serious tone is maintained, until he asserts his own professional evaluation – “We should not be taken in by those who argue” isn't this still quite objective and serious? What's the tonal shift here? This serves to canvas word choice his analysis of the “problem” he paints from the distant figures that have often surfaced in debates surrounding the decline of teaching quality. Readers of ‘The Conversation’ are more likely engaged with the ideas surrounding the topic, therefore, by showing interest and simply outlining where diverging opinions of the topic have come from, the author invites his readership to understand, also, the implications of his own views, portraying himself as logical and honest in his presentation okay, this is definitely too general. You could use these phrases in almost any L.A. piece with minimal modification, which means they're not specific enough to the material that you've been given.

Building on from this, his declaration that “It is time to drop the rationalisations” signals to his readers the need to act and respond by doing what, exactly? Almost a stark contrast to the cold and regimented figures correlating teaching quality with the “significan[t]” decline in the performance of students by international standards, expression is a bit confusing here. What are the 'cold are regimented figures?' The statistics? How are they cold/regimented? the author actively engages the readers, involving them what does he involve them in? If an author is using inclusive language, it'll usually mean they're being included in a certain group for some reason (e.g. including readers in a group that believes children deserve longer lunch-time breaks at school in order to imply those outside the group don't care about children's happiness or wellbeing) so what's the in-group here? with his use of the personal pronoun “we”. Similar to his appeals in framing the topic at the beginning - "we should not" in contrast to his call for action - "We should consider"; likewise here, the author is seeking to coerce his readers to adopt his suggested solution I like that you're forging connections between your analysis, but I feel like there's an easier way to structure this sentence so that it's not so jumpy. Try to integrate quotes wherever possible to the stated problem following expression, which he addresses as an urgent and pressing issue being spoken about, yet something of which “ We are not doing enough” to mitigate the growing concern. As the author lists in a straightforward matter manner?, clear and succinct dot points of the criteria on which his proposed ‘national teacher education authority’ would heed, the author distinguishes his own voice to better allow for readers to accept his solutions as professional and trustworthy. Not only that, the author is also addressing a particular group of his readership who may have direct influence in taking his advice to put it into action. How does he do this? You're right, but you need to show me evidence that demonstrates why you're right. As the author strongly elicits within them a sense of duty toward the issue he is also aligning their "primary responsibilities" to enforce these ideas into action expression. Thus, from a professional point of view, the author positions his readers to view his ideas as contribution toward a much larger picture, which the readers should also try to emulate by following his advice.[/color]
Few too many general statements here, but as soon as you make them more specific, they instantly become worth marks, so it's a simple fix to just fine-tune your statements about the effect on the audience and the intent of the author. The flow between paragraphs was good, but there wasn't really a clear focus in each para - I know structure isn't the primary concern when we're just dealing with little tasks like this, but if your whole essay is just meandering through the material jumping from point to point, it's likely the assessors will get lost and confused, the poor things.

Minimising the really general kinds of analysis (i.e. 'statistics make the author seem credible,' 'serious tone communicates the seriousness of the issue,' etc.) and instead focusing on more language-specific commentary (e.g. see Anon and HLS's analysis of the word 'only' or other examples of connotative analysis) would also help boost your potential; I'd probably recommend doing this on a smaller scale with L.A. Club-esque activities rather than a whole essay for now, but I can tell you've got the right kinds of processes and vocabulary at your disposal to unpack material really well - a little shift in focus would make all the difference :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2016, 11:04:06 pm »
0
Thank you very much Lauren! I must have posted my response anonymously by accident :P (it was the first time I posted in AN). WIll ceritainly post more in the future :D

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2016, 12:49:40 am »
0

The author contends that the quality of teachers in recent years has been quite subpar, and as such, more should be done to improve the appeal of the course, in effect increasing its competitivity so that year 12 entrants with higher ATARs are accepted. By gravely establishing the fact that ‘only’ 42% of offers were made to higher achieving students, the author brings to attention the disappointing scarcity of such people to the audience, hence motivating them to seek ways to mitigate this situation so that the number of quality prospective teachers would increase. Likewise, by urging the audience to avoid being ‘taken in’ by people who argue that the inclusion of non-Year 12 entrants ‘obviates the problem’- clearly segregated by employment of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ versus ‘those’ people- the author repulses any preconceptions readers might have had to the legitimacy of this decline of suitable graduates. This is due to use of the term ‘taken in’ which suggests a deception of sorts by the aforementioned naysayers, thereby directing readers to agree with the author’s admission of the increasingly low teaching course standards, rather than be included in the ostensibly mistaken group who denies this issue.

Moreover, the author proposes a direct correlation between the easily accessible teaching course and the poor results of Australian students on an international standard by describing both events as having occurred ‘over the same period’ of time. The latter in particularly which has ‘declined significantly’, is like to arouse discontent in parents who wish for their children to perform well in school, and thus these parties are lead to blame universities who are too lax in their selection process for teachers as the widespread acceptance of year 12 students where ‘almost everybody who applies’ is accepted, conveys a lack of a strict selection process which would filter out unsuitable candidates. Consequently, the universities are implied to be inadequate at this admission task, and so the author seeks to circumvent the reader’s dissatisfaction of them towards supporting their proposed solution which appears more favourable in comparison; ‘diverting funding’ from the universities to a ‘national teacher education authority’ (I’m not sure if this is actually what the author meant because the wording of that segment was a bit vague). This is further extrapolated upon by the use of the word ‘should’ in an authoritative tone intimating this imperative as the most suitable one for escalating the appeal of teaching courses in order to attain the ‘best graduates’, increasing the likelihood of the audience supporting such a proposal. Additionally, although the author’s subsequent use of the word ‘consider’ softens the command, to this end it also encouraging a much more active role in readers in respect to the enactment of this change in funding as they are lead to contemplate their own opinions regarding it.



literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 13
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2016, 11:39:57 am »
0
The author contends that the quality of teachers in recent years has been quite subpar, and as such, more should be done to improve the appeal of the course which course? You haven'y introduced this idea yet, in effect increasing its competitivity so that year 12 entrants with higher ATARs are accepted. By gravely establishing the fact that ‘only’ 42% of offers were made to higher achieving students, the author brings to attention the disappointing scarcity of such people to the audience, hence motivating them to seek ways to mitigate this situation so that the number of quality prospective teachers would increase. Likewise, by urging the audience to avoid being ‘taken in’ by people who argue that the inclusion of non-Year 12 entrants ‘obviates the problem’- clearly segregated by employment of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ versus this is very colloquial (and according to some teachers 'not a real word') so it'd be better to say '...as opposed to...' or something like that here. Good analysis of the dichotomy, though :) ‘those’ people- the author repulses repudiates? You can't really 'repulse' a preconception/attitude any preconceptions readers might have had to the legitimacy of this decline of suitable graduates. This is due to use of the term ‘taken in’ which suggests a deception of sorts by the aforementioned naysayers, thereby directing readers to agree with the author’s admission of the increasingly low teaching course standards, rather than be included in the ostensibly mistaken group who denies this issue. v good description of the effect :)

Moreover, the author proposes a direct correlation between the easily accessible teaching course and the poor results of Australian students on an international standard by describing both events as having occurred ‘over the same period’ of time. The latter in particularly which has ‘declined significantly’, is like to arouse discontent in parents who wish for their children to perform well in school, and thus these parties are lead to blame universities who are portrayed as too lax in their selection process (<-- use phrases like that to prevent your analysis from seeming evaluative - e.g. 'the government is depicted as greedy,' not 'the government is greedy.') for teachers as the widespread acceptance of year 12 students where ‘almost everybody who applies’ is accepted, conveys a lack of a strict selection process which would filter out unsuitable candidates. Consequently, the universities are implied to be inadequate at this admission task, and so the author seeks to circumvent the reader’s dissatisfaction of them towards supporting their proposed solution which appears more favourable in comparison this is a bit needlessly wordy - remember, you don't have to talk about the effect/intention every time - you can just analyse various language features and then comment on the cumulative effect afterwards; ‘diverting funding’ from the universities to a ‘national teacher education authority’ (I’m not sure if this is actually what the author meant because the wording of that segment was a bit vague) (that's alright, the exam won't contain any such references, so dw :) ). This is further extrapolated upon by the use of the word ‘should’ in an authoritative tone intimating this imperative as the most suitable one this expression is a bit clunky; I think it's your use of the word 'imperative' in this context for escalating the appeal of teaching courses in order to attain the ‘best graduates’, increasing the likelihood of the audience supporting such a proposal try to focus on what the author wants readers to think/feel/believe, rather than what they want readers to DO. It's a lot easier to argue that 'the author wants readers to believe changing the system is necessary' than 'the author wants readers to change the system' - minor point, but assessors much prefer the former as it's more about how language is influencing mindset/perspective as opposed to action. Additionally, although the author’s subsequent use of the word ‘consider’ softens the command, to this end it also encouraging a much more active role in readers in respect to the enactment of this change in funding as they are lead to contemplate their own opinions regarding it.

Really great stuff overall; I'm basically just nitpicking little details here. Be careful with phrasing and don't let wordiness get in the way of the clarity of your analysis, and remember that you can group techniques/quotes together for efficiency's sake if you need to :)