The 2012 Edition

Hot off the presses; the new Issues Book with updated issues and a fresh sparkling cover. Available now from good bookshops or from Nelson Cengage. We’d welcome any comments or feedback as you use the new text.

Oops!

Who would have thought that the little ol’ language analysis section of the exam would be the talking point of this year’s English exam! But it was. The piece was taken without acknowledgement from local writer and comedian Helen Razer.

I don’t think it would have made any difference to anyone’s results;  just a little sloppy from an organisation that can take you out and imprison you (exaggeration alert!) for forgetting you had a mobile phone in your pocket. You can read what the Twitterati made of it all here

The full article from the AGE is below:

Sloppy copy in exam raises ire

THE VCE exam body has been accused of plagiarism and breach of copyright in a contentious English paper sat by more than 40,000 students.

The English exam featured a column on tattoos by Melbourne writer Helen Razer without her permission and without acknowledging she was the author.

Instead, the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority falsely attributed the article to ”part-time journalist and blogger Helen Day”, who wrote for blog ”Street Beat”.

In fact, the so-called ”blog entry” was a clumsily edited version of an opinion piece by Ms Razer, published in The Age on September 23 last year, which argued that tattoos were more a fashion symbol than a sign of deviance and criminality.

The VCAA has apologised to Ms Razer and conceded it should have acknowledged her and The Age in the exam paper.

Ms Razer said she became aware her column had been used in the exam when she noticed a spike in the search term ”Helen+Razer+Tattoo” while looking at referral logs for her website.

After searching the internet, she discovered a number of Facebook pages with names like ”Getting a tattoo just to spite Helen Day by being conformist” and ”Helen Day is a slut”.

Ms Razer wrote on her own Facebook page that she had been plagiarised by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. ”An op-ed piece commissioned by The Age was given the fake by-line ‘Helen Day’, some seriously shitty ‘youth’ editing and turned over to a horde of 18-year-olds who have joined ”We hate Helen” pages by the thousands,” she wrote.

Ms Razer told The Age that, as someone who had volunteered as a writing tutor, she was eager to do whatever she could, without being paid, to advance literacy. ”But I’m not happy to have my work misshapen, misattributed and ‘blog-ised’ by state English examiners to whom, you’d reasonably suppose, the idea of ethical use of writing might occur.”

When Ms Razer asked the VCAA why they had not acknowledged her as the author, she said she was told her name would be a ”distraction” for students. ”I imagine my brand recognition among young readers hovers somewhere south of nothing.”

Ms Razer said she could understand why some students found her work ”troubling”.

”Ham-fisted editing by the VCAA that seeks to make my original, reasonably dry piece ‘hip’ ends in a disconcerting experience for the reader. And this, I suppose, accounts for all the nastiness that continues online.” She said examiners had inserted poorly written ”blog-speak” words she would never have used such as ”mega” and ”try-hard”. Ms Razer said the treatment of her work had led to a diminution of her professional reputation, with hundreds of derogatory references to the exam question and herself on social media after students posted links to the original article.

She said the VCAA had breached her moral right of attribution under the Copyright Act and the distortion of her work had infringed her moral right of integrity.

VCAA spokesman Justin Shortal said the authority had no intention to cause damage to Ms Razer’s reputation. ”We are concerned about anyone whose work has been used in a VCE exam becoming the subject of criticism or attack. We will review our policy and processes on the use of recently published material in our examinations.”

Mr Shortal said under the terms of the Copyright Act the VCAA was permitted to use and adapt written material for exams without seeking prior permission to maintain the security of the exams.

However, copyright lawyer Peter Banki said false attribution breached a person’s rights under the Copyright Act. ”It would seem to be an infringement of her right to have her authorship falsely attributed to another person.”

jtopsfield@theage.com.au

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/sloppy-copy-in-exam-raises-ire-20111109-1n7eo.html#ixzz1eJTWf4kr

Tips and tricks

I write ... therefore, I persuade?

Having recently completed the written analysis task of the “Using Language to Persuade” area of study, it is really important that you reflect on how you went. Your teachers should have given you feedback in the form of comments and – usually – “tick-a-box” criteria. You should read these carefully, aiming to ensure that you understand the comments – meaning that you can see, when you look back over your writing what aspects of your analysis the comments refer to. The “ticks” can be helpful too. Remember that in the exam – which is the next time this year that you’ll do this task “for dough” – the assessors use exactly those criteria to determine your mark on a ten-point scale. So working out which aspects you can best and most effectively improve to gain a better result is a very good start. The next step is often to sit down with your teacher (or even a tutor) to work out HOW you can do that.

There are also a few ‘errors’ or problems that are common – look at the list below to see if any do apply to you.

1. Spelling. It’s such a simple thing in this aspect of the course that it can cost you dearly. If you get the name of an author wrong, or can’t spell common terms of analysis (“rhetorical” not … well this word gets butchered more ways than I can count! Article – not artical! Argument – no “e”!) you are suggesting that you don’t really have a good grasp of the foundation skills. That’s a bad message to send.

2. You can’t “make” something think or feel anything. No one can. The writers try to, they aim to, they intend to … They suggest, they imply … They attempt to generate MANY different reactions and responses in their readers … But you must not claim that their efforts are successful, because you don’t KNOW this!

3. Background info – like recognising the journal the article came from, and realising that it caters to a particular audience CAN be helpful in recognising common persuasive strategies – targeted pejorative language, or a political bias, for example. But these aren’t the uses of language that you need to explore – these are the signposts to what language strategies you can expect (you can be surprised, sometimes, when they don’t conform to your [low!] expectations!) Make sure you focus on the ways the writer uses words and phrases, and perspectives, and structures aiming to influence the way a reader receives the views expressed.

4. Authority … writers seldom use “authority” as a definite, “it’s ME talking” persuasive strategy. However, having particular qualifications may well influence the nature of their argument, imbuing it with conviction: a lawyer writing on a complex legal case; an emergency department doctor dealing with road-trauma issues … The fact that they deal with these things in the course of their job will determine the strategies they use (detailed information from legal precedents; or intimate knowledge of the aftermath of an incident reported widely – but perhaps not accurately – in the mainstream press.) The language each uses to argue will also be affected by this expertise – terms with meanings particular to their craft. It may also be true that a regular columnist develops a “voice” and a “style” that marks his writing … This ought to be commented on for its specific strategies (say, perjorative language, or dripping sarcasm!), rather than the catch-all “authority as a well-known journalist”.

Which one's Andrew?

 

Using Language to Persuade … process is KING!

DB’s famous-Amos analysis process …

Step 1: WKOWII?*

• what (persuasive) expectations does this result in?
• are they met? Not? Some yes, some no?
• How is the writer trying to “position” me?

Step 2: What does the writer want me to think or feel (about this issue)?

• What (main) strategies are (most often) used to achieve this?

Asking these questions “unpacks” the article. You work out your general expectations (Opinion piece? Letter to the Editor? Editorial? Feature article? Report?) Knowing what kind of article it is helps to establish a rough idea of what to expect: letters have FAR more emotionalism than an Editorial (usually!); Editorials typically strive for tones of reason and wisdom; Feature articles are written by people whose expertise is intended to make them an authority … And so on.

But this doesn’t tell you enough. From looking at this general picture, and knowing what to most often expect, you turn to who the writer is (or, for an Editorial, which paper). You consider what the issue is – The Hun is MUCH “stronger” (read: simplistically judgemental!) on “Laura Norder” issues than The Age. And you look closely at the article to see if those expectations are met.

You consider: HOW does this writer want me to “see” this issue? Whose “side” does HE (or SHE!) want me on?

And then, you try to find the main strategies that the writer uses to get you in that “position”.

• Main strategies like the TONE of the piece. Does it “sound” angry? Is it written in a nostalgic way? Is it sarcastic, and/or mocking? Does it sound authoritative?
• Main strategies like imagery – is there an image or idea that the writer uses to generate the attitude he wants you to have? (For example, in the WikiLeaks practice SAC, one article tried to portray Julian Assange as a “cowboy”, and wild rider … it was there in the caricature that accompanied the article; it was there in the headline “slipshod”, and it was there in the language that the writer used.)
• Main strategies like structure: does the piece move through several different stages? Or moods? Or does it use dot-points?
• Main strategies like statistical (or other) evidence …

Each of these – that you find – you will want to tie into your overall view about the writer’s attempt to give you a particular perspective on this issue. This needn’t be mechanical. If I was trying to generate distrust, I might use mockery, I might use statistics, I might use imagery … and each would contribute in some way towards my overall aim, but they’re not all “aiming to make the reader distrustful”.

And NOTE: no writer can “make” you think or feel anything … all they do is try, and that’s all they do!

So YOUR analysis structure should look something like this:

Intro: [U/st] – what kind of writing is it/what’s its aim/what strategies … [1,2,3 …]

And a concluding thought …

… this should seek to make some observation about the way that the strategies have been done. DON’T say whether they “work” or not … Because who knows? Your conclusion might relate to your overview about where the article “sits” in relation to that paper’s usual approach to that issue. Or perhaps in relation to your view of that paper’s regular readers … Or perhaps you might just conclude by noting something like the writer’s personal stance (particularly if it’s someone well-known, like, well, He-who-must-not-be-named. OK. Andrew Bolt. Oops.)

*What Kind Of Writing Is It?

 

What does Australian language sound like?

Do we have a distinctively Australian language any more? Will we, if we’re all connected by Facebook in the future? An article today from The Punch explores that question and includes this video clip celebrating Australian slang. The article asks the question:

What kind of shape is Australian English in? Is it in top nick, crackerjack, tickety-boo, both beaut and bonza? Or is it showing signs of being cactus, knackered, buggered, stuffed, rooted, possibly even up shit creek, as it succumbs to the continuously rising tide of social media slang, management jargon and Americanisms?

Happy Gestational Carrier Day!

Oh, the power of language! You’ll be thinking about language all year in your English course, so new phrases that slip into the lexicon like ‘gestational carrier’ from Nicole Kidman this week, should get you thinking.

If you didn’t catch the news, Nicole Kidman announced that she’d had a baby by a ‘gestational carrier’

It did attract some interest in the media, that’s for sure. Melinda Tankard-Reist in the Australian wrote:

THE objectification of women’s bodies and commodification of childbirth came together yesterday in a single antiseptic phrase contained in the announcement of a second child for actress Nicole Kidman and her musician husband Keith Urban.

The baby’s birth three weeks ago took even dedicated “Our Nic” watchers by surprise, including Woman’s Day which had the couple adopting a Haitian child.

“Our family is truly blessed . . . to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret. No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier.”

In those last two words, the woman whose body nurtured this child for nine months is stripped of humanity. The phrase is reminiscent of other terms popular in the global baby-production industry, such as suitcase, baby capsule, oven and incubator.

The detached language views women as disposable uteruses. This dismantling of motherhood denies the psychological and physiological bonds at the heart of pregnancy.

Not a bad piece of language analysis is it, whether you agree or not. Michelle Higgins in the Sydney Morning Herald had something similar to say:

Terms such as breeder and gestational carrier are dehumanising. The experience of carrying and giving birth to a child is profound. It is also difficult, painful and life changing. The changes go beyond the merely physiological to the core of our personhood.

What do you think? What happened to the old fashioned word, ‘mother’? Things are complicated and people sometimes use language to keep things that way, to confound not illuminate. That’s one of the things you’ll be thinking about this  year in English.

Read more about surrogacy here.

What is a gestational carrier? (wisegeek)

Getting organised

As has already been said here, being organised is critical to success in your learning in Year 12.  But what does that mean? Having lots of blank notebooks neatly labelled with each subject is a start, but if you’re using technology there are many other options too.

I’m thinking of a longer post on all this, but Evernote and OneNote are two very powerful note-taking tools that take note-taking to a new level of functionality.  I get my students to use OneNote because they all have it on their computers as it comes with some versions of Microsoft Office. However, Evernote is (currently) free and has some great options too. You COULD just use Microsoft Word to take your notes but you’d be limiting yourself to something that might just leave you with hundreds of different documents scattered around folders in your computer.

I also saw this recent blog post from the TeachPaperless blog about some other tools that are available.

Not every-one is going to have access to a laptop in every one of their classes in Year 12, but you can think about how you are going to organise yourself for a really busy year when organisation matters.

 

The magic formula & nature of the beast

One of the interesting “issues” to come out of the floods in Queensland and Victoria has been the way in which the Australian media has been so exclusively focused on the social and physical trauma in Australia, and to Australians … when, concurrently, in Brazil, 600 people are dead (in Australia about 20), and whole communities have been wiped off the map by waves of water and mud.

Without wishing – in any way – to suggest that there’s not extensive damage and suffering in Australian communities drastically affected by flooding, it’d have taken a close reading of the papers this past week to even KNOW that there were floods as serious somewhere else.

In The Age, in Friday January 18th, the first 5 pages of the paper were completely given over the the Queensland floods. At that time, 12 people were reported as having been killed. On page 8 of that edition of the paper, a small “in brief” report at (one of 5) the top of the “World News” page informed readers that in floods and mudslides in Brazil, 500 were dead and missing. The next day, (Saturday), pages 1,2,3,4,5 and the Brazilian report on page 19 (including a photo of a drowned young elephant – hanging in a tree!); Sunday – pages 1, 4,5,6,7 & 8; Brazil “Miracle baby rescue” was on page 18. Monday – oz on 1,2,3,4 & 5; Brazil (“Brazil mourns as death toll tops 600″) on page 10.

Interestingly, Age readers were more aware – and arguably more compassionate. On the Friday, an in brief comment said, “More than 200 people have died in the floods in Brazil. We are not alone. ”  The following Monday, another reader asked, “There’s a worse flood in Brazil. Anyone notice?” Finally, on Tuesday (18/1) another brusque observation – and the one I’m arguing – “Surely the deaths of more than 600 Brazilian people [in floods] deserves to share the front page of the papers.”

Now I’ll say again, this is NOT to imply that the suffering experienced by victims of the Australian floods is not genuine, and heartbreaking, and worth reporting. It is to ask the question though about why the same events in another country were so much less worth reporting. To ask, in effect whether our media reports the news, or just “us”.

Brazil - floods there too

Queensland & western Victoria ... wet, wet, wet.

What’s the magic formula, you ask? Well, it’s a cynical description of the way that the media here – and elsewhere too – ‘edits’ news from around the world based on how similar to us they are … So one Australian death equals 5 Americans, or 10 Europeans … or a few hundred from other places on the globe …

Start off right

Time to get on with it!

There are a number of aspects of the VCE English course that you require your teacher’s help for … well, you should aim to make your teacher think you do, anyway!

BUT this section – Using Language to Persuade is not one of them. And our advice to you to to come back to school with the oral presentation part (assuming your school uses the persuasive language aspect for the focus of your oral presentation) already done!

Given the inundation (sorry) of weakly leaks (sorry) in the media about a range of issues recently, you could well have accumulated enough information and a number of examples of persuasive strategies to ensure that your angle on the issue could be just about nailed. that’s what this is about, anyway. Here are a few simple strategies to ensure that you could come back with one SAC already “in the bag”.

You DO have issues!

1. Pick your issue. The hard way of doing this is to sit in front of the TV or browse through the paper each day saying, “No … no … boring … ” until your mobile’s chirp alerts to to a better option (helping a friend take her younger siblings to watch Megamind. Yep: THAT bored!) The easy way is to piggy-back on others’ passion! Read the letters in the paper each day (listening to talkback on 3AW or 3LO achieves the same thing.) The writers’ vehemence can help to show you what aspects of an issue people feel most incensed about. It can even help you to find strategies to use yourself. Front pages can obscure issues with events. Editorials and Opinion pieces can also submerge the passion in pomposity or an altogether too intellectual attitude. make the voice of the people where you find YOUR voice, too!

2. Once you have found your issue, read, rave and respond. Make a comment at the dinner table like: “That Julian Assange – they ought to lock him up and throw away the key!” Then sit back and watch the fur fly! At this stage, you’re just accumulating your ammunition, so try to listen to the arguments, rather than to present or defend a position yourself. And keep watching the letters in the papers – see if other readers respond to the one/s that first attracted your attention! Perhaps you could try to write a letter to the editor yourself. Whether you send it or not, the exercise in marshaling arguments to concur with or dismantle the original is good practice – and the tone of the letters is much closer (usually) to the more personal and forceful sound that you will be striving for than an editorial …

3. Talk about your issue to your friends. Yes. Even at the risk of losing them forever. You’re NOT trying to generate an opinion that persuades your Mum or Dad (even if you do try it out on them!) You will (most likely) be presenting in class. So your views need to be understandable to and to appeal to your peers. Writing something that makes you sound like a cross between Prince Charles and Julia Gillard just won’t cut it. Don’t, like, get down and, like rap, dude, but DO make sure that your language and the way you present your information are calculated to be understood by and to appeal to your peers.

4. Finally, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. You won’t be required to memorize your speech, but the more familiar you are with what you want to say and the information that gives your arguments their foundation in fact, the more fluent you will sound, and the more confident. Even if you rehearse it at home to the point that you feel you know it too well, by the time you come to present, nerves will ensure that it feels fresh and your familiarity will come across as confidence and sound preparation.

So. Four steps to making sure that ONE of your unit 3 assessment tasks is already a done deal. Now that CAN’T be a bad thing, can it? And the bonus is that this work will help you by familiarizing you with other aspects of the ways persuasive language is used … Meaning that the analysis exercise will be easier too!

The Issues Book

The Issues Book for 2011 is looking potent in purple! Available from good book shops now!