English syllabuses, new and old - what're your thoughts? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lazarus
- Start date
saladsurgery
kicking the cack
having had no personal experience of the old syllabus, and just going on Laz's above descriptions, i'd have to say i prefer the new syllabus, allowing for different interpretations/angles on texts.
kaseita
Member
The old syllabus was basically extracting one meaning, with the emphasis on english technique (metaphors, assonance, blah blah). Thus, they basically did critical study of texts, had to know about 10 poems (I think), studied shakespeare to the core, and wrote straight essays on everything.
with the new syllabus, we look at different meanings, the context, and are required to write in different types of texts. I prefer the variety, and the use of concepts in the syllabus, rather than straight analysis.
with the new syllabus, we look at different meanings, the context, and are required to write in different types of texts. I prefer the variety, and the use of concepts in the syllabus, rather than straight analysis.
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
my turn!
I never really looked at the old HSC, but going on what people have said above and my sister (who finished in 2000)...
I think the new English syllabus is successful when:
Regarding the first, I've found that people who are struggling with English in the junior years (when you're theoretically supposed to learn the concepts) are more likely to do Standard, get a tutor and rote learn, or not understand exactly what's going on - it's hard to do well even in Advanced when your essays are just not up to scratch.
The biggest problem our grade had was the application of the technique questions ('how does the composer achieve his/her meaning...'). Even students in the upper mark ranges were more likely to write descriptions than analysis of technique, and it was a huge morale surge when I figured that one out
However, it shows that those techniques are more 'assumed knowledge' in the new syllabus than in the old one; teachers have to teach the abstract concepts (context, various ways of reading texts, etc).
And that brings me to my second point (wow, this is more structured than I thought it was): that the syllabus guidelines are kind of vague, like this sentence is because I haven't had my dinner yet.
As part of my night-before-exam study I'd read the syllabus over and ask myself if I knew the meanings of all the terms, how to apply them, etc. The problem I found with the syllabuses' rubrics was that they were as broad as the rear end of a..
..anyway, the English Extension 1 outcomes are:
There are many ways of valuing texts, given. How a text is valued depends on the context in which it is delivered and the audience, okay. The problem lies in the depth in which the Board of Studies wants us to go into - is it worth explaining that a twentieth century text's prime purpose is a commercial one, for instance. The ambiguity of the syllabus creates problems when the subject is being taught - the most basic points can be brushed over or completely forgotten when overwhelmed by readings (for example, the Marxist, Feminist, Structuralist, Post-Structuralist, Christian, Existentialist and Aristotelian readings of King Lear (a lecturer at the USYD English day brought up an interesting critique of Lear as a reflection of King James, but I'm digressing) which often forget that Lear is a play and hence meant to be performed, thus creating alternate readings if you're going to include multimedia or aural elements.
Yes, the variety of readings is fantastic, and it's certainly worthwhile to teach various ways of reading and valuing texts, but, without discounting any English student's intelligence, I don't think that much is being discussed in depth. The old syllabus promoted learning a single (or several? corrections?) reading of a text, which just about stands on the opposite end of the scale (so I've been told, anyway).
I'm working on improvements.
My conclusion, then, is that the new syllabus is certainly more interesting; it offers a more diverse exploration of texts and meanings than the old one. However... I think it's a more complex syllabus and to be properly studied needs more time. The variety is refreshing (I was reading the 04/05 reading list.. awww) and I like being able to choose related texts, even if it's a time-consuming process.
On that, actually (and okay, the structure of this argument has flown out the window), there should be more emphasis on related texts. They usually have as much depth as any text we're given to study, but at the moment the questions merely ask you to refer to them. You can get away with two paragraphs on two related texts, which is just... just... dodgy.
And that's my two cents.
I never really looked at the old HSC, but going on what people have said above and my sister (who finished in 2000)...
I think the new English syllabus is successful when:
- the student already has a firm grasp of elements of English (such as techniques, form, how to write essays etc)
- the boundaries are more firmly set than they have been this year and last.
Regarding the first, I've found that people who are struggling with English in the junior years (when you're theoretically supposed to learn the concepts) are more likely to do Standard, get a tutor and rote learn, or not understand exactly what's going on - it's hard to do well even in Advanced when your essays are just not up to scratch.
The biggest problem our grade had was the application of the technique questions ('how does the composer achieve his/her meaning...'). Even students in the upper mark ranges were more likely to write descriptions than analysis of technique, and it was a huge morale surge when I figured that one out
However, it shows that those techniques are more 'assumed knowledge' in the new syllabus than in the old one; teachers have to teach the abstract concepts (context, various ways of reading texts, etc).And that brings me to my second point (wow, this is more structured than I thought it was): that the syllabus guidelines are kind of vague, like this sentence is because I haven't had my dinner yet.
As part of my night-before-exam study I'd read the syllabus over and ask myself if I knew the meanings of all the terms, how to apply them, etc. The problem I found with the syllabuses' rubrics was that they were as broad as the rear end of a..
..anyway, the English Extension 1 outcomes are:
- A student distinguishes and evaluates the values expressed through texts.
- A student explains different ways of valuing texts.
- A student composes extended texts.
- A student develops and delivers sophisticated presentations.
There are many ways of valuing texts, given. How a text is valued depends on the context in which it is delivered and the audience, okay. The problem lies in the depth in which the Board of Studies wants us to go into - is it worth explaining that a twentieth century text's prime purpose is a commercial one, for instance. The ambiguity of the syllabus creates problems when the subject is being taught - the most basic points can be brushed over or completely forgotten when overwhelmed by readings (for example, the Marxist, Feminist, Structuralist, Post-Structuralist, Christian, Existentialist and Aristotelian readings of King Lear (a lecturer at the USYD English day brought up an interesting critique of Lear as a reflection of King James, but I'm digressing) which often forget that Lear is a play and hence meant to be performed, thus creating alternate readings if you're going to include multimedia or aural elements.
Yes, the variety of readings is fantastic, and it's certainly worthwhile to teach various ways of reading and valuing texts, but, without discounting any English student's intelligence, I don't think that much is being discussed in depth. The old syllabus promoted learning a single (or several? corrections?) reading of a text, which just about stands on the opposite end of the scale (so I've been told, anyway).
I'm working on improvements.
My conclusion, then, is that the new syllabus is certainly more interesting; it offers a more diverse exploration of texts and meanings than the old one. However... I think it's a more complex syllabus and to be properly studied needs more time. The variety is refreshing (I was reading the 04/05 reading list.. awww) and I like being able to choose related texts, even if it's a time-consuming process.
On that, actually (and okay, the structure of this argument has flown out the window), there should be more emphasis on related texts. They usually have as much depth as any text we're given to study, but at the moment the questions merely ask you to refer to them. You can get away with two paragraphs on two related texts, which is just... just... dodgy.
And that's my two cents.
kaseita
Member
...if that's two cents, what I'm going to say will probably be worth a quart of your two cents
you have WAY too much time on your hands - is life after HSC really like that?
hmm, well in contradiction (I'm probably the only one, which doesn't really contradict what you said) I basically knew very little english technique, up til yr11 (I didn't even know what a metaphor was...cause I never bothered to rote learn the stuff)
When yr11 started though, the concepts actually became interesting, so I actually began to learn stuff (and actually came to know what a metaphor was!), and its because it was conceptual, that I was able to get through advanced eng!
and I'm not going to read the rest of that...I'm too tired to think
you have WAY too much time on your hands - is life after HSC really like that?
hmm, well in contradiction (I'm probably the only one, which doesn't really contradict what you said) I basically knew very little english technique, up til yr11 (I didn't even know what a metaphor was...cause I never bothered to rote learn the stuff)
When yr11 started though, the concepts actually became interesting, so I actually began to learn stuff (and actually came to know what a metaphor was!), and its because it was conceptual, that I was able to get through advanced eng!
and I'm not going to read the rest of that...I'm too tired to think
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
Yeah, that's what I mean (I was exaggerating just a little!): if you don't understand the concepts it's less likely you'll enjoy the subject.
Maybe teaching them better in junior school would be effective
Maybe teaching them better in junior school would be effective
kaseita
Member
and suffer 12yrs of english, instead of 6? no thank you!
(primary school english was fun! you get to fill in the words, and see which one fits in logically! oh yea, the spelling tests too)
(primary school english was fun! you get to fill in the words, and see which one fits in logically! oh yea, the spelling tests too)
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
Oh, I meant junior high school
But I would have liked to do more in primary school.
I love english :|
But I would have liked to do more in primary school.
I love english :|
B
Bambul
Guest
I never did like English so I never complained much about the new system. I figured it's still English one way or another so I wouldn't really like either the old or the new. But if I had to choose one then I'd probably go with the old one because it requires you to be less proactive.
That said I haven't done any English since about this time last year when I finished my Modules HSC exam. It's the one subject that I do not miss from year 11 and 12 (besides Agriculture, but I didn't turn up to any classes after the trials so that doesn't count).
That said I haven't done any English since about this time last year when I finished my Modules HSC exam. It's the one subject that I do not miss from year 11 and 12 (besides Agriculture, but I didn't turn up to any classes after the trials so that doesn't count).
Zenithliza
Member
I have to say I think the new HSC syllabus is ridiculous. That SMH article by James King from a while back nicely pointed that out. Although I can see problems with the old syllabus, and the fact its a whole bunch of rote learning, I still think it is more English. Traditional English, which means studying a text and establishing its value. The new syllabus requires a whole bunch of bluffing and mumbo jumbo about postmodernism and post colonialism and yada yada. That's not English, thats bullcrapping and I hate it.
the new hsc syllabus is definitely way too vague. The concepts behind it might be ok, but i just don't think that we got out of it quite what we were idealistically supposed to (well, i don't know about other people, but that's how i felt). The old syllabus may have been TOO much on the other end of the scale, but it had its good points as well - like actually learning something about the texts that were studied rather than just the superficial tripe which seems to be expected now. ooh sorry to get nasty.
jenster
Member
i don't like either syllabus. i don't think it gives enough space for creativity. to be honest when i do use english in the future it won't be analysing the techniques of texts, it'd be to write letters and speeches etc. i think the course could be more practical
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
That's exactly what I mean, these things should be taught from year seven (or even before that, but I'm not being picky here
. The techniques you learn in English you'll theoretically go on to use in most professions, hence you should learn those basics well.I don't know how far the English (Advanced) syllabus goes into post-modernism/post-structuralism/post-whateverism, but the concepts ARE fun (wait, hear me out) if you're taught how to apply them. And if you wanna know how to read everything as a text. I agree, the syllabus definitions were too broad (read my rant
) but they're at least more interesting than the old syllabus!