English syllabuses, new and old - what're your thoughts? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Lazarus
- Start date
cpd
New Member
Or I'll just go and cut sick as a vigilante for all the emotional stress they've caused me, and start a massacre. If it actually happens though, don't blame me.
Mr Chicken, how true. We should be developing our communicative skills, and how to get on in the world, not some arty-farty shit that expresses my inner self. Pfft.
SgtSlick: I got something back from my trial that I'd felt really good about after I'd done it (very rare for me) and I got 6/15, and noone in Standard got above 9/15. *sigh* As I remember, my entire class refused to go to English for 2 weeks after that debacle. The bad thing is that I go to an academic school so only 9 people out of 126 do Standard, but they don't encaourage us more... Hrm.
Re-introduction of the School Certificate level English! Hoorah! (I got 80% btw.)
Mr Chicken, how true. We should be developing our communicative skills, and how to get on in the world, not some arty-farty shit that expresses my inner self. Pfft.
SgtSlick: I got something back from my trial that I'd felt really good about after I'd done it (very rare for me) and I got 6/15, and noone in Standard got above 9/15. *sigh* As I remember, my entire class refused to go to English for 2 weeks after that debacle. The bad thing is that I go to an academic school so only 9 people out of 126 do Standard, but they don't encaourage us more... Hrm.
Re-introduction of the School Certificate level English! Hoorah! (I got 80% btw.)
BlackJack
Vertigo!
Good choice of words, Mr Chicken. Pontificating... but in any case, you're right. I'd agree with the second option, as I do have extra units to spare... but that's just me.
school certificate level english is pretty easy. Grammar, spelling.... which, mind you, should actually be taught. I'm surprise at the number of people with english as their first language who don't know the more advanced stuff.
Pontificating... but in any case, you're right. I'd agree with the second option, as I do have extra units to spare... but that's just me.school certificate level english is pretty easy.
Grammar, spelling.... which, mind you, should actually be taught. I'm surprise at the number of people with english as their first language who don't know the more advanced stuff.Mr Chicken
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 18
wow, people are agreeing with me!
I'm used to having arguments with guys at my school who like the syllabus for some reason or another.
Hee hee - this is funny
On my final report my english teacher said i was "articulate and determined" with the "ability to deliver well thought out information in an effective manner" and that i have a "clever and pragmatic approach" to learning.
Yet i ranked 99/188 and got a mark of 69/100???
I'd hate to see what'd happen to someone the teacher thought was a dunce!!!
Does the word Random ever crop up at your schools when the english marks are delivered?
It's a favourite at mine...
I'm used to having arguments with guys at my school who like the syllabus for some reason or another.
Hee hee - this is funny
On my final report my english teacher said i was "articulate and determined" with the "ability to deliver well thought out information in an effective manner" and that i have a "clever and pragmatic approach" to learning.
Yet i ranked 99/188 and got a mark of 69/100???
I'd hate to see what'd happen to someone the teacher thought was a dunce!!!
Does the word Random ever crop up at your schools when the english marks are delivered?
It's a favourite at mine...
oh yes, whenever we get assessment marks back, no one EVER knows wat to expect, because English advanced is so random
even if u think u kno and covered the rubric/marking guidlines, somehow, u manage to stuff up...and the people who thought "well, I had no idea" manage to grab marks like 13, 14 and even 15/15
I think I'm in the minority if I say I liked the English Advanced course, I think i appreciated my texts more so towards the exam...we did fairly interesting texts, such as the metaphysical poetry of John Donne, and the comparison of Shakespeare's Hamlet with something else, and the political satire Nineteen Eighty Four - from which "Big Brother" originated...I can say truthfully that I liked all those texts, and probably, without all the hyper analysing, the course would be more widely enjoyed, because all these texts are in fact respected and valued over time, thats why we study them...and thats also why we grow to dislike them - because we study them TOO much, TOO in depth
and I read a post earlier about memorising 4 essays all year
I adopted this technique, admittedly, leading up to the exams...I rote learned 4 essays line by line, that covered everything possible about these texts, and I think what made the whole process bearable is that I was able to (or made myself) enjoy what I was writing
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
Ack, I haven't read the rest of the posts yet but this one was long so I had to reply to it!
The irony of this situation is that we did not get to study Shakespeare as it's usually studied; our teacher told us, quite bluntly, to 'get a study guide and read about the characters'. What we were observing were the ways of reading that text, which, to me, is more interesting than iambic pentameter.
Just as an aside, in my school the Emma/Clueless people were laughed at for not having enough decent philosophical detail to include in their essays. Blade Runner and Brave New World offered much wider scope for analysis, in my opinion, although Emma is a quite fascinating novel. And you could always look at it as a prime example of a Victorian text, compared to the twentieth century Clueless.
Capitalism, consumerism, feminism and Marxism are only a few of the terms we're being forced to come to terms with (no pun intended). We're expected to understand what these concepts are and how they affect us in twenty-first century Australia; that's what the English syllabus is about. I agree that English is probably not the best term for it, but eh...
I know I've mentioned before - more objectively, should I add - that I have my problems with the new syllabus, and I don't intend to contradict myself (apologies if I have, I thoroughly enjoyed studying the course). The more I mention the new syllabus, however, the more I wish I'd done the old one as a comparison. :\
The concept of the new syllabus is a wider variety of ways of reading texts. In my opinion the older syllabus was more boring than the current one because there was a greater emphasis on the technical details of the language rather than the overarching theoretical and philosophical contexts through which we read texts.
I disagree; because English is more theoretical now you will get greater benefit from a teacher than a study guide. You're right that they often don't obviously 'encourage us to better our literacy skills'; I think that the syllabus is more subtle than an obvious 'this is good, read it'. If a text isn't enjoyable, it's more likely to ask you why you don't enjoy it than forcing you to study the elements (metaphors, techniques etc).
The irony of this situation is that we did not get to study Shakespeare as it's usually studied; our teacher told us, quite bluntly, to 'get a study guide and read about the characters'. What we were observing were the ways of reading that text, which, to me, is more interesting than iambic pentameter.
I didn't study this (I did In The Wild), but as far as I can tell no study guide will ever be able to comprehensively compare the two texts. There ARE other modules, besides, which allows schools to cater for their students.
Just as an aside, in my school the Emma/Clueless people were laughed at for not having enough decent philosophical detail to include in their essays. Blade Runner and Brave New World offered much wider scope for analysis, in my opinion, although Emma is a quite fascinating novel. And you could always look at it as a prime example of a Victorian text, compared to the twentieth century Clueless.
The irony of the situation is that people are being forced to understand these concepts in everyday life. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
Capitalism, consumerism, feminism and Marxism are only a few of the terms we're being forced to come to terms with (no pun intended). We're expected to understand what these concepts are and how they affect us in twenty-first century Australia; that's what the English syllabus is about. I agree that English is probably not the best term for it, but eh...
I know I've mentioned before - more objectively, should I add - that I have my problems with the new syllabus, and I don't intend to contradict myself (apologies if I have, I thoroughly enjoyed studying the course). The more I mention the new syllabus, however, the more I wish I'd done the old one as a comparison. :\
they really, really should teach us more grammar.
it's become so bad that referring to something like a 'linking relative clause' in an essay gets a question mark from English teachers who are marking it.
I think that the rationale behind the english syllabus is really good, but the methods of assessment are really bad.
Paper 2 is a joke.
*sighs*
it's become so bad that referring to something like a 'linking relative clause' in an essay gets a question mark from English teachers who are marking it.
I think that the rationale behind the english syllabus is really good, but the methods of assessment are really bad.
Paper 2 is a joke.
*sighs*
SgtSlick
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 202
no paper 2 is not a joke, its a great way of assessing how well a students can memorise essays, and how fast they can write. These are valuable life skills, i mean where would i be if I couldnt memorise essays? And Oh how boring my life would be without being forced to write memorised page after memorised page under exam conditions whilst i develop rsi in my wrist...ahhh the wonders of the hsc... (hint: this post WAS sarcastic)
(hint: this post WAS sarcastic)Mr Chicken
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 18
Anti, read my post about the fact that we are FORCED to do english, and english alone, to get the HSC.
You cannot seriously subject every single student to the complete and utter shite (see previous posts for more detail here) that the advanced course contains.
I reitterate - english should be about 3 things communication, communication and communication.
Keep the philosophical crap for 3 and 4 unit english, which are obviously optional.
An good idea would be, introduce a new, decent, 2 unit course, move the worthwhile (or rather, least crap) parts of the 2 unit course to 3 unit, move the 3 unit course to 4 unit, and introduce a new course called something like "expressionist english" - the old 4 unit course.
Hopefully 3 and 4 unit would not be compulsory to do expressionist, given that there is no direct correlation between them.
The only decent thing the current syllabus has taught us is that problems can be overcome through change - so it's time to change the english syllabus!
You cannot seriously subject every single student to the complete and utter shite (see previous posts for more detail here) that the advanced course contains.
I reitterate - english should be about 3 things communication, communication and communication.
Keep the philosophical crap for 3 and 4 unit english, which are obviously optional.
An good idea would be, introduce a new, decent, 2 unit course, move the worthwhile (or rather, least crap) parts of the 2 unit course to 3 unit, move the 3 unit course to 4 unit, and introduce a new course called something like "expressionist english" - the old 4 unit course.
Hopefully 3 and 4 unit would not be compulsory to do expressionist, given that there is no direct correlation between them.
The only decent thing the current syllabus has taught us is that problems can be overcome through change - so it's time to change the english syllabus!
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
I don't particularly agree with the compulsory element of English, although I think it's an incredibly useful skill to know how to effectively use it. Perhaps one unit should be counted in the calculation of the UAI, that is, the first paper, and the second should be compulsory to do? Does that sound too sadistic? I'm just throwing around ideas.
As annoying as it sounds, and as it feels to keep repeating myself (not because I don't think you get it, but because I think it's necessary) is that it's fast becoming a social requirement to understand why people are discriminated against, or, to refer to your definition of English as a communication subject, why misunderstandings arise.
I quite liked your idea of English focussing on Communication. Perhaps another subject/module could be introduced that emphasises the Communication aspects of English, including learning ways of writing (persuasive, entertainment, informative, etc) that would be useful for students going into Media/Comm., Journalism etc., or in fact any profession that requires you to write in particular styles. Rather than forcing students to analyse works and critique or discuss them, it'd emphasise the practical element.
Oh, and SgtSlick: I'm sure I would have enjoyed a better course more. If I can't enjoy a subject I won't do well at it; I might as well like it while it's compulsory. And no, that's not my philosophy on life
On an English-related note, what would improve the creativity section of the paper, do you think? Or is this too off topic? (Meh, I'll leave it for james when he finally gets around to posting his opinion )
As annoying as it sounds, and as it feels to keep repeating myself (not because I don't think you get it, but because I think it's necessary) is that it's fast becoming a social requirement to understand why people are discriminated against, or, to refer to your definition of English as a communication subject, why misunderstandings arise.
I quite liked your idea of English focussing on Communication. Perhaps another subject/module could be introduced that emphasises the Communication aspects of English, including learning ways of writing (persuasive, entertainment, informative, etc) that would be useful for students going into Media/Comm., Journalism etc., or in fact any profession that requires you to write in particular styles. Rather than forcing students to analyse works and critique or discuss them, it'd emphasise the practical element.
Oh, and SgtSlick: I'm sure I would have enjoyed a better course more. If I can't enjoy a subject I won't do well at it; I might as well like it while it's compulsory. And no, that's not my philosophy on life
On an English-related note, what would improve the creativity section of the paper, do you think? Or is this too off topic? (Meh, I'll leave it for james when he finally gets around to posting his opinion
)I think that the material in the moudles is pretty good and what we have to learn, understand and write about. But there is that "getting around the syallbus" element which leaves the method of testing waht students have learnt (i.e the actal HSC EXAM) wanting.
Mr Chicken
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 18
Yeah what's the deal with english papers?
Every other subject i did, the maths and sciences, have syllabuses where u learn stuff, then they test you to see if u learnt it all.
With english why don't they do the same thing instead of specifically setting out to be unpredictable, as the BOS said they would??
People will say that if it's too predictable, then students can just copy-paste their pre-written essays into the exam. But think about any other subject - the questions students are answering in the exam are based on memory - can you remember what does what in science, or the little tricks in a maths paper?
Realistically, a student going into any exam except english is going to have a pretty good idea of what's going to be asked, and they know what they need to know to get good marks. Why should english be any different?
Every other subject i did, the maths and sciences, have syllabuses where u learn stuff, then they test you to see if u learnt it all.
With english why don't they do the same thing instead of specifically setting out to be unpredictable, as the BOS said they would??
People will say that if it's too predictable, then students can just copy-paste their pre-written essays into the exam. But think about any other subject - the questions students are answering in the exam are based on memory - can you remember what does what in science, or the little tricks in a maths paper?
Realistically, a student going into any exam except english is going to have a pretty good idea of what's going to be asked, and they know what they need to know to get good marks. Why should english be any different?
sgtslick i agree completely with, well, every bit of your excessive bitching no need to repeat it all again...
that said, i think the new syllabus had the potential to be - well good would be going too far - but better than it turned out, possibly better than the old syllabus, but they rushed it and spewed out this vague unintelligible piece of cow turd, thereby fucking over 120000 yr 12 candidates over 2001 & 2002...good job bos.
the 2004 list is better merely coz of the inclusion of a couple of good texts (ie lotr & memento..and the journey for AoS - lotr the book would be so perfect...). my agony in english this yr was compounded by the fact that ALL my texts were excruciating, with the possible exceptions of frontline (which was much better when you didn't have to analyse every microsecond) and the real inspector hound...
and whoever said that emma was unreadable, i totally empathise :apig:
no need to repeat it all again...that said, i think the new syllabus had the potential to be - well good would be going too far - but better than it turned out, possibly better than the old syllabus, but they rushed it and spewed out this vague unintelligible piece of cow turd, thereby fucking over 120000 yr 12 candidates over 2001 & 2002...good job bos.
the 2004 list is better merely coz of the inclusion of a couple of good texts (ie lotr & memento..and the journey for AoS - lotr the book would be so perfect...). my agony in english this yr was compounded by the fact that ALL my texts were excruciating, with the possible exceptions of frontline (which was much better when you didn't have to analyse every microsecond) and the real inspector hound...
and whoever said that emma was unreadable, i totally empathise :apig:
SgtSlick
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 202
yes i think the general consensus here is that the english syallbus sucked, and needs work...of course, now that IM finished yr 12 they introduce readable and exciting texts, damn fools, wouldn't do me any favours...I mean who reads Brave New World under their own voilition? No one, thats who....
well then, someone better inform 'no one' that reading brave new world under oen voilition isnt popular.Originally posted by SgtSlick
yes i think the general consensus here is that the english syallbus sucked, and needs work...of course, now that IM finished yr 12 they introduce readable and exciting texts, damn fools, wouldn't do me any favours...I mean who reads Brave New World under their own voilition? No one, thats who....
cpd
New Member
My most positive thing I got out of the English Syllabus was the amount of sleep I caught up on in class.
I'm serious!
Our teacher was one of those ones that drone on and on, and because she spent way too long on any given topic, 90% of my class was asleep at any given time. Had she been more interesting/enthused, I think we may have actually paid attention. *sigh* Oh well.
I'm serious!
Our teacher was one of those ones that drone on and on, and because she spent way too long on any given topic, 90% of my class was asleep at any given time. Had she been more interesting/enthused, I think we may have actually paid attention. *sigh* Oh well.
Extension I was loads of fun. It was just good to study one area in depth over a whole year, instead of a few texts very flimsily. The different areas meant that you could choose what area you wanted to focus on. Liking what you study naturally makes actively seek knowledge and understanding because you want to learn, not because it's a syllabus dot point you have to tick off. I found that I learnt not only about the genre I was studying, but about how to render and interpret a work as a subject from different social and historical viewpoints.Originally posted by Lazarus
Without slamming the syllabus further, any positive things to say?
What did you like??