The Aus article in reply to SMH article on paper two (1 Viewer)

[Mandy101]

I loved studying Frontline, and my parents loved it too - I used to watch it with them. I think it's important to be able to analyse the media and the stories we're exposed to as individuals. We study at least one book as part of the English Advanced Syllabus and really, that's enough. For all those people who desire to read more novels, there's a little thing called the library that you could go to

 

[DementedDonkey]

This article reminds me of something I heard on 2GB or whatever it is my dad listens to. The host was having a go at the BOS because they had heard that there was a subject called 2u Surfing, and was having a good ole whinge about the degeneration of students nowadays and how we are the dumbest cohort to go through the hsc, bla bla. Like fair enough, the subject is a bit ridiculous, but the guy was having a go, with no knowledge of what he was talking about. A BOS rep called up and tried to explain to him that even though the subject might exist, it isn't a board -developed course, and thus UAC won't recognise it - so you can study virtually whatever you want, but it won't necessarily count for anything.

Anyway, my point is, (a bit circumlocutory, I know), but the writer of this article doesn't really seem to know what they're talking about. I mean, yes, some of the texts on the BOS list aren't exactly prestigious four-hundred year old novels, but the course is designed to give students an understanding an appreciation of a range of texts. And it's english! We all HAVE to do it, so good on them for trying to appeal to those who are less interested in the subject. But also, there are a number of extremely valued texts on the set list for study: Shakespeare's plays, Coleridges poems, Keats, Orwell's 1984 and I'm sure there are dozens of others. What a class studies is essentially up to their teacher; what they think the students are capable of, what they will enjoy, and what they themselves feel they can teach well. Our class studied two novels, but one was Jesse Martin's Lionheart, which goes to show that it isn't the type of text that is responsible for the extent to which a piece challenges the reader. We also studied Harwood's poetry, and the plays Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. So I don't think you can say that the course itself is "dumbing down" students, but rather giving a broad scope to cater for a vast range of students.

(My apologies for how long-winded that may have seemed)

 

[marydh]

You could completely avoid doing films and visual texts. It's your problem, not BOS's.

It's on the syllabus. If you do not study visual texts you are not complying with the state regulations.

Also, I don't know what school you go to, but what the hell kind of elitist idiot are you? The study of film is equally as valuble as the study of 'BOOKS', and to consider that films can only be studied superficially is just ridiculous.

Films can be studied in depth, AT FILM SCHOOL. Your average English teacher does not, and nor do I expect them to, have anything but a superficial knowledge of films. They most likely went to school and uni pre-1995. It was more about literature then than websites and book covers.

 

[nwatts]

It's on the syllabus. If you do not study visual texts you are not complying with the state regulations.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. We've done My Place (Journeys set text), Hamlet/Ros and Guil (Module A), Harwood poetry (Module B) and 1984 (Module C).

None of the set texts any of us used for Module C were visual. Only very few of us decided to do our own film study for additional journeys texts. We were all compliant.

 

[marydh]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. We've done My Place (Journeys set text), Hamlet/Ros and Guil (Module A), Harwood poetry (Module B) and 1984 (Module C).

None of the set texts any of us used for Module C were visual. Only very few of us decided to do our own film study for additional journeys texts. We were all compliant.

You're supposed to study every text in the stimulus booklet. What did you study in year 11?

 

[Asheroth]

You're supposed to study every text in the stimulus booklet. What did you study in year 11?

Uhm, no. You only have to refer to one of them in the essay, so why would you have to study all of them? How would they check? Why would they care?

And of course film is fucking relevant. Film is as equally valid a medium for communicating a message or making a commentary as anything else. We did Blade Runner for Comparative Study and it's an awesome movie as well as being a rhetorical device and a learning experience.

 

[nwatts]

You're supposed to study every text in the stimulus booklet. What did you study in year 11?

We read through them all, but we hardly studied "The Ivory Trail" which I remember was the only visual text in the booklet.

There's room in BOS's english courses to pick out "literature" (however the hell you define it) and more contemporary texts. You just don't realise it.

 

[Asheroth]

We did three, but once we'd done The Road Not Taken I ignored The Ivory Trail and Wind in the Willows.

And if nothing else, studying visual texts teaches you about how designers manipulate visual elements to get their message across. It's a decent skill to have as you can view the image objectively.

 

[marydh]

We did three, but once we'd done The Road Not Taken I ignored The Ivory Trail and Wind in the Willows.

And if nothing else, studying visual texts teaches you about how designers manipulate visual elements to get their message across. It's a decent skill to have as you can view the image objectively.

yeah, i agree it's a useful skill. i didn't suggest getting rid of visual texts, i suggest leaving them out of the final two years of school for people who want to do advanced english and extend themselves.

 

[_dhj_]

urrmm.. the visual texts tend to be where the better students can show off their ability. To analyse the foreground, background, perspective, visual dynamism, vectors, stylisation etc. (particularly in unseen) require more than just the ability to "spot the metaphor" (really a yr 7 skill)

 

[blackfriday]

most of english is rote learning and regurgitation anyway so i dont think the exams are a relfection of a student's ability, but more of their capacity to remember large chunks of information. for the students who actually do know what they are talking about, the article raises a good point without saying it - the english syllabus is run by man-hating, masochistic, third-wave feminists trying to push their agenda across to hsc students.

 

[_dhj_]

the english syllabus is run by man-hating, masochistic, third-wave feminists trying to push their agenda across to hsc students.

err no offense but that is just a hyperbolic load of bullcrap. It's like saying the world is controlled by the "international jewry", just all right wing propaganda.

 

[nwatts]

err no offense but that is just a hyperbolic load of bullcrap. It's like saying the world is controlled by the "international jewry", just all right wing propaganda.

Hahah... that's funny, because it wouldn't surprise me for someone to think the "international jewry" was after them for world domination reasons.

 

[_dhj_]

People read too much Miranda Devine nowadays.. it fucks up their head.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well visual texts does help some students over others... Analysing visual material is done in Visual Arts from like year 8, and by year 12 you have it down to a fairly advanced level.

 

[nwatts]

Which reminds me of Devine's wikipedia entry, which I stumbled across a while back.

Miranda Devine is a columnist and writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, noted for being an outspoken proponent of bestiality.

 

[Tulipa]

Ah, if your teacher so wanted, you could have studied 'literature' (which I assume you think is the canon?) in English. There's room to pick from, hence all the electives. The "no choice" you speak of is non existant. You could completely avoid doing films and visual texts. It's your problem, not BOS's.

... The study of film is equally as valuble as the study of 'BOOKS', and to consider that films can only be studied superficially is just ridiculous.

... I loathe Jane Austen and her bloated, pretentious novels. She's an offense to western literature, and has done more harm than good to the literary world.

I think I'm in love...

First of all, if we studied three pieces of lit a year, just three books for the three modules I doubt many students would be very happy (imagine critical study x3). By having the transformations module, where we can compare many different types of literature and media it can be see as more valuable in that you can see the value of English in other forms, rather than repetitive study of say three books or plays or poetry.

I studied Emma/Clueless, King Lear and Frontline. I believe by having this balance I enjoyed English quite a bit more, rather than say if I had done all the same types of texts (ie three novels, three plays, etc)

oh and Jane Austen lends nothing to literature. period. Soap operas in the nineteenth century, no matter if they have merit in the written word, were never valuable to western literature.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think they should introduce more optional material, i.e. theorists, which you can use to analyse material better.

 

[blackfriday]

theorists? THEORISTS?!? if you ever come near postmodernism you will realise how useless and empty studying texts in conjunction with theorists can be. its like maths formulas without the huge leaps in deductive logic.