Teacher’s feedback
Most feedback is related to the need to “dig deeper” in order to improve the analysis of the author’s intended effects — that is, the use of argument and written language to persuade others to share the points of view presented.
To gain depth of analysis you need to work on your persuasive word-level analysis. But, firstly, to avoid a random list, you need to understand the author’s views/argument in a holistic way so that you can show how the parts fit together.
Firstly, clearly articulate the author’s viewpoints and call to action. Also show a smart awareness of the argument strategies used to support these viewpoints. (ie. “construction of argument”)
This will ensure that you have a good grasp of the key word choices/phrases that are critical to the author’s intentions.
Then keep digging. Do not isolate words and phrases; do not compile a list. You will reach a dead-end with your analysis. Plus you will be generic, vague and repetitive. Do not write, the ” author then states, then goes on to say, then goes on to prove, then concludes”
Rather:
- underline, and group together, key persuasive word choices;
- consider how they reinforce and complement each other;
- consider how they support the author’s intended effects/call to action
- work your metalanguage in a polished and nuanced way;
- circle around the chunk (forwards and backwards); and use quotes smartly; as proof of the author’s call to action and intended effects;
- See emotive language; analyse at least two intended effects (See pp 26-30) and work your segmented audiences.
- See comparisons/juxtapositions and connotations – extrapolate the implications and their intended effect on segmented audiences (See p. 13/43)
- Watch your quoting – be careful with long quotes (rhetorical questions – use dashes). Do not quote “we” as in “inclusive language”; it is meaningless. Quote a longer phrases and analyse associated techniques.
