Just by the title of this article you can find a little bias. The title is, “Many Schools Putting an End to Child’s Play” and the use of the phrase, “Child’s Play” causes the reader to think that recess is unimportant. Even though the title does show bias, the author’s purpose seems to be to inform because it offers information on both sides of the topic. For example, the author uses quotes like, “But educators cite a panoply of reasons besides academic pressures to explain why recess is going the way of the inkwells in so many schools: a fear of lawsuits if children become injured, a concern about the possibility of unsavory adults lurking at the edges of playgrounds,” and, “To experts on child development, virtually without exception, it seems preposterous to eliminate recess at a time when so many young people are growing obese, and when so many disorders linked to restlessness are being diagnosed among children.” The first quote gives reasoning for annexing recess from schools (against), while the second quote tells of why eliminating recess will have a negative impact on children (pro). Though this article’s purpose is to inform, I believe the author’s viewpoint is against having recess in schools due to the word choice he uses and the amount of facts he puts towards eliminating recess. The author uses words like “lollygagging” and “child’s play” as a way of diminishing recess. After reading this article, the reader is not left with a slant in opinion. This article was published in the New York Times, and written by Dirk Johnson. It was published on April 7, 1998. Even though this article is outdated, the information is still strong, and it was written in the New York Times, a reliable newspaper. I would consider this source reliable.
No comments:
Post a Comment