TRIAL BY JURY

Press, Volume C, Issue 29504, 4 May 1961, Page 6

TRIAL BY JURY

From time to time schools are criticised for not giving enough attention to written work. Last week, on an unannounced call, a reporter was invited to "listen in" on one class. The headmaster had asked all teachers to submit essays to trial by reading aloud and then to this critical analysis, question being rephrased according to age groups. The class was the jury. What improvements could have been made in the reading of the work? 1. Was it loud enough to be heard by the group or the class? 2. Which words could have been more clearly enunciated? 3. Where could the phrasing have been improved? 4. Was the speed too fast or too slow? 5. Was emphasis or change of tone needed anywhere in the read, ing? 1. Are there any sentences which could be expressed better?

2. Are the sentences in their proper order? 3. Are there any words which are not quite the correct ones to use to express exactly what is meant? 4. Is there any joining of sentences which could be improved? 5. Are all commas, question marks and full stops properly inserted? 6. Is the work set out as well as possible with headings, margins and paragraphs? 7. Have all the spellings been checked and entered in spelling lists? 8. Could any two or three sentences be joined to . make a better job? 9. Are there any uses of capital letters, quotation marks, present or past tenses, singulars or plurals or abbreviations to be pointed out? 10. Could there be made any changes in construction of the sentences which would make any meanings clearer, shorter or more exact? 11. Are there any groups of words which have the functions of adjectives

or adverbs? Are they effectively placed in the sentences? 12. Are there any words which contain prefixes or suffixes which might be studied? Any root words which might help the child to appreciate the derivation of words in our language? 13. Are there any phrases or sentences which are not “good English” but which are very expressive? 14 Are there any sentences which can be used to explain the function of the subject and object of a verb, nouns and pronouns, adjectives and adverbs and conjunctions? 15. Could this material be summarised? What are the main facts? Which are irrelevant? Are they in logical order? Could anything be changed without losing brevity, clarity or accuracy? 16. How and by whom was the material proofread? Was the work of proof-reading 100 per cent? 17. What were the good points and the main faults to be found in the proof-read'ing? 18. Is the standard of the writing good enough for the audience which the material is to have?