Analyzing Message in "What Science Says..."

In this post, I analyzed my article using the "Message and Purpose" section of the Student's Guide.


Which bulleted questions on page 181 apply most to the author's purpose?

The first question that applies is the idea of trying to express an opinion. The author is clearly against physical punishment, and centers her argument around her belief. By taking a stance, she is able to use her bias as a way to persuade readers to agree with her.

She also responds to a particular occasion/event. After the Adrian Peterson abuse scandal broke, she felt compelled to use that controversy as an opportunity to speak out against physical punishment. Having an extreme example of discipline supports her claims that physical punishment is, in all cases, harmful to children.

Lastly, the author seeks to convince her readers to oppose physical discipline. This fits under both "advocate for change" and "move the readers to feel a certain way". She uses both the Peterson case and her study-based evidence to appeal to her readers emotions, and help convince them that physical punishment should not be used to teach children proper behavior.

Image by Ape Lad. "£4µ9h-0µ7-£0µÐ(47$ # 1337". Uploaded 1/21/10 via Flickr. 

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

Which items on the list aren't relevant to my author?

While a lot of people don't disagree with using physical punishment, most I think would have a hard time arguing against the evidence that is provided in the article. Because of that, I don't think that the author is trying to inform the readers about a typically misunderstood topic. Her purpose is much more to convince people not to use physical punishment rather than to explain to them why they shouldn't.

The author also isn't focusing on interpreting or analyzing anything. She uses data that mostly speaks for itself, and then giving more evidence and commentary. The controversy is simple enough that everyone can understand what is being argued and what each side is using as evidence (personal stories vs. science and evidence).

Rather than reflecting, the author is pushing for change. She is clear about what she feels, and wants others to agree with her, but there is little reflection or analyzing happening.


Are there layers to the author's message? 

The author is trying solely to use evidence to convince others that physical punishment is harmful to children. This is really the only purpose of her article.