This research examines the news articles on the university admission system since the 1990s. It applies Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis as the means to reveal the vocabularies and discourses within these news articles and scrutinize their ideologies and historical changes.
Corpu...
This research examines the news articles on the university admission system since the 1990s. It applies Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis as the means to reveal the vocabularies and discourses within these news articles and scrutinize their ideologies and historical changes.
Corpus Analysis was chosen among other analytical methods in linguistics for this critical discourse analysis.
A literature review was thoroughly done about relevant issues such as previous cases of critical discourse analyses on education, research on social selection and university admission, and studies on the relation between social fluctuations and discursive changes. After reviewing how other scholars have discussed this issue, it analyzes the “exam” as the phenomenon closely related to the process of social selection from the critical perspectives of Michel Foucault and George Herbert Mead. Examining the historical change of the university admission system in South Korea, it reveals the contexts and social environments in which the discourses on the university admission have been developed.
Distinguishable in the result of Corpus Analysis of news articles on university admission over each period since 1990 is the fact that, from the beginning, such interested parties as the Ministry of Education, parents, and students have often been mentioned; and, until 2006, such terminologies as “normalization of highschool education” and “rights of student selection,” justifying the current admission system, were often appearing as the co-occurring words with ideological overtones and discourse-struggling characteristics.
Four terminologies in sub-categories, namely “highschool records,” “national university admission exam,” “admission officer system,” “comprehensive student records,” turned out to be regularly associated respectively with the following co-occurring words: “advantage and disadvantage” discourses (for “highschool records”), “private education” discourses (for “national exam”), “capability” and “fairness” discourses (for “admission officer”), and “golden spoon” discourses alongside “fairness” (for “comprehensive student records”). In the part for discursive practice analysis, the other four co-occurring words, derived from the textual analysis as those characterizing the discursive structures of news articles, namely “normalization of highschool education,” “private education,” “rights of student selection,” and “fairness,” were examined as the means to illustrate the respective discursive structures of “abnormalization of public education,” “conflict between public and private education,” “universities’ right to select students,” and “the fairness of university admission system.”
From this complete enumeration survey of news articles, this research discovers four mechanisms which have programmed the discourses and ideologies around the university admission system: 1) enhancing mechanism for the merit system, 2) discrimination mechanism, 3) apparatuses for disciplining and molding exam citizens, 4) inheritance and reproduction of education.
In the part for the analysis of sociocultural practice in the situational contexts and institutional conditions of the university admission, it is argued how the high rate of university entrance and the economic and social merit of university admission have functioned as situational contexts and how high schools’ publishing of university entrance reports has enhanced this context. This part also suggests the limitation on the number of graduates, commitment to universities’ establishment principles, and deliberative democracy as the institutional conditions that could be introduced to the university admission system, and argue how the situational contexts and institutions conditions suggested are corresponding to each other.
In conclusion, the discursive changes around the university admission system turn out to consist of three consecutive stages: namely, the state-led period (~2007) where the government took a significant leading role in the discursive formation, the experts-led period (2008~2017) where the experts were leading the discourses about the appropriateness and effectiveness of different university admission systems, and the publicization period (2017~) where not only experts but also a variety of interested parties and discursive actors have publicized the university admission discourses through the processes of deliberative democracy and expanded them far beyond those about effectiveness but even to the ideological discourses on class relations.
This research examines the news articles on the university admission system since the 1990s. It applies Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis as the means to reveal the vocabularies and discourses within these news articles and scrutinize their ideologies and historical changes.
Corpus Analysis was chosen among other analytical methods in linguistics for this critical discourse analysis.
A literature review was thoroughly done about relevant issues such as previous cases of critical discourse analyses on education, research on social selection and university admission, and studies on the relation between social fluctuations and discursive changes. After reviewing how other scholars have discussed this issue, it analyzes the “exam” as the phenomenon closely related to the process of social selection from the critical perspectives of Michel Foucault and George Herbert Mead. Examining the historical change of the university admission system in South Korea, it reveals the contexts and social environments in which the discourses on the university admission have been developed.
Distinguishable in the result of Corpus Analysis of news articles on university admission over each period since 1990 is the fact that, from the beginning, such interested parties as the Ministry of Education, parents, and students have often been mentioned; and, until 2006, such terminologies as “normalization of highschool education” and “rights of student selection,” justifying the current admission system, were often appearing as the co-occurring words with ideological overtones and discourse-struggling characteristics.
Four terminologies in sub-categories, namely “highschool records,” “national university admission exam,” “admission officer system,” “comprehensive student records,” turned out to be regularly associated respectively with the following co-occurring words: “advantage and disadvantage” discourses (for “highschool records”), “private education” discourses (for “national exam”), “capability” and “fairness” discourses (for “admission officer”), and “golden spoon” discourses alongside “fairness” (for “comprehensive student records”). In the part for discursive practice analysis, the other four co-occurring words, derived from the textual analysis as those characterizing the discursive structures of news articles, namely “normalization of highschool education,” “private education,” “rights of student selection,” and “fairness,” were examined as the means to illustrate the respective discursive structures of “abnormalization of public education,” “conflict between public and private education,” “universities’ right to select students,” and “the fairness of university admission system.”
From this complete enumeration survey of news articles, this research discovers four mechanisms which have programmed the discourses and ideologies around the university admission system: 1) enhancing mechanism for the merit system, 2) discrimination mechanism, 3) apparatuses for disciplining and molding exam citizens, 4) inheritance and reproduction of education.
In the part for the analysis of sociocultural practice in the situational contexts and institutional conditions of the university admission, it is argued how the high rate of university entrance and the economic and social merit of university admission have functioned as situational contexts and how high schools’ publishing of university entrance reports has enhanced this context. This part also suggests the limitation on the number of graduates, commitment to universities’ establishment principles, and deliberative democracy as the institutional conditions that could be introduced to the university admission system, and argue how the situational contexts and institutions conditions suggested are corresponding to each other.
In conclusion, the discursive changes around the university admission system turn out to consist of three consecutive stages: namely, the state-led period (~2007) where the government took a significant leading role in the discursive formation, the experts-led period (2008~2017) where the experts were leading the discourses about the appropriateness and effectiveness of different university admission systems, and the publicization period (2017~) where not only experts but also a variety of interested parties and discursive actors have publicized the university admission discourses through the processes of deliberative democracy and expanded them far beyond those about effectiveness but even to the ideological discourses on class relations.
주제어
#대학입학제도 비판적담론분석 코퍼스분석
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.