Running Head: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Rhetorical Analysis of Ed-Tech Articles

Sierra Patterson
Appalachian State University

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Rhetorical Analysis of Ed-Tech Articles

If there is one topic that is batted around in the field of education these days, it is the
never-ending deliberation of the role that technology should play in the learning environment and
process. While any advancement with a productive means is technically considered technology,
as discussed here, it pertains specifically to digital age innovations. This is a debate that has been
heatedly discussed for the past 20 plus years as technology has only gotten more and more
advanced and the subject has become more complex. It not only affects teachers and students on
a day to day basis, but it contributes to the overall shaping of the institution of education, and as
a result, the future of the human race (drastic though that leap may seem). For these reasons, it
can be easily asserted that any piece of rhetoric that addresses the topic of technology in school
environments is Kairotic. With the established assumption that Kairos is in effect, lets examine
two separate articles that deal with the topic of technology and education from two different
angles and break down their components.
The first, a scholarly article titled Lessons Learned from Secondary Schools Using
Technology for School Improvement by Barbra B. Levin and Lynne Schrum, published in the
Journal of School Leadership, is about the acknowledged need to integrate technology into
teaching and how eight award-winning schools have done it successfully. They take the stance in
their article that we learn better from success than we do failure (Levin & Schrum, 2014). This
optimistic take on the subject, coupled with their regular use of plural pronouns such as we and
our are the only really notable uses of pathos in the text. By putting a positive spin on the
issue, they make people feel emotionally connected and excited about potential change for the

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

better and called to rise up and meet the standard and their use of plural pronouns gives the text
both a conversational/relatable feeling and a sense of community.
The second text, an article by Kevin Bushweller in the teaching magazine Education
Week, takes an opposite approach from the first article: he says we should learn from the
examples of schools who got in over their heads in incorporating technology into their education
systems and ended up paying dearly for it (citation). While he still ultimately supports the
integration of technology into schools, he emphasizes the need for proceeding with caution
because of the risks involved. There is very little pathos demonstrated throughout his work other
than appealing to peoples fear of failure to encourage them to not try to make changes too
quickly. Both articles have a similar base exigence: the need to find the balance of incorporating
technology into our schools. Levin and Schrum identify their purpose by stating The purpose of
this article is to describe lessons learned from studying the leadership in eight award-winning
secondary schools and districts that were recognized for successfully leveraging technology as
part of their efforts for school improvement (citation). Meanwhile, Bushweller takes on a more
serious tone after delineating a financial catastrophe that happened in the massive Los Angeles
school district, saying, That is a cautionary tale for all districts. But it is one that should not
prevent schools from innovating or striving to put in place thoughtful, well-planned, and costeffective 1-to-1 and digital curricula initiatives (citation). So while they are both addressing the
same ultimate goal, they deviate in their methods of communicating this exigence and they come
from opposite stances in emotional appeal. This begs the question, which is more effective? Is it
easier to move an audience to action through an appeal to their desire for success, or their fear of
failure?

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Before considering any other elements, the question of ethos should come into play. Who
are these authors and why should their opinions on the subject be taken into consideration?
Background information on Levin and Schrum was easy to obtain as both women are well noted
in their fields. Levin taught for 17 years before she earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.
She got her Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction and does research on how and why
teachers beliefs are shaped over the course of their careers (citation). Schrum is a professor of
elementary education at George Mason University and is the dean of the College of Human
Resources and Education at West Virginia University (citation). Bushweller was a little harder to
find. All that is really known about him is that hes the assistant managing editor for the online
magazine, edweek.org (citation). While this still gives some weight to his name, it doesnt carry
the same kind of force on the subject as someone with considerably more specialized experience
and education. Additionally, the article by Levin and Schrum is dotted with internal citations,
almost to the point of making cohesive reading difficult, which speaks to the amount of research
that went into the process of writing it. Bushweller had three simple citations in the form of intext links to other articles and pages.
However, it could be argued that each piece had an appropriate amount of ethos for its
intended rhetorical audience. One article, though comprised of surprisingly simplistic language,
was clearly written toward a group of highly interested/involved people. This is illustrated
through the extensive length of the text and the copious amount of detail about each step of the
research and findings process. The other, however, is a snapshot article: meant only to grab the
readers attention and give them a brief and easily digestible synopsis of the situation. While still
intelligently written, it is far more succinct and approachable. Because of their different target
audiences, the different approach the rhetors took is understandable.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Their difference in audiences also played a large role in the differing constraints and
delivery of each text. The first was being held to a set of academic standards that required more
detail, professional language, and research to back it up. The educational jargon of the text was
periodically broken up by complex looking diagrams to illustrate the points being made. The
second text was constrained by length due to the previously discussed nature of online magazine
articles, and was therefore required to make a powerful point in a limited number of words. It
was also broken up by advertisements rather than diagrams and possessed a much more modern,
digital feel than its scholarly, black and white counterpart.
[Come back to logos, five cannons, and active/passive voice]
Once again we come back to the question of which of these texts is a more effective piece
of rhetoric. When considering all their different aspects; their various uses of ethos and pathos,
their distinct rhetorical audiences, and the way that they work within the confines of their
separate constraints the effectiveness of both pieces can be easily seen. While they cant really be
compared to one another because of the drastic disparities in their style and makeup, they are
both effective pieces in addressing their separate audiences [write a decent conclusion].

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Works Cited (coming soon)

http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/kevin%20.bushweller.html Keven
http://www.uncg.edu/cui/faculty_pages/b_levin/index.html Barbra
http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2012/04/11/new-dean-appointed-at-wvu-s-college-of-humanresources-and-education Lynne
http://0-eds.a.ebscohost.com.wncln.wncln.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=b680b1f8-0313
-4140-a0fa-de3f73f6b300%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4205&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdm U
%3d#AN=97746665&db=eue Scholarly article
http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/kevin%20.bushweller.html Professional article