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 tirelessly 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). Because the status of education in a society is so intricately woven into the fabric of
its success, discussions of how to improve education systems have always remained relevant. 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. Levin and Schrum 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

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

on the issue, they make people feel emotionally connected and excited about potential change for
the better as well as feeling called upon to rise up and meet the standard. Their use of plural
pronouns gives the text both a conversational/relatable feeling and a sense of community.
The second text, an article titled Reality Check Reveals Ed-Tech Challenges: Schools Learn from
Others Mistakes by Kevin Bushweller, can be found in the teacher magazine Education Week
and takes an opposite approach from the first article. Bushweller asserts throughout the piece that
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. While he goes on to
still ultimately support the integration of technology into schools, he emphasizes the need for
proceeding with caution because of the risks involved (citation). 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 goals 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 (Levin & Schrum, 2014). They also discuss how
more than just successful technology integration is accomplished; a better school community and
culture is built. 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 cost-effective 1-to-1 and digital curricula
initiatives (Bushweller, 2015). So while they are both addressing the same ultimate goal, they

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

deviate in their methods of communicating this exigence and they come from opposite stances in
emotional appeal.
Before anything else is really considered, 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 (Teacher Education, 2009). 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 (New Dean Appointed, 2012).
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 (Education Week, 2015). 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 in-text 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

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

intelligently written, it is far more succinct and approachable. Because of their different target
audiences, the different approach the rhetors took is understandable.

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.
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 individual effectiveness of both pieces can be easily seen. In relation to
one another, however, it becomes less clear. Comparing these two articles felt a lot like trying to
compare a book and its movie adaption. While the general content may be the same (or in the
case of the articles, have a similar exigence) they are targeting two different audiences, put
emphasis on different things, have different constraints, and ultimately play by different rules.
So while it was both possible and interesting to note the ways that the two texts differed, they
dont operate on the same playing field and therefore make it impossible to fully compare their
effectiveness in relation to one another. Ultimately it can be concluded that each piece was
equally as effective in its own field.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Works Cited

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

Bushweller, K. (June, 2015). Reality Check Reveals Ed-Tech Challenges: Schools Learn from
Others Mistakes. Education Week. Retrieved August 29, 2015 from http://www.edweek.
org/ew/articles/2015/06/11/reality-check-reveals-ed-tech-challenges.html?qs =Schools+le
arn+from+others'+mistakes
Education Week (2015). Contributor Keven Bushweller August 31, 2015 from http://www.ed
week.org/ew/contributors/kevin%20.bushweller.html
Leven, B. b., & Schrum, L. (2014). Lessons Learned From Secondary Schools Using
Technology for School Improvement. Journal Of School Leadership, 24(4), 640665.
The University of North Carolina Greensboro (August, 2014). Teacher Education and Higher
Education Faculty Retrieved August 31, 2015 http://www.uncg.edu/cui/faculty_pages
/b_levin/index.html
West Virginia University (April, 2012) New Dean Appointed at WVU's College of Human
Resources and Education Retrieved August 31, 2015 from http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/
2012/04/11/new-dean-appointed-at-wvu-s-college-of-human-resources-and-education