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 today, it is the
never-ending deliberation of the role 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 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, two separate articles that deal
with the topic of technology and education will be examined, and their use of rhetoric analyzed.
The varying stances taken by each article and the ways that they differ rhetorically will play in
role in the final analysis of which article is ultimately more effective.
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,

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

2014). 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. 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 (Bushweller, 2015). With this simple understanding of the general material being
covered in each text, the aspects that make up their writing style and effectiveness can now be
examined.
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 are 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 topic, they deviate in
their methods of communicating this exigence.
One way they differ in particular that these pieces differ is through the opposing stances
that each article takes in emotional appeal. Leven and Schrums optimistic take on the subject

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

studying success stories as an example of how changes should be made 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 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. They reference schools as our education system (Leven &
Schrum, p 644, 2015) which pulls the reader into a position of inclusion. People often feel more
emotionally compelled by issues that pertain directly to them which makes using plural pronouns
a form of pathos, albeit a subtle one.
In contrast, there is very little pathos demonstrated throughout Bushwellers work other
than the overarching appeal to peoples fear of failure to encourage them to not try to make
changes too quickly. By starting the article with a discussion of the detriment caused in LA with
statements like, The costly mistakes and poor planning ultimately led the district to dial back
the effort. Financial, legal, and managerial repercussions continue to swirl in the wake
(Bushweller, 2015) he succeeded in planting a seed of worry. If a district as large and progressive
as Los Angeles could mess things up, no one is safe from the dangers of moving too quickly.
These two different stances beg the question, which is more effective? Is it better to try to sway
people by appealing to their desire to succeed or their fear of failure? It could be argued that both
have their place. Hope is important and is rivaled only in emotional power by fear and selfpreservation instinct. While a healthy fear has its place, it could be argued that an optimistic and
hopeful approach is healthier for the mind and more uplifting for the spirit therefore making it
the better of the two choices.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

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).
Alternately, Bushweller was a little harder to find. All that is publically 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. The first article, though comprised of surprisingly simplistic
language for the subject material, 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. The audience being appealed to by this writing style is

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

a broader one with less specialized interest. While it is still 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 text, though understandable, was
worded in the rigid professionalism of a scholarly source, went into great detail, and often
included diagrams to further explain things. 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, the question of which of these texts is a more effective piece of rhetoric is
raised. 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 adaptation. 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

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ED-TECH ARTICLES

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
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