In their essay “Advantages of Educational Technology”, Simmons and Markwell argue that items of educational technology “are essential to the learning process in several ways”, and “are fundamental and significant tools used in classrooms and the workforce” by referencing multiple credible studies and articles on the topic. Emilie Simmons and Richard Markwell wrote this essay for their Advanced Seminar on Educational Policy class under the guidance of Dr. Rosemary Papalewis, a professor of Educational Leadership at California State University Sacramento and editor of the eJournal of Educational Policy. As merely an assignment by amateur authors, there are several grammatical and citation errors present in this paper, but since the majority of the essay draws appeal to ethos from more qualified authors and still draws a valid conclusion, the article may still carry much credibility.
The first reference is to Oppenheimer’s article, The Computer Delusion, which draws up statistics showing that demands for computing skills are increasing within the workforce. This appeals to logos at first sight, but lacks any direct connection to the benefits of educational technology and thus may be off topic or requiring additional context. The implied connection is that the computer skills gained from use of technology inside of the classroom will carry over into adulthood and help the technologically inclined child’s marketability to the workforce. This essay, written in 2001, is seemingly ignorant of the fact that over 56%, a majority, of households in the United States own a computer with Internet access (U.S. Census Bureau, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: September 2001). With the number of households owning a computer projected to skyrocket at the time, learning essential computer skills in a school environment may not be necessary.
Another reference from Oppenheimer’s article is where he noted that the Clinton Administration pledged to “ensure that computers become as common in classrooms as blackboards” and noted the vast costs to accomplish this task. One can assume these facts were inserted to demonstrate the dedication of some to the belief that technology is the "game changing" problem solver in education, as they were shown to be willing to make great investments into it.
While the first paragraph was to set up the “stage” by showing the call for technology-based solutions in the classroom, the second plainly lays out the reason why educational technology is in such demand. At this point, J. Kosakowski is introduced with no introduction save for a date signifying a citation note in the references section. The authors claim that Kosakowski writes about how “using educational technology for drill and practice for basic skills can be highly effective according to a large body of data and a long history of use”, which may not be as helpful to drive home their point as they’d like. In particular, the fact that Kosakowski’s study only mentions effectiveness with rudimentary drill and practice scenarios may undermine the entire idea the authors are trying to sell; that is, technology in education is revolutionary and is the catch-all problem solver. Moreover, the keyword “can” is being used in Kosakowski’s claim. The use of “can” here implies that the effectiveness of educational technology is by no means absolute, but rather an observation has been made that in some cases, it does in fact help the situation. Taken to an extreme, it could even mean that the correlation is insignificant - except the author added in the words “according to a large body of data and a long history of use” - and this was even cited as from being from Kulik - who isn’t even mentioned in the References section of this paper - a rather flimsy attempt at appealing to logos. Now, knowing that the results were extracted from “a large body of data” and even carries its own reference, the reader is likely to forget the problems with the rest of the sentence, as it is now re-verified. The cite note to Kulik is improper and inappropriate as well as it is ambiguous: what is being cited, the large body of data mentioned, or what Kosakowski wrote? The world never know.
The authors then explain that “he”, presumably Kosakowski, summarized that students who are “at risk” (at risk of receiving a low quality education), “felt more successful in school and more motivated to learn” with educational technology in their curriculum. Personal claims such as these rather than purely pseudo-empirical arguments do a much better job of making the case of educational technology’s advantages. The last sentence of the second paragraph was a well done, albeit standard, appeal to pathos.
William C. Symonds, an ex-chief correspondent and now director of the “Forgotten Half” and “Pathways to Prosperity” Projects at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is referenced with the third paragraph, yet another character with no introduction. The typical reader will certainly not know who Symonds is, and after reading the references section, he or she may reach the conclusion that Symonds is simply a journalist for the Businessweek magazine. Although his word holds much weight because of his expertise in the field of education, it may not seem convincing at all to the reader, and the appeal to ethos never connects with the reader. Further hurting any attempt of appealing to ethos with this paragraph, the authors add that Symonds “further cites” (of whom he had first cited is unknown) Jonathan Carson, CEO of the K-12 division of Learning Network. From the name of his corporation, it can be deduced that Jonathan Carson is directly in the business of supplying technology to K-12 educational institutions. Certainly, he would benefit from good press, the reader thinks. Why would Carson not support educational technology? With this single line of text, the appeal to ethos of this entire article was single-handedly devastated, more than it was with the sum of all other failed appeals. It is possible that the authors thought the exact opposite, that it would be a perfect appeal since somebody as high ranking in the industry as Carson is giving his thoughts on the subject as he is dedicated to furthering the advances of education, and not simply trying to turn a profit.
An appeal to logos is made when it is mentioned that Aprile and Vasquez state that 3,000 schools and 1,500,000 students are connected via the Red Escholar Project in Mexico. Connectivity between schools is good, it is presumed to be made possible with the use of educational technology. Following with the Hispanic theme, the authors mention U.S. schools are attracted to the availability of resources necessary for learning Spanish that educational technology brings. Interestingly, at this point, the article seems to humble itself with the statement “They recognize this is no substitute for face-to-face instruction but is a tool that enhances sometimes-limited resources of schools.” With the leading sentence of the fourth paragraph, the assessment that technology merely enhances the educational experience is downplayed by reaffirming that there is additional development to be done and untapped potential with educational technology. A specific example of a recent advancement is given as an appeal to pathos and perhaps logos; “On March 16, 2001, these authors … made history by participating in the first ever video-conference ever with a class of graduate students at Peking University in Beijing.” The authors remark that they themselves believe that more was learned with this type of interactive study than without. The conclusion that “clearly technology enhances education and is becoming increasingly essential to learning” is reached in the final paragraph, and the previous points of the essay are recapped.
Overlooking the shoddy sentence construction at times, the main problems this article faced was that the authors assumed the audience to be familiar with the names of those they’ve cited, and while they had correctly invoked appeals to the audience at times, the other attempts have mostly been rendered ineffective by filling the text with seemingly irrelevant information and citations from other authors. No attempts to create an argument of why educational technology is good were ever created; the only things that seem like an argument within the text were paraphrased from the other authors. It can be concluded that this article does a poor job at convincing the audience that “computers and related technology are essential to the learning process”.