Both articles “New Class(room) War: Teacher vs. Technology” by Samuel G. Freedman published in 2007 and “What is the future of technology in education?” by Matt Britland published in 2013, discuss the role of technology in schools. Freedman believes that technology is a form of distraction that teachers have to compete with, for students’ attention while Britland maintains that technology can enable students to learn and collaborate anywhere, specifically with the aid of the Cloud. Comparing both articles, Freedman’s article is stronger because he employs evidence that are more effective in supporting his main argument and his use of anecdotes makes his arguments more persuasive in illustrating the “war” that teachers have with technology in
…show more content…
However, Professor Bugeja’s survey does not show that students were distracted in class due to the installation of more wireless service - it simply indicates that students are distracted in class. Thus this does not corroborate with the author’s argument that wireless networks installed by schools have enabled distraction. Britland, however, does not make use of much evidence to support his argument that “the future of technology in education is the cloud” (Britland, 2013, para 6). Britland only introduced an iPad trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of iPads and hence mobile technology as an educational medium. However, the trial only takes into consideration a small sample size (11 teachers and 116 students) and is thus not indicative of the actual effectiveness of the iPad as an educational tool in schools. Additionally, it does not help to support his main argument that the Cloud will be the future of technology in education. Even though the effectiveness of the evidence provided by both authors in illustrating their claims is questionable, Freedman’s arguments stand stronger because his evidence illustrates his main argument that teachers are …show more content…
Freedman shared two narratives - the first one was used to illustrate “the exasperation of countless teachers and professors in the computer era” (Freedman, 2007, para 6) whenever their reminders to students not to use their digital devices in class fall on deaf ears while the second narrative was used to demonstrate that educators have given up on the war against technology because they feel they cannot outwit technology in capturing students’ attention. The effective use of the anecdotes enables the reader to understand the pain of teachers in classrooms because they are able to relate to these situations, thereby making his arguments more persuasive. In contrast, Britland’s article is more opinion-based as he brings in his arguments through rhetorical questions as evident from “So what is the future? Is it the iPad? No, I don’t think it is.” and “For me the future of technology in education is the cloud.” (Britland, 2013, paras 2, 3,6). This is probably attributed to the fact that he is an education consultant focusing on technology and thus this may have had some bearings in the way he crafted his arguments. As such, Britland’s article seems to be highlighting to schools and educators the need “to embrace the cloud” (Britland, 2013, para 20) rather than to persuade them to do so. This also makes his article seem less persuasive because of his
However, Professor Bugeja’s survey does not show that students were distracted in class due to the installation of more wireless service - it simply indicates that students are distracted in class. Thus this does not corroborate with the author’s argument that wireless networks installed by schools have enabled distraction. Britland, however, does not make use of much evidence to support his argument that “the future of technology in education is the cloud” (Britland, 2013, para 6). Britland only introduced an iPad trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of iPads and hence mobile technology as an educational medium. However, the trial only takes into consideration a small sample size (11 teachers and 116 students) and is thus not indicative of the actual effectiveness of the iPad as an educational tool in schools. Additionally, it does not help to support his main argument that the Cloud will be the future of technology in education. Even though the effectiveness of the evidence provided by both authors in illustrating their claims is questionable, Freedman’s arguments stand stronger because his evidence illustrates his main argument that teachers are …show more content…
Freedman shared two narratives - the first one was used to illustrate “the exasperation of countless teachers and professors in the computer era” (Freedman, 2007, para 6) whenever their reminders to students not to use their digital devices in class fall on deaf ears while the second narrative was used to demonstrate that educators have given up on the war against technology because they feel they cannot outwit technology in capturing students’ attention. The effective use of the anecdotes enables the reader to understand the pain of teachers in classrooms because they are able to relate to these situations, thereby making his arguments more persuasive. In contrast, Britland’s article is more opinion-based as he brings in his arguments through rhetorical questions as evident from “So what is the future? Is it the iPad? No, I don’t think it is.” and “For me the future of technology in education is the cloud.” (Britland, 2013, paras 2, 3,6). This is probably attributed to the fact that he is an education consultant focusing on technology and thus this may have had some bearings in the way he crafted his arguments. As such, Britland’s article seems to be highlighting to schools and educators the need “to embrace the cloud” (Britland, 2013, para 20) rather than to persuade them to do so. This also makes his article seem less persuasive because of his