How Technology Will Shape Learning

Over the years, persons, usually teachers, have been trying to find out the best way to teach. Many agree that by using technology, students will gain more knowledge and they’ll focus more in class. As well as, many say that since computers were invented in 1945 and since technology has been advancing since then, students, mostly teenagers, have decreased their focus and knowledge of capability. An adept article by Marie Glenn, “How Technology Will Shape Learning” intelligently includes rhetorical devices and strategies such as the use of logos, ethos, expert testimonies, humor and evaluation techniques to strongly promote her positive conception of technology use in classrooms. In contrast, Kentaro Toyama’s article, “There Are No Technology Shortcuts to Good Education”, uses pathos, diction, expert testimonies and his personal observation to strongly oppose the theory of technology helping education. Although Marie Glenn and Kentaro Toyama have both written articles on the use of technology in education, Glenn’s arguments are better supported and more reasonable. Analysis of “How Technology Will Shape Learning” Marie Glenn begins her informative article skillfully by providing the reader with facts, studies and evaluation techniques that promotes her purpose of convincing her audience, mainly educational programs, that technology is beneficial in education. Glenn greatly meets her goal of convincing her audience by gaining credibility. She begins her article with the use of quantitative logos to support her argument and to establish her point of view about technology innovating education. Glenn states, “63% of the survey respondents from public and private sectors say technological innovation will have a major influence on t...

... middle of paper ...

...allenge in education remains the longterm, directed motivation of the student- something which no technology today can deliver on its own, but which good teachers deliver regularly” (3). In their informative article, both Marie Glenn and Kentaro Toyama achieve their purposes within their writing. Marie Glenn proved more than enough by giving statistics and facts to declare her positive vision and benefits towards technology in education. While Kentaro Toyama stated frequently that technology doesn’t have the motivation, which according to him, is the source of improvement in education to teach students. Although Marie Glenn and Kentaro Toyama proved well discussable arguments, Marie Glenn was able to write a much more well rounded essay by using more logos and expert testimonies that restated her personal observations on the topic, “technology improving education”.