Geddes 1

Mary Geddes
Mrs. Burr
English 1010
October 22, 2010
A Rhetorical Analysis Contrasting Two Articles
on the Use of Cell Phones in Schools
Cell phones have had a major upgrade in the past thirty years. Now
they can do anything from calling a friend to surfing the web. Cell phones
have changed our everyday lives. They go everywhere with us, but should
they be allowed in schools? That is the question school officials, teachers and
administrators have to deal with everyday. In the article from the Toronto
Star titled, Schools get tough on cell phone use, classroom disruption, and
privacy issues drive most boards to ban the devices in school hours written
by Krivel Peter, convinces the general public that cell phones do not belong
in schools. In contrast, the article from Education Week, entitled, Students
turn their cell phones on for classroom Lessons written by Andrew Trotter,
convinces the audience (teachers and school officials) that cell phones are
aids in teaching students. Both articles try to convince the audience through
appeals to credibility and emotion, and tone.
The first strategy Krivel Peter uses is an appeal to credibility to
convince the reader that not only are teachers not okay with cell phone use;
students are not okay with it either. It starts out by saying that a cell phone
went off in two of the exams Kimberly Hart took. It then goes on to explain
that Hart is a 17- year old graduate of Richmond Hill High School. This

Geddes 2

automatically makes readers trust her because she was an actual high
school student, and it was not just another high school teacher. So when
Hart says thats definitely an inappropriate number of times [for cell phones
to go off] it shows readers that cell phones arent just a problem for the
teacher but also for the students. Cellular devices break students
concentration which makes students not perform as well which in turn makes
it so that they cannot reach their full learning potential.
Peter also uses an appeal to emotions to argue the point that cell
phones should not be allowed in schools because the students and teacher
privacy rights can be so easily violated with cell phones, especially since
most new phones can also take photos, record videos, connect to the
internet, and send text messages. This plays with your emotions by giving
you a sense that your basic human rights are being violated. Everyone
should be respected. No one should be exploited. By making you feel
these emotions it solidifies the authors argument that schools are not the
place for cell phones to be.
The article has an authoritative tone. It says that there is simply no
place for phones in school, then it switches to a more neutral tone by saying
that its not right as a high school to be restricting students and taking away
responsibility. Then in the end it switches back to an authoritative tone by
telling the audience they dont want kids to be passive learners. We want
them to be active learner. By switching to different tones it gives the reader

Geddes 3

a sense that they can decide for themselves which side of the argument is
true. Then it nudges the audience to agree with them in the end. They
decide that cell phones should not be allowed in school because theres no
reason to use cell phones during class. While youre in school its our
[teachers] time.
The next article by Trotter also uses an appeal to credibility to convince
readers that cell phones are an underused tool in schools. Trotter quotes
many people who study this type of problem everyday and come up with
solutions for it. By saying Rosemary Miller is the technology-integration
specialist for secondary school in Buhler, Kan. It gives her credibility
because it shows the reader that she has had experience with how to use
cell phones as a tool in school. It also makes the readers believer her when
she says that cell phones are just like a pencil which is a tool for learning.
Mrs. Miller goes on to say that cell phones have a lot of different learning
strategies that are beneficial to the student. This makes the reader feel as
though a cell phone is a necessary tool for students to learn with.
Another strategy Trotter uses is emotional appeals. The article is
exciting and very optimistic about cell phones in schools. Plenty of
companies are working on educational applications gives you a sense of
pride that the phone that you use and your students use as a distraction in
school can be harnessed and used in a way that will teach students. By
doing this the author convinces the reader that cell phones can be very
beneficial if used in the right and proper way at school.

Geddes 4

The author also uses an optimistic tone throughout the article. This
tone spreads to the reader and gives them an optimistic outlook on cell
phone use in school. By saying podcasting and classroom response
systems are among the more than 100 uses of cell phones shows people
that we are learning more and more ways to use phones in an educational
way rather than be worrisome about all the problems that cell phones
cause. By having an optimistic tone it encourages the reader to come up
with more ways on their own that cell phones can be used in the curriculum.
It also makes the reader focus on the positives rather than the negatives.
In both articles the authors present arguments that contrast with each
other. However, they both use the same rhetorical strategies, appeals to
credibility and emotions, and tone to convince their audiences to agree with
them on whether cellular devices should be allowed in schools. Although
both articles use the same strategies the second article was a much more
convincing article because it went into more detail about the reasons why
they should be allowed and it also had a lot more teachers giving their
opinions on the matter.