A Rhetorical Analysis of Susan Dynarski's Plea to Ban Laptops in Classrooms

 Technology is creeping into every aspect of our lives. From a simple smartphone that no one will leave home without, to the extremely advanced self-driving software evolving in the automobile industry, technology takes up a prevalent role in day-to-day interactions and tasks. On the surface, it seems technology acts as a tool making things quicker, easier, and more efficient. According to professor Susan Dynarski, however, it appears to be having the opposite effect in the classroom. In “Laptops Are Great. But Not During a Lecture or Meeting.” Dynarski discusses the negative effects of using laptops in school. Dynarski lists experiments to back up her reasoning and encourages other teachers to follow her lead on banning electronics. Dynarski states using laptops in class is distracting to students, and teachers should ban them from their rooms. While advocating for laptop-less classrooms, Dynarski successfully uses specific word choices and rhetorical elements to present her reasoning and evidence to the readers.

In “Laptops Are Great. But Not During a Lecture or a Meeting,” the University of Michigan Professor Susan Dynarski shares her thoughts in a New York Times publication from November 2017. Dynarski states that her classroom is an exception to the many electronic-filled lectures, even though there may be some benefit to the devices. Dynarski explains there is a substantial amount of evidence showing laptops are hurting student performance more than helping. Furthermore, Dynarski defines “selection bias” and refers to six different experiments done regarding the usage of laptops in classrooms. The experiments are used as evidence to disprove counterarguments and state more negative effects of the laptops. Dynarski wraps up her article by suggesting more research be done on laptops in college. Dynarski restates her opinion, this time with one exception: students with disabilities. Dynarski knowingly states that this may be a loss of privacy for these students but stresses the advantages over the disadvantages. Dynarski ends by suggesting that teachers at all levels should follow her lead in the classroom.

Dynarski is no stranger to writing these persuasive articles. Since graduating with a BA in Social Studies and a Master of Public Policy, both from Harvard, along with a PhD from MIT in Economics, Dynarski’s writings have focused on influencing readers to improve financial aid for students, debating charter school effectiveness, and challenging readers to discuss the effects of tuition on attendance to private school. With these educational topics usually in mind, Dynarski is targeting students, teachers, and influencers of academia. Dynarski now works as a professor of economics, education, and public policy at the University of Michigan. In her classes, Dynarski has seen the effects of laptop usage firsthand. Dynarski purposefully writes to show her audience the negative effects of electronics and persuade readers to stop using laptops in the classroom.

Due to its publication in The New York Times, “Laptops Are Great. But Not During a Lecture or Meeting.” is more likely to be received by an older generation who are readers of the newspaper and who are potentially part of a more liberal demographic than the readers of other papers. Nonetheless, Dynarski’s article remains credible due to the upstanding reputation and history of the newspaper. In addition to aspects of Dynarski’s audience, readers of the newspaper might not be as technologically savvy, and these readers are more likely to agree with Dynarski’s stance against laptops. The opposite effect may occur for the progressive readers of the paper who advocate for advancements in technology in social environments such as the classroom. As Dynarski writes to convince readers to stop using electronics in class, one part of her target audience that may be missing is students. The current younger generation of students is a lot less likely to read and receive information from a newspaper, especially since they have access to such a wide variety of news and sources on the internet. Fortunately, the remainder of Dynarski’s desired audience, which consists of teachers and professors, has a higher chance of reading articles in The New York Times and this gives an ideal platform for Dynarski to convince members of the academic community that laptops should be banned from classrooms.

In the article, Dynarski’s word choice plays a big role in helping persuade her audience. She uses specific words to draw attention to a point or to put emphasis on part of her argument. When Dynarski refers to laptops as a form of visual pollution, she creates a negative association in the readers’ minds. This striking imagery helps with the development of Dynarski’s argument showing that laptops are a bad fit for the classroom. Dynarski also sparks an image in the readers mind when referring to the many open and glowing laptops onlookers will see being used by a sea of students upon entering a classroom. When Dynarski writes this way, it evokes an emotion from the reader. This visualization makes the classroom feel detached and impersonal with the usage of laptops. With these distinctive word choices, Dynarski’s stance and the information is effectively presented because it elicits a negative feeling from the reader towards laptops, which will help Dynarski’s argument against them progress.

Along with word choice, Dynarski uses lots of facts to present her argument to the readers. In the article, Dynarski’s main proposition is that using laptops in class is distracting and teachers should ban them from their classrooms. Dynarski cites experiments from York University and McMaster University illustrating that not only students with laptops, but their surrounding classmates were distracted by the electronics. Dynarski explains this negative externality as visual pollution. The screen catches the attention of onlookers and prevents them from concentrating on the class. Dynarski refers to this experiment to convince readers that the laptops are truly distracting. The usage of facts in Dynarski’s article helps to convince the audience of her points and make readers feel the claims are indisputable.

In addition to using facts in her argument, Dynarski also references several esteemed universities to support her ideas. Along with sharing evidence that laptops are distracting, Dynarski mentions studies that show students who use electronics in class tend to perform worse in comparison to those who use pen and paper. According to the results of the experiment, Dynarski shares that even though handwritten versions of the notes were more succinct, they included more of the salient issues discussed in the lecture. Sharing that these specific arguments come from Princeton University and the University of California Los Angeles, Dynarski establishes a reliable and trustworthy backing to her argument. The credibility of these universities will gain respect from both sides of the argument. This will help Dynarski’s readers find common ground with the argument even if they don’t necessarily agree with the whole article.

Dynarski is a clear proponent for banning electronics in the classroom. Having taught in the classroom, Dynarski has had firsthand experience of the repercussions caused by students using electronics during her lectures. Dynarski presents her argument in The New York Times by using several different writing strategies, including specific rhetorical elements and word choices. Dynarski strengthens her argument with persuasion and by reporting data from various experiments. Dynarski also strengthens her argument by establishing credibility through referencing well-known schools and sources. By using these writing strategies that help control the style, sentence structure, and tone of the article, Dynarski can persuade and convince readers that using laptops in class is distracting and teachers should ban them from their rooms. With and without technology, there are many ways for students to learn. For many people, it is hard to decide whether to utilize the electronic resources students may have access to. For Dynarski, it seems the answer is clear. Banning laptops in classrooms is the way to go.

Works Cited

1. Dynarski, Susan. “Laptops Are Great. But Not During a Lecture or Meeting.” The New York Times, Sulzberger, 22 Nov. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/business/laptops-not-during-lecture-or-meeting.html.
2. “Susan M. Dynarski.” The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, The Regents of the University of Michigan, 11 Sep. 2017, http://fordschool.umich.edu/faculty/susan-dynarski.