Rhetorical Cyberschool by Clifford Stoll

Rhetorical

Cyberschool" by Clifford Stoll

The essay entitled "Cyberschool," written by Clifford Stoll, is an example of an extremely satirical and informal piece. Stoll explores the impractical aspects of extreme educational reform with the use of too much technology. His piece shows how these reform strategies fail to truly recognize the real issues of educational problems, and how these theories fall short of what they are trying to accomplish. The original audience would have been very familiar with ideas of solving all educational problems through extensive use of technology. These arguments have been increasing since the explosion of the internet, and so Stoll assumes his readers would have been familiar with the conversation which he enters himself into.

This essay implements aspects of both denotative and connotative language techniques. Hey speaks to the audience as if they are familiar with the subject, because they are. Most likely, everyone reading this will have gone to school and understands problems with modern education institutions. Many may also be familiar with recent theories proposing changes in this education structure to incorporate technology as the major force in learning. He plays on the readers' knowledge of these theories as a way to explore them in a negative, sarcastic light. He also uses connotative language to incorporate social perspectives on public feelings on the failures of education. Many parents and students alike believe that most teachers in public education systems are either unfit to be teachers, or care little about the actual progress of the students. So Stoll incorporates the idea of "cybershool" being an affective way of ridding this problem through the termination of all teachers. This is obviously meant to satirize earlier theories, for no one wants to see all the nation's teachers fired and "retained as data entry clerks."

Stoll uses a very informal tone in his essay, which begins with a greeting towards the reader, "Welcome to the classroom of the future." This invites the reader into an informal, personal conversation; rather than a dry formal structure which would be far less personal. He structures his work as if he was actually in front of his audience speaking to them from experience. He continues the personalized tone throughout the rest of the essay with his use of "you," rather than a more formal construction of a third person essay. This leads the reader to believe that this essay will explore a topic which would benefit them; but really, it exposes proposals for a fully computerized learning methodology as much too mechanized and unpractical.

This essay is also written in a very sarcastic tone. Throughout the work, Stoll uses language which sounds like he is a proponent of utilizing a "cyberschool," but the reader can discern that this is not really the case through his descriptions of the benefits and how he resolved issues which may arise if this system was ever implemented in classrooms. He explains how the lessons can be morphed into a fun, interactive experience for the student. This plays on recent theories of improving learning through morphing it into a form of education, as seen in video games created for learning purposes. He exemplifies this idea, until it cheapens the experience of learning. Stoll also explains how classroom interruptions cause by unwanted student interactions through the implementation of a prison-like atmosphere separating students from each other, "With n outside interruptions, lids' attention will be directed into the approved creative learning experiences, built into the software. Well compartmentalized, students will hardly ever see other...nearly ending classroom discipline problems." He also satirizes concerns about standardized testing. Many advocates of reform have expressed that standardized testing is the wrong way to rate a student's performance, stating that it does not truly cover curriculum. Stoll satirizes this by explaining that the curriculum of the cyberized classroom should be directed strictly towards what is tested in these standardized tests, "No reason to teach anything that's not on the ACT, PSAT, or SAT exams."