Connor Mason

Pr. Weaver 

April 28, 2020

                                                                                   Rhetorical paper part 1

In the book “An Urgency of Teachers: the Work of Critical Digital Pedagogy” Jesse Stommel believes that labeling all digital pedagogy as obsolete and ineffective is completely ludicrous. He uses counterarguments to debunk the many incorrect ideas about online learning to persuade his audience while making himself look credible. First, he stresses that online learning is too valuable and has too much potential to simply be discarded as failed pedagogy. He says “Online learning is too big and valuable a target.” (Stommel, 1) which explains how he places value in online learning. Stommel makes this counterargument to establish that all aspects of online learning cannot be deemed as ridiculous and completely incorrect. He later explains that MOOCs come in very different shapes and sizes so you can’t say that they are ineffective or effective altogether because there are many types. MOOCs are not the same and they come in very different variations.

Stommel then introduces his own personal experiences with opinions about online teaching, he says “I’ve frequently encountered an anti-pedagogical bent amongst fellow teachers and faculty… Especially regarding online learning… What we need is to ignore the hype and misrepresentations (on both sides of the debate) and gather together more people willing to carefully reflect on how, where, and why we learn online.” (Stommel 1) By saying this he invalidates the many false preconceptions and thoughtless claims about online learning with his own counterargument. Stommel then introduces an idea that needs more thorough and reflection into online learning because most of the arguments come from misinterpretations. Stommel believes that for there to be a true and just debate it must not include exclusivity and intellectualism. He simply does not want hype and prejudice about online learning to pollute the debate about peadoligical learning.

Stommel then opens up the debate to the ones who digital pedagogy will be affecting-the students. Stommel says “And it’s especially important that we open our discussions of the future of education to students, who should both participate in and help to build their own learning spaces. Pedagogy needs to be at the center of all these discussions.” (Stommel, 1) which is his rebuttal or counterargument that really puts emphasis and importance on what the very students think about online learning. It’s like he is saying what the students think that online learning is important, teachers and professors can’t decide what works well for them and what they like. Stommel later lists many points about online learning that are not intended to debate whether it’s good or bad but instead list the many aspects and variations in evaluating online learning. 

His first point is “Online learning happens at many different scales. Not all online learning, though, is scalable.” (Stommel, 1) which means that online learning can be labeled as good or bad because it is effective for certain learners and ineffective for other learners at the same time. This is his counterargument to individuals who rate online learning by the performance of a selected group of students. Another quote by stommel is “Don’t wield outcomes like a weapon. Online learning activities should not be overly designed or too-strictly standardized.)” (Stommel 1) means that students’ results should not deem an online course good or bad. Stommel believes that improvisation, play and experimentation are the natural part to learning. Stommel uses this counterargument to debunk the idea that if a class does not score high on an online learning course, the module is not bad; they just have not learned the material yet. Last, Stommels’ following quote “It might function well for certain learners or for certain courses, but it should be viewed as one of many available approaches.” (Stommel 1) basically means that an online course may work well for one student but may not be suited for another. He again asserts a counter argument that doesn’t allow students and teachers to label an online module as good or bad all together because it’s meant to fit certain people and not everyone. Stommel believes it’s like saying, “students focus best while in the classroom when that’s false, some students focus better in confined rooms or in solitary, it’s not meant for everybody.”

Connor Mason

Pr. Weaver

April 27, 2020

                                                                                          Rhetorical part 2

This needs more context; just a couple of sentences setting this up so that your readers understand the stakes—why is this important? It’s devastating that test score numbers determine where students can go for higher education. The ACT and SAT testing system has denied many students with great potential, and many academic achievements admission into prestigious colleges. Even with online learning, written models of learning should not be used as a universal evaluation system to determine a student’s capability and intellect. The ACT and SAT are both standardized tests to test a student’s readiness for college and high schools have their students take them once or twice. Prestigious and ivy league colleges have placed heavy emphasis on selecting students with perfect scores. In college the factors that are integral to a student’s success is discipline and a strong work ethic so how does proving you can test well show you are ready for college.

The SAT and ACT testing system needs to be abolished because it labels students as only a test score when they’re so much more. Individuals with great character, academic accolades and passion are denied acceptance because they didn’t have a desired score on some randomized test. It’s like saying “despite everything else you have done and achieved, your test score says you are not good enough to be a student at our institution” and that’s purely wrong.

To begin with colleges need to focus on other evaluating modules and methods that can show a person’s capability of handling college work. Michele Hernandez, who is the president of Hernandez College Consulting and Application Boot Camp and was a former college admissions officer at Dartmouth College believes that colleges should focus more on SAT subject tests and IB/AP exam scores. She states “At least SAT subject tests help colleges put grades at different high schools in perspectives, and AP/IB exams show ability to do college-level coursework.” (Hernandez, 2015) which means that AP/IB exam scores show how well a student handled rigorous and difficult course work and SAT placement tests help get a grasp on how much various schools prepared different students. They allow for students already accepted to show what they know and don’t know so they can be placed into classes that fit their academic prowess. Hernandez states “The majority of students applying to elite colleges spend hundreds of hours doing SAT/ACT prep when they could be pursuing scholarly activities. Many New York City families will spend over $20,000 on SAT prep and top tutors charge over $600 an hour.” (Hernandez, 2015) which basically means that students targeting prestigious schools ignore scholastic experience and will study nonstop for the ACT and SAT. The very individuals who score high on the test usually had intense and expensive tutoring sessions for the ACT or SAT. Most families don’t have funds to spend on getting their child expensive tutoring sessions so the availability and advantage goes to the students in families of wealth. College board had deduced from their results that there is a direct linkage with income and SAT/ACT scores.

The National Association of College Counseling has found that colleges with optional ACT and SAT submissions have seen a great increase of diversity in their applications. The author of the post Mcentee who has over 10 years teaching English and College prep courses says there is an increase in diversity like gender, race, ethnicity and nationality. It’s apparent that students of non privileged families or families of color don’t have high or perfect test scores so this optional submission of SAT and ACT test scores does not deter them from submitting an application. The National Association of College Counseling later compared the progress of Non-submitters and Submitters and found some eye opening results. Mcentee states from the results “But this same study concluded that “Non-submitters (those who don’t submit ACT or SAT scores) go on to graduate at rates equivalent to Submitters.” (Mcentee, 2020) In other words, how a student performs in college doesn’t seem to depend on the SAT or ACT.” This means that non submitters who did not submit their scores because they were low and students who submitted their scores because they were high performed at the same rate. So what does this mean? It means that the ACT and SAT don’t predict how a student will perform in college because both tests only measure how well a student has studied. High test scores does not translate into success and prosperity in college.

Check out this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUaI2ofyo8

                                                                                                         Work Cited

          Abolishing the ACT and SAT, www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue18/streetman.htm.

          “Finding Acceptance.” The New York Times, The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/31/how-to-improve-the-college-admissions-process/colleges-should-get-rid-of-the-sat-and-act-and-abolish-preferences.

          “Why the ACT and SAT Should Be Abolished.” Test Prep Advisor, 11 Feb. 2020, www.testprepadvisor.com/act/why-the-act-and-sat-should-be-abolished/.