Rhetoric of Wineburg and Zivs Article on Education

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Authors, Audience, and Purpose
Rhetorical Analysis
Conclusion
Work Cited

Introduction

Pity for those who spend thousands of dollars on a college degree and do not even learn to distinguish fact from fiction. Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv think American university students cannot consistently identify misinformation online. They cite a study, conducted by themselves, that shows the ineffectiveness of modern online credibility guidelines. The authors blame the students failures in detecting misinformation on the CRAAP test, a reliability test employed by major universities. Wineburg and Ziv exploit the research finding to promote the idea that educational institutions must provide up-to-date training in online credibility assessment that would substitute archaic and subpar standards proposed in 1998.

Authors, Audience, and Purpose

Sam Wineburg, a professor of American Studies at Stanford University, and Nadav Ziv, a then-junior student of international relations author of the article. Wineburg is the head of the History Education Group at Stanford, an awarded Liberal Arts educator, and a widely published scholar. Nadav Ziv is a research assistant at Stanford History Education Group and a remarkable columnist. The articles primary audiences are students and educators. The text infers that students must be scrutinous while assessing the reliability of online sources, as the digitalized age provides plentiful instruments for purposeful deception. The authors urge for a drastic change in the national approach to credibility education, which is evident from the appeal to public endangerment at the very end of the editorial.

Rhetorical Analysis

The article reveals itself as a rhetorical piece if examined through the Aristotelian lens. Rhetoric aims to persuade and transform opinions according to a rhetors desired outcome. From an Aristotelian perspective, a rhetorical message consists of 3 elements: ethos, pathos, and logos. It is not necessary, however, for a rhetor to appeal to all three constituents, as some can be more or less prevalent. Nevertheless, the article by Wineburg and Ziv encapsulates all elements of Aristotles model but does not employ them evenly.

Ethos

Ethos is best understood as an appeal to authorial credibility, character, and ethics. This element, depending on perspective, is the least represented in the text. It is seen in the tone and assertive tone utilized by the authors. Wineburg and Ziv clearly argue from the point of expertise, having conducted the referenced study themselves. They thoroughly discredit the CRAAP assessment, proposing possible solutions to the misinformation problem afterward. Wineburgs proficiency in education is radiant in this piece. He offers insight on the subject regularly, abstaining from mere criticism. For example, when he addresses the fact that undergraduates evaluate sites credibility based on the contents of About pages, he instantly suggests educating students about curated portraits of how people and organizations want to be perceived (Wineburg and Ziv, para. 8). Ethos, the argument from expertise, is reflected primarily through frequent suggestions and educational insight.

Logos

Logos can be defined as simple as an appeal to logic and rational inference. Logical conclusions in the works of rhetoric usually derive from carefully constructed arguments supported by evidence. The primary source used by the authors is their own study on student credibility evaluation. The key findings of the study are cited throughout the paper. For instance, the editorial directly cites the number of subjects examined and summarizes the outcome as follows: most of the 263 college students we tested floundered when trying to discern fact from fiction (Wineburg and Ziv, para. 3). Based on the research outcomes, Wineburg and Ziv construct a logical argument that outdated resources are not effective in application to the modern realities. Per contra, it can be argued that authors fail to distinguish between the gross efficacy of the CRAAP approach, questionable implementation thereof in educational institutions, and students lack of effortful learning. The CRAAP approach might not be as abysmal as the authors describe, especially if amended to adhere to current standards of online reliability. The issue might lie in the educators or students lack of engagement, understanding, and interest in addressing the notion of credibility.

Pathos

Finally, pathos is usually described as an appeal to emotion. Pathos can manifest in formal argumentation aiming to elicit a desired emotional response or through symbols throughout the text. In the editorial, Wineburg and Ziv exploit both permutations of emotional appeal. The direct formal argument towards emotion can be seen, for example, at the end of the paper, where the authors conclude by appealing to public jeopardy: because when anti-vaccine content goes mainstream, when Holocaust deniers peddle digital pseudo-histories, and when issues such as gerrymandering and police brutality are litigated online, no one can afford to shelter in place (Wineburg and Ziv, para. 16). The statement targets sensitive hot topics and vulnerable and formerly marginalized communities, immediately provoking a strong negative feeling towards the advocates of dangerous and obscure beliefs. The choice of words in this statement is deliberate, and the connection to the articles subject is crystal clear.

Conclusion

In summary, Wineburg and Ziv construct a persuasive case for educational adjustments, marking present instruments for credibility evaluation obsolete. If analyzed through the Aristotelian lens, their article appears to be a work of rhetoric employing ethos, pathos, and logos to construct the core argument. The editorial exploits authorial credibility, logical inferences, statistical evidence, and emotional appeals to persuade the intended audiences students and educators. The text transcends empty criticism and suggests numerous changes to educational policies that would address current issues with credibility assessment.

Work Cited

Wineburg, Sam and Ziv, Nadav. Op-Ed: Why cant a generation that grew up online spot the misinformation in front of them? Los Angeles Times, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!