April 23, 2013 by ehempstead
Today I shall look over the Madison Courier article ‘Technology improving in local schools‘ by Renee Bruck, published 4/18/2013.
This article is about business, and it’s surprisingly dry. The lead is traditional, and the information provided is very fact oriented. This is by no means a bad thing, as the business of school and learning is rather important. As the particular focus is on technology, I feel Bruck did cover it decently well. Immediately upon my questioning the provided list of “five goals”–“replacing switches, a one-to-one computing ratio for students, video distribution, voice over internet protocol – or VOIP – and cabling in schools”–Bruck goes into what cabling entails, and touches on the basics of how these goals are being implemented.
“Smothers said the wireless and new switches were important for the other technology improvements.
“That’s important for a lot of reasons because all of our information goes through switches,” Smothers said of the already completed goals.”
The first quote of the article manages to fall flat. Attribution is present, at the beginning and tail end, but saying something IS important is not the same as saying WHY it is so. At the least, what does ‘for a lot of reasons’ mean? The quotes, overall, are a little bland. They don’t really offer any spice to the article, just hmms and maybes.
How would I spice up a business article? Focusing on the humans affected by this would be a step in the right direction, in this case the students. How are students reacting to this? How are teachers changing their teaching styles to incorporate and encourage positive usage of this new technology? After all, distractions are an issue in the classroom. This article only asks those attempting to make these changes in the first place, rather than those who these technologies are being implemented for.
And then, the ending! What’s with these bullet points? They look like the author tacked them to the end of the report as a reminder to actually cover them. That, or they were details that a place could not be found for in the article proper, yet had to be stuck somewhere. In fact, these bullet points seem to be the needed in-school angle the rest of the fact regurgitation was needing. They just confuse me, overall.