Texting In Class Is Not Disruptive

In the personal narrative, “A Student Asserts That Texting in Class Is Not Disruptive,” author Alex Howard argues that a complete ban of cellphones in the classroom environment should not exist. Howard argues that teachers and instructors are the main cause of disruption, rather than the culprit of texting. Howard brings up the fact that the instructors are the ones stopping class to call out the culprits, rather than the perceived notion that the student texting causes the stoppage in learning (58). He uses personal experiences as a high school student with these rules in place to support his main argument. Howard conducts testing of his hypothesis that teachers only care about the distraction caused by cell phones, and not distraction caused by other activities. Howard brings up the counterargument, and agrees with the notion that phone calls should be banned in classes because, “they’re genuinely disruptive and obnoxious, and are detrimental to the learning environment” (59). Overall, Howard argues that the rules in

Howard’s ‘job’ of being a student validifies his argument, because he is someone who has firsthand experience with this issue of teachers cracking down on texting. Fellow students reading this article would agree with these claims, as it appears to be a common topic in high schools. Howard brings up the counter-argument, that all cellphones should be banned in class, and even agrees with part of it. His willingness to address the other side and then make a statement shows he is not trying to discredit or hide the other side. I think that these arguments for Howard’s credibility work. They appeal to students who have had similar experiences with cellphones. He does a good job not neglecting the other side of the argument. Howard presents a fair argument, that also increases his credibility among students. Overall, these all present a strong, fair argument for