After searching through the most science-barren publications on the planet (i.e the local print media), I came across an article in the Star Tribune entitled “As online classes boom, questions of rigor arise.” It covers the current benefits as well as issues facing online class option for students in Minnesota. To my amazement, over 1% of students in the state are already utilizing these alternative settings. The issue I find is that these options (i.e. the ‘science/technology’ of internet learning and its convenience) serve to legitimize its use. Often the students that are enrolled are ‘bully victims,’ elite athletes or struggling students. Therefore, test scores and performance fall short of standards and averages. I feel that the research behind the implications of online classrooms is bias to the benefits—like the notion that students who were unable to function in the physical classroom now have other options. As I see it, it’s an out for lazy, problematic, kids who want to cheat their way through school as well as a way for teachers to avoid having to deal with said kids.
Dear ???,
I’m writing in regards to the article “AS online classes boom, questions of rigor arise. As I am sure there are examples home-schooled & online students who show excellent progress, there are some who are not getting adequate instruction or are not appropriately dedicated to their studies. As a college student I have experience similar issues with rigor. Online classes tend to work better for non-traditional students who tend to value their education more so than do late teens/early 20's students who take classes online. Additionally, although online classes try to prevent defrauding by limiting time allowed per question or total exam time, it is quite easy for students to cheat during online exams (this helps improve your skills using a textbook's index, as well as google). Also, we should remember that socialization is a major part of the education process. Of course, one can take the view that the students only hurt themselves, but if enough come to view this as "education" and "ethical", we'll have an even more poorly educated public than we currently have. I propose an advocacy for in-class instruction; without this face time with other students in an academic environment along with little oversight of students actual performace, we simply are compounding the situations that create lifetimes of poor decisions.
-DH
"we simply are compounding the situations that create lifetimes of poor decisions."
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear more about these ill-effects you anticipate. I think that would strengthen your objection to these schools.
I also have a question about:
"Often the students that are enrolled are ‘bully victims,’ elite athletes or struggling students. Therefore, test scores and performance fall short of standards and averages."
Because, as I read it, it seemed to imply that bully victims, athletes and struggling students all get low test scores--but I don't think that was your point?...because in that case it sounds like they get low test scores in either setting (so maybe they should just not go to school at all, ha!) So I think a little clarification of your main objections would be helpful, and then moving on to your ending about the benefits of school within a social setting, and with well-monitored standards of rigor...?
It is pretty amazing that its 1%. I wonder what the total is for non-traditional settings. Makes one wonder if the "traditional" setting also has its flaws if so many students are finding a place outside of it. Or are they just finding loopholes to "easier" classes? (In that case maybe they are just really smart) ;)
Good luck!
Thanks for the input! definitely adds to my list of needed improvements...glad this is a working draft.
ReplyDelete