I was reading an article about a system called StraighterLine that is starting to be used at some colleges. The system posts self-guided course materials, and provides online access to a tutor if the student has trouble with the work. Essentially it’s a online class without a professor.
I could see this being effective for a very straight-forward class with concrete methods and definite solutions, such as algebra, but I can’t see this being effective for anything requiring complex analysis and abstract thinking. Sure such a course could be placed online. Those students who already have the skills would do just fine. But I don’t believe those other students could nurture those skills without direct interaction with a skilled teacher.
I’m not against online learning. I think it expands learning opportunities beyond geographic boundaries and, in some cases, makes it more economically accessible as well. And, I’m definitely not saying that online learning needs to mimic “old school” (literally) model. Some professors are creatively using technologies such as podcasts, blogs, and Twitter to the benefit of their students.
I worry about the model that pulls teaching out of it. Sure there have often been self-directed study models used in schools, but they were usually reserved for advanced students who were already surpassing their peers and who had the skills, motivation, and focus to learn on their own. Usually this occurred off to the side of another class, so the cost was the same for both sets of students.
A model such as StraighterLine scares me it is economically desirable. The cost of tutors (even enough to provide 24x7 coverage) is going to be cheaper than a professor’s salary. I fear a pressure to expand this usage to more and more classes. Sure this model may not work with some types of classes, but there is always the option to offer fewer of those other types of classes.
The risk is another “No Child Left Behind.” NCLB hurt arts curricula because it bases a school’s funding on standardized testable reading and math skills; therefore, reading and math often emphasized to the sacrifice of everything else. If an instructorless online system is significantly cheaper than other options, mightn’t schools be similarly compelled to focus on those classes that can be taught in that way?
Or perhaps it’s a good thing. Certainly we have all been taught by people who provided nothing more valuable than what StraighterLine provides. Perhaps it is those people who would be forced to find other work. Perhaps those teachers who truly engage and inspire, those who use the technology to enhance their lessons, who treat a classroom as a collaborative arena or thought—perhaps those wonderful people will still teach classes. Perhaps students will soon take them. Perhaps finding out there is an actual teacher tied to a course will be a signal that this is exceptional material taught in an exceptional way.
Courses that challenge the brain beyond its ability to regurgitate, be the subject art or philosophy or astrophysics, are the vital to ensuring that our future includes thinkers rather than an entire generation of human data processors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have a son that plans on using the StraighterLine program. My wife and I weighed the pros and cons of online education extensively and we researched StraighterLine at length. I’d like to address this one part specifically:
"I worry about the model that pulls teaching out of it. Sure there have often been self-directed study models used in schools, but they were usually reserved for advanced students who were already surpassing their peers and who had the skills, motivation, and focus to learn on their own. Usually this occurred off to the side of another class, so the cost was the same for both sets of students"
This is my response:
I don't think StraighterLine pulls teaching out of it at all. Quite the contrary, the interactive educational component is at the center of the course. In fact, as SL provides 10 hours of live, personal, educational interaction, they are really providing MORE "one-on-one time with a teacher" than most students will get in a typical undergraduate course. There might be the temptation to count time spent in a lecture hall taking notes as an interactive experience, but it varies dramatically by classes over a course and by courses over semester. More often than not, this live experience leaves a lot to be desired.
Regarding motivation for self-directed courses...this comment sparks elitism and privilege--why should the "already skilled" be given special attention (for the same price as the less motivated/less skilled who pay for the honor of sitting in the sea of 500 plus faces of a darkened lecture hall)? Isn't it the less motivated/less skilled student that NEEDS more attention? More one-on-one attention? More attention like StraighterLine offers?
@John from Virginia-
Thank you for your comment.
Perhaps I misunderstood how the system worked. My impression is that students must initiate one-on-one interaction. Hence my assumption about motivation.
My comments were not meant to be elitist. They are simply based on my own experiences as a teacher. Students who were basically getting the lessons were generally the ones who came to office hours or sent emails for clarifying information. The students who struggled seemed to shut down. In the classroom I was able to try to engage them directly, not always successfully but I could try. My fear is that a student left alone with a computer would be less likely to click on a button to seek help than they would shut down completely. I hope I am wrong about that.
I feel very strongly about the providing highest quality of learning possible to whomever may want it. And I feel strongly about trying to inform those who don't thing they want it that why they should. If StraighterLine and it's competitors can help that then I am all for it.
Post a Comment