Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Two Big Problems With Online College Courses

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the no-recess-and-nobody-judging-you-when-you-slack dept.

Education 215

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that while online college classes are already common, on the whole, the record is not encouraging because there are two big problems with online teaching. First, student attrition rates — around 90 percent for some huge online courses — appear to be a problem even in small-scale online courses when compared with traditional face-to-face classes. Second, courses delivered solely online may be fine for highly skilled, highly motivated people, but they are inappropriate for struggling students who make up a significant portion of college enrollment and who need close contact with instructors to succeed. Research has shown that community college students who enroll in online courses are significantly more likely to fail or withdraw than those in traditional classes, which means that they spend hard-earned tuition dollars and get nothing in return. Worse still, low-performing students who may be just barely hanging on in traditional classes tend to fall even further behind in online courses. 'Colleges need to improve online courses before they deploy them widely,' says the Times. 'Moreover, schools with high numbers of students needing remedial education should consider requiring at least some students to demonstrate success in traditional classes before allowing them to take online courses.' Interestingly, research found that students in hybrid classes — those that blended online instruction with a face-to-face component — performed as well academically as those in traditional classes. But hybrid courses are rare, and teaching professors how to manage them is costly and time-consuming. 'The online revolution offers intriguing opportunities for broadening access to education. But, so far, the evidence shows that poorly designed courses can seriously shortchange the most vulnerable students.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fix the students (5, Insightful)

vswee (2040690) | about 2 years ago | (#42960641)

they should teach students in secondary school to be more "highly motivated". would make the college experience much more rewarding.

Re:fix the students (4, Interesting)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 2 years ago | (#42960675)

If found the UOP online classes to be much easier for me than when I went to a traditional Uni.

The one class at a time, 6 weeks of grind was very effective. I felt focused and did not fell like I was losing cycles switching between subjects.

That said, it is a bit of a death march. Once you fall behind, you are likely unable to recover.

During my two years I dropped 2 classes. One for a death in the family of the grandfather I am named after, and the other for an instructors that was not just off the syllabus, but off the map too.

Re:fix the students (0, Offtopic)

xevioso (598654) | about 2 years ago | (#42961617)

Your grandfather is named "funwithBSD"? So you are, I presume, Mr. funwithBSD III? What is your first name, Ubuntu?

Re:fix the students (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 years ago | (#42962105)

UOP? Wikipedia has many meanings for this acronym. Which one is yours?

How do you teach motivation? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960743)

When I really want to learn something, I'm plenty motivated - I eat, breath and shit the subject.

When I had to take a subject because somewhere someone dictated that one has to take that subject to be "well rounded", I did the bare minimum to get a decent grade and get it over with. Art History for example. The only way to get a good grade in it was to memorize paintings and artists that I forgot 3 days after the class ended.

Monty Python Meaning of Life (1)

Latent Heat (558884) | about 2 years ago | (#42961673)

The videos that I find most informative of both the teaching and learning experience are 1) John Cleese in The Meaning of Life as the English Public School instructor who manages to make "the facts of life" a complete bore, 2) John Cleese in Life of Brian in the stoning scene, 3) Ben Stein and the ensemble cast in the "Bueller . . . Bueller" scene, and 4) Father Guido Sarducii's "5 Minute University."

Re:How do you teach motivation? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961937)

I'm a professor at a Texas law school. Taking certain classes can be a bitter pill for many to swallow despite interest in the material or field of law more generally, educator or method of teaching the material, or any other factor.

In response to the article, though. My school has an 80% class attendance requirement for students. Some students miss every class they can, and some professors (including myself) allow others to slide by with fewer than 80% for one reason or another. I have noticed that generally higher student attendance correlates with higher student grade, but in many cases requiring high attendance numbers can be burdensome to students and the correlation can go the opposite direction.

The problem, and this may hold for students in online classes also, is that many students are attempting to juggle competing yet equally-compelling responsibilities. Many of my students are >35 and have families with young children and/or are working in addition to taking classes. If they can demonstrate fulfillment of my criteria in class, I don't care how often they are there.

But for the younger students, who often aren't as mature and lack the life experience to deal with some of the pressures of a stressful environment like law school, and who aren't as driven or motivated to succeed as the older students, not attending means poor grades. These students rarely learn outside class, so class is where you must focus the efforts.

On the other hand, I have advocated for teaching a "life learning"-type course. I would love to teach metacognitive and metamemory strategies, encourage volunteerism and community activism, and similar life lesson-type materials--for credit! This may solve some of the maturity issues (because most people need time to develop these skills and passions).

Re:fix the students (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960745)

I have a better idea. We discourage the students who aren't cut out for secondary school from enrolling in the first place. We also fight the stigma associated with trade and labor jobs. In many cases, the skilled trades person is going to be financially way ahead of the mediocre college grad by the time they're 30 anyway. There are also more real jobs in many trades than we can expect from many shitty college degrees.

Re:fix the students (1)

J Story (30227) | about 2 years ago | (#42961339)

I have a better idea. We discourage the students who aren't cut out for secondary school from enrolling in the first place. We also fight the stigma associated with trade and labor jobs. In many cases, the skilled trades person is going to be financially way ahead of the mediocre college grad by the time they're 30 anyway. There are also more real jobs in many trades than we can expect from many shitty college degrees.

The other notable advantage of trade jobs is that it is not so easy to offshore them. Replacing a hot water tank and adding a new electrical circuit still requires a guy in a truck who does house calls.

well mass lectures are not motivating no they put (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42960765)

well mass lectures are not motivating no they put people to sleep / make them want to play games to pass time.

Re:fix the students (4, Interesting)

erpbridge (64037) | about 2 years ago | (#42960905)

When I took my online classes at Charter Oak from 2007-2011, the instructors in ALL the classes were required to have an online forum, and part of the grading criteria for every course was a class participation grade which was 30 pct of the total grade. The instructors usually had a criteria that there had to be X number of posts on the forum across two different days, and that one of the posts had to be an initial post in response to one of the 3 or 4 posted discussion topics for the week. The other posts had to be a meaningful and well thought out post in response to another person's topic advancing the discussion. The teachers also, in addition to a weeklong assignment published ahead of time, had a written assignment due mid week that was not posted until that Sunday, and one that was posted the day after the mid week one that was due Saturday.

These all seemed to be common themes across all the courses. This seemed to be this college's way of trying to keep the students engaged with the class and instructor. Now, it depended on the instructor... some were pretty hands off for their classes, so people got away with posting a very general short post, and some instructors were hands on and did not accept those short posts toward the week total.

The students also, in the first year, had a mid semester and mid term checkup phone conference with their assigned academic advisor, as well as a yearly checkup over the summer to fine tune their course selections for the coming year. After the first year was completed, the only time we really talked to academic advisor was during the summer about fine tuning the course selections, as the course curriculum contained a relatively large open area for choosing your classes toward your major, and WHEN you could choose to take those classes (some colleges insist certain core courses must be taken during your first two semesters... this one was open to when you took them, as long as you did.)

Really though, no matter what amount of handholding the college gives you, no matter if you're taking it online or in person, or hybrid, its up to you as the student to step up as an adult and realize you're overwhelmed and need help. With an online course, you end up taking more of that in your own hands, as no one can actually see your body language, your class hours are NOT set to specific times like at a brick and mortar, and you also aren't as isolated from outside real world distractions during your chosen class time as you are at a brick and mortar.

Whereas in a brick and mortar college you are able to sit yourself down in the cafeteria or library and read, and you MUST be in a structured class between 2:30-5:00 on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday... In an online class you have to find time after the kids head to sleep, and your chosen class time is 10:30pm-11:45pm on Sunday, Tuesday, and Saturday.... and as you're sitting at the computer, you have to resist the urge to Facebook/email/IM/game, and set your priorities straight.

(That last little bit right there is the unstated reason why so many people have problems... myself included. I never bombed out of any online classes or withdrew... but I skated through on a few classes by phoning it in with lax teachers while on a raiding guild schedule from shortly after work ended until midnight.)

Re:fix the students (2)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about 2 years ago | (#42961115)

Exactly! Maybe students who are not highly motivated should learn a trade, because only highly motivated and intelligent students can succeed in college. It does take more discipline to study and work at home. A big problem is that they don't teach discipline and self-control anymore in our public schools. The teach students how to feel good about themselves and toe the line to whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment.

Fix the lecturer (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#42961401)

they should teach students in secondary school to be more "highly motivated". would make the college experience much more rewarding.

Motivation is the responsibility of the lecturer, not the student. You can't teach someone to be more motivated. Forcing someone to "tough it out" when things are boring is counterproductive, it's not the way we learn.

Motivation comes from two things: perceived value, and emotional content.

Courses which focus on theory and the abstract aspects of a subject are going to seem boring and pointless, while courses which incorporate a mix of theory and practical application in a way that's perceived as valuable will be more interesting.

So for example, an electronics course can focus on theory and problem solving - with long derivations at the start and the formula results at the end of each lecture. That would be boring, and requires a significant amount of "forced attention".

That same course could focus on hands-on projects, showing students that they could build things which they could actually use. Once a circuit is working, *then* explain why it works - filling in the knowledge gaps after the student has basic familiarity. That would be interesting, and follow more naturally the way humans learn.

That's perceived value; the other aspect is emotional content.

Many lecturers present the information in a dry, matter-of-fact manner. This is also boring, and requires "forced attention".

Some lecturers, however, have an infectious enthusiasm for the subject. They laugh, tell jokes and amusing stories, and generally have fun with the subject. The students enjoy the lecture and the learning isn't an ordeal.

That's the emotional side of value. There are other types of emotional content, such as horror novels in literature, or the chemistry of explosives.

Teach the professors about motivation. You'll get a lot more effect for your efforts.

Re:Fix the lecturer (3, Interesting)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 2 years ago | (#42961679)

I beg to differ - motivation falls into two separate categories - internal and external motivations.

Say you want to lose some weight and buff up a bit. The internal motivation may be you don't like the way you look and you want to avoid health problems in the future. Any time you feel yourself starting to slack off, you have to revisit your goals and the reasons why you started the weight loss program in the first place.

Many people have difficulty managing internal motivations, so they rely on external motivations - in the case of the weight loss example, you may hire a personal trainer who will show up and badger you into following your agreed exercise routine. You may also join something like Weight Watchers where you have a regular weigh in and will be 'shamed' within the support group if you don't follow your agreed plan.

When it comes to study, having the goal of becoming a Doctor may be an internal motivation to pay attention in class - you have a personal reason for wanting to excel. Not wanting to waste money on a course you drop out of or may have to repeat, or having to tell your parent you failed a course they paid for is an external motivation.

The greatest success comes when someone is truly engaged and internally motivated to achieve. If you rely entirely on external motivations and don't really want to be doing whatever it is you are working towards, as soon as the external factor lets up you'll stop.

Having an entertaining lecturer is certainly better than having a boring one, but if the student is only doing the course because they don't know what else to do with their time, it's unlikely they will absorb the lessons for any length of time.

Re:fix the students (1)

tehlinux (896034) | about 2 years ago | (#42961817)

You can't teach someone to be motivated.

Re:fix the students (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42961939)

At $5, 3 handouts the size of a postcard [despair.com] seems to be a good course support.
But again, an "online course support" as suggested should be equally effective for students not suffering from ADHD.

Nothing New Here... (5, Interesting)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#42960659)

"Correspondence Courses", of which online is the latest incarnation, have always had these problems. Indeed, degrees obtained through this type of self-study are often very highly regarded, not just because you have the degree, but because you had the motivation and tenacity to complete the degree without all the traditional support structure of an bricks-and-mortar college.

Re:Nothing New Here... (3, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#42960955)

"Correspondence Courses", of which online is the latest incarnation, have always had these problems. Indeed, degrees obtained through this type of self-study are often very highly regarded, not just because you have the degree, but because you had the motivation and tenacity to complete the degree without all the traditional support structure of an bricks-and-mortar college.

Indeed; and I remember taking experimental online courses 20 years ago, where the study associated with the courses had exactly the same findings. Some of the courses attempted to fix the attrition rate by having companion courses that were required to be taken at the same time at a local campus -- this resulted in slightly higher attrition for the meatspace course, and significantly less attrition for the online one.

This was 20 years ago. I had hoped that we had learned a few things since then, not just re-learned the same things.

Re:Nothing New Here... (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 2 years ago | (#42962119)

What exactly is the problem with a high attrition rate? Make the classes free like coursera etc., and let the instructors try to keep the audience interested enough to keep coming back.

Re:Nothing New Here... (3, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 2 years ago | (#42960993)

"Highly regarded"? I've seen managers throw out any resume that had University of Phoenix or any other online university. Let's face it, online degrees are a high-priced joke.

Re:Nothing New Here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961199)

I've seen arrogant asses throw out online courses. Just like most brick and mortar degrees are a joke, most online degrees are a joke. Fortunately, it's the person I hire, not the degree.

Re:Nothing New Here... (2)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#42961787)

I've seen managers do many stupid things that are not in the best interest of their employer. Of course, useless degrees are useless no matter how you came by them but the numerous issues of "for-profit" education are not really the topic.

When I wrote the comment, I was specifically thinking of "Open University" degrees in the UK. They used to broadcast classes on TV at off-peak times and this is in pre-VCR days. So students actually had to get up a 5am, or stay up until 1am, to watch the lecture.

The attrition rate was extremely high, but, probably no higher than any current on-line courses. If you're going to work and study for a degree at the same time you'd either need to get up early, or stay up late no matter how the course is taught.

No, Colleges need to stop catering to the LCD (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960669)

It's not online courses that are the issue, it's the people taking them. I'm in a Business 101 class at the moment (Have a B.S. in C.S., taking this a pre-req for some other educational goals I have), and the other people in the class are completely without discipline. It's a condensed 8 week course. We had one full week to take a mid term, which entails showing up to a campus in Northern Virginia, there are like 6, and taking a one hour exam. Enough people failed to do that, that the professor extended the time to take the exam by ONE WHOLE WEEK, this was after it was due!

Then I had a group project to do, each person in our group was assigned a portion which involved a 1-2 paragraph response. I get a beautiful full page response from someone two hours before we turn it in (I was to combine and submit for our group). The devil's advocate in me copied an entire paragraph, googled it, and low and behold, that person had plagiarized word for word from another group who had taken this course previously. When I asked for citations, they simply cited the main website for the fortune 500 company that the report was in, which, mind you, had ZERO information on it than what was on the page they turned in.

So like I say, it's not the medium, it's the dumbasses who typically enroll in them. Community colleges should stop focusing on passing everyone or handing out blue ribbons and start thinning out the herd. They're doing more a disservice to these kids by allowing them so much slack than they realize.

Re:No, Colleges need to stop catering to the LCD (2)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | about 2 years ago | (#42961303)

So like I say, it's not the medium, it's the dumbasses who typically enroll in them. Community colleges should stop focusing on passing everyone or handing out blue ribbons and start thinning out the herd. They're doing more a disservice to these kids by allowing them so much slack than they realize

I agree with you 100%. I am a highly motivated student and have performed well in online courses. Teaches hold me back. But ... the reasons the colleges do these things you mention is MONEY. It is "for profit", so they just entice the kids to take out loans and grants so the college gets the money. They are not overly concerned if they pass.

Re:No, Colleges need to stop catering to the LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961435)

So like I say, it's not the medium, it's the dumbasses who typically enroll in them. Community colleges should stop focusing on passing everyone or handing out blue ribbons and start thinning out the herd. They're doing more a disservice to these kids by allowing them so much slack than they realize

I agree with you 100%. I am a highly motivated student and have performed well in online courses. Teaches hold me back. But ... the reasons the colleges do these things you mention is MONEY. It is "for profit", so they just entice the kids to take out loans and grants so the college gets the money. They are not overly concerned if they pass.

This 100%. Most of the classes I have had are just a rehash of some other class that I took years ago. There have been few classes that I have had where I actually learned anything from. Most if not all University/Community Colleges are there to do one thing, make money. That is why my online classes coast at least 20% more then the in person ones. Why is that? there is no classroom that is needed, teachers can work from home or the office. yeah yeah servers to run the crap, but really, most of it is run off the universities own server or one that they pay for anyway so why do I have to pay more for a damned online course where the teacher has very little to do?

Re:No, Colleges need to stop catering to the LCD (3, Interesting)

dgun (1056422) | about 2 years ago | (#42961671)

I agree. And how much is a college degree worth when everyone has one? There is a student loan bubble on the horizon and I guess a mountain of defaults is what it will take before we seriously reconsider how we educate in the US.

Why do online courses have lectures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960671)

Online courses should be more than videotapes of traditional courses.

If we're going to reuse online course materials year after year (and you know that we are), why not put some time and effort into making materials that are more effective than a traditional lecture? That shouldn't be too hard, since lectures are widely considered one of the worst teaching strategies.

Re:Why do online courses have lectures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961397)

Uh, well, mostly right. Lecture's strength is that it can distribute a lot of information to a large number of people very efficiently. Problem is, that's the only strength.

cheating (2)

starworks5 (139327) | about 2 years ago | (#42960673)

Don't forget those "job creators" hire people like me, to do the homework and tests for them, so that they can take future credit for many more accomplishments. Just look at what happened at Harvard, or how someone like James Franco could finish his degree so quickly.

I get charged MORE for online classes (3, Interesting)

loonwings (1519397) | about 2 years ago | (#42960677)

I attend University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. For every class I take online I have to pay $300 on top of the already ridiculously high tuition. I have no idea why; there's no additional resources they're using, and they don't have to use any classrooms for this. It should be a $300 DISCOUNT.

Re:I get charged MORE for online classes (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 2 years ago | (#42960769)

Because they can. The fact that you're enrolling in an online course means you're probably working, so you have more money than the regular students.

Re:I get charged MORE for online classes (0)

loonwings (1519397) | about 2 years ago | (#42961669)

"Because they can" is not an explanation for why, it's merely stating "they are allowed to". I know the real reason is "so they can get more money" I just wish they would at LEAST have the decency to make some bullshit up like "to offset revenue lost to on-campus vendors" or some shit.

close contact with instructors is at the tech / tr (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42960689)

close contact with instructors is at the tech / trade schools and the Community Colleges.
Not so much at the bigger Universitys where you may just have big class room with a TA.

Re:close contact with instructors is at the tech / (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961015)

This flies in the face of my current experience. I take four classes online per semester and one or two on campus at a community college. This is the new normal as all the students in my lab classes do the same, albeit with varying credit loads.

The only real problem with online courses for people that actually want to be there is a high rate of arbitrary grading without the recourse you would get by being there to confront the professor as to why 20% of your grade evaporated for 'subjective reasons' It is a bitter pill to swallow for your high level math and programming professors to grade you subjectively.

Attrition rates are misleading (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960691)

I have taken several online classes with Coursera starting with Andrew Ng's Machine Learning outing (before he even launched Coursera).

I'll sign up for lots of classes that look interesting, but I don't know what they're going to be like or more importantly when they're ever going to start. Then suddenly, a whole bunch of them start at the same time. I pick the best one or two and stick with those. Three at once with a full-time lead dev gig is not so cool.

You can't plan when you're going to take what because it's very touch-and-go with Coursera. I've been registered for Jurafsky and Manning's NLP class for months and months now, and I have no clue when or even if it will ever start. Also, you have no idea with a class if it's going to get stupid part way through because people complain that it's too tough.

And, sometimes work just picks up and you have to drop most or all of your classes, that's just how it goes.

Still, one class I just finished, something like 17% of the people who finished had doctoral degrees (self-reported). So there's a pretty good quality of student that sticks it out.

Re:Attrition rates are misleading (2)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#42960953)

This is a factor. There's also the quasi-dropout rate. I've decided in several courses that the amount of work to do the homework wasn't worth it, because the code was trivial. I just wanted to follow the lectures and have a discussion room, I got more out of that.

But the real dropout rate is still high. I was a TA at a distance math course in the early 2000s. In 3 years nobody ever finished it- except me. I've done MITx and Coursera, every course has dozens of people saying they didn't know it would be this much work and dropping out- and that continues throughout the first 3/4 of the courses. Figure that most of the people who drop out don't care enough to post, I would be shocked if the actual drop out rate of people who decide they just don't want to do it was below 75%. 90% sounds about right.

Re:Attrition rates are misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961081)

I have noticed many students that start far more courses than they could possibly take (eight to twelve) and just drop the half that have the most work. I doubt they learn much and hope to never work with their type. On the other hand it is common for online courses to have double the raw workload to compensate for lack of classroom evaluations.

Re:Attrition rates are misleading (3, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#42961567)

Its not just dropping the ones that take the most work- some of us drop the ones that are least interesting. But f you're talking about the free online courses, signing up for a bunch and surveying them to see how interested you are is a good way to try things that you don't know your interest level on without high investment. Of course, I'm not taking those classes for school (and even the ones I pass would never go on my resume), I'm doing it for amusement. And I'm talking free classes.

Re:Attrition rates are misleading (2)

asifyoucare (302582) | about 2 years ago | (#42961963)

Yes, attrition rates largely reflect the low barrier to participation. Attrition rate cannot be considered in isolation of other factors.

Hard-earned tuition dollars? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960697)

If you can fog a glass you can have a Pell grant and as much unsecured education debt as you can stomach. The tuition bubble is a direct result of excessively easy tuition funding including subsidies, grants and government backed financing. The fraction of tuition money actually 'earned' is small and getting smaller every day.

Easy come easy go. An endless array of flimflam 'schools' have appeared to sop up all the money. The legitimate operations just annually jack up their rates at 3-4 times inflation to get their cut.

Yeah, lets pretend all this is 'earned' money.

Re:Hard-earned tuition dollars? (1)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about 2 years ago | (#42961295)

Any time there is a big pile of money somewhere, there will always be people who will try their best to get some of it in their pockets. The availability of medical insurance has jacked up medical costs. Anything the government subsidizes always costs somebody more than it otherwise would. For most of us that increased cost comes in the form of taxes.

It's the students (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960717)

If the students "need close contact with instructors to succeed", then they probably shouldn't be in college in the first place.
A college degree should mean that you can think critically and have the motivation to figure things out.

they should be in a trade / apprenticeship then (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42960939)

they should be in a trade / apprenticeship then some people learn better that way to bad HR does not see it that way.

Re:It's the students (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961145)

That is a sweeping generalization. For example, recitation sections are valuable for working through difficult problems and rooting out misconceptions. I actually think the future will look more like Salman Khan's view of the "flipped classroom" where students use video and other tools for pre-study of key concepts / unit operations and use classroom time for problem solving and exams. There simply is not an effective substitute for a human proctor and a certified ID to insure exams and certifications are meaningful. And even these are not foolproof...

Re:It's the students (2)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#42961313)

Maybe for the Art History majoring hipsters, that will suffice. If you are telling me that you could have learned, oh say, abstract algebra, without a little guidance, then you are a fucking liar.

Re:It's the students (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961595)

you must not be familiar with the Khan Academy and how they work.

Re:It's the students (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#42962005)

(1) Watching instructional videos doesn't count as guidance?
(2) Khan Academy is shit. A extremely cursory pseudo-explaination involving avocados, then a couple basic examples doesn't do anything. He never explains how anything works, just that it works (and frequently leaves off units, which pisses me off to no end). He doesn't even bother to shout WOLOG like a proper teacher would when he uses to simplest illustrations possible so he can cram as much MS Paint artwork into 10 minutes as possible.

Some People Just Aren't Cut Out For College (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960719)

I thought the point of higher education was to pursue a topic of your own interest. That in itself was the motivation to complete the studies, you actually wanted to learn the topic being taught. Why is it such a failure of the system when people drop out? - Maybe they just discovered that they didn't like that subject or perhaps they really were not capable of being self motivated and independent.

All this academic hand-holding in college/university can't be producing the best possible graduates. What happens when these people hit the workforce where there is a non-existent support structure?

Re:Some People Just Aren't Cut Out For College (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961039)

I thought the point of higher education was to pursue a topic of your own interest.

That's why I self-educated. I was motivated, ambitious, and most of all, it didn't put me to sleep.

I'm sorry, but I don't regard very many people who choose to go to college to be coddled and babies as "self-motivated." I just cannot. If they were truly self-motivated, they'd self-educate and do a good job of it.

still tied to the old traditional ideas when over (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42960735)

still tied to the old traditional ideas when overall we need to rethink college.

Too much is put on a degree / name of school over real skills / on the job work.

Maybe degrees need to be broken up in to smaller chucks or maybe even killed off. The degree system seems to drag down tech schools

Also the (degree / college class / credits) time table can lead to stuff being padded out to fill out a credit and other stuff can get over slimmed down to fit it.

And other things are relevance of the classes as in too much theory or too much one size fits all.

I think that the older degree system needs to be spilt up into a (smaller system / more modular system) that has more flexibility and is not tied down to older ideas about college or is not just a BIG block of years where doing 90% can = NO degree or anything saying that you know X.

Re:still tied to the old traditional ideas when ov (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#42960881)

There's nothing wrong with the current university education, other than letting in far too many unqualified students.

What you are asking for already exists. It's called a trade school. It's far more appropriate for what the summary euphemistically calls "struggling students." People who are "needing remedial education" should not be attending a university. Any college that has lowered its entrance standards so far that remedial education is even on the table has turned itself into a diploma mill that will shortly be known as worthless. They're cutting their own throats in pursuit of the almighty dollar, diluting education, deceiving employers, and generally ruining the entire concept of a university education.

And it's going to require multiple lost generations before anything is done about it. That's right, generations. As in, pairs of decades. Unemployment is highest right now among new college graduates, and the severe dumbing down of university educations is one reason why. When the economy is already shifting to eliminate jobs permanently, people who can barely struggle through their supposed education are at a double disadvantage. But this isn't going to sink in with enough people to make any difference for decades. The mystique and cachet of college has a long lasting draw that's going to cause a whole lot of grief before it declines.

Meanwhile there are any number of companies all over the country who are crying for trained, reliable, dependable, competent employees with trade skills like welding. If they can find somebody who already has the skill, they're amazed, and if they can find somebody who both knows the job and will show up to work regularly, they're astonished. And they pay pretty good too. Much better than minimum wage. But the combination of people trying to get educations they are in no way qualified to acquire who also have a poor work ethic has left all the current managers thinking new college grads are useless and more trouble than they're worth. And I can't blame them.

Shit, when did I get old...

Re:still tied to the old traditional ideas when ov (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#42961031)

Any college that has lowered its entrance standards so far that remedial education is even on the table has turned itself into a diploma mill that will shortly be known as worthless.

Or it is a state university where the people who pay the taxes kinda expect that their kids can go and get a degree, even if their kids are unmotivated lunks who do nothing but consume oxygen and fritos. And beer.

Funny how people kinda think that a college degree is now a right of some kind. So much so that Oregon just passed a law saying that illegal immigrants can attend state schools at in-state tuition rates. One interesting argument was that allowing them to attend at lower rates would help build an educated, motivated workforce for the future. This ignores the one tiny detail that illegal immigrants can't be employed to create that workforce.

Re:still tied to the old traditional ideas when ov (2)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about 2 years ago | (#42961559)

The problem that employers have is knowing ahead of time who would and who would not be able to do the job they need done. If for example there are a dozen applicants for a welder job, how does an employer pick the best applicant? Some kid out of high school might be the best welder, but is not likely to get the job over someone who can present some kind of fancy school certificate. It is not likely that there are many employers who will take each applicant and have them actually weld something, to try to determine who the best welder is. A college degree or a school certificate has become a primary filtering mechanism to narrow down the number of applicants that would even be considered for the job opening.

Re:still tied to the old traditional ideas when ov (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#42961687)

Some kid out of high school might be the best welder, but is not likely to get the job over someone who can present some kind of fancy school certificate.

Not sure which university teaches welding, but I'd stay away from that one if you want a real education.

It is not likely that there are many employers who will take each applicant and have them actually weld something,

Well, better that than asking for a college transcript and thinking that the English major has a better chance of working out than the high-school vo-tech graduate as a welder.

I Wonder If My Thought Is One Of Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960739)

I'm thinking:

1. You don't learn much/anything, so the course has no value.

2. Their priced like regular courses, way too expensive.

3. There will be blow back. Who wants a surgeon that did most of his schooling online?

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960777)

After reading the article, I see that the "problems " are that they are too hard or demotivating for less than excellent students. So, they're worried that people might not pass and get their artificially inflated self esteem lowered.

Who wants their surgeon if he went to online courses? What about the guy that designs the bridge you're driving over? What about the guy that designs/builds airplanes?

What about the guy that makes your food? Aw shit...

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961109)

Who wants their surgeon if he went to online courses? What about the guy that designs the bridge you're driving over? What about the guy that designs/builds airplanes?

Those examples all require more of a hands-on approach to education.

However, programming, for example, doesn't. Going to an online school is not always bad.

well theory loaded classes with big lectures are n (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42961265)

well theory loaded classes with big lectures are not very hands on as well.

Failure rates (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960741)

I teach history at a community college, both online and face to face, and I can attest to the failure rates for online classes. They're high. My failure rate for face to face classes is probably about 30% (I teach in a very low-income, low-literacy area, with most students speaking English as a second language) while it's around 50% for online classes. Many of those students do only maybe 30% of the assignments. Face to face students who aren't into it just stop coming, but online students keep doing a few things, but they won't just drop the class. It's really crazy. I have a quiz every week, and they have to contribute to online discussions every week, and there are a number of students who only do one or the other. I have a student who has been in my class for four semesters in a row. He's never done anything more than take a few quizzes, yet he keeps signing up for the class. If he was on financial aid it is likely pulled by now, yet he keeps taking the class. The article is definitely right, though, in that online is good for driven students. For others, I think it's a disaster.

What's the problem here? (1)

multiben (1916126) | about 2 years ago | (#42960753)

They're not outlawing "normal" colleges here so I don't see what the problem is. This is just a different delivery mechanism. This quote: "which means that they spend hard-earned tuition dollars and get nothing in return" really bothers me. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend hard-earned dollars. Such a co-dependent approach to education is why colleges are increasingly getting the reputation for pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | about 2 years ago | (#42960821)


This would seem to be a problem that will fix itself through natural selection... If you're incapable of passing an online course you'll either stop taking online courses or get kicked out of school. Either way, I'm not sure that's a problem with the online course.

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about 2 years ago | (#42961347)

Agreed. I think students considering online courses should just be made aware of the differences. I probably wouldn't have been able to do it when I was fresh out of high school. Hell, I had a hard enough time making myself go to class - no way I would have been able to have the discipline to set aside time to study material on my own, work problems, get online and post questions, etc.

I'm currently taking some classes online - I've been able to keep up with it mostly because I *am* self motivated now. I *want* to learn new things. IMHO, that's where online classes really shine. It's awesome to be able to fit school around my schedule instead of the other way around.

Now leave me alone, I have to get this chapter read. :)

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 years ago | (#42961923)

I thought the same thing. "hey spend hard-earned tuition dollars and get nothing in return." Isn't a problem for the university, that's a problem for the student. Another poster described the same student repeatedly signing up for the course and failing for non-participation. A good mechanism for the college to drain "students" dry. When I was in grad school, I could almost always tell the students who were paying a good amount out of pocket (determined, focused, a pleasure to be on assignments with) from those who were paying with some sort of financial aid (lazy, unengaged, complainers). (ye, there were some exceptions on the aid side. I never met a lazy unmotivated student who was paying with their own money.) The problem here isn't the online course, it's all the money enabling unmotivated people to pay for the courses who shouldn't even be in there.

Newflash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960767)

It's not for everyone. Just like college isn't for everyone.

Online definitely needs work (2)

Huntr (951770) | about 2 years ago | (#42960773)

Right now, my wife is taking 2 courses online from a local CC, before she returns to school this fall to finish her B.A. Although we generally like it because these classes have a TON of helpful ancillary materials (video lectures, practice quizzes, practice homework, etc) and the instructors for both have been very responsive to electronic communications, there are still difficulties not associated with the regular classroom experience.

One of my biggest peeves with it is that, at times you're working to figure out the system, in addition to the school work. For example, it can be a real struggle, if the directions are sufficiently vague, to determine the desired format of an answer. One of her classes is an algebra class. Getting the correct answer isn't hard. Earning proper credit for that correct answer by determining if the program wants you to actually simplify the answer when it says "Simplify" is something else entirely. Really frustrating when you know the grading experience would be much better if this was a face to face, human graded deal.

How about the subject being a factor? (1)

Beerdood (1451859) | about 2 years ago | (#42960775)

I'd like to see some more detailed data on a course by course basis (or in different programs). I've taken some bio courses that are about 95% pure memorization - I'd be inclined to think the online courses like this wouldn't have 90% attrition rates. Conversely, I'd be lost in some math or comp sci courses without a teacher explaining how a concept or formula actually works. Some classes have a lot more students asking teachers than others.

Two problems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960793)

Because that looks awfully like 'one problem, stated in two different ways'.

From a Student (2)

nullhero (2983) | about 2 years ago | (#42960805)

Having just spent some time at a Community College and was successful in receiving my Associates to continue to a Traditional Four Year school, and being someone who needed to take Online Courses. The biggest problem that I had was that the instructors did not take it as seriously as their traditional classes. They would spend the face to face time in the classroom and even in their office. But they wouldn't spend the online time with their online students. I've instructors that stated they could be reached by email and there would be 48 hour turn around time, others stated that they would use Skype and even have office hours for that. But most of my emails were answered a week after I needed assistance. And forget about ever finding the instructor on Skype at the times they stated.

Now, the best online instructor I had ran a forum and that really worked. Everyone could see someone's questions and even respond to it but the biggest thing was that by each Saturday afternoon the instructor had responded as well. And if he felt that it was something that needed to be one on one, we would receive a detailed email. But he was, unfortunately, the exception.

With the problems you could take it up with the school but ultimately I never received answers just my grades seemed to be better than I expected, which I felt wasn't the right way to handle it. I think the schools are a little out of touch and nervous about online classes due to the testing of the students. Mine packaged the class and rotated the tests every other semester but the test pool came from the publisher and it wasn't hard to gain access to it. I didn't feel that some of the classes I was taught as just repackaging the answers from the book.

My best online instructor, well he had actually made us write in the answers. No multiple choice, nor true/false, according to some students who took his class in person stated he hated them, and nothing seemed to be coming from the publisher, we had to truly think about our answer and give an answer. So no instant knowledge of the answer and when we received a grade we all felt that we earned it and learned something. I actually understood the subject which happened to be Physics. BTW: I received a 'B' in the class I missed an 'A' by a few points on an online lab but I still felt that I learned more in that online class than the other dozen courses I took online.

My experience, if a school has an online course, then the instructor has to run it just like she was face to face and make time for the students questions because there seemed to be a lot more questions online than the students who were face to face. Why? I dunno but I think it had more to do with the course being a one size fits all packaged course versus the instructor actually has to have a discussion of the subject. I think that schools need to make sure their instructors are teaching and not use those publisher online courses. I don't blame the instructor for the online material just not being 'there' with the students.

Re:From a Student (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#42961931)

I took online courses at a university that has been doing them since the late 90s. It was basically the same recorded lectures back then. The big difference was the university I went to required a minimum GPA in order to allow people to take online courses which kept the attrition levels low (most courses I noticed about 10% tops). They also required students that lived near the campus to take a fully proctored midterm and a final (they were on Saturdays), which was the majority. I mostly took online courses for the stuff I knew already but were required classes. Given what I experienced, I would never take one on an entirely new subject that I wasn't familiar with.

Is this even coherent? (1)

frogslegs (1022701) | about 2 years ago | (#42960809)

Inferring from the fact (among others) that "[m]any students ... show up at college (or junior college) unprepared to learn, unable to manage time and having failed to master basics like math and English," that "[c]olleges need to improve online courses before they deploy them widely," doesn't reflect a deeply considered position on the question at hand. Does anyone (anyone at all) believe that moving courses online is the solution to this problem? The editorial amounts to the banal observation that many students are unprepared for online courses. The author might as well have added that many students aren't prepared for college. The problems are not the same, and the solution is not to "improve" the courses.

Meat-space (1)

Micru (853431) | about 2 years ago | (#42960815)

Learning has a lot to do with presence and environement, where the teacher can react quickly to cues from the student, change rythm, go deeper into the topic, etc. which are not that easy to convey online. And from the student's perspective, there is always the brain telling you "oh, nobody can see if you are going or not, so it is ok if you miss this time", that's why only highly motivated students keep going. Make VR classrooms, equip students with Oculus, a virtual 3D presence and ways of conveying mental state (biosensors for detecting tiredness, struggling, etc) and then online courses will have a chance.

This just in... (3, Insightful)

Grashnak (1003791) | about 2 years ago | (#42960831)

Taking online courses for credit requires self-discipline that not everyone has. Film at 11.

Who cares? (1)

KrazyDave (2559307) | about 2 years ago | (#42960843)

Unmotivated, struggling students: do they really belong in college in the first place? And if they manage to get pushed through via in-depth, one-on-one intervention by instructors, then they're also lowering the quality of education for everyone else.

Poor learning is a problem w/ online courses (1)

Streetlight (1102081) | about 2 years ago | (#42960903)

As I've noted in other forums/threads, online courses produce extremely low learning compared to traditional direct contact classroom courses. Estimates are that online students learn about 30% of what in class students learn. Give the same test to the online students and classroom students and that picture is clear. There's something about direct contact with instructors and peer students that facilitates learning. It's not very subtle, either.

You must learn patience (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#42960913)

I've done both. Don't knock online courses. Many American universities are putting their lectures and course materials online. If you're motivated, this is a treasure trove and makes available education to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to do it.

To do anything at home though, you have to be highly motivated and have a work environment where you won't be interrupted. If you live with other people - and let's face it - most of us do - it can be hard for them to understand that, but this is true of anything, even working at home, and it's why so many companies don't like telecommuting. It can be done though. Instead of dismissing online courses, they need to educate people how to do online courses - teach skills like focus, motivation, saying no. If we could we would all do physical courses, but online is better and we have to adapt. Oblig. link to online lectures: http://www.youtube.com/education [youtube.com]

Low handing fruit (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#42960917)

Most of the so-called innovative ideas are really just a way to filter those easy to educate into cheaper platform. Some of these, like Kahn academy are harmless. Other, such as charter schools, can be more of leech on the educational dollars. High stakes testing is simply a method to transfer money from the tax payer to Pearsons.

For the online college courses, the issue is really cost. If the courses are pay for service, then we need to educate high school counselors and kids that they are likely not as effective as a community college situation where they are set up to help challenging students. If it free, there is no harm done except a students wasted time, which sometimes is the best learning experience.

Motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42960929)

Why is it such a problem that students without motivation do poorly? Is that not just a reflection of the fact that there are way too many students pursing higher level education? If you are not highly motivated, maybe you should not be forking over cash to learn material that you, apparently, don't really want to learn....

Online courses can be a viable alternative (1)

kye4u (2686257) | about 2 years ago | (#42960951)

Online courses can be a viable alternative to the traditional University experience,but it does not replace the University Experience. If for whatever reason, you aren't able to attend a brick & mortar course, the best alternative is to take it online. Much of the learning that happens taking traditional courses happens outside the classroom. It is when you are working with others on projects and sharing ideas that really expands your knowledge set. It is being able to interact with professors and visit them during office hours where you really get to push your knowledge frontier.

If you look at the extraordinarily successful people, it wasn't just what they knew that got them to where they are, it was who they knew/know. The traditional university has tremendous resources that are dedicated to facilitating networking between students, their peers, the faculty, and industry.

Completed my undergrad entirely online.. (1)

Tutter (1776674) | about 2 years ago | (#42960985)

I completed my entire undergrad online through FHSU (Go TIGERS!) and for the most part my experience was quite good.. yes, there were a couple of professors who failed to communicate with the students, but most were quite good. If extra help was sought, they were willing to help through email and BB forum discussions. What weighed in my favor was that I was in my mid 30s when I started it - I had the self discipline to study at home while working FT and make the Dean's List. I loathed classes where group assignments / discussions were mandatory as more often than not people would "contribute" their part of a discussion topic with mere minutes to spare before the deadline: One can not have a discussion without user interaction. It can be done, but success is entirely dependent on the person - and what their motivation is. Perhaps HS simply does not properly prepare for College; perhaps time management issues quickly become evident when no one chases you down to complete assignments.. or perhaps the thinking is that online college courses are a joke and easy.. and they find out that it isn't so... whatever the reason, whether one completes a degree or not is up to the individual and one shouldn't blame the method of delivery.

Online courses provide no added incentive (1)

Emperor Tiberius (673354) | about 2 years ago | (#42961099)

I went to college when technologies like Blackboard were just beginning to come to fruition. The problem I've always had with online courses is that they give you no added incentive to do to the work. Motivation may be its own reward for some people, but I still need that subtle "mental push" to succeed. A class set in an actual classroom gives my brain some reason to be there and do the work. Online courses just makes me think they're available "whenever." The concept of deadlines and necessity quickly goes out the window, usually along with my grades.

People don't drop these courses, because they don't remember them and/or don't think about them. The same goes for "hybrid" online courses, where you still spend some class time in a physical classroom. You're not getting enough cues to actually realize you're doing poorly. The instructor is also poorly interfaced with the class that they don't match a student's online progress with their physical presence.

Maybe working on your day's assignment in your PJs at 3 a.m. appeals to you. I still want to see and talk to the instructor. I need that "meat space" interaction.

its obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961151)

American's population is over half Christians, other religions and superstitions. Atheists are discriminated against
China's is 100% atheist, or Brights.
This is why USA import Chinese and Indian students to do PhD dirty work
I would be amazed if there still is a US of A in 20 years

biased sampling errors (2)

buybuydandavis (644487) | about 2 years ago | (#42961169)

Barriers and costs to entry and exit are lower online, less committed people join, therefore you get more drops.

And yes, there are motivational advantages with a teacher standing there holding your hand. If you need your hand held, find someone to hold it.

I'd note that the other side of that pancake are the people who do better with the relative privacy of online learning. Some people with a relative lack of education or intelligence don't want to be put in a classroom setting displaying their relative lack of talents to all.

Life is full off trade offs.

Re:biased sampling errors (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42961541)

I was all set to agree unconditionally, but you kinda went off the rails at the end there. It may be a lack of confidence, which isn't necessarily the same as a lack of education or intelligence. Or it could be a less costly way to audit a class. Or, it could be someone trying to retrain for a different career, who isn't comfortable in a classroom where the students are young enough to be his children -- or grandchildren.

Personally, I like taking classes in person so I can leer at... wait am I still talking out loud?

It's the teaching (5, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#42961179)

I've been taking online courses for two years(*), and my conclusion is: it's not the subject, it's the presentation.

I've come to the realization that college professors - even highly esteemed professors from highly esteemed universities - don't know much about the actual technique of teaching, nor of presentation.

Every course I've seen so far goes against the grain of how we learn, or has features which repel attention. Droning talk with hypnotic rhythm, no vocal variety, poor spacing and timing, and filled with pauses and disfluencies which put the student to sleep (Daphne Koller, Stanford [coursera.org] ). Tedious derivations with no initial apparent purpose and no apparent endpoint which go on and on, suddenly ending with simple result (Anant Agarwal, MIT [mit.edu] ). Pointless exercise and homework with no apparent relevance to the subject (Richard Buckland, UNSW [openlearning.com] ). The list is endless.

People who give lectures for a living - public speakers, professional salesmen, life coaches, and so on - have this figured out. They *have* to, because their livelihood depends on it. Their presentation has to capture interest, have relevance, have value to the listener, and be easily understood.

College professors sing to a captive audience with no feedback. If students don't do well, it's because of the course content; or it's because the students are not "Stanford level" or whatever. Stanford is considered tough, but no one ever wonders whether it's because the quality of teaching is low. Colleges aren't rated highly when they can teach anyone, they are rated highly when they can only teach the top students.

The typical online course just videotapes a lecture and throws it up on the net with some homework and grading software. There is no rehearsal, no redoing of bloopers or flubs, nothing one would get in a professionally-made video. The homework is generally "one question per concept" and is often "get it right the first time". No room for experimentation, multiple practice, or exploration. No feedback or watching the professor run through an example.

They wonder why the attrition rate is so low, it's obvious.

It's because their methods are just bloody awful.

(Note: I've scored high 90's in each course so far. The material isn't that tough, if you've ever had a good professor you know how understanding is easy when well presented. Blaming the content or the student is a dodge - very little is difficult to understand if it is taught well.)

Re:It's the teaching (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42961603)

> I've been taking online courses for two years(*), and my conclusion is: it's not the subject, it's the presentation.

The last class I took online, the students were having a difficult time understanding the instructor, who was simply reading the overheads to us and deferring difficult questions. While the class was in session, I did a linkedin search on the instructor's name, saw that he was a contractor in India. Yes, the online curriculum had been outsourced.

So yes, it is not the subject, it really is the presentation. And a substandard presentation makes it much more likely that the students are wasting their time.

I've been in effective online classes, where the tools work, the instructor is sharp, discussion is lively, and I ended up really learning the subject. That's not always the case, and it's not always the students' fault.

Morons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961411)

Fuck 'em. Too bad.

The economics of free (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#42961417)

Charge them Ivy League rates and yo'll see the attrition rate drop significantly. The courses will have far fewer takers in the first place though.

When you're giving something away, whether it's a somebody else's copyrighted media, porn, or free beer, you'll get a far larger audience than would be willing to buy the product with a price tag.

not just "online" (1)

Airborne_J (1220348) | about 2 years ago | (#42961439)

I studied actuarial science; a field with some of the most difficult credentials to obtain. The head of the department dedicated all class time to flip through pages and pages of formulas all while occasionally explaining what the left hand side did, and what the right hand side did and why they were equal. He used to have students stand up and "draw" the charts or timelines in the air or he would draw them on the wall with his finger. I think his approach matched the field - you have to be self motivated and willing to study on your own to succeed. Kinda makes me wonder what his job really was... Distinguishing the highly motivated folks from the less motivated isn't something native to online courses.

I would have said the big problem is... (1)

doug141 (863552) | about 2 years ago | (#42961459)

when taking a test for an online course, you can open a second browser and cut and paste the question, and be offered the right answer from any number of websites for a buck.

I did my master's thesis on this. (1)

Peterus7 (607982) | about 2 years ago | (#42961523)

So. Key findings. OnlineTraditionalHybrid for attrition and performance. Hybrid means much greater time investment. For hybrid to succeed, you need a lot of factors working together. Students need to know what they're doing. Face to face classes need to be more student centered/fluid. Faculty need to be given sufficient professional development. LMS coherence is important. Tenured faculty will want to stick with what they've been doing for years. Student body makeup is important. CS students age ~20 will do much better than veterinary students age ~40. Digital literacy matters, but can be taught. I had a lot more findings, but this is not news. One of the biggest things is that many online courses are very poorly designed from a pedagogical point of view. It's almost like you asked some person who's been teaching face to face for 20 years to teach an online course with no experience or training.

Moar sleep (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about 2 years ago | (#42961565)

Funnily enough, just as I was about to go to sleep I saw a "stay home" collage commercial

Hmmm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961573)

I'm currently pursuing my M.S. in Education Technology at a Midwestern school but I currently work as a web developer for said school. I've been around the gamut with this stuff and here's my two cents concerning every experience I've ever had with "online courses"...

There isn't a student on Earth that likes "Blackboard" (or other similar courseware) but the reason these things keep getting used is because they save on maintenance costs, provide a means to avoid having to create expensive homebrew solutions, usually come with a decent security net full of resources and technically-experienced people from other schools to bounce ideas off of, etc. For example, one Blackboard database schema will be similar if not the same at another school. Do you know how helpful someone from another school can be because of this?

-- Some random phone call... --
Guy at Campus A: "Hi, we're having a problem with the blah table. We've implemented the term calc feature but the expected date field isn't displaying correctly."
Guy at Campus B: "We had that problem too. Make sure the widget column in the blah table is being displayed by the foobar view."
Guy at Campus A: "Ah, you mean the foobar-term view?"
Guy at Campus B: "Yep. In fact, I think one of our guys has the SQL we used to fix that. I'll have him send it to you."
Guy at Campus A: "Thanks!"

When it comes to major education systems, this kind of phone call can save thousands of dollars.

Systems you use to deliver online classes are very nasty beasts... Many require multiple servers for multiple development, testing, and production environments. If done right, they usually only require entire teams of people to successfully keep running. If done wrong, well, the outcome can be a nightmare of unbelievable proportions. They always require constant on-call support to avoid disaster recovery situations, have entire books written for upgrade procedures alone, and are rarely released without extensive testing (certain situations notwithstanding, of course).

So if you could take all of this--the servers, the maintenance and support, the skill sets, etc.--and assign a monetary appraisal to it, the cost would TRIPLE if not QUADRUPLE if instead an in-house solution is pursued. The scary thing is that some universities have things like that and STILL suck.

You can throw a dart at a map and hit 20 schools that all use Blackboard, Moodle, WebCT; whatever... It gets them by, and each year, they keep applying the upgrades that the vendors shove down their throats in order to claim that they all have the latest-and-greatest features.

But at the core, they're all the same--just with a different color scheme, brand, or placement of text boxes.

Again, it gets them by and when you have so many people flooding the schools, looking for the next degree to get them a job, well, you don't normally have the resources necessary to make big changes that many students (and their parents) dream of acquiring. But the truly unique schools that employ special creations for teaching online are special schools for reasons like this. I'm not sure what schools these might be... I suppose MIT and Harvard, etc. would likely fit this mold, but I don't know. All I do know is that Blackboard is a brand standard anymore and despite the fact that the schools have legit reasons for using it, I've never met a single student who "liked" it and when you're attempting to learn something, well, you SHOULD like what you're doing.

But really, what all this comes down to is cash. The more cash the institution has, the better off your online courses will likely be. It's that simple.

Apples and Oranges (3, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 2 years ago | (#42961683)

When I sign up for a physical bricks and mortar course I will typically be paying for it, consider which course I want very carefully, and then set time aside in my week. But when I sign up for say a Coursera (Love them) course I will click enroll willy-nilly. I am perfectly happy to dip my toe in the water and see if the course is for me or if the person doing the course has any idea what they are doing. For example, I recently took a Cryptography course. The professor knew how to run the tutorials. The workload was about right and the quiz / exam questions were on material somewhat covered by the course. My daughter signed up for a Coursera Pre-calculus math course and withrew after attempting the first week. The course was a mess of dog crap. They had nearly zero idea how to properly use the coursera system and the tutorials were odd. Then worst of all when she went to enter the answers it was rejecting answers that were simple and correct.

At the present time the simple problem is one of editorial and production. I would say that few of the people creating these moocs have any real experience; nor do they seem to be getting much direction. If you compare the videos to say those in the great courses there is no comparison. Also there are the fundamentals such as workload; it is too easy to have an assignment where you ask the students to do things that will require way too much work. Or like a recent Game Theory course I have been taking does: ask questions on material they didn't really cover.

But time should take care of this. If the people running the courses are getting good feedback from the questions then they will slowly iterate their courses into something great.

What I do agree on is that there is going to be a sea change in those who are able to thrive in modern education. In the past, as an employer you can look at a collage grad and know that they showed up every day and did their time. But with online courses you will basically know that the student has done the work (ignore cheating for the moment) but did they binge and do the course in a caffeine fueled weekend in the last minute? Did they do it slowly or are they a god and pounded out a whole degree in a summer? This isn't necessarily better or worse but it will be different.

But there are two areas where it will get far better and far worse. First the better will be that an amazing opportunity will now be available for people to better themselves who would never have been able to. This applies to both people in distant countries with few educational opportunities and people who are trapped in situations here in the western world such as dropping out of school to provide for a family. Online education will be like a night school GED on mega steroids. The area where it will be far worse will be that you can now get an education without any of the hidden benefits such as social interaction, social interaction, and meeting amazing people socially. Meeting people with similar interests is one of the great things about a physical school as beyond the satisfaction it provides it also provides future networking, and present development of ideas and businesses. It is possible to interact with people in a forum but something is usually missing.

I am not sure that it is the greatest loss if undisciplined and unfocused people end up dropping out. I have met too many programmers who did have that piece of paper but were unable to contribute squato.

Grade inflation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961835)

I've found that many of the online students expect that if they paid a lot of money for the course they should get the credit regardless of effort (or lack thereof). This is bad news when professors are rated by their students. Some online universities demand that professors get a certain rating or get out. That means the professors are letting damn near anyone pass their classes. There is no way you can trust that a degree means a person knows their stuff.

No wonder our dumbed down workforce can't compete with other countries.


Just like real classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42961859)

I have taken several on-line courses and in my experience they are the same as traditional classes in this regard: the quality of the instructor is the number one factor in student performance. Some instructor clearly understood how the material should be presented and how to maximize the platform. Others did a shoddy job of porting their class directly into a online format with little effort to understanding the difference in delivery platform.

Sorry, I'm to blame.... (1)

blanchae (965013) | about 2 years ago | (#42962003)

I pioneered online learning back in 1994 [cadvision.com] with the Internet. After a year of struggling with online learning with post secondary learners and the problems that they faced, I came quickly to the conclusion that nothing beats face to face learning. I wrote up a multipage report on the problems and presented it to the Dean of our department. The report was ignored, shelved and never read. The attitude was that I must of been doing something wrong and that they could do it better.

Almost 20 years later, the same problems are occuring for online learning, it focuses on one predominat learning style: seeing. There are 4 basic learning styles: seeing, hearing, doing and thinking. The "seeing" learning style is characterized by a person who can pickup a book or read a webpage and gather knowledge in that manner. A "hearing" oriented learning, learns by listening. They are characterized by being able to follow verbal instructions or directions easily: "go two blocks North, turn left, go 4 blocks then turn right next to the blue garbage bin, etc..".
The "doing" learning style, learns by doing the work, this is the best way to learn. Our institute is heavily loaded with lab work, up to 50% of classroom time is spent in the lab. Another way to re-inforce doing is by taking notes, either through pen and paper or laptop. The last learning style is "thinking". A person who is predominantly a thinker will have to "think" about what was said or presented to him in order to understand. They "go away" for a little while to assimilate the information then return back to the conversation. A typical reaction from a thinker is that they will briefly look away when you tell them something new.
Nobody has just one learning style, we have combinations of all 4 and are predominate with one or two.

If I gave a University theatre style lecture, no interaction with the students, straight power point presentations with powerpoint handouts already given out, the students will remember about 10-15% after 3 days. If it was a smaller class size of 30 students or less, interactive questions between the students and instructors, note taking, then after 3 days, the students will remember about 30%. If it was a lab with hands on exercises and interaction, the students will remember about 80% after 3 days.

Online learning fails by not delivering multiple learning styles and by missing the teacher/student interaction. It falls somewhere in the University large theatre learning results - that's why the high failure rate. Often, it takes a person to explain how things work. I found that the majority of students were particularly hesistant to use online tools (email, forums, blogs, twitter, 1-800 numbers) to contact the instructor to ask questions when things didn't make sense. They preferred to struggle "days" trying to figure it out until they could meet face to face.

The best learning is obviously "to do", my preference is to have no theory classes, just lab classes and pass on the information on a need to know basis. It's time to do this lab, this is what you need to know to do this. In the past, I've found that no matter how many times, you talk about a particular topic: in the classroom, online, at the beginning of a lab, it will be forgotten until the time is right and the student is ready for the information. In one course, I used to repeat the same explanation to each student in the lab when they needed to know it. I would repeat the exact same 5 minute explanation over 100 times a week. The students appreciated the one on one time and I got really good at explaining it! LOL.

The problem with having "just lab" classes, is that it flies in the face of everything that Universities teach about learning. The mantra is present the material, give an example, students practice the material and then assess the students. That is the "best practice" (I hate that phrase!) teaching method. In my labs, I don't feel that it is right to be assessed on the first time that you attempt something. Where's the learning in that? How about the first time, you attempt to drive a car, you have to take the driver's exam? In my labs, you do the lab until it is right, make as many errors as you want, no sign-off until it works to my satisfaction and the student shows an understaning of the lab. Then the student is assessed.
The other issue is that labs cost money. Small lab/class sizes are expensive compared to large theatres on a cost per student basis. Large theatre size classes are money makers.

Re:Sorry, I'm to blame.... (2)

blanchae (965013) | about 2 years ago | (#42962091)

Forgot to mention one last thing: assimilation of information. One thing that many educators fail to realize is that it takes time to assimilate information. People require time to learn. In between learning, they need to relax and think about the subject. Sometimes, it just means not even thinking about it for a while. They may need a couple of days, just to let it all sink in.

A typical course is presented over a period of months, a couple of days per week and only a couple of hours per day. It gives you time to assimilate the information. Crash courses typically fail because they cram the same information in the same number of hours but all at once. It becomes overwhelming!

Or.... (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 2 years ago | (#42962033)

Research has shown that community college students who enroll in online courses are significantly more likely to fail or withdraw than those in traditional classes, which means that they spend hard-earned tuition dollars and get nothing in return. Worse still, low-performing students who may be just barely hanging on in traditional classes tend to fall even further behind in online courses. 'Colleges need to improve online courses before they deploy them widely,'

Or there needs to be more competition in online courses to bring the costs down. I think it's fine to have products that most people are not self-disciplined enough to fully exploit. If an online course can be offered to a 1000x as many people for the same cost to the university, the free market will drive the cost down 1000x to students. I wouldn't mind flunking out of online school if it only costs me $50 instead of $50,000

What problem does online course fix? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 years ago | (#42962125)

Can someone remind me what problem is supposed to be addressed by online college course?

I read it does not perform very well. This is a drawback compared to traditional courses, but what is the advantage?

Re:What problem does online course fix? (1)

kenh (9056) | about 2 years ago | (#42962157)

It allows motivated students to study on their own schedule.

It also allows unmotivated students to accumulate massive amounts of debt...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?