Taking college classes online has become an important part of getting a degree. A 2011 survey by Babson College revealed at that six million people, “nearly one-third of all students in higher education are taking at least one online course.”
That’s a lot of people. And a lot of money. But that’s not what I want to talk about today. What I am really concerned with is the quality of learning achieved through the online platform.
First, let me say I am biased
because I believe in education. I believe a person who is able to think at a
higher level has an obligation to expand their knowledge to its greatest
possible potential.
Why? Because not everyone thinks at the same level as
everyone else. A simple example: Albert Einstein. What if he just decided to
stick with the patent office job? He could have, and no one would have noticed.
But he didn’t. He pushed himself and for that the world learned a new way to understand
time and space.
See what I mean? Not everyone could, but he did, and we all
benefit.
Now, not everyone can be self-taught like Einstein. Still, some
of us want to expand our knowledge to a greater degree. Skilled craftsmen along
with institutions of higher education make this possible. Teachers, professors
and skilled masters have the power to convey understanding and knowledge so an
individual can become more than most would be on their own.
University is where I would learn about logic, reasoning, how to use my mind to
its greatest capacity and learn critical thinking.
OK, that’s the set up. Now here’s the rant: from my
experience, online learning is a farce. One of the key skills you are supposed
to learn and hone in college - critical thinking and the ability to
thoughtfully debate a point - is completely missing from most of the online
classes I have taken (and passed.)
One component of online learning is the message board. It is
the place where ideas should be shared and discussed. In my psychology class the
professor posts weekly questions and each student must post three responses
during the week. Last week he asked, “Which do you believe is the most
important sense? Do you believe in subliminal perception and/or extra sensory
perception? If someone came to you and said, I have ghosts in my house,
what would you think?”
By midweek, the “discussion” devolved into a surreal chat
session about why my classmates believe in ghosts. Not one shred of evidence
was ever introduced, only statements like, “I do believe in ghosts. I have
heard many stories of them. I used to work in a nursing home the night shift,
and you could actually hear conversations but when you go to where you hear the
voices nothing there and my patients were sound asleep,” and “If someone came
to me and said, they have ghosts in their house, I would probably think that
they do. I have experienced the presence of a ghost. I hear things, see things
and find my jewelry in spots other than in my jewelry box. I have seen orbs in
photos that I have taken.”
It went on like that for more than four days and the
professor did not interject once. As a matter of fact, six weeks into the
course and there was not one redirect, reinforcement or reprimand from him at
all.
Now, I wouldn't be nearly as torqued as I am, except in the
next “discussion” it started again. The question went to sleep disorders. It’s
amazing how many people claim to have narcolepsy – it seems at least three of
my classmates do. I was still a little disheartened by the previous week’s
campfire ghost tales, so I (gently!) asked them to share some details about their
diagnosis.
Meanwhile, when I pointed out to two of my fellow classmates
that commercial websites in the business of sleep disorders might be biased and
I would be skeptical of their information THAT is when the professor decided it
was time to intervene.
My post:
Hi S…,Thank you for the interesting link to The Sleep Foundation website. One problem I have with using it as a source is found on its 'about us' page:"Funding Sources and Editorial IndependenceThe National Sleep Foundation furthers its mission by supporting public education, sleep-related research and advocacy. The NSF is supported by a number of sources, including individual donors, memberships, sales of educational materials, advertising, investment income and grants.”When advertising is listed as a funding source it makes me a bit skeptical of the content.
~reb
Here is the professor’s response – in the public discussion
forum – directly to me personally:
“Hi (Reb),One of the processes we incorporate in this class is listing source material. As always whether we agree or disagree based on sponsoring organizations is a moot point. The goal here is not to pick apart a post so much as counter your answer with facts that support your viewpoint. Skepticism is truly a good thing, but we also need to be supportive of our classmates' use of source material.One way of supporting you (sic) colleagues here is to offer a diffrent (sic) viewpoint rather than criticze (sic) her/his source material.We can always find some other material to contradict another person's viewpoint. Or instead of laying out your skepticism, you could offer a different website in support of your colleague's post. This is a learning environment that requires personal insight and the use of diferent (sic) resources that can be better utilized through finding supporting data or finding data that doesn't support the post's viewpoint.We are all skeptics, its (sic) backing skepticism with facts which leads to a more proactive interaction. I do offer this as a suggestion to assist all of our interactions with our classmates.Professor …”
Ugh.
So basically, it’s my job to find a way to make a ridiculous and
unfounded point of view right?
How about some ‘agreeance’ that my post was a
good one, or are we only supposed to agree with the absolutely absurd and uninformed popular opinion?
Ugh.
In a traditional classroom, at least in my mind, this whole discussion would have been a very different one. Arrggghhh.
Ugh.
Next time maybe I should just post that my ghosts have narcolepsy.
No comments:
Post a Comment