A recent article hosted by the New York Times changed my perspective on online learning. As an intern at the Global Text Project, I think learning online can be a wonderful thing. But when high schools use the system to allow students to pass classes that they would otherwise fail in a regular classroom environment, it really makes you wonder just how effective online courses are.
The Good
Free courseware allow students in other countries or self-motivated individuals in the U.S. to educate themselves. MIT has a huge opencourseware program, many of their lectures on various topics can be found online for free.
The Bad
Online courses are not nearly as effective in the high school setting. Many failing high school students just don’t have the motivation to learn. Online courses make it incredibly easy to cheat on assignments, and with the lack of a dedicated teacher to guide them, students have no real incentive not to cheat. I hate that it works this way, but online courses in high school really only serve graduate students without actually teaching them anything.
The Ugly
What’s worse is, Republicans have started to notice that it is much cheaper to teach kids with online courses than it is to employ real teachers to do the job. Teacher’s unions claim that “the push for online courses, like vouchers and charter schools, is intended to channel taxpayer’s money into the private sector.”
I have mixed feelings on this issue, particularly because these programs will promote learning to use technology. For example, Idaho’s superintendent of public education “promoted giving students laptops and requiring online courses.” There is a lot to be gained through providing laptops to students who might not otherwise have access to such technology. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that computer’s are not substitutes for actual teachers, especially in a high school setting where unmotivated students need human intervention more than anything else.
Wizelton 
Leave a comment