Wow. This article is an amazing jumping-off point for educational discussion.
In the most basic sense, the article is discussing the prevalence and subsequent requirement/non-requirement of having online courses in pre-collegiate schools. Although the state mentioned most firsthandedly was New Jersey, the article did provide some "shocking" details about online courses in other states. And, it seems a little surprising- maybe just because I don't remember online courses being part of my high school experience.
According to the article:
More than 70 percent of the nearly 15,000 school districts in the United States currently offer at least one online course, enrolling more than a million students last school year alone, said Susan Patrick, president of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, which estimates that online enrollment has increased about 30 percent annually since 1997. “It’s growing faster than any other innovation in K-12 education,” she said.
What? Forreal? Like, really?
It's not that I am so surprised by its growth rate; really, I'm not sure that any of us conscious individuals should be surprised by the popularity and growth rates of technology anymore. It's that, all of these schools were using online courses... and where was that while I was trudging the halls of Great Bridge High School?
For one, the advantages mentioned in the article are certainly enticing. There are always going to be students who want to go the extra mile and study something not found in person in their schools. Or there are always going to be students who have time issues or learning disabilities or other needs for potential online courses. And sure, there's nothing wrong on capitalizing on the use of email and other technological "stuff", since kids these days seem to be BFFs with gadgets.
But, that doesn't mean that there aren't any arguments against using online courses. For one... is it really necessary? As a college student, I haven't taken any online courses. Sure, they're there- but it hasn't been necessary. And, if I haven't had to... then why should it be so important for a high schooler to do so?
What's more, I remember some of the students who wanted to take an extra course back in high school. I'm pretty sure one or two of them met with my history teacher during lunch and studied Comparative Government. Sure, there was likely an electronic component to their meetings- but was it to the extent of an official online class?
Another allusion in this article- "the standards debate." I have actually participated in a discussion of curriculum standards in my MSSE 625 class, and this article hints at needing state-to-state cooperation when it comes to the standards for online classes. Is that even achievable?
And what's more, there's always the issue of money in schools (money matters are mentioned in the article). Some schools have enough, other schools do not. Should money be funnelled toward online courses, or towards other educational components which might be more beneficial? (Enter the possibility of Kindles, as provoked by Katie and Rachel's Net Generation presentation.) It sort of goes along with that whole idea of "just because you can doesn't mean you should/have to." Just because the technology is available to provide schools with online classes doesn't mean they have to use it (or should).
And, for anyone who will fight that it's awesome for teaching methods of technological use, might I suggest that it's probably easier (and less expensive and time-consuming) to just show children how to send emails or deposit documents into digital dropboxes? You can even show them how to do Webinars or watch YouTube videos, without taking an online course. Sounds good to me. Taking online courses does not equal technological mastery.
“There may be value to exposing students to this type of instruction,” said Mr. Belluscio, whose group offers Webinars for school board members. “But it may not be such a critical part of high school redesign that we need to make it a requirement.”
Last point: Teachers > Technology. Google the research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/education/01educnj.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=education%20online%20February%202009&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is interesting that anyone would see this as a necessary requirement. If so, then why not also require that every student plant a garden or ride a bike or use a sewing machine. Online courses are not 'better' than face to face courses (as the research says) but rather they usually represent a tool to allow something that would not have been possible before - such as 1 student taking Chinese V in high school.
ReplyDelete