An article that made sweeping generalizations about whether traditional classroom learning “works” would be laughable: we understand that the specific details, program models, curriculum, and of course, teachers, matter. Yet, when discussing online learning, broad generalizations about radically different programs and teaching models are accepted at face value.
The recent New York Times article, More Pupils are Learning Online, Fueling Debate About Quality, falls blindly into this trap. In rapid-fire succession, the article lumps a credit recovery course in Memphis (which by the reported cost of $164 per student appears to have limited or no teacher interaction) with the Virtual High School Global Consortium (a decade-old consortia of schools known for outstanding professional development for “trans-classroom” teachers and a very progressive pedagogy). While each program may have its place, they are wildly different models, with totally different cost and teaching structures.
When debating the quality of any learning experience, the details matter. As Marianne Bakia, senior education researcher at SRI International and one of the authors of a 2010 meta-analysis of online learning conducted by the U.S. Department of Education explained to me, to be useful, we need to be specific as to “what works for whom, what implementation practices matter, and why.”
One of the teachers commenting on the Times article sums it up best:
I have been a teacher in the public school system for two decades, and I find it ridiculous that we are arguing about the effectiveness of online courses as if all online courses, and students engaged in them, are equal. Do we not have vastly varying quality in traditional classrooms? Are all classroom teachers equally effective? How about school leadership – are administrators all equally competent? We cannot be dismissing online education as if it is “one thing”. There are quality programs out there, just as there are poor ones. There are students out there for whom online learning works, just as there are students for whom it does not. There are courses with content that can be comprehensively presented in an online format, while there are courses that cannot.
The problem with education as I have seen it over my twenty years involved is that we are always looking for a one-size-fits-all approach. If teaching and learning were that simple we would not even be having this conversation today…
PS – This is the third extremely shallow, poorly-researched article from the Times covering online learning (here and here). All three suffer from a pre-determined framing that pits technology vs. teachers. Definitely not paywall-worthy!
Click Image To Enlarge


{ 5 comments }
I think that alot of pupils are learning online because witht his recession everyone is trying to get a better education. They may say the recession is over but the scar is still here.
I’m just happy the NYT shed a little light on what is happening in Idaho and hinted at the heavy political investments made by K12, Inc. Few know that the highly profitable K12 Inc is a Michael Milken (yes *that* Milken) venture designed to offer the lowest cost, lowest overhead possible deliverable paid for with public dollars meant for a bricks, mortar and flesh school house model.
It’s genius from a Wall Street perspective. Investor portfolios balloon whilst Rome fiddles about how “details matter”.
I, for one, am grateful that however flawed, Gabriel got this piece out there.
I’ve read them, and they are encouraging. I suspect I’ve read them all more than once. Your work always deserves rereadings. I don’t question the quality of your work even though I think Gabriel makes the better case. I think Gabriel’s work is outstanding journalism. It is the first draft of history, and I think its two pages gave a fairer, more balanced account. Yogi Berra warned about prophesying, especially about the future, but I’m going to bet on Gabriel’s telling details (albeit from the prospective of teachers) as well as addressing both sides of the story.
John: The NY Times article was terrible journalism. A good article would have helped us understand the distinctions and choices between promising and damaging approaches. Per encouraging a discussion about proper checks and balances, please see:
http://educationnext.org/lessons-for-online-learning/
http://www.quickanded.com/2011/03/bottom-line-goal-for-blended-learning-better-student-outcomes.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/12/more-on-digital-learning-and-quality.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/12/digital-learning-council-recommendations-missing-details-on-quality.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/07/what-k-12-can-learn-from-for-profit-higher-ed.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2009/04/many-thanks-to-cathy-cavanaugh-and-erik.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2008/06/governor-crist-dont-sign-that-bill.html
http://www.quickanded.com/2009/03/test-for-cyber-schools.html
But an article making “sweeping generalizations about whether traditional classroom learning “works”” would make sense if we were on the eve of rapidly creating traditional classrooms, and we had no better evidence about what the future would bring.
There is a difference between an exhaustively researched and a poorly researched article.
If we were just trying to predict the future coming out of the infinite options out there, I would say that Gabriel wrote the better piece. But your unfair treatment of an opposing interpetation really undercuts your argument.
Unless we consciously design checks and balances so that bogus credit recovery doesn’t drive out high-quality technology, I’m confident that the quick and easy path to destructive uses of technology will win for the forseeable future. You should be listening to Gabriel and encouraging a discussion of how to establish proper checks and balances if you don’t want the promising technology you seek to be driven out of schools until we tire of the “accountability” fad.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }