next »

[wareagle]

Certain required courses in some majors at my institution are currently offered ONLY on-line, even though almost all of the affected students are in residence on campus.  My suspicion is that the college wants the extra revenue (about $300 per course per student) and this is one way to get it.

What kind of underhanded BS is this, anyway?  Is this common?

[larryc]

If the course is well-taught I don't see any problem at all. Our students will be expected to continue to train in their professional lives, and some of that training will likely be online. I think every major should have at least a couple of required online classes.

[systeme_d_]

I can't agree with LarryC on this one.  There are many disciplines that just don't work all that well with online instruction -- courses that are not about data assimilation, but are about interpretation, for instance.  Sure, some of these kinds of classes could be done online, but not necessarily as effectively or as well as in person.

I also think that online teaching involves some completely different skill sets than f2f instruction, and not all instructors are equipped to do both equally well.

I admit to bias here.  My institution offers very few classes online.  None are required.  I'm on the main campus of a completely residential RU/H.  Our branch campuses offer more online instruction than our main campus does.

[antiphon1]

I can see required online classes for upper division undergrad courses.  But for freshmen and sophmores?  No way.  I teach online intro classes.  It's painful to watch the under prepared go down in flames.

[mended_drum]

It wouldn't be acceptable at my SLAC.  An on-line component, yes, but not an entire, required course.

[larryc]

There are many disciplines that just don't work all that well with online instruction -- courses that are not about data assimilation, but are about interpretation, for instance.  Sure, some of these kinds of classes could be done online, but not necessarily as effectively or as well as in person.

We might mean different things by interpretation here, but those are the classes that work best online.

[systeme_d_]

There are many disciplines that just don't work all that well with online instruction -- courses that are not about data assimilation, but are about interpretation, for instance.  Sure, some of these kinds of classes could be done online, but not necessarily as effectively or as well as in person.

We might mean different things by interpretation here, but those are the classes that work best online.

Interesting, Larryc.  I have no experience teaching online (well, once, back in 1998, but that hardly compares to current experience in any form), so I am only going by what a couple of colleagues at different institutions have told me about their experiences.   Maybe they just suck at online teaching.  I have no idea.

[larryc]

There are many disciplines that just don't work all that well with online instruction -- courses that are not about data assimilation, but are about interpretation, for instance.  Sure, some of these kinds of classes could be done online, but not necessarily as effectively or as well as in person.

We might mean different things by interpretation here, but those are the classes that work best online.

Interesting, Larryc.  I have no experience teaching online (well, once, back in 1998, but that hardly compares to current experience in any form), so I am only going by what a couple of colleagues at different institutions have told me about their experiences.   Maybe they just suck at online teaching.  I have no idea.

I teach graduate history reading seminars online and it works extremely well. The main goal of such a course is to have students read a ton of related stuff and then discuss and interpret what they read. The discussions in my online courses are far richer and more thoughtful than what happens in a classroom. They get to think before they write, they get to pull out their books and cite chapter and verse in a way that is hard to do in a classroom, they bring in relevant additional material via links and such, and the discussions stretch across a week rather than an afternoon. And every single student participates (or gets a stern reminder from me).

That said, I can certainly imagine courses and even disciplines where online courses might not work as well.

[infopri]

My school was one of the pioneers in distance education, and we've been offering online-only courses for close to 20 years.  One can now earn any of our graduate degrees completely online (I'm not sure about the bachelor's), which means that all required graduate courses are offered in online-only format.  However, I don't think there are any courses (required or not) that are offered only in online-only format; I believe every course is also offered on campus, although not necessarily the same semester as the online-only version.  (And note, of course, that not all courses are offered every semester, in either format.)

What I'd like to know, however, wareagle, is what you're referring to when you talk about "extra revenue (about $300 per course per student)."  What's that all about?  For us, tuition is the same, regardless of whether the course is face-to-face or online.

[polly_mer]

What I'd like to know, however, wareagle, is what you're referring to when you talk about "extra revenue (about $300 per course per student)."  What's that all about?  For us, tuition is the same, regardless of whether the course is face-to-face or online.

All the schools I've been at charge a class technology fee to take online classes, similar to the science lab fees or art materials fees.

As far as whether discussion-based classes work online or not, while I've not taught a complete online course, I have done f2f courses that include online components.  In my experience, different sections of the same class vary greatly in how those online discussions go.  Sometimes, those discussions are good for the reasons LarryC mentioned about people thinking, checking references, writing, and then engaging with other people doing the same things to have fruitful exchanges.  Sometimes, those discussions are spectacularly terrible as the students write a page on their opinions (perhaps checking the references, perhaps not), post that page, and then tack a sentence at the end agreeing with students X, Y, and Z as "evidence" of engaging with classmates.  On the other hand, I have had similar experiences in the classroom of unprepared students talking past each other based on pure opinion and prepared students having a good, fact-based spirited discussion.  Thus, I'm not convinced that medium is to blame for whether a discussion takes off or not.

I do, however, firmly believe that some classes cannot be taught online well by anyone because virtual is not a substitute for physical for certain things.  Teleconferencing a lecture or discussion may be just as good as face-to-face.  Asynchronous exchange may be less than optimal, but it may still be adequate or even better due to the thinking involved.  However, there's no adequate way to do a dissection without the body in front of you, you absolutely must physically mix together those chemicals, and you have to put the model car in the wind tunnel to test it.

[gourmand601]

I currently teach a graduate course on leadership at a state university. This particular course is a required course and is only offered online. There are no extra costs to take this course and the class sizes are capped at 20 students. I developed the course to be delivered as such and it has shown to be very effective for our students. All of the weekly discussions have to be supported with relevant research and everyone must participate. On top of their initial posts, each student must substantively respond to at least two of their peers' initial posts. By the time everyone has posted the class discussion is very rich and everyone is engaged. Unlike my F2F classes (I have 45 in one class), no one can sit in the back of the classroom and hide for 3 hours (while playing on their Blackberry).

Students in this course also have a virtual group project and an individual portfolio project that they can work on over the course of the class and submit on time. All in all I get very solid work and the evaluations have been quite favorable because I am also heavily engaged in the online classroom.

I also use plagiarism detection software for the posts and assignments.

The US Department of Education recently completed a meta-study of 99 studies that concluded that online learning (including hybrid delivery) had better learning outcomes. There are plenty of other studies that support this. Why not create required courses that are offered only online? Of course this may not work for every discipline as the life and chemical sciences need to be more hands on with lab work etc. However, the business, education, psychology, public policy, and service related disciplines can greatly benefit from this. Even clinical psychology benefits from online learning because only clinicals really need to be done f2f.

Online courses have helped our graduation rates. Not that students were dropping out...but many were stuck in limbo because some faculty members would only agree to teach a particular course once a year or so. If a student could not get the class he/she needed in the fall, then they'd have to wait until the course is offered again the next fall. I also found that many of our older faculty members are heavily intimidated by technology... they just can't use it and refuse to learn. So of course they'd be poor at facilitating an online course.  Some of them still have a difficult time sending emails.

[infopri]

What I'd like to know, however, wareagle, is what you're referring to when you talk about "extra revenue (about $300 per course per student)."  What's that all about?  For us, tuition is the same, regardless of whether the course is face-to-face or online.

All the schools I've been at charge a class technology fee to take online classes, similar to the science lab fees or art materials fees.

Ah.  Thanks for explaining.  We don't charge this fee.  (We do, however, charge lab fees for many science courses.)

Sometimes, those discussions are spectacularly terrible as the students write a page on their opinions (perhaps checking the references, perhaps not), post that page, and then tack a sentence at the end agreeing with students X, Y, and Z as "evidence" of engaging with classmates.

To avoid this kind of problem, my syllabus specifically prohibits chiming in with "me too" postings.  It also warns the students that I don't want a series of isolated posts, that every post must reflect the ongoing conversation and, more to the point, move the discussion forward.

Thus, I'm not convinced that medium is to blame for whether a discussion takes off or not.

Agreed.  I've found that the real difference between a good discussion and one that isn't good largely depends on my own participation.  In the classroom, I moderate, facilitate, and guide the discussion, and it usually goes very well.  When I first started teaching online, following the advice of some peers, I stayed out of the discussions (except to start each thread), and I was very unhappy with the results.  Now I provide light moderation, facilitation, and guidance (much less than I provide in the physical classroom), and the discussions have improved greatly. 

[der_gadfly]

I have witnessed a few schools where a required course (or two, or three) is now offered only online. In some cases, this was done to increase 'class density' as the same course was previously taught to 7 or 8 students in the day, 5 or 6 at night, and another 5 or 6 on the branch campus (typically an upper division course). The instructors involved more or less collaborated on the course design and set up some common content, along with common rubrics etc. Not quite course in a can, but pretty close. At first, students whined and complained, but in this, the third year, it is simply accepted (and told to incoming students up front).

At the graduate student level, online courses tend to work far better as there is a higher level of intellectual maturity. This is not to say that ALL grad students fit that bill, but it is far more likely.

I sympathize with the poor first semester student who is thrown into an online course: they miss the college experience. I see from the discussions upthread that most of the commentators here are following best practices and are witnessing generally positive results.

[wareagle]

What I'd like to know, however, wareagle, is what you're referring to when you talk about "extra revenue (about $300 per course per student)."  What's that all about?  For us, tuition is the same, regardless of whether the course is face-to-face or online.

Others have pointed out the additional fees, which at my institution go to support the continuing ed office through which on-line courses are offered.  I understand that they need to raise revenue, but this seems like nasty tactics to me - forcing students into an on-line learning situation whether they want it or not, and then socking them a lot of extra money to boot.  I think LarryC has an interesting point in that the experience of on-line learning itself may be a good thing to have, but sticking it to the students financially for it seems a bit low to me.  I think they should have a choice.

The class in question here is a sophomore-level survey course.

[zuzu_]

I'm totally with larryc on this one. If it's a well-done course, I have no problems. Learning how to do stuff online is part of being literate in our society. I do think it's good practice to give students choice in course delivery, but some forced exposure to different delivery methods is a positive thing.

Here is a thread about good teaching strategies that work better online rather than in class: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,60900.msg1394845.html#msg1394845