U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:10 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,195 posts, read 10,596,388 times
Reputation: 9363

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
In other words you have NO reason to believe cyber learning would be better. None at all!!! Ugh...

Do you have any idea how many things people have developed that turned out to be useless or actually harmful???? That sounded like a good idea at the time?

All you're going on is that people have put time into this???? Did it ever occur to you they're trying to make money? Even Khan academy (free) is getting grant money (I like the concept of what he does as I do it myself. I record my lecures for my kids to review later (I have a smart board in my room), however, I think something would be lost if all I did was have next year's kids watch this year's lecture.)

I'll tell you what. You do all of the Khan academy videos on chemistry and then PM me and I'll send you my chemistry final. Let's see how successful cyber learning is for you.
You still cannot talk about national accreditation. We currently have standardized test - I am sure that you are required to test your students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the requirements of NCLB require testing. National testing sets a national standard. So; why have we not accredited at least some of our online courses?

What is the difference between Khan Academyís grant money and traditional educations taxpayer money? It all comes out of the same pocket. Many, in your traditional education, have worked thousands of hours developing these programs. They all are not wrong and the programs will improve with time and advances in technology.

Nobody can really look into the future. It could lead to smaller class sizes? It could lead to teachers having more time to help those that really need the help? Bigger and more expensive is not always the best choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2011, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,726,300 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
You still cannot talk about national accreditation. We currently have standardized test - I am sure that you are required to test your students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the requirements of NCLB require testing. National testing sets a national standard. So; why have we not accredited at least some of our online courses?

What is the difference between Khan Academy’s grant money and traditional educations taxpayer money? It all comes out of the same pocket. Many, in your traditional education, have worked thousands of hours developing these programs. They all are not wrong and the programs will improve with time and advances in technology.

Nobody can really look into the future. It could lead to smaller class sizes? It could lead to teachers having more time to help those that really need the help? Bigger and more expensive is not always the best choice.
Um....the discussion I've been having isn't about national accreditation It's about cyber learning....

You, COMPLETELY, missed my point. People aren't developing cyber learning because it's been shown to be better. They're doing it for MONEY. Your ENTIRE defense of cyber learning surrounds people putting time into developing is so it MUST be good???? Nope. Lots of people have put lots of time into things that turned out to be disasters. I see this one being a disaster. YOU do not have a valid leg to stand on in this argument. Your ENTIRE argument is illogical. Just because people put time into doing something does not make it good.

Look through history. How many times have we expended great amounts of energy and spent large amounts of money on things that were disasters??? You can't even begin to tell me why cyber learning MIGHT be better than classroom learning. I, OTOH, can tell you why I think cyber learning will be worse. You have to actually defend cyber learning if you wish to debate this. So far, you have not produced one shred of evidence that cyber learning even MIGHT produce better results. You're just, blindly, jumping on the band wagon because a lot of money is being thrown at this right now as if that means anything more than people are throwing a lot of money at this right now. Reality is, there's a lot of money to be made here. Whoever secures the public school contract for cyber learning will be VERY VERY RICH. Yes, they're offering free samples but, in the end, you'll be expected to buy just as you are in the grocery strore when you taste test a new brand of crackers.

This is not about what pocket money comes out of. It's about choosing what we do for the RIGHT reasons and the fact that people are putting a lot of time into cyber learning is NOT reason enough to choose it. Lots of new things get lots of time put into them but few of them really pay off in the end. The potential to make lots of money has driven people to put lots of time into lots of things before. This is no different. You know, as much as fuzzy math and spiral learning have been a disaster, at least they were chosen because people actually thought they'd be better. No one has shown that cyber learning will be better and there is very good reason to believe it will increase the divide between the haves and have nots and produce results inferior to what we have now in both classes. While I think we need change, this is not the change we need. It will make things worse.

The one thing cyber learning is is cheaper. For that reason, I see this experiment coming to fruition. And beause it is cheaper, we'll never go back to traditional schooling. We'll just accept that some kids are willing to learn and some are not and let them hang themselves if they're not. We've never valued education enuogh to pay for it. While we are paying more for education today than we have at any time, that is due to increased special ed spending. If you look at general education, we're paying less.

Either come up with a defense of cyber learning and enlighten us as to what it will accomplish or get off the bus. You are not adding anything to this debate other than posts.

With that, I'm done with posting back to you. You're not defending cyber learning. You've just latched onto it without reason to latch onto it and are refusing to let go for whatever reason I don't know. I'm leary of anything that has the potential to make people as rich as this does. Money is strong motivation for pushing your wares. Even giving free samples, trying to get a foot hold. My fear is the cost save will result in cyber learning being put in place without consideration for the damage it will do and it will do more harm than good. There are some cases where cyber learning is the best choice. In schools that are too small to offer upper level courses or as a form of remedation, for example. I, myself, do Khan (sp? I always seem to get the h in the wrong place here) academy type recordings that I put on my website so my students can see solutions to problems or review lectures later if they didn't get it the first time, however, I do believe we'd lose more than we'd gain if I just quit my job and next year's sub just showed my lectures from this year to next year's class and that is what you get with cyber learning. With cyber learning you can't even have peer to peer discussions because they'll all be working at their own pace so you lose what the teacher brings to the table and what peers bring to the table. You also will have a problem with pacing because some students will go as slow as they can get away with. That's a lot of loss. Cyber learning needs to offer something fantastic to offset those losses. When you figure out what that fantastic thing is, do enlighten us....

Seriously, if I thought cyber learning would be even remotely better than teacher lead classrooms, I'd quit my job and let the programmers take over today. I don't because I think it will be worse than what we have now. What we have now isn't working but this will be worse.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-25-2011 at 07:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,195 posts, read 10,596,388 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Um....the discussion I've been having isn't about national accreditation It's about cyber learning....

You, COMPLETELY, missed my point. People aren't developing cyber learning because it's been shown to be better. They're doing it for MONEY. Your ENTIRE defense of cyber learning surrounds people putting time into developing is so it MUST be good???? Nope. Lots of people have put lots of time into things that turned out to be disasters. I see this one being a disaster. YOU do not have a valid leg to stand on in this argument. Your ENTIRE argument is illogical. Just because people put time into doing something does not make it good.

Look through history. How many times have we expended great amounts of energy and spent large amounts of money on things that were disasters??? You can't even begin to tell me why cyber learning MIGHT be better than classroom learning. I, OTOH, can tell you why I think cyber learning will be worse. You have to actually defend cyber learning if you wish to debate this. So far, you have not produced one shred of evidence that cyber learning even MIGHT produce better results. You're just, blindly, jumping on the band wagon because a lot of money is being thrown at this right now as if that means anything more than people are throwing a lot of money at this right now. Reality is, there's a lot of money to be made here. Whoever secures the public school contract for cyber learning will be VERY VERY RICH. Yes, they're offering free samples but, in the end, you'll be expected to buy just as you are in the grocery strore when you taste test a new brand of crackers.

This is not about what pocket money comes out of. It's about choosing what we do for the RIGHT reasons and the fact that people are putting a lot of time into cyber learning is NOT reason enough to choose it. Lots of new things get lots of time put into them but few of them really pay off in the end. The potential to make lots of money has driven people to put lots of time into lots of things before. This is no different. You know, as much as fuzzy math and spiral learning have been a disaster, at least they were chosen because people actually thought they'd be better. No one has shown that cyber learning will be better and there is very good reason to believe it will increase the divide between the haves and have nots and produce results inferior to what we have now in both classes. While I think we need change, this is not the change we need. It will make things worse.

The one thing cyber learning is is cheaper. For that reason, I see this experiment coming to fruition. And beause it is cheaper, we'll never go back to traditional schooling. We'll just accept that some kids are willing to learn and some are not and let them hang themselves if they're not. We've never valued education enuogh to pay for it. While we are paying more for education today than we have at any time, that is due to increased special ed spending. If you look at general education, we're paying less.

Either come up with a defense of cyber learning and enlighten us as to what it will accomplish or get off the bus. You are not adding anything to this debate other than posts.

With that, I'm done with posting back to you. You're not defending cyber learning. You've just latched onto it without reason to latch onto it and are refusing to let go for whatever reason I don't know. I'm leary of anything that has the potential to make people as rich as this does. Money is strong motivation for pushing your wares. Even giving free samples, trying to get a foot hold. My fear is the cost save will result in cyber learning being put in place without consideration for the damage it will do and it will do more harm than good. There are some cases where cyber learning is the best choice. In schools that are too small to offer upper level courses or as a form of remedation, for example. I, myself, do Khan (sp? I always seem to get the h in the wrong place here) academy type recordings that I put on my website so my students can see solutions to problems or review lectures later if they didn't get it the first time, however, I do believe we'd lose more than we'd gain if I just quit my job and next year's sub just showed my lectures from this year to next year's class and that is what you get with cyber learning. With cyber learning you can't even have peer to peer discussions because they'll all be working at their own pace so you lose what the teacher brings to the table and what peers bring to the table. You also will have a problem with pacing because some students will go as slow as they can get away with. That's a lot of loss. Cyber learning needs to offer something fantastic to offset those losses. When you figure out what that fantastic thing is, do enlighten us....

Seriously, if I thought cyber learning would be even remotely better than teacher lead classrooms, I'd quit my job and let the programmers take over today. I don't because I think it will be worse than what we have now. What we have now isn't working but this will be worse.
You mean there are no teachers that are in traditional education for the money? Is this Little House on the Prairie and we can give you an apple pie in payment? With that thinking; I guess you don’t need a pension - you would be happy just to teach until you drop!

Of course everybody wants their piece of the pie. However; there are serious funding issues with teacher pensions as well as just paying for an ever increasing educational bureaucracy - in hard times.

Some of the biggest advantages of online are learning at your own pace. If one of your students has to go to the bathroom or is absent for the day; they will not receive the instruction exactly like the rest of your class. With online; they simply hit pause or play back the instruction as many times as necessary. Or; they can retake the whole course years later.

You keep going back to all or nothing. I don’t see our traditional school grades as just one slot (all the kids from 6 to 7 years old). I see education as encompassing all ages. Right now you are only concerned about our kids until they reach 18 or 19. Many corporations need adults certified for different skills much later in life. I still think that that both systems can work hand-in-hand to prepare students and workers for our future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,726,300 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
You mean there are no teachers that are in traditional education for the money? Is this Little House on the Prairie and we can give you an apple pie in payment? With that thinking; I guess you don’t need a pension - you would be happy just to teach until you drop!

Of course everybody wants their piece of the pie. However; there are serious funding issues with teacher pensions as well as just paying for an ever increasing educational bureaucracy - in hard times.

Some of the biggest advantages of online are learning at your own pace. If one of your students has to go to the bathroom or is absent for the day; they will not receive the instruction exactly like the rest of your class. With online; they simply hit pause or play back the instruction as many times as necessary. Or; they can retake the whole course years later.

You keep going back to all or nothing. I don’t see our traditional school grades as just one slot (all the kids from 6 to 7 years old). I see education as encompassing all ages. Right now you are only concerned about our kids until they reach 18 or 19. Many corporations need adults certified for different skills much later in life. I still think that that both systems can work hand-in-hand to prepare students and workers for our future.
Sigh..... This IS all or nothing. You can't have a half cyber half regular class!! Could you, PLEASE, start actually reading my posts. Kids are either working at their own pace in a cyber class or they're working at the same pace in a regular class. You can't switch back and forth because they're all on different pages. (Have you ever taught a class?) There is no mixing cyber learning and traditional learning. You're either monitoring kids working at their own pace or teaching a class on the same pace. It IS EITHER/OR. You can't have both.

Let's say I decide to use cyber learning for my next section on radioactive decay. What do I do about the fact that the top 20% of my students will be done with the unit in a week and the bottom 20% will need three weeks? Do I make the top kids wait until the bottom kids finish to have a classroom discussion of the material? You really have not thought this through. What happens is we lose the classroom discussion because the kids are working at different paces. The faster kids will move on to the next section while the slower kids fall farther and farther behind. We also lose the teacher lecture on the topic. As a teacher, I, constantly, adjust my lectures to the response of the class.

The closest we're going to get to mixing the two is what I and many other teachers already do. I record my lectures on my smart board (similar to the ones you'd see on the Kahn academy site) and put them on my website for my kids to view again if they didn't get it the first time but the class moves on. I set the pace for the class. It's up to individual students who need more to view the recordings or see me after school for help. Seriously, if I let my students pick their own pace, half of them would drag their feet just because they could. About 20% would get the material done quickly but then they'd be bored. I could give them more work but I find that the smart kids who get done early don't want to be punished with more work for having done their work.

There is no sense even debating this with you. You have blinders on and refuse to even listen to those of us who actually teach. I have no idea why you're so gung ho cyber learning. Did you invest your entire 401K in cyber learning? You haven't shown ONE SINGLE BENEFIT to cyber learning but you keep harping that it's the way to go....Try finding something good about it before you start preaching we should adopt it. I see a couple of situations where it is better than nothing and a lot of pitfalls if it's applied elsewhere.

As I said, if I thought for one moment cyber learning was better than classroom learning, I'd quit my job, take a job back in engineering, double my pay and let the programmers have at it. I don't see cyber learning working. That's why I don't step aside and let the programmers take over. Heck, with my background, and subject matter expertise, I could be one of the programmers and make millions. I choose not to for a reason. The reason is, I believe this will do more harm than good (for reasons I've already stated more than once so I won't state them again) and I refuse to be part of it. If my school adopts cyber learning, I will quit and go back into engineering. You don't need someone with my background to baby sit a room full of kids who are plugged into a program. You just need someone to police that they're actually using the program instead of playing on the internet.

To avoid being sucked in again, because this argument is going nowhere because you don't have a leg to stand on and don't seem to realize that...I'm putting you on ignore now... I have better things to do than try to debate with someone who can't even see they have no argument in favor of what they're preaching. I'm not sure why you've latched on to cyber learning but you've got a death grip on the idea in spite of not having posted even ONE SINGLE BENEFIT to cyber learning to offset the negatives I've told you I believe will happen. Come to think of it, you haven't even come up with a rebuttal for the pitfalls I've posted. You're just, blindly, pushing your agenda. I'm going to guess you have money tied up in this somehow. Perhaps it's only the realization that cyber learning will be cheaper than traditional classroom learning and the hope your taxes will go down (like that ever happens) but you've got something on the line here besides what is best for our kids and I have better things to do than waste my time on this non debate.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-25-2011 at 09:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,195 posts, read 10,596,388 times
Reputation: 9363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Sigh..... This IS all or nothing. You can't have a half cyber half regular class!! Could you, PLEASE, start actually reading my posts. Kids are either working at their own pace in a cyber class or they're working at the same pace in a regular class. You can't switch back and forth because they're all on different pages. (Have you ever taught a class?) There is no mixing cyber learning and traditional learning. You're either monitoring kids working at their own pace or teaching a class on the same pace. It IS EITHER/OR. You can't have both.

Let's say I decide to use cyber learning for my next section on radioactive decay. What do I do about the fact that the top 20% of my students will be done with the unit in a week and the bottom 20% will need three weeks? Do I make the top kids wait until the bottom kids finish to have a classroom discussion of the material? You really have not thought this through. What happens is we lose the classroom discussion because the kids are working at different paces. The faster kids will move on to the next section while the slower kids fall farther and farther behind. We also lose the teacher lecture on the topic. As a teacher, I, constantly, adjust my lectures to the response of the class.

The closest we're going to get to mixing the two is what I and many other teachers already do. I record my lectures on my smart board (similar to the ones you'd see on the Kahn academy site) and put them on my website for my kids to view again if they didn't get it the first time but the class moves on. I set the pace for the class. It's up to individual students who need more to view the recordings or see me after school for help. Seriously, if I let my students pick their own pace, half of them would drag their feet just because they could. About 20% would get the material done quickly but then they'd be bored. I could give them more work but I find that the smart kids who get done early don't want to be punished with more work for having done their work.

There is no sense even debating this with you. You have blinders on and refuse to even listen to those of us who actually teach. I have no idea why you're so gung ho cyber learning. Did you invest your entire 401K in cyber learning? You haven't shown ONE SINGLE BENEFIT to cyber learning but you keep harping that it's the way to go....Try finding something good about it before you start preaching we should adopt it. I see a couple of situations where it is better than nothing and a lot of pitfalls if it's applied elsewhere.

As I said, if I thought for one moment cyber learning was better than classroom learning, I'd quit my job, take a job back in engineering, double my pay and let the programmers have at it. I don't see cyber learning working. That's why I don't step aside and let the programmers take over. Heck, with my background, and subject matter expertise, I could be one of the programmers and make millions. I choose not to for a reason. The reason is, I believe this will do more harm than good (for reasons I've already stated more than once so I won't state them again) and I refuse to be part of it. If my school adopts cyber learning, I will quit and go back into engineering. You don't need someone with my background to baby sit a room full of kids who are plugged into a program. You just need someone to police that they're actually using the program instead of playing on the internet.

To avoid being sucked in again, because this argument is going nowhere because you don't have a leg to stand on and don't seem to realize that...I'm putting you on ignore now... I have better things to do than try to debate with someone who can't even see they have no argument in favor of what they're preaching. I'm not sure why you've latched on to cyber learning but you've got a death grip on the idea in spite of not having posted even ONE SINGLE BENEFIT to cyber learning to offset the negatives I've told you I believe will happen. Come to think of it, you haven't even come up with a rebuttal for the pitfalls I've posted. You're just, blindly, pushing your agenda. I'm going to guess you have money tied up in this somehow. Perhaps it's only the realization that cyber learning will be cheaper than traditional classroom learning and the hope your taxes will go down (like that ever happens) but you've got something on the line here besides what is best for our kids and I have better things to do than waste my time on this non debate.
I would like to know why I have blinders on? You stated that you can see this coming. You donít approve - but; I think that you think that it is inevitable.

You also stated that you use your smart board and post it on your website. Isnít that somewhat similar to online education. The only difference I see is that you got paid instead of somebody else. Not only that; but you claim the two systems cannot work together - but you use your own online work to facilitate your class.

All of this is simply nit picking. The handwriting is on the cyber blackboard.

I am sure that you are a dedicated teacher and I do wish you well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,726,300 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
I would like to know why I have blinders on? You stated that you can see this coming. You don’t approve - but; I think that you think that it is inevitable.

You also stated that you use your smart board and post it on your website. Isn’t that somewhat similar to online education. The only difference I see is that you got paid instead of somebody else. Not only that; but you claim the two systems cannot work together - but you use your own online work to facilitate your class.

All of this is simply nit picking. The handwriting is on the cyber blackboard.

I am sure that you are a dedicated teacher and I do wish you well.
No, my posting portions of my lectures on line is not cyber learning. It's no different than my using a tape recorder when I was in college to record lectures in case I missed something.

You STILL haven't told me WHY you think cyber learning is good In fact, I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Cyber learning is not inevitable. We can fight it on the grounds that it will do more harm than good and it will. I can introduce you to a teacher who monitored a cyber class last year who will tell you that most of the kids did everything but what they were there to do and they had a high failure rate because kids just didn't manage their time well and didn't finish enough of the program to pass. Her school tried it as a means to eliminate a biology teacher. I hear they're trying chemistry next year. (It's a charter school and they're pushing forward because they can put 60+ students in one class if it's a cyber class and eliminate teachers only it's not working, so far. As I said, the cost save is very attractive. Since the owner of a charter school gets to pocket anything they don't spend, one less teacher is really attractive even if the kids don't learn as well. After all, all you really have to do is get them to minimum proficiency so they pass the test, right?).

I don't think cyber learing is inevitable. I think if it meets enough resistance, we can kill it and I hope we do. I think much will be lost if you park kids in front of computers and call it school. That said, we have a program here in Michigan where kids don't even have to leave their house. They just log on and do their work and never have to even talk to a teacher. (I beleive it's called K-12) We'll see how much success they have with that. To those who just want to get check marks, this will be welcome. Unfortunately, most of our kids just don't care. Computers won't make them care more. In fact, they'll make them care less. IMO, this is the end of education in the US. It doesn't really matter though as our economy is falling apart anyway. It's time for us to step aside and let China take over as a world power. My bet is on China as the next world power. 10 years ago I would have said Japan but they're starting to struggle. China is still growing. They're poised to do what we did in the 1950's.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-25-2011 at 07:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top