Argument-Persuasion Essay
Danica Williams
Prof. McGriff
Comp. 1
4/14/2014
Ctrl, Alt, Delete Cyber-School
Through the advancement of electronics and the ease of communication, the Internet has found many useful purposes. But is Cyber-Schooling actually an improvement from regular school education? Although the synonymous clicking and melodious button taps of a classroom may sound enticing, should Cyber education become the future choice of all learning? I believe it should not be the future "norm" of schooling because it will not improve education just by the use of computers and easy unlimited access to the Internet. Although many people believe that cyber-education would provide the best education, many also feel that cyber-education should not be the only option for educating students, because it isolates the students, does not allow everyone involved to express their opinions, and removes the vital student-teacher relationship.
In addition, Cyber-education isolates students by its separate learning techniques that will divide the online students from the "offline" students in the workforce. George Landow in his essay, "Twenty Minutes into the future, or How Are We Moving beyond the Book "states, “These new digital information technologies involve fundamental changes in the way we read and write, and these radical differences, in turn, derive from a single fact, the physical to the virtual” (219). George compares how there will be different methods of learning that will start with the use of Cyber Schools.The teachers in Cyber Schools will have to create new methods for the students involved in Cyber-Education. Because of these differences in techniques a distinct separation will occur among the students in their future. The difference may cause corporations and certain job to create separate work for the type of learning techniques each student was taught.
Another reason why this style shouldn't be the only schooling is because cyber-education eliminates the opinions of teachers, students, parents, and voters by putting technology as the top priority. In Clifford Stoll’s strongly opinionated essay, Cyber-school he explains how to eliminate the struggles of dealing with different opinions of people, “Sound like a tough call? Naw- it’s easy to solve all these problems, placate the tax payers, and get re-elected. High technology!” He makes claims that persuade people to want cyber-education because he writes his essay to sound like technology will solve every problem. Allowing the opinions and input of different people to be shared can bring lots of positive effects to a school system, business, or even an election. By considering the various opinions of others, you can find faults that you have never noticed before and hear new ideas that could greatly improve your school or business. By making technology the receiver of opinions, you are eliminating the valuable information that could improve and fix the assessed problems.
Likewise, Cyber-education removes the vital student-teacher relationship because the entire class is performed on the internet. Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia, writes in his op-ed column in the NY Times about this relationship entitled, "The Trouble with Online Education". He states, “Online education is a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It tends to be a monologue and not a real dialogue. The Internet teacher, even one who responds to students via e-mail, can never have the immediacy of contact that the teacher on the scene can, with his sensitivity to unspoken moods and enthusiasms. This is particularly true of online courses for which the lectures are already filmed and in the can. It doesn't matter who is sitting out there on the Internet watching; the course is what it is.”. Mark creates a vivid image of cyber education and why it is better that classroom learning. In Scott Newstok’s article on this classroom relationship entitled, "A Plea For Close Learning", he writes his opinion: “To state the obvious: there’s a personal, human element to liberal education, what John Henry Newman once called “the living voice, the breathing form, the expressive countenance.” (2001, 14). “He then continues, “I propose that we begin calling it close learning, a term that evokes the laborious, time-consuming, and costly but irreplaceable proximity between teacher and student. Close learning exposes the stark deficiencies of mass distance learning, such as MOOCs, and its haste to reduce dynamism, responsiveness, presence.” (pg. 1-2). Scott shares his idea of close-learning and why it is vital to a student's education. Whether they are college, elementary, or middle-school level – online courses will always lack contact between the student and teacher. I believe that this has a negative effect on the student because it is harder to learn and understand without the vital teacher-student relationship.
In contrast, Cyber-education creates new methods of learning that can help particular students exceed in school where others may not. Although cyber-education creates a divide between “offline students” and online students, it does create an opportunity for students who exceed well with online-style classes to do so. Stoll explains some positive effects for cyber-school in his essay, “Every student will work at his or her pace. … It’s the ultimate in individualized, child-centered instruction.” Stoll explains that cyber-education allows students to work “at their own pace”. But cyber-education is always changing and pace will not be a consistent positive action. Many students could possibly take it for granted and procrastinate. Not to mention, not every student is able to learn without a structured schedule with teachers and administrators supervising.
In opposition, A possible positive outcome of cyber schooling is that Cyber-education could save class-time because teachers are irrelevant and make education inefficient. This opinion was based off of the viewpoints of Stoll in his essay. He explains that there is no need for teachers at “Cyber-School” because “when there is a fun, multimedia system at each student’s fingertips. Should students have a question, they can turn to the latest on-line encyclopedia, enter an electronic chat room, or send e-mail to a professional educator.” Stoll ridicules the opportunity a student has to ask questions in a normal classroom environment by saying it wastes time. He later explains that having a teacher gives an opportunity to ask off-task questions that distract more students and waste class time. Although it is easy to see how working online can save time in that aspect, it has to be remembered that allowing students to directly ask an instructor a question can build the teacher-student relationship as well as allow the student to understand the material to its maximum potential. In a journal article from the autumn of 1998 issue of the City Journal entitled "Teens: Ten Going on Sixteen", Kay S. Hymowitz writes about a recent dilemma in school that has turned tweens into teenagers too quickly. In her journal, she talks about the correlation between this dilemma and the effects of it. This goes from premature sex to drug use and even to eating disorders in America’s middle schools. Kay rhetorically asks, “What change in our social ecology has led to the emergence of tweens?” By the use of online schools that keep the students away from each other the potential of this dilemma would drop and cyber-school could benefit our children.
Also, another opinion created by most people and explained by Stoll is that Cyber-education keeps people from having to make hard decisions and saves them time and headache because it allows technology to take-care of all the school problems. “Meanwhile, the computers will keep score, like pinball machines. They’ll send e-mails to parents and administrators…scores that will become part of each kid’s permanent record. … And if a student gets confused or falls behind, automated help will be just a mouse-click away.” Stoll proudly writes what it would be like if online education was strictly the only method of learning used. Programming computers and other technology to do the jobs of accountants, assistants, librarians, etc. at school is a simple-sounding way to take care of the typical school problems and keep the migraines away. But keeping up with the latest software and the toughest hacker-defense or security wall is expensive. If all cyber- schools went through this, school would only be allowed to the most affluent. Education has to be available to all people. Making technology solve the school’s problems can easily turn into a disaster that can remove education from lots of people.
In conclusion, there are many proved negative outcomes and effects of Cyber-Education that are in effect currently and can easily be viewed. Cyber-education should not be the only education because it isolates the students in the future, eliminates the opinions of the people, and removes the vital student-teacher relationship. Although there are a few choice circumstances that may positively help a student in their educative career due to Cyber-Schooling, not all circumstances are. Cyber-school is not an improvement from regular school. Normal, “offline” or “Close” learning needs to remain dominant in the school system and Cyber-education should move no further.
Works Cited:
Hymowitz, Kay S. “Teens: Ten Going on Sixteen”(1998) The Longman Writer 8th Ed. Pearson,2011. 212-216. Print.
Stoll, Clifford. "High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer Contrarian." Cyberschool (1999): n. Print.
Newstok, Scott L. "A Plea for "Close Learning"" EBSCO Industries, Inc. EBSCO, n.d. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2014.
Edmundson, Mark. "The Trouble With Online Education." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, July-Aug. 2012. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2014.
Landow, George. “Twenty Minutes Into The Future, or How are We Moving Beyond The Book”. Writing Material: Readings From Plato to The Digital Age. New York: Longman, 2003.
Danica Williams
Prof. McGriff
Comp. 1
4/14/2014
Ctrl, Alt, Delete Cyber-School
Through the advancement of electronics and the ease of communication, the Internet has found many useful purposes. But is Cyber-Schooling actually an improvement from regular school education? Although the synonymous clicking and melodious button taps of a classroom may sound enticing, should Cyber education become the future choice of all learning? I believe it should not be the future "norm" of schooling because it will not improve education just by the use of computers and easy unlimited access to the Internet. Although many people believe that cyber-education would provide the best education, many also feel that cyber-education should not be the only option for educating students, because it isolates the students, does not allow everyone involved to express their opinions, and removes the vital student-teacher relationship.
In addition, Cyber-education isolates students by its separate learning techniques that will divide the online students from the "offline" students in the workforce. George Landow in his essay, "Twenty Minutes into the future, or How Are We Moving beyond the Book "states, “These new digital information technologies involve fundamental changes in the way we read and write, and these radical differences, in turn, derive from a single fact, the physical to the virtual” (219). George compares how there will be different methods of learning that will start with the use of Cyber Schools.The teachers in Cyber Schools will have to create new methods for the students involved in Cyber-Education. Because of these differences in techniques a distinct separation will occur among the students in their future. The difference may cause corporations and certain job to create separate work for the type of learning techniques each student was taught.
Another reason why this style shouldn't be the only schooling is because cyber-education eliminates the opinions of teachers, students, parents, and voters by putting technology as the top priority. In Clifford Stoll’s strongly opinionated essay, Cyber-school he explains how to eliminate the struggles of dealing with different opinions of people, “Sound like a tough call? Naw- it’s easy to solve all these problems, placate the tax payers, and get re-elected. High technology!” He makes claims that persuade people to want cyber-education because he writes his essay to sound like technology will solve every problem. Allowing the opinions and input of different people to be shared can bring lots of positive effects to a school system, business, or even an election. By considering the various opinions of others, you can find faults that you have never noticed before and hear new ideas that could greatly improve your school or business. By making technology the receiver of opinions, you are eliminating the valuable information that could improve and fix the assessed problems.
Likewise, Cyber-education removes the vital student-teacher relationship because the entire class is performed on the internet. Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia, writes in his op-ed column in the NY Times about this relationship entitled, "The Trouble with Online Education". He states, “Online education is a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It tends to be a monologue and not a real dialogue. The Internet teacher, even one who responds to students via e-mail, can never have the immediacy of contact that the teacher on the scene can, with his sensitivity to unspoken moods and enthusiasms. This is particularly true of online courses for which the lectures are already filmed and in the can. It doesn't matter who is sitting out there on the Internet watching; the course is what it is.”. Mark creates a vivid image of cyber education and why it is better that classroom learning. In Scott Newstok’s article on this classroom relationship entitled, "A Plea For Close Learning", he writes his opinion: “To state the obvious: there’s a personal, human element to liberal education, what John Henry Newman once called “the living voice, the breathing form, the expressive countenance.” (2001, 14). “He then continues, “I propose that we begin calling it close learning, a term that evokes the laborious, time-consuming, and costly but irreplaceable proximity between teacher and student. Close learning exposes the stark deficiencies of mass distance learning, such as MOOCs, and its haste to reduce dynamism, responsiveness, presence.” (pg. 1-2). Scott shares his idea of close-learning and why it is vital to a student's education. Whether they are college, elementary, or middle-school level – online courses will always lack contact between the student and teacher. I believe that this has a negative effect on the student because it is harder to learn and understand without the vital teacher-student relationship.
In contrast, Cyber-education creates new methods of learning that can help particular students exceed in school where others may not. Although cyber-education creates a divide between “offline students” and online students, it does create an opportunity for students who exceed well with online-style classes to do so. Stoll explains some positive effects for cyber-school in his essay, “Every student will work at his or her pace. … It’s the ultimate in individualized, child-centered instruction.” Stoll explains that cyber-education allows students to work “at their own pace”. But cyber-education is always changing and pace will not be a consistent positive action. Many students could possibly take it for granted and procrastinate. Not to mention, not every student is able to learn without a structured schedule with teachers and administrators supervising.
In opposition, A possible positive outcome of cyber schooling is that Cyber-education could save class-time because teachers are irrelevant and make education inefficient. This opinion was based off of the viewpoints of Stoll in his essay. He explains that there is no need for teachers at “Cyber-School” because “when there is a fun, multimedia system at each student’s fingertips. Should students have a question, they can turn to the latest on-line encyclopedia, enter an electronic chat room, or send e-mail to a professional educator.” Stoll ridicules the opportunity a student has to ask questions in a normal classroom environment by saying it wastes time. He later explains that having a teacher gives an opportunity to ask off-task questions that distract more students and waste class time. Although it is easy to see how working online can save time in that aspect, it has to be remembered that allowing students to directly ask an instructor a question can build the teacher-student relationship as well as allow the student to understand the material to its maximum potential. In a journal article from the autumn of 1998 issue of the City Journal entitled "Teens: Ten Going on Sixteen", Kay S. Hymowitz writes about a recent dilemma in school that has turned tweens into teenagers too quickly. In her journal, she talks about the correlation between this dilemma and the effects of it. This goes from premature sex to drug use and even to eating disorders in America’s middle schools. Kay rhetorically asks, “What change in our social ecology has led to the emergence of tweens?” By the use of online schools that keep the students away from each other the potential of this dilemma would drop and cyber-school could benefit our children.
Also, another opinion created by most people and explained by Stoll is that Cyber-education keeps people from having to make hard decisions and saves them time and headache because it allows technology to take-care of all the school problems. “Meanwhile, the computers will keep score, like pinball machines. They’ll send e-mails to parents and administrators…scores that will become part of each kid’s permanent record. … And if a student gets confused or falls behind, automated help will be just a mouse-click away.” Stoll proudly writes what it would be like if online education was strictly the only method of learning used. Programming computers and other technology to do the jobs of accountants, assistants, librarians, etc. at school is a simple-sounding way to take care of the typical school problems and keep the migraines away. But keeping up with the latest software and the toughest hacker-defense or security wall is expensive. If all cyber- schools went through this, school would only be allowed to the most affluent. Education has to be available to all people. Making technology solve the school’s problems can easily turn into a disaster that can remove education from lots of people.
In conclusion, there are many proved negative outcomes and effects of Cyber-Education that are in effect currently and can easily be viewed. Cyber-education should not be the only education because it isolates the students in the future, eliminates the opinions of the people, and removes the vital student-teacher relationship. Although there are a few choice circumstances that may positively help a student in their educative career due to Cyber-Schooling, not all circumstances are. Cyber-school is not an improvement from regular school. Normal, “offline” or “Close” learning needs to remain dominant in the school system and Cyber-education should move no further.
Works Cited:
Hymowitz, Kay S. “Teens: Ten Going on Sixteen”(1998) The Longman Writer 8th Ed. Pearson,2011. 212-216. Print.
Stoll, Clifford. "High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer Contrarian." Cyberschool (1999): n. Print.
Newstok, Scott L. "A Plea for "Close Learning"" EBSCO Industries, Inc. EBSCO, n.d. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2014.
Edmundson, Mark. "The Trouble With Online Education." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, July-Aug. 2012. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2014.
Landow, George. “Twenty Minutes Into The Future, or How are We Moving Beyond The Book”. Writing Material: Readings From Plato to The Digital Age. New York: Longman, 2003.
