Slashdot Mirror
The Problems With Online Math Classes
dcollins writes "As a college instructor specializing in statistics, I felt compelled to survey one of the massive-enrollment online education courses that are all the rage these days. This summer, it seemed a perfect opportunity when Udacity unveiled Introduction to Statistics by founder Sebastian Thrun (of Google autonomous car fame). Having taken the entire course through to the final exam, my overall assessment is: It's amazingly, shockingly awful. Some nights I got seriously depressed at the notion that this might be standard fare for college lectures encountered by many students during their academic careers. I've tried to pick out the Top 10 problems with the course structure and address them in detail."
These aren't just online courses the article is talking about here, it's massive online courses, a completely different animal IMO.
I agree with the cautions on trusting an instructor, yet at the same time a student is not a good judge either. If I am learning something for the first time, how am I to know that what I've been taught is good until I have a chance to put it to use?
He backs up his arguments with actual examples and provides a foundation for rational discourse about the class he took. I don't think one could ask for much more.
That said, all this proves in general, is that if all his arguments are valid then it is possible to have a terrible course on-line just like in the traditional classroom. And his worries at the end about the value of having finished the class really misses the point of free on-line education.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The author puts forth very few actual problems with online math classes in general; his article focuses on one particular course (Udacity Statistics 101) and gives us a top 10 list of problems with that course. None of these problems are intrinsic to online courses, except perhaps the lack of natural feedback that one does get when teaching a class face-to-face, allowing for continuous improvement of the course material.
In other words, the author bases his assessment of online math courses on a sample size of 1. ("Based on my review of the Udacity Introduction to Statistics course, I see some compelling strategic advantages for live in-class teachers, that will not be soon washed away by massive online video learning.").
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Of course, all the instructors and professors bad-mouth the online classes. Why? Because the online courses are a threat to their jobs, of course.
How is an online course any different that a textbook? To me it has some benefits over a text book like you don't have to read as much, you can just listen. I like to be able to flip back and forth or scan chapters in a textbook -- that's a bit harder in a video lecture. So why aren't instructors and professors calling for the ban of textbooks and criticizing them? Why don't they lynch each other when one writes a really good textbook?
Once an online course is in place, it doesn't require much in the way of instructor intervention.
Listen, man, I'm glad this worked for you. But it's a one way communication channel. The way you say "it doesn't require much in the way of instructor intervention" is pretty indicative that you think teaching is someone shouting at you with your mouth taped shut and your eyes pried open. You should maybe read the article before saying the critique is biased, he talks about what I'm mentioning:
Throughout the course, lectures and exercises veer rapidly between utterly trivial and nigh-impossible. I think this is a reflection of the one-way communication channel, such that Thrun can't have any awareness of what counts as easy and what counts as hard to the students.
Yet you say:
Most of the instructors I've had love the idea that you are forced to come listen to them twice a week, and blanch at the idea that any course could be effective without their brilliant classroom contribution.
I'm pretty sure that's in your best interest. If you're one of the gifted students that hasn't ever needed a professor's help then congratulations but you're not the normal student. If what you're saying is true, the government would only need to dispatch sets of textbooks to each home and stop paying tons of money on public education altogether. But what you're saying isn't true ... anyone with an education given to them by several other humans will know that.
My work here is dung.
I've had math professors who could barely speak English because they were foreign countries.
I'm amazed they could fit into the classroom.
Visit the
Not even remotely true. My wife is a professor at a community college, and if anything her on-line courses take as much or more of her time than the same course taught traditionally. Additionally, each time she re-teaches on-line course she spends considerable time revising and improving the content to reflect her learning curve.
The OA's plaint is doubtless valid, but does not really contradict the potential of the approach. The real goal is not some free part time implementation of a bad stats course, it is the hope for wider distribution of the really great ones.
Take a "World History 101" course at any large university, in a huge lecture hall with 350 of your closest friends, delivered by uninterested, overworked grad student TAs.
This just in: most undergrad education is overpriced, and low quality.
Exactly! One could imagine that a professor teaching statistic would know better than to base conclusions on a limited data set (N=1).
Some teachers who have tried using Khan Academy in the classroom (I read about it offline so no link, sorry) said they thought the best advantage wasn't that the presented material was better but that it freed them up from presenting the information so they could give more personal assistance.
Imagine that in maths class rather than the teacher standing at the board for 30 mins explaining an example they could let a small group watch the video while helping another small group who just finished watching it. Alternatively the time freed up could be used to customise homework to stretch those at the top and bring up the quality of those at the bottom.
Finally add additional functionality on and allow access to the vids at any-time and anyone struggling with 'integration' could look back over that video description, perhaps access an online/skype-esque tutor service and/or post what they are stuck on for the teacher who could arrange very brief one-to-one sessions to address specific issues.
I think way too much focus on these courses is on how they 'replace' teachers. Sure there is some scope for that but I think we can get far more benefit by augmenting classroom teaching.
Mod parent up, he's key on. I remember an issue with a professor in one of my C++ classes, which happened to include a large programming project. The project took about four weeks of intensive programming, and I was really proud of the quality of my code, comments, structure, etc. Only problem was that in one section we had to determine the actual type of an object using dynamic_cast after having received a base type object. We had like 10 derived objects and I've used copy paste to make life easier, but forgot to modify one entry with the appropriate type. That is, ONE word was wrong. My mistake failed in one of their tests (which I didn't have in advance), which cascaded four output missmatches. This ONE word cost me 40 points out of 100, ending up with a D for this project. One word, lots of effort. I've talked to the professor and his answer was a lame "if I fix your grade, I need to fix everyone's".
When I was a TA during grad school, I always looked at the work flow. If a student made a mistake in part (a) of a problem, I didn't simply give him zero points for parts (b) (c) and (d) that used it as a base. Instead, I've assumed that part (a) was right and looked at the process. It took me more time to grade, sure. But it is fair and if a teacher can't contribute with some human touch, let's just replace them with computers.
I took Prof. Thrun's & Prof. Norvig's course, "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence" when it was first offered. I'm pretty big on self-study, and I rely on instructors to provide efficient direction (a syllabus, specific reading material), a mechanism for self-evaluation (exercises, means to validate results, etc), and finally, a source of answers when I have questions. In a perfect world, online courses seem to be a good fit for my personal needs, so I dove in with relish.
However, I found some of the same general problems the blog post referenced;
- the content (speech, writing) was often sloppy and confusing, it did feel unplanned.
- concepts that were introduced were not explained in their entirety.
- the vocabulary used to describe a new idea was fairly mutable, or inconsistent.
- there were often instances requiring sizable leaps of intuition combined with formal mathematical knowledge to complete exercises which had previously only been provided in a "fill in the numbers" format in previous examples.
In addition, I found no clear mechanisms for self-evaluation. We had to wait a week just to see the results of previous tests, etc. I also thought the quiz interface was childish and poorly done, but that's mostly just a look and feel issue.
I also took Prof. Ng's "Machine Learning," class at the same time. In contrast, I found that Prof. Ng provided:
- Writing was clear, dialog was polished, vocabulary was explicit.
- Concepts were introduced, explained (in both a practical and intuition-focused form), demonstrated and expanded upon.
- Exercises were given to students in the form of example data, algorithms to implement, and with additional suggestions on how to 'play' with them to produce different results and gain an intuitive grasp of the information. Unlimited resubmission of exercises with an automated grading system made evaluation of different mechanisms simple.
- Quizes were more polished.
I felt like I got a lot out of his class, well more than the AI class.
I feel that the difference between the two was pretty obvious. Prof. Thrun was teaching as if he had a live audience in front of him, and did not modify his instruction style for the lack of interactivity. On the other hand, Prof. Ng taught in a way that minimized the deficiencies of video learning, while leveraging the benefits of online, automated instruction.
In conclusion, I don't think the AngryMath blogger is correct in the assumption that live, in-person instruction is needed. In fact, I'd say the opposite was shown: the closer you get to the style of live instruction, the worse it seems to be to me, and more so when it's online. Of course, I have specific needs from education, and others may prefer different styles.
Seriously who mods this shit insightful every bloody time.
There is no big conspiracy of teachers wanting to make everything hard to maintain in iron grip on on some hypothesised education-industrial complex as one uninsightful poster named it above.
I'll let you on in a little secret about university lecturers. They generally fall on a spectum between two extremes.
1. Ones who really like research. Teaching gets in the way and anything which means they have to do less teaching (like someone else preparing online courses) is a serious bonus.
2. Teachers who like teaching (amzing that, really). Basically, they have a passion for the subject and letting others know about it. Anything which helps studenst get it is considered a bonus. Therefore good online courses are a real bonus because they bring more studenst to the world of their favourite subject.
But you know what, neither camp is in favour of por quality online courses. In the case of 1, that means fewer well educated students to act as future research monkeys. In the case of 2, the teacher will get sad at what passes for education and may well have to deal with the consequenes of confused students, or worse, students who have been put off and never cease to even be students.
Whenever education comes up, there seem to ca a carde of deeply cynical posters with a chip on their shoulder the size of Mt Rushmore who delight in wild education based conspircy theories and telling the world how they are so amazing that professors are unnecessary and they taught everything to themselves anyway and/or didn't even go to nuiversity but are amazingly super-awesome anyway and don't professors suck because they're in it for the money and want to keep the man down because professoring is such an amazingly lucrative career and they ave to hold onto it tight otherwise the money will become spread around or something.
It's crap.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I teach a blended class at a very large university (Blended = Students have the choice of online or offline). While both sets of students get the exact same assignments, same quizzes and the same readings, students who attend in person average one full grade higher than those who do not.
It comes down to two things :
- Being in front of your prof will build a relationship with him/her and generally you will get more out of the class. That being said, students are just as able to hide away in a live class and not participate.
- Being online only, makes you study only the subject from the point of the material. Very rarely do I get questions from students, or really any exploration of tangential subjects. The barrier to ask impromptu questions is much greater online. Also, because of a delayed response, it may not be as timely. Again, I've had online students ask more questions than what was asked in class, but that was an abnormally. Rarely do the questions asked online get posted in a public manner so all students can benefit from the response.
The massively online classes (like the one talked about in the article) exacerbate those issues... How do you ask a question to the instructor? If they only provide forums, sometimes other students will answer them for you -- but they are not necessary qualified. How can a student bring up tangential topics that may enhance the class?
It's a different style of learning. You learn the material that is expected of them, and that is it. You know the principals of X, but you may not know how they relate (and its up to you, on your own research to find it).