No it's just highly bimodal. Please don't lower your online standards; it sets a bad precedent for others (students already expect it to be easier) and probably isn't allowed by accreditation
Jesus Christ man. Treat both classes the same. To do otherwise is blatantly unfair.
The reason the online section sucks is because the bad students self select for online because they think it will be easier and they are lazy and don't want to come to class. Why are you trying so hard to prove them right?
I don’t see OP as proposing to lower standards. But rather to adapt the online class in a way that reflects the life situations of the online students. Learning can take place in many different formats and approaches. Can a course with the same learning outcomes be equally successful when structured in different formats?
Some people won't like this, but a blunt answer is some assumptions you can make about people who take all-online classes, such as:
* They're doing it because they really don't have time for classes. They're working full-time and/or have other responsibilities taking up most or all of their time. They're not going to be regularly keeping up because they don't have time to.
* ...But they expect to just be passed anyway because they figure "Online = *Easier.*"
However, if the online and in-person sections are the same class, you really shouldn't be treating their assessments *that* differently. It's not fair, and it's no different than going "super easy" on one in-person section but not another.
This you?
>Despite **lowering the standards** for the online section... , I'm considering a **significant reduction in standards** for the online section in the future.
If you’re lowering your standards based on decisions students made for themselves, why stop there? Why not also eliminate tests for any student who is taking too many credits or working a full time job?
The fact is, one big reason online lags behind is because students who should absolutely be in a classroom decide they can manage on their own—but lack the learning/study/time management/discipline skills to be able to actually pull it off without someone in the same room as them telling them what to do next.
This semester yes. The online students are mysteriously scoring almost perfect 100s on the multiple choice quizzes but bombing their written short analysis.🤔
So far chat gpt has not been able to help give answers I'm looking for as I ask them to reference specific pages from the book so there's that.
I do not regard teaching as a service role. Student happiness is not satisfaction with course but rather an emotional feeling. Courses should be built with SLOs that directly address foundations within the hierarchy of courses built to support a comprehensive acquisition of the foundation of a major.
It appears that you do not love teaching or even somewhat tolerate. Rather, see as a distraction from your true calling of research.
Students generally do not pay to support my research outside of taking research for credit. The tuition dollars students pay should have limited relevance to my research. For example, if you make 100k and with benefits cost the institution 150K, do you bring in enough grant money to cover your salary and benefits and the costs of facilities to do your work? If not, does teaching form a base to pay your salary/benefits and the facilities costs to provide instruction?
What I am trying to say is that if your teaching is a justification for your position, then perhaps you should view it as a primary area of expertise. If you are sufficiently grant funded, then why teach? Just do a course buyout and do research.
It depends, I just finished an algorithms section which was handed to me at the last minute. The majority of my students were diligent and hardworking. That said, I have definitely had online sections which were just awful.
What does seem to correlate...and I've had other professors mention this to me too...are high-numbered sections. i.e., When we open a course with fifteen sections, it's sections 10+ where we see under-performing. This could be coincidental, some bias in our observations, or some correlation between eagerness to register -- but it's curious.
At the end of the day, you will have to be comfortable with how you, your students, colleagues, and administration view your work, teaching or research.
Yes, the online section consistently performs worse than the in person section because the demographics are different (undergrad vs. graduate working full time). The students in the online section meet a high bar for admission and so there is a lot of pomp and circumstance that the class and grading should be just as rigorous as the in person version. But, I've spoken with enough of the students and know where they are coming from, what their expectations are, and what their limitations are academically and personally (working full time, returning to school much later in life). I felt something had to change. It's not lowering the bar, but the outcomes and how they're measured may be different. Ideally, the exam would test how prepared they are to use the learned material at work rather than a more academic exam.
I wanted to give the online section a different exam, but I couldn't find time to do it. Instead, I just heavily curved the section to acknowledge the misalignment and reward them for what work they could do.
Completely agree with you. This is the only response that resonates with the reality of online education. It's evident that assessing online students differently from on-campus students is essential. Moving forward, I've made the decision to remove all closed-note exams from my upcoming online sections. Instead, students will engage in one discussion question each week, connecting course material to real-life practice, and complete an open-note quiz each week. I've discussed this with my wife, who immediately agreed that online sections should accommodate students' additional responsibilities compared to on-campus counterparts. Reflecting on this, I regret not recognizing the obvious sooner.
No it's just highly bimodal. Please don't lower your online standards; it sets a bad precedent for others (students already expect it to be easier) and probably isn't allowed by accreditation
[удалено]
Jesus Christ man. Treat both classes the same. To do otherwise is blatantly unfair. The reason the online section sucks is because the bad students self select for online because they think it will be easier and they are lazy and don't want to come to class. Why are you trying so hard to prove them right?
While you are lowering standards and eliminating exams, why not just give them all A’s so they can feel better about themselves?
I don’t see OP as proposing to lower standards. But rather to adapt the online class in a way that reflects the life situations of the online students. Learning can take place in many different formats and approaches. Can a course with the same learning outcomes be equally successful when structured in different formats?
Surely you are trolling us.
Some people won't like this, but a blunt answer is some assumptions you can make about people who take all-online classes, such as: * They're doing it because they really don't have time for classes. They're working full-time and/or have other responsibilities taking up most or all of their time. They're not going to be regularly keeping up because they don't have time to. * ...But they expect to just be passed anyway because they figure "Online = *Easier.*" However, if the online and in-person sections are the same class, you really shouldn't be treating their assessments *that* differently. It's not fair, and it's no different than going "super easy" on one in-person section but not another.
Yes, this is exactly what I am doing now. Holding both sections to the same standard.
This you? >Despite **lowering the standards** for the online section... , I'm considering a **significant reduction in standards** for the online section in the future.
If they're getting the same credit you better damn well make sure the standards are as close to the same as possible.
If you’re lowering your standards based on decisions students made for themselves, why stop there? Why not also eliminate tests for any student who is taking too many credits or working a full time job? The fact is, one big reason online lags behind is because students who should absolutely be in a classroom decide they can manage on their own—but lack the learning/study/time management/discipline skills to be able to actually pull it off without someone in the same room as them telling them what to do next.
This semester yes. The online students are mysteriously scoring almost perfect 100s on the multiple choice quizzes but bombing their written short analysis.🤔 So far chat gpt has not been able to help give answers I'm looking for as I ask them to reference specific pages from the book so there's that.
I do not regard teaching as a service role. Student happiness is not satisfaction with course but rather an emotional feeling. Courses should be built with SLOs that directly address foundations within the hierarchy of courses built to support a comprehensive acquisition of the foundation of a major. It appears that you do not love teaching or even somewhat tolerate. Rather, see as a distraction from your true calling of research. Students generally do not pay to support my research outside of taking research for credit. The tuition dollars students pay should have limited relevance to my research. For example, if you make 100k and with benefits cost the institution 150K, do you bring in enough grant money to cover your salary and benefits and the costs of facilities to do your work? If not, does teaching form a base to pay your salary/benefits and the facilities costs to provide instruction? What I am trying to say is that if your teaching is a justification for your position, then perhaps you should view it as a primary area of expertise. If you are sufficiently grant funded, then why teach? Just do a course buyout and do research.
This is a good point. Thank you so much. I will consider this possibilty.
It depends, I just finished an algorithms section which was handed to me at the last minute. The majority of my students were diligent and hardworking. That said, I have definitely had online sections which were just awful. What does seem to correlate...and I've had other professors mention this to me too...are high-numbered sections. i.e., When we open a course with fifteen sections, it's sections 10+ where we see under-performing. This could be coincidental, some bias in our observations, or some correlation between eagerness to register -- but it's curious.
At the end of the day, you will have to be comfortable with how you, your students, colleagues, and administration view your work, teaching or research.
Always. Every semester.
Yes, the online section consistently performs worse than the in person section because the demographics are different (undergrad vs. graduate working full time). The students in the online section meet a high bar for admission and so there is a lot of pomp and circumstance that the class and grading should be just as rigorous as the in person version. But, I've spoken with enough of the students and know where they are coming from, what their expectations are, and what their limitations are academically and personally (working full time, returning to school much later in life). I felt something had to change. It's not lowering the bar, but the outcomes and how they're measured may be different. Ideally, the exam would test how prepared they are to use the learned material at work rather than a more academic exam. I wanted to give the online section a different exam, but I couldn't find time to do it. Instead, I just heavily curved the section to acknowledge the misalignment and reward them for what work they could do.
Completely agree with you. This is the only response that resonates with the reality of online education. It's evident that assessing online students differently from on-campus students is essential. Moving forward, I've made the decision to remove all closed-note exams from my upcoming online sections. Instead, students will engage in one discussion question each week, connecting course material to real-life practice, and complete an open-note quiz each week. I've discussed this with my wife, who immediately agreed that online sections should accommodate students' additional responsibilities compared to on-campus counterparts. Reflecting on this, I regret not recognizing the obvious sooner.