4 ms·
As stated, based on my personal experience tests are a good determinant on who should proceed and who should not. I get to know my students. Even before they
by yequalsx 15y ago
As stated, based on my personal experience tests are a good determinant on who should proceed and who should not. I get to know my students. Even before they take their test I know, for the most part, who are going to do well and who aren't. I know which ones know the material and which ones don't. I can't say, "I feel like you don't know the material and should not take Calc II." This would lead to too many arguments and acrimony.
I can give them a test and when they get an 'F' on it there is no argument. The test is a good measure of who knows the subject and who doesn't. For the most part. It's the most effective tool that I know of.
The absolutely mandatory part is the crux of the issue with regard to face-to-face classes. It forces students to meet at a set time and work on a given topic. In the absence of this forcing mechanism human nature takes over and most students fail miserably at the time management aspect of online classes. This is all anecdotal though. I don't have any research to back this up.
- rgoddard 15y ago"In the absence of this forcing mechanism human nature takes over and most students fail miserably at the time management aspect of online classes." But does this have to be the case? In the current educational environment, I would agree that a number of students benefit from being made to attend class. The question is if this is just a result of human nature, or something else. Where that something else could be having students go to college when they are not ready for it, or high schools and earlier killing students intrinsic desire to learn, or some other reason.