You don't really have to read the textbook in many online classes.

Many online classes offer few, if any, tests. Some schools choose to concentrate on the writing of papers to assess student learning. This is an area of concern for me. I'm a veteran of, as of today, 24 online courses at 5 different schools, so I'm not talking into my hat here. When there are no tests in an an online class, if you know how to skim textbooks effectively, you don't actually have to do much reading. When you are writing papers, you can skim the textbooks for what you need, and then use that to write papers that get an "A", if you know how to do it. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I'm just saying that it can be done. If it can be done, you can bet that it will be done...and often.

I bring up this point to argue for the need to have tests in an online class. Writing a paper does indeed cause you to learn a great deal, but it offers no assurance that you will know all of the necessary information. This is because you have the choice, when you write a paper, over what information you include, and very rarely will you get dinged for not including things that would be on a test. This indicates that you will learn a few things very well, but you might not get all the information you need to be considered to have truly mastered the class.

Tests are not that great of a thing either; you often memorize lots of info, get your good grade, and then forget the info in the not too distant future. Moreover, there are the well-discussed difficulties concerning cheating on tests. However, I'm concerned with the quality of an online course when it does not require some sort of a test.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying all, or even most, online schools are neglecting tests, but I know for a fact that some are.

 

I agree with you. Testing is important because it means all material must be understood. In most cases, when I write papers or do projects, I can at least somewhat work around the parts I am not as strong in and focus on what I know best. With tests, that is obviously not the case. I also find that I learn a lot not just reading the material (which I agree does not need to be done without tests), but studying it knowing that I need to know it well for a test.

All (but one) of the classes that I have taken online have had several quizzes and all have had proctored final exams. I really like the proctored exams; I think think they add credibility to the degree.

 

I will argue that it doesn't matter. I can read the text book and memorize enough to ace the test to forget it a few months later. Writing a paper could be the same way but you are getting a little more detailed into a specific subject.

If all of the tests have many actual essay, not short essay questions, then you may be on to something.

Regardless, you will only get out of a program what you put into it. The courses I am not passionate about, with tests or papers, I put enough energy in to pass and move on.

 

I'd be more worried about classes that focus on tests than writing papers. The majority of tests emphasize LOW LEVEL skills such as memorization, over the HIGH LEVEL SKILLS of comprehension, analysis, and synthesis (and more importantly, writing skills) that essays demand.

I say kudos to online courses that require writing and thumbs-down to those that use tests as their primary means of measuring learning!

 

I would say that it's all relative.

I have taken courses at two different universities. One of them offer exams and the other one mostly grade you based on participation on group discussion and two research papers. The university that emphasizes on examinations basically sends you the test five days prior to its deadline, so you would basically might not have to read the textbook and only look for specific definitions that allow you to respond all the questions from the mid-term or the final exam. Please bear in mind that this is from a regionally accredited B&M university with a DL program. I'm learning very little on this university but I need the degree for work-related requirements.

On the other hand, the university that grades on study groups makes it very clear that they would only provide a good grade to those contributions that actually enhance the discussion and that anything that's stated needs to be backed up by a reference. They also require an "academic writing style" for all the posts. With this approach, you cannot comment on the issues posted because they refer directly to the assigned readings for the week. In my personal opinion, this approach is far superior to the one based on take home examinations.

 

Not the case with DETC accredited universities and colleges.

From my experience I can tell, that without reading and understanding and solving problems or answering questions in text book there is no chance to pass the class.

First the text book is divided in to collections of lessons , usually 10 to 14 lessons.
Each lesson has a 10 to 20 question exam.

At the end there is proctored or supervised exam that one can take in the library, high school or college near by, covers all the material studied in the class. The time is limited and usually it is open book.

Without reading , no I will correct studying the text book there is no chance to suceed in the class.

Maybe the schools should adopt DETC University methodology.

DETC should offer to accredit not only institutional accreditation but also have a new comity, to accredit DL programs at RA universities.

 

Thank you everyone for your answers. We are all actually pretty much in agreement if you step back and look at the big picture. Arch23 states that writing papers are what activates the higher-level learning and I agree. Lerner tells us at his DETC school requires exams which are impossible to pass without studying the text. That's very good.

I argue that a good program needs both. I'm not in favor of the paper writing only schools, I feel strongly that tests should be in the mix as well. If it's paper writing only, you can skip reading the whole text.

 

I got 21 of my first 30 college credits without textbooks. I couldn't afford them. This was in the early 1980's and not online. Suffice it to say I attended class

Phillip

 

That's often the case, online or not. It's common in graduate courses in the humanities.

When I did my DL (but not online) MA at Cal State Dominguez Hills, there weren't any tests, just lots of papers. The B&M graduate program that I'd been in earlier was a combination of essay exams and out of class papers, plus lots of class discussion and stuff like seminar presentations.

Isn't rote-learning background material more properly a function of undergraduate level introductory classes? It seems to me that graduate classes are more often focused on various issues of interest to the discipline, with students called upon to employ the background material that they should already be reasonably familiar with in new and creative ways. New and more specialized information learned during the course of the class will be relevant to the issues, and mastery of it should be obvious in the papers.

A competent professor who is actually paying attention will be able to tell whether students have a suitable grasp of the material or whether they are simply faking it. The more participation a class requires, the more obvious that will be.

 

I've never read a textbook from cover-to-cover in my life (online or ass-in-seat).

 

Actually, I believe that it's a combination of tests and writing that provides the best education, graduate or undergraduate. But you do have a point in the fact that, once you are a graduate student, you probably should be ready to branch out into an area of study that you are most interested in. However, graduate schools still have classes that require textbooks and I would assume they want you to learn what is in those textbooks. Unless they are making you buy a textbook just for reference, it seems pointless to ask you only to write papers and never really check to see that you have absorbed the info in the textbooks. If you are required to have a textbook, it only follows that you should be tested on it. A paper does not adequately determine whether a student has read the textbook.

 

Skimming is actually a skill that a graduate student needs. When you have so much reading to do, especially when you are searching academic literature to write reports or a lit review, you couldn't get it all done without being a pretty good skimmer. It takes quite a bit of skill to skim through material and to be able to effectively pick out what you need. You actually have to be a very strong reader to skim well. So your practice probably speaks to your intelligence and reading skill to be able to get through classes by just skimming.

That is what you are talking about, right? Or are you saying that you never read and just take the tests cold? If you can pass that way, you are a genius! (or maybe a really good cheater) JK :smile:

 

Nah, I'm far from a genius. I read some of the material, just not all of it.

I'm working on my undergrad with no plans of attending grad school. My skimming might catch up with me at that level. :Flush:

 

That's outrageous!!!!

I agree with everything you said.

Additionally, I attended a private B&M college for a Bachelors degree and a B&M state university for a Masters degree -- and they were the EXACT same way. IMO this is an outrage and all the B&M institutions should really think twice about their learning methodologies!!! However, I didn't know that the exact same shenanigans were ongoing at online colleges and universities! :lick:

This is an outrage!!! It must be stopped!!! :smashfreakB:

LOL :deal:

 

Yes, they are. I believe that tests alone are weak and paper writing alone is not enough. It's the combination of the two that makes a strong course, online or B&M. Maybe hitting the students on the head with a hammer would be good too! :smashfreakB:

 

A smiley hitting another smiley over the head with a hammer? Really, now.

 

Funny because I used to read everything I was to read for my classes, im talking everything! But lately I read about 3/4 of each chapter most of the time and skim the rest. My life just doesnt make it possible for me to sit and read for hours on end unless I stay up till 2am everyday which at times I do.... I have a 3.5 year old and sometimes I can get him to pretend to do homework with me during the day otherwise its all night reading for me.

As for not really having to read the book I guess that is true and I was going to say not if the instructor requires you to use quotes from the book in discussions etc but you can accomplish that by skimming, so nope you dont really have to read the books but my question is why wouldn't you? What can you possibly be learning if your not reading the material you need to learn?

 

You are an amazing person to be able to get any studying done when you have a 3 year old. They are wonderful, but they require almost all of your time. You have my respect and admiration.

I agree with you about it being important to read all of the book, but I think you are right, many people don't. I know I often can't because of time limitations, just like you, but they are not from my daughter. She was just 3 years old just recently, but then I blinked and now she is 21. Enjoy these times and make many memories.

 

Actually,

DETC accredited school, I attended and earned degree from had both we had tests, and papers, research papers, proctored and supervised exams.

Most of the material was based on the text book. Some text books contained additional material and chapters that are good to cover but not part of the class or part of another class.

I think DETC has what it takes to be successful for the DL program and they DETC should add another accrediting commission, in addition to institutional accreditation they should add programatic DL accreditation.

 

Actually, you should never read a textbook!

They are filled with toxic opinions and drivel about an academic domain that merely support the current orthodoxy... they are vile pieces of stone that will weigh you down and turn you into a mindless zombie!

Hehe. Just kidding sort of... Textbooks are interesting gravel on the road of higher education that help us get from one school of thought to another. They are a necessary evil to train people to think critically about a subject.

More importantly than worrying about people reading textbooks and remembering the content, consider Blooms revised taxonomy and reflect on the irony of all those textbooks based on the old taxonomy... Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains

Wagner's Law of Textbooks (with corollaries): Textbooks should be revised! Textbooks should be revised as soon as possible. The larger the textbook, the more it should be revised.