Critics of online learning institutions are not few and certainly not difficult to find. Online learning has been claimed to be inferior, supposedly established by a desire to spend less on education. Robert W. Mendenhall’s article, “How Technology Can Improve Online Learning – and Learning in General,” defends online learning from its harsh critics. However, his argument is not without flaws. Due to Mendenhall’s inability to establish himself as a credible author and inability to evoke emotional appeal through his work, he unsuccessfully champions online learning. And ombined with the many inconsistencies in his arguments, he does a disservice to proponents of online learning and leaves his readers without answers to exactly how technology can improve online learning.
From the beginning Mendenhall introduces himself as the president of a non-profit online university. Credibility, or ethos as categorized by Aristotle, serves as a measure of respect from the reader to the author. By declaring that he is a partial player in the debate between classroom and online learning, Mendenhall fails to portray himself as trustworthy.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Online Learning And Technology".
Furthermore, throughout the article, Mendenhall defends online learning by being critical of “brick-and-mortar institutions” especially those with “graduation rates from 5 to 20 percent” that are deemed “dropout factories” (Mendenhall). His constant attacks on these institutions maintain his defensive tone throughout the entire article. The reader is led to believe that his purpose is self-serving. His arguments cannot be fully appreciated simply for its worth. Although passionate about the practice of learning he champions, he establishes himself as a biased, overly critical author.
In addition, Mendenhall’s passion for improving the overall quality of education is disguised by his indignant approach, failing to enhance his argument. Pathos, or emotional appeal, is a powerful tool of persuasion that Mendenhall does not utilize effectively. His emotional appeal, urging that “all institutions…need to do a better job,” is only mentioned at the end of his argument (Mendenhall). He does not state his purpose for the article, his good intentions, until the conclusion when it is too late to enhance his claims. Moreover, Mendenhall makes the mistake of oversimplifying his argument, by being too idealistic about online institutions. He ignores its flaws, only conceding halfheartedly in his last minute appeal that online institutions need to be improved as well.
Mendehall’s argument is also plagued by the several inconsistencies in his arguments, causing his claims to lack in logos. Firstly, the title of his argument is misleading. He claims that the article will explain how technology can improve online learning. Instead, he dedicates the majority of his work to defining how quality is measured. He fails to declare that the article will instead be a defense of online institutions. Next, he cites that “learning outcomes are roughly the same” for both classroom and online education (Mendenhall). But as he pointed out himself, the results of learning in those two types of institutions are measured differently. Furthermore, Mendenhall’s argument seems to ignore that online institutions are inherently different from classroom institutions. He believes that learning through a virtual classroom is essentially the same as learning in an actually classroom. But what of communication and learning how to present oneself? And what of simple human interaction? Mendenhall can certainly argue that in certain cases both circumstances may produce the same results, but he should not treat the two diverse methods as easily interchangeable. Each serve a different demographic, as their customers are different people with different preferences. Lastly, Mendenhall criticizes classroom-based institutions that according to him “too often measure quality by looking at inputs” (Mendenhall). He believes that learning institutions should be measured by their outputs, by studying the competency of the student at the end of their education. But is it fair to judge an institution by unrealized potential? The world’s leading institutes of education are indeed measured by “the degrees held by faculty members, faculty-student ratios, library resources and even the curriculum” (Mendenhall). In short, they are otherwise measured by their resources. But should the quality of an institution become tarnished if a number of its students fail to take advantage of the resources available to them? If a student does not listen in class and consequently fails the class, it does not necessarily mean that the instructor is any less qualified.
Both methods of learning are flawed. But people do best in a setting they prefer. There is not denying that online institutions are efficient and beneficial for those who need to independently study. The article successful highlights that neither system is perfect. But the answer to the supposed question, how technology can improve online learning, is still left unanswered.
- Mendenhall, Robert W. “How Technology Can Improve Online Learning.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 00095982 (2011). ProQuest Research Library. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
