No Credibility, No Clue!
In his 2011 article, “Reliance on Online Materials Hinders Learning Potential for Students,” David Smith attempts to build upon student’s obligated online interaction to make a case against online classes. Smith first shows how much today’s learners must use online materials by using the example of his own Alma Mater. By referencing his own experience at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln, with MyRED and EBSCO search engine, Smith lays the grounds for the focus of his argument. He then attempts to use what seem to be personal examples of experience with online coursework while begging the question through repeated examples. By failing to establish the credibility of his facts, attempting to force his own
Smith continues by mentioning the ever present eye of an instructor as a motivator for modern students to do their homework and classwork (14). By using himself as his only source, Smith severely limits his arguments credibility and strength. Smith assumes that without structure, there is no learning. It seems less like Smith knows what he is talking about, and more like Smith is a scorned college student that failed too many online classes. In today’s world, regardless of instructor or not it is completely up to the student to remember their work, and there is nothing to back up Smith’s points.
In an attempt to fully establish his credibility, Smith uses many examples to force his idea into relevancy. Smith speaks of “blown off readings,” “bombed quizzes and exams,” and “forgotten assignments,” being the result of the freedom given to a college student in an online class (14). Unfortunately Smith fails to account for the countless students every year that pass online courses and teach themselves the value of self-reliance and responsibility. These examples are also unfounded; he offers nothing as a source aside from his own, possibly skewed, vision of online college courses. Once again Smith leaves himself open