No Credibility, No Clue!
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 authority over the subject, and poorly organizing his thoughts, Smith fails to create a strong and compelling argument against online classes and the internet as a resource.
Smith begins by establishing the connection today’s students have to the internet and its resources. “Pencils and paper,” he says, are being moved out of the way for “keyboards, webcams, and online drop boxes (Smith 3).” Smith attacks his argument using examples that seem to come from his experience with MyRED and EBSCO search engine, he claims that now more than ever students are completely dependent upon online resources (6). He goes on to mention the convenience of such online supplements, such as being able to register at any time online with MyRED, the ability to check grades or assignments from anywhere on Blackboard, or being able to access a greater wealth of information through search engines like EBSCO(6). As soon as Smith has established the reliance on technology that students have today, he shifts gears. Smith before he goes anywhere with his information, his approach to explaining the amount of weight put on students through the internet shifts to explaining how today’s students are irresponsible and can’t handle the freedom of online
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 authority over the subject, and poorly organizing his thoughts, Smith fails to create a strong and compelling argument against online classes and the internet as a resource.
Smith begins by establishing the connection today’s students have to the internet and its resources. “Pencils and paper,” he says, are being moved out of the way for “keyboards, webcams, and online drop boxes (Smith 3).” Smith attacks his argument using examples that seem to come from his experience with MyRED and EBSCO search engine, he claims that now more than ever students are completely dependent upon online resources (6). He goes on to mention the convenience of such online supplements, such as being able to register at any time online with MyRED, the ability to check grades or assignments from anywhere on Blackboard, or being able to access a greater wealth of information through search engines like EBSCO(6). As soon as Smith has established the reliance on technology that students have today, he shifts gears. Smith before he goes anywhere with his information, his approach to explaining the amount of weight put on students through the internet shifts to explaining how today’s students are irresponsible and can’t handle the freedom of online
Cited: Smith, Dan. “Reliance on Online Materials Hinders Learning Potential for Students.” Practical Argument: A Text and Anthology. Kirzsner, Laurie G., Mandell, Stephen R. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 221-22. Print.