Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Science online?

What are others' experiences with online science courses at the early high school level?

Specific recommendations or cautions would be most welcome.

From what I have seen personally, most of these are decidedly.... not good.

My criticisms:

1. Science instruction at this level isn't memorization (aside from a few topical areas in biology, geology, and to a somewhat lesser extent chemistry and physics)-- but that IS how most online courses approach the material.

2. Interaction is (IMO) necessary to the development of the particular critical thinking skills in science, and the foundation of all that comes after these introductory courses. Skip that or skimp on it... and the result is "science lite." Think Popular Science. The problem with canned instructional modules is that they can't answer questions in real time, which is what (especially beginning) students truly NEED-- because having an expert shape your thinking process and learn to SELF-critique is really crucial (okay, not all high school teachers are good at this either).

3. Too few labs, too little actual connection to the principles of the course. "Virtual" labs don't cut it for anything but physics, IMO.


Online science classes CAN work. But there are some caveats... they require a living expert instructor to be available. That's the big one. Science is like literary analysis this way-- it just can't happen in a vacuum. Sure, doing some of the grind of learning formulae, techniques, etc. can, but learning to extend/apply generally cannot, because students who are LEARNING lack the expertise to know when they have a detail or two wrong. KWIM?

They also generally require a home-brewed lab, or at least significant improvement to the one on offer.


Name brands that I would (most certainly) AVOID-AVOID-AVOID:

1. Connections Learning
2. Pearson
3. KC (Distance) education
4. FLVS-- this is the Florida Virtual School
5. Virtual Sage


The ultimate issue with prepackaged courses in the sciences in particular is that the people WRITING the curriculum very definitely do NOT understand that material at the (post-baccalaureate) level that one must in order to evaluate the important stuff, and not write questions about minutiae.

Oh, dear. That's pretty much what I expected. While I was browsing they all set off my garbage detector...

Any experiences with Stanford University Online High School? This looks more "real" to me... a shade pricey (as in, more expensive than college courses here would be...)

http://ohs.stanford.edu/divisions/science.html

Thanks, HK.

We've had good and bad experiences with online science classes. I think that an important part of the equation is your individual student (and for those who don't know me, I'm a scientist who loves science with a science degree.. so that's my background fwiw). My ds is also very scientifically inclined - science is his thing. The class he had success in was very hands-off - he had an accessible and wonderful instructor but he didn't really need her either - he cruised through the class material independently and did very well in the class as well as the labs (which he did independently at home). The second online class he took, from the same institution, was a complete bust for him. I think he found the information not terribly exciting, and given that situation, not having the presence of other students and live discussion was a real issue for him.

DS is also an extroverted personality, so he likes to work with other students - and he's loved the labs he does at school because of the group dynamics. OTOH, he's bored to tears with the actual material presented in school, which is the reason he's wanted to take online courses. We gave up the last course and he just read a textbook instead and found that to be more "fun". I couldn't pinpoint exactly why he found the class so hopelessly boring because he does like the subject and he has enjoyed reading the textbook.

Ultimately what our ds has enjoyed the most have been summer science camps where he's in with a group of students. Last summer he had a camp at a university that was led by grad students and that's been his favorite so far.

Not sure that was much help - let us know what you decide to do!

polarbear

What about Laurel Springs? http://laurelsprings.com I have no idea how strong they are in science. But a friend's daughter had a good experience with them for online history classes. The only reason I suggest it as a possibility is that from what i understand there is a teacher who is available by email, and a lot of the work is graded by a person. I would worry about the labs.

DeeDee, maybe Val has some insights into that one-- I hope so. I know that they've made use of (er-- or tried to, anyway) many online options as well.

LaurelSprings raises many of the red flags that I've learned about with online providers over the years-- namely, there can't be BOTH "real live interactions with teacher and classmates!" and "work at your own pace-- endless flexibility!"

KWIM? Either the schedule works synchronously (like any other school class tends to) or it works in a vacuum and completely self-paced (independent EPGY, Khan, etc.) but it can't be BOTH at the same time.

I also have concerns when students are supposed to "submit material" and that is the limit of teacher involvement.

They also make a lot of noise about "mastery" learning-- but the terminology they use implies (to me) that they actually mean "we'll let students do it as many times as they need to in order to earn A's." K12 uses the same philosophy, and Connections does, too-- on the sly, though (without the overt "mastery" verbiage, I mean).

What that often amounts to in practice is teachers who will "reset" assessments so that students can do them again. Not more instruction in a direct sense. It also doesn't mean moving at your own pace, which is probably what most of us here would like.

Their AP Physics B course is the exact same one that my DD took through Connections. Seriously-- it looks to use precisely the same materials and in the same sequence and pacing. (Very similar rubric-driven grading and assessment schema, as well.)

I strongly suspect that the "labs" included are just about as lame as what my DD's class offered. We supplemented. A lot.

No way do I think that course would be worth shelling out nearly $2K for. No way. You could do it a LOT better yourself by purchasing a copy of the Giancoli text, a copy (used) of Hewitt's lovely conceptual physics text, a solutions guide for Giancoli, maybe toss in an AP exam prep book, get a lab pack-- for about 400 bucks total. It will amount to pretty much the same darned thing in the end, since your involvement as a parent will be similar either way.

I say that in light of the fact that my child also had about an hour a week of (truly) good quality direct instruction, which it is not clear that the LS version of things actually has.

Most online courses are going to operate more or less like correspondence courses. That might be okay for some subjects, but it's hard for me to see how it works well for some others.

Oh-- and surprise-surprise, none of their science offerings meet UC's standards for a-g, either. Now, that's a red flag for me in a different way... I mean, it doesn't matter if you aren't applying to UC, I suppose. But it's a warning that the post-secondary academy doesn't consider the course to be sufficiently rigorous to serve as "college preparation" in the subject-- at least not as it stands.

That's true to my experience as well.

And all of these courses are presented with such hype that it's hard to imagine any of them living up to any of their claims.


Thanks for the recommendations. We may end up doing something like this... depends on how negotiations turn out.


Yes. I teach a college course online, and to do it well is simply a boatload of work. And even then, it's serving certain needs, but definitely not all the needs these students present. It's a stopgap.

And while I trust myself to deliver quality instruction, I don't really trust anyone else automatically on that score-- it's simply too much work to do it well for me to imagine that everyone who hawks courses is going to do it well.

And for science... I want real labs.

Thanks.

Hybrid courses at a local community college might be a way to get what you're after-- that's what we've opted for for chemistry. Physics was do-able at home since DH's PhD is in a very closely related discipline, and mine is "related."

But I don't really feel that HS chemistry can be taught well with only home-managed labs. I've written lab manuals for college courses, of course-- but the problem becomes having a way to set aside a dedicated space for labs, ventilation, disposal, etc.

Add to that the biology harpy teaching chemistry and we said thanks but no thanks.

DD wants to take it, though, before she enters college in the fall. So we might have her take the B&M class at the local CC-- if she can get a seat, I mean-- or try the hybrid class (which does about 70% online, and meets in person weekly too).

Okay what do you think about flvs science class for middle school for a non science kid who learns really fast 6th and 7th grade science? And my older son sat through 6th and 7th grade science in a FL middle school honors/gifted class and it wasn't all that great live and in person.

Just in general terms, I've been underwhelmed by the level and depth of FLVS offerings in all subjects, not just science. I've seen five or six of those in secondary, and none of them stood out as what I'd call "good" examples.

The AP Stats class that my DD is currently enrolled in is a Spokane product-- it seems considerably better put together than most online courses for secondary.

Not sure what you mean by B&M "wasn't all that live and in person," there-- do you mean that the teacher was bad and therefore the class was as well? Or that there wasn't anyone really teaching the class?


Ah-- (I see your edit now). Yeah-- it's not that virtual is ALWAYS worse than the alternative. Just that I've yet to see a virtual class (especially in science) where I've thought that it was better than a good B&M version of the same scope and sequence. If that makes sense.

Teacher quality makes a huge difference in total suckage versus something pretty great. Just like in any other subject, I suppose, and math, math, math-- ohmigosh, the house of horrors we could all build in that subject, eh?