Why I hate “educrats,” part 3461.

From Inside Higher Ed:

Online learning has definite advantages over face-to-face instruction when it comes to teaching and learning, according to a new meta-analysis released Friday by the U.S. Department of Education.

The study found that students who took all or part of their instruction online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through face-to-face instruction. Further, those who took “blended” courses — those that combine elements of online learning and face-to-face instruction — appeared to do best of all. That finding could be significant as many colleges report that blended instruction is among the fastest-growing types of enrollment.

The Education Department examined all kinds of instruction, and found that the number of valid analyses of elementary and secondary education was too small to have much confidence in the results. But the positive results appeared consistent (and statistically significant) for all types of higher education, undergraduate and graduate, across a range of disciplines, the study said.

Horsehockey. How do I know? The study’s design:

A meta-analysis is one that takes all of the existing studies and looks at them for patterns and conclusions that can be drawn from the accumulation of evidence.

On the topic of online learning, there is a steady stream of studies, but many of them focus on limited issues or lack control groups. The Education Department report said that it had identified more than 1,000 empirical studies of online learning that were published from 1996 through July 2008. For its conclusions, however, the Education Department considered only a small number (51) of independent studies that met strict criteria. They had to contrast an online teaching experience to a face-to-face situation, measure student learning outcomes, use a “rigorous research design,” and provide adequate information to calculate the differences.

The key word here is “calculate.” The only way to make that possible is by measuring learning by filling in tiny bubbles on multiple choice tests. This almost has to be true given the age of some of those studies.

Multiple choice tests can’t measure the kind of learning outcomes that you can only get through direct engagement with the professor. You know, stuff like an actual conversation where you can respond in real time and make sure everybody is actually paying attention.

What’s worse are the implications of this study for labor. I can here it now, “Let’s outsource higher education to India! After all, they’re cheaper over there and the fact that everything has to be done online is actually to our advantage.

It’s times like this when I fear for our future as a country.

And here I thought you spelled “Ni!,” N-e-e.

Question for the weekend.

Am I the only one out there who thinks that if you don’t judge historical figures using the moral values of today you aren’t really learning anything?

Buffalo Bill.

I’ve been at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody Wyoming for the last few days, and just learned about the wonderful resources that their research library has online. The above illustration is from Google Books, but you can find plenty more fantastic stuff about Bill and his legendary show at the above link.

The real Richard Nixon emerges drip by disgusting drip.

The latest batch of Nixon tapes came out today and they aren’t going to do anything for the former President’s reputation. From the NYT:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Lovely. Just lovely.

While that sounds bad, things will only get worse for the former President. My old friend Stan Kutler sued to get access to all the Nixon tapes before Nixon was even dead. The Nixon Estate has been doing what they call in politics the “modified limited hangout.” In other words, they’ve been giving over small sections of the tapes of all of Nixon’s conversations for years in order to put off releasing the really embarrassing stuff. This latest disgusting comment is an indicator of the real Nixon that they didn’t want people to ever see.

It’s bad, but can you imagine what the last Nixon tapes ever released will sound like?

Ellis Island (from Godfather Part 2).

If this was only a minute and a half or so longer, it would be perfect for class:

Chicago labor history walking tour (The South Side and Pullman).

The gate to Packingtown:

The ruined Pullman factory:

Inside the Pullman Administration Building:

Chicago labor history walking tour.

So I recently got back from Chicago, where I took the Chicago Labor History Walking Tour with Bill Adelman. He’s a wonderful guide, and here are some highlights from that morning:

The Haymarket Memorial sculpture:

The grave of the Haymarket martyrs at Forest Home Cemetary, a cemetary that does not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation:

The Rebel Girl of the IWW:

Next time: Pullman.

Economists think they’re scientists, but they’re not.

From Michèle Lamont, author of How Professors Think, at Crooked Timber (via AHA Today):

While economists think that excellence is objective and is to be found in the proposal itself (that a clear line separates what is first rate from the rest), scholars hailing from more interpretive fields believe that evaluators play a central role in giving value to the proposals – indeed, that they are engaged in the coproduction of excellence. While participating in panel deliberations, they produce what they hope will be convincing arguments about what is good work. They don’t think that their views – their subjectivity – corrupt the process. Instead, they think it is essential to the process, because they are asked to serve in their quality as connoisseurs, as experts who have spent many years developing a very refined classification system for understanding what the field has already produced and what is new and promising.

I like the title of this post better, but then again I have trouble understanding why anything here is news to anyone with an advanced degree in either subject.

Thinking like a historian.

From the staff at the Wisconsin Historical Museum via my friend Paul: