Online Learning and Writing Classes: An Article Critique
This paper critiques Kiefer's article "Do students lose more than they gain in online writing classes?" from Brave New Classrooms. The analysis evaluates arguments on both sides of the online education debate but emphasizes the thesis that students lose more than they gain in online writing instruction. The paper acknowledges legitimate benefits—cost savings, flexibility, and accessibility for working students—but argues that the losses are more significant: limited practical experience, reduced interpersonal interaction, diminished socialization, and compromised competitive readiness. The critique demonstrates how online learning, while convenient, may inadequately prepare writing students for dynamic professional environments requiring hands-on experience and collaborative skills.
- Article Overview and Author Context: Kiefer examines online writing education viability
- Strengths of Kiefer's Arguments: Author demonstrates online learning effectiveness and accessibility
- The Case Against Online Writing Education: Online classes lack practical experience and interaction
- Author Concessions and Balanced Perspective: Acknowledging legitimate benefits while maintaining critique
- Conclusion: Weighing Gains Against Losses: Thesis confirmed: losses exceed gains for writers
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Acknowledges both sides of a contentious debate while maintaining a clear argumentative stance throughout
- Uses specific, concrete examples of what students lose (practical training, interpersonal skills, socialization) rather than abstract claims
- Demonstrates critical engagement by conceding valid points (cost savings, flexibility) while still defending the thesis
- Grounds the argument in the specific discipline of writing, where hands-on feedback and practical application are genuinely central
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper models evidence-based critique with counterargument integration. Rather than dismissing Kiefer's position outright, the writer identifies what the author got right (cost, accessibility), then systematically explains why those benefits do not outweigh losses specific to writing instruction. This balanced-but-decisive approach strengthens credibility and avoids the strawman fallacy.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic critique format: context and thesis statement, summary of source strengths, detailed counter-argument organized by loss categories (practical skills, competency, interpersonal development), strategic concessions, and conclusion. Each major loss is numbered for clarity. The structure mirrors a literature review but remains focused on evaluating a single source against an explicit claim.
Article Overview and Author Context
This paper critiques an article by Kiefer titled "Do students lose more than they gain in online writing classes?" found in chapter eight of Brave New Classrooms, edited by Pegrum. In her analysis, Kiefer presents arguments on the topic of online education, and this critique will examine both sides of the debate while giving primary weight to the position supported by the central thesis. The article acknowledges the growing trend of individuals enrolling in online classes due to increased workplace demands and limited freedom to attend physical campuses.
Thesis statement: Students lose more than they gain in online writing classes.
Kiefer explains that it is possible to teach writing students effectively through online instruction. She expresses minimal doubt about its viability as a teaching method, suggesting she may have personally benefited from online instruction or closely observed successful practitioners. The author similarly demonstrates confidence in the effectiveness of online methods, particularly regarding practical lessons that form a mandatory component of writing education.
Strengths of Kiefer's Arguments
Throughout the article, Kiefer offers strong support for the viability and appropriateness of online writing instruction. Her analysis emphasizes the benefits of this teaching approach, presenting the argument in a manner that highlights the positive dimensions of online education. The article is organized chronologically while consistently portraying online classes in a favorable light. Kiefer strengthens her position by explaining practical details of online study programs and documenting well-established benefits such as the ability to study anywhere without geographic constraints or physical classroom attendance.
Additionally, online learning offers documented advantages for certain student populations. The accessibility of online programs makes higher education attainable for working professionals, parents, and individuals with mobility limitations. The cost-effectiveness is also noteworthy, as students avoid expenses related to campus housing, commuting, and on-campus facilities. These are genuine benefits that merit acknowledgment in any balanced assessment of online education.
The Case Against Online Writing Education
Despite these merits, the reality of online teaching reveals critical limitations. The most fundamental problem is the severely limited interaction between instructors and students, resulting in a loss of the personal touch essential to writing instruction. Students in online environments receive primarily theoretical knowledge while lacking practical application—a critical deficiency in writing education, where competency depends fundamentally on what students can actually produce, not merely what they can conceptualize.
Writing is inherently a practical discipline. A writer with creative thinking but no hands-on training cannot produce the caliber of work required in professional settings. Writing education requires iterative feedback, revision guided by an instructor's eye, and real-time correction of technique. Theoretical instruction alone, which characterizes much online training, cannot substitute for this essential practical foundation.
Kiefer's assertions about online writing education's appropriateness are therefore misguided. While students gain comfort and cost savings from studying at home, what they lose is substantially greater. First, students lose the chance to develop a practical perspective on their own work during training. They miss opportunities for in-person manuscript review, live editing sessions, and immediate demonstration of writing techniques.
Second, students lose opportunities to develop practical competency in writing itself. Their post-graduation careers will demand dynamic, real-world writing skills applied to complex professional scenarios—a reality that online instruction inadequately prepares them to meet. Third, online training limits the acquisition of interpersonal skills developed through classroom interaction with peers and instructors. Class interactions cultivate socialization abilities and collaborative competencies. As writers, students need a social perspective on human experience; they must learn to write with people, for people, and about people. Online learning fundamentally constrains this essential dimension of professional writing education.
Conclusion: Weighing Gains Against Losses
The thesis statement—that students lose more than they gain in online writing classes—is affirmed by the analysis presented in this study. While online education offers genuine benefits in flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, these advantages are outweighed by substantial losses in educational quality and preparation for professional practice. Educational effectiveness depends on learning outcomes, and for writing specifically, the capacity to compete with graduates from traditional programs remains compromised by limited practical experience and reduced interpersonal interaction. Although the freedom and flexibility of online instruction cannot be dismissed, the quality differential and competitive disadvantage justify the conclusion that, for writing education, students sacrifice more than they gain.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.