Online Writing Classes: Gains, Losses, and Student Access
This essay responds to Kate Kiefer's argument that online writing courses are inferior to traditional, small-group classroom settings, where timely feedback is more readily available. The paper concedes the validity of Kiefer's core critique while offering two important counterarguments: first, that online writing courses may represent the only viable option for students whose work schedules or personal circumstances prevent them from attending in person; and second, that rapid advances in educational technology—including video conferencing, shared desktops, and collaborative platforms—are steadily eroding the limitations Kiefer identified. The essay concludes that while face-to-face instruction remains the ideal, online formats serve a meaningful and improving role for students who have no other access to writing education.
- Introduction: Kiefer's argument and two counterpoints introduced
- Access and the Value of Online Writing Courses: Online courses as best option for some students
- Advancing Technology and Online Learning Platforms: Technology overcoming online learning limitations
- Conclusion: Qualified defense of online writing education
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay demonstrates a balanced critical approach: it acknowledges the strengths of the source argument before presenting its own counterpoints, which lends credibility to the writer's position.
- Both counterarguments are grounded in practical reasoning—student access constraints and technological advancement—rather than abstract claims, making them persuasive and accessible.
- A direct quotation from Kiefer is used effectively, followed immediately by a rebuttal that addresses the specific limitation the quote raises.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper models the concession-rebuttal structure: the writer grants the opponent's argument partial validity before introducing qualifications. This technique signals intellectual fairness and strengthens the overall argument by showing the writer has genuinely engaged with the opposing view rather than dismissing it outright.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a compact three-part structure: an introduction that summarizes Kiefer's position and previews the two counterarguments; a two-section body that develops each counterargument in turn, with the second supported by a direct quotation; and a brief conclusion that restates the qualified position and gestures toward the paper's broader implication—that online writing education is improving faster than critics anticipated.
Introduction
Kiefer argues that the online educational format for a writing class is inferior to the traditional classroom setting, which is normally composed of a limited number of students. In the traditional writing classroom, students can receive timely feedback that has been shown to increase their writing capabilities. The online setting, by contrast, has inherent limitations that prevent the quality and timeliness needed to study writing effectively. Although Kiefer's overall argument raises valid points, there are two important considerations that must be addressed: the role of student access and the future of online education.
Access and the Value of Online Writing Courses
The first consideration is that not all students are able to attend a class in person due to work obligations or personal circumstances. Therefore, while not ideal, an online course can still be a worthwhile endeavor when no better alternative exists. For example, if someone does not have the time or ability to travel to a traditional classroom to study writing, then the online format may be their only option to pursue their education.
If one accepts that an education in writing has genuine value and that no better alternatives are available, then an online writing course could still represent a student's best option—even if it is not the ideal one in the eyes of some critics.
Conclusion
It would be difficult to argue against the position that an online education will never be quite as good as a traditional face-to-face classroom. However, the question becomes what degree the difference actually matters. If a student does not have access to a traditional setting for any number of reasons, then the online format is their best option for pursuing their education. Furthermore, educational technology is developing quickly—probably faster than Kiefer anticipated. Many of the previous limitations on which Kiefer bases her argument can now be at least partially mitigated through better technological tools.
Works Cited
Kiefer, K. (n.d.). Do Students Lose More than They Gain? Chapter 8.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.