This paper responds to Kiefer's critique that online writing education is inferior to traditional classroom instruction. While acknowledging the validity of concerns about timely feedback and interaction quality, the paper presents two counterarguments: first, that online education serves as a necessary alternative for students unable to access in-person classes due to work or personal constraints; and second, that rapidly advancing technology—including video conferencing, collaborative tools, and shared platforms—increasingly mitigates the limitations Kiefer identified. The paper concludes that while traditional classrooms may remain ideal, the practical and technological landscape has shifted enough to make online writing education a legitimate option for many learners.
Kiefer argues that the online educational format for a writing class is inferior to the traditional classroom setting, which typically consists of a limited number of students. In the traditional writing classroom, students 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 effectively study writing. Although Kiefer's overall argument contains valid points, two important considerations must be examined. These considerations address practical alternatives and the evolving future of online education.
The first consideration is that not all students can attend a class in person due to work or personal circumstances. Therefore, while online courses may not be ideal, they represent a worthwhile option when no better alternatives exist. For example, if someone lacks the time or ability to travel to a traditional classroom to study writing, then the online format could be their only opportunity to pursue an education. Assuming that writing education has value and no other suitable alternatives are available, online writing represents a student's best option even if some critics view it as less than ideal.
Another critical consideration is that the technical capabilities of online learning are advancing rapidly. Whereas these capabilities were once a significant limitation, more advanced technological progress could actually overcome those barriers and transform the online learning platform into a genuine asset. Kiefer writes, "But students' preconceptions of their roles in online courses and the limitations of technology combine to work against significant interactions in online classes" (Kiefer, p. 151). However, this argument does not fully account for the speed at which these technological limitations are dissolving.
New technologies can now offer many of the same benefits found in face-to-face classroom situations. Online platforms now feature video and voice chatting, shared desktop capabilities, and a range of collaborative tools that can overcome many limitations found in previous generations of online classrooms. These technological advances enable real-time interaction, instant feedback, and seamless group work—capabilities that address several of Kiefer's core concerns about online writing instruction.
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 of difference actually exists. If a student does not have access to the traditional setting for a variety of reasons, then the online format is their best option to pursue their education. Furthermore, technology is developing quickly—probably faster than Kiefer anticipated when making her argument.
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.