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.
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.
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.
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.
"Acknowledging legitimate benefits while maintaining critique"
These concessions do not, however, resolve the central problem. The convenience and accessibility of online writing education do not address the pedagogical gaps in practical skill development and collaborative learning that writing instruction specifically requires.
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.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.