The concept of learning

By Prem Psd. Sigdel

I have read an article about the benefits of online learning in which the conclusion is that the students learn “modestly better” than those who have learnt through “face-to-face instruction”. It makes me more inquisitive and various arguments arise in my mind. I have thought whether the finding is effective or not. This is a research article which was published from USA; so I must think twice before commenting. Finally I have got insight that the argument is weak, unreliable, and partial. It seems that the finding is drawn forcefully; or it can be one of the sub-findings rather the article proves it as key finding of the article.

Online learning is known as virtual learning in which the use of internet technology plays a great role on it. In other words, it is a kind of informal rather than formal learning. Students have learnt with the help of internet or they have learnt from the materials which are posted in the Internet. They have got visual, audio as well as reading materials so it could be helpful for them to have knowledge about various aspects. They can even take help of different materials to be clear with the issue if they have expertise on Internet technology. It would be a great benefit for them if they can use it properly. If the knowledge about Internet is null or less, the reader can’t get the things what s/he has expected. It has positive and negative effects as well; however it depends on the purpose of they have used.

The informal process of learning has been guided with the interest of the reader; in contrast formal reading is imposed to the students. I have used as the ‘reader’ not ‘student’ to those who have used Internet to get knowledge. As it is informal process of learning it should have been guided with the interest of the reader and they must have been benefitted highly. The “modest” achievement is unlike the result of the research. It should have been “much more” rather than the modest.

In fact the use of internet should have given much knowledge not “modestly better” than “face-to-face instruction”. Internet reading is a kind of informal process of reading in which students can read about the subject matter which is interesting to them only. If it’s not interesting to them they would let it and try to find other interesting one. So the finding of the article should have much more effective rather than the modest in comparison to face-to-face instruction. The reader would read only interesting things rather than the course materials which we have prescribed in the formal course. In common the process of learning should be much more effective if we have taken it logically. Everyone can read or they have the interest to read the text which interests them very much. When the finding proves that the subject of interest is only ‘modestly better’, it can’t be the better finding in the backward society where there is no such access of Internet; neither can it be the key finding of the article.

There is a passage in class ten SLC question paper that the children who have born and grown up in the Hollywood would have negative impact on them instead of the adults. They would pursue the beauties, money, and luxuries so that would damage their childish quality. The article suggests not to raise children in the Hollywood. Whether others believe or not, I believe in it that Hollywood isn’t the place for children. It arises various meanings: Hollywood doesn’t need children; it’s a place of money and so-called beauty, it’s a place of adults only, and so on. The question comes along with the meaning that they have pursued the lifestyle and the conclusion of the passage is that Hollywood doesn’t suit for children or we have to take our children away from the shadow of Hollywood.

I would like to contrast these two types of learning. The former one is the non-formal way of learning and the latter one is the informal way of learning. The first one is non-formal because it has given some reading text that we have to read. And the latter one has been learnt with the experience what we have so it is informal learning. We have learnt it through our social practices. The first example has less effect and the latter example has greater effect on the children. So I have questioned that the informal learning process has greater meaning to the children or the citizen of any country. They must have been conscious regarding these issues.

The inquisition has come to me that the “slightly better” improvement in the progression is not so good finding or it has no effect at all. It also indicates that the children have no interest in reading rather they want to do something other. Or the children grow distaste against reading. So we must be conscious about it or we shouldn’t undermine the role of school or we call it as ‘forceful reading’. The children wouldn’t read unless we have forced them. The ideas of traditional education have been proved well. The concept of free reading has come on the favour of some marginal type of education system.

The finding of the article should be ‘excellent’ rather than the ‘modest’ one. So we must be conscious that the finding of all the research articles which should have been accepted with much interest. It indicated that it has damaged the quality of the students or it has instigated students to be diverted from formal process of reading to the informal and then none. Rather than reading they have been doing something other which interests them. Hence guardians should have been conscious regarding it. In other words, it has prone students towards negative aspects rather than positive.

Finally, I would like to conclude that the way of reading may be different but we should have taken the responsibility of the children to teach. If we don’t have guidance the children will do anything what they like. It also concludes that face-to-face learning is much more effective which has no negative aspects in human life.