Talk:Online tutoring

Untitled
Hello Antoine. The links to online tutoring services is a useful part of this article that would add value to someone searching for this content. This list does not exist anywhere so I could not link to it. In future, a separate content may be created providing this info but for now I believe it should be included. In addition, other Wiki articles have such links when they are of "encyclopedic" value. A list to educational institutions already exists on Wikipedia so this is not new info. If you have an idea how to ensure this is not spam or commercialization or to inject transparency into it please feel free to edit it. Let me know your thoughts.

As for the rest of the article, I will add more pedagogical info to interested tutors as soon as I complete my completeness research on this (more like gathering from info sources I have come to know over time).


 * I do not think it is a good idea to add links to website. This article is a magnet for all sort of spam and link should be added only if to provide verifiability. See also External_links. Tony 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added an entry in the Requests_for_arbitration. All parties should go there and discuss. Tony 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No they shouldn't. Requests for arbitration is a final step in resolving disputes, not the first. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about linking to legitimate news stories that mention tutoring services in one particular paragraph, and using that as a source to list some significant known online tutoring companies? Queerwiki (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a web directory. I don't see encyclopedic value in adding these links -- and their grade of commercialness doesn't even matter. --Pjacobi 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pjacobi,

Any quality encyclopedia will have references, including directory references. That is a basic function of encyclopedias.

The content of publicly edited encyclopedias like Wikipedia is often dubious. The content of such encyclopedias also simply reiterates what can be found in other primary and secondary sources. That makes their utility minimal.

The value of an online, publicly edited encyclopedia is, in fact, some of the directory references that are provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.73.36 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsigned user 131.1883.73.36, it's true that Wikipedia has serious defects, but then so does the Britannica. I did a paper comparing some 1811 version's articles with the current version. What I found was surprising, alarming, even. I didn't have to look far to find articles whose content had largely changed, in places directly contradicting. A number of reasonable, informative topics in the 1811 edition were gone, and, taking the space they freed, apparently, ones pandering to potential buyers -- uninformative blurbs about film stars, musicians etc. I find, in fact that there are certain topics, e.g., those whose public presentation is largely controlled by vested interests or sensational journalism, where Wiki is the simplest way to get a balanced picture without extensive research.


 * Regards


 * Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV
Perhaps this Wiki page isn't written by an online tutoring company, but the language reads like an advertisement. The vocabulary is manicured in ways of online educational professionals. (Not parents, students, professional credentialed classroom teachers, etc.) Phrases such as "with increased bandwidth students and tutors can now engage" and "a good online tutoring strategy may incorporate" are old, but academically PC chestnuts.

To be even-handed, shouldn't the Wiki page point out all the disadvantages of on-line tutoring, too? The lack of interchange with fellow students to solve problems? The great cost to parents? The outsourcing of teacher's jobs? The lack of commitment to a student's ongoing welfare (friends as long as the money lasts)?

I have begun a molecular upgrade of this entry, starting from POV. As an encyclopedia entry, it previously suffered from the failure to explain what it was talking about. "What _is_ online tutoring?" seemed to be the one question it failed to answer properly, along with "is it realistically a positive component of education or just a substitute, or as the above contributor put in, an outsourcing of teaching. In my investigation of the subject I have found that so-called online tutoring sites and companies can be...all of the above: a real adjunct to other learning resources, a source of inappropriate and even misleading instruction, a scheme to absorb user (student or parent or institutional) funds or a reasonable division of labor between traditional teachers and learners' online existence.

With this in mind, I am pruning the language (even in the table that was inserted wholesale from a tutoring company webpage) to make more even-handed statements. At the same time, I am attempting to add the kind of detail that one would expect in an _online_ encyclopedic discussion of _online_ tutoring. 72.64.185.220 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)David Kephart (dkephart@mail.usf.edu)

Elaborated further on categories, techniques of tutoring. I feel it is time to remove the tags about content, citations, and editing. Anyone disagree? Dkephart (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)dkephart

Changed Redirect
I believe that readers who search for "online tutoring" are more likely to wish to be redirected to "on-line tutoring", not "virtual education". I have adjusted the redirect to reflect this fact. Matheuler 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also requested and recieved administrator assistance to move this page from "on-line tutoring" to "online tutoring", since that is what is exclusively used in-article. Thus, "on-line tutoring" will redirect to "online tutoring".  I am going to look into linking to this page on the "virtual education" page.  Matheuler  02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions
I wish to ascertain whether their are any other editors who are actively involved in this page. I am planning a major overhaul of the page in the next couple days. Per the tag, the page does seem to include large amounts of unnecessary material. I will probably end up refactoring to 2/3 the size of present. This is just a heads up in case any editors wish to discuss first. Thanks! — Matheuler   19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Comparison Table
Hello All! I was thinking of adding a comparison table and citing it (see below). Let me know if this is appropriate to add to the page. Thanks!

(2/11/2011) I'm a noob, so forgive me, but I added in the appropriate citation for the Home Schooling vs. Online Tutoring table. That table was taken from a website and so needed to be referenced.

Comparison Table: In Home vs. Online Tutoring

 * Convoconnect Tutorial is made up of an international community that is passionate about learning and teaching languages.
 * Thanks for the suggestion, JasonHoldEm1234, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~ . This table is a nice way to help folks learn about some similarities and differences between traditional in-person and in-home tutoring as compared to online tutoring. It is produced by a particular tutoring company, though, and while available under both CC license and the GFDL, they do not cite any other authority. I still think it would be good to include in the article as preliminary information that others may later supplement. I am going to try to copyedit this article, though at a glance, it looks like an essay, which generally requires more substantial conversion into the encyclopedic style that is Wikipedia's ideal. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the table to the article with an appropriate reference. The article could be reworked to consolidate the various information there. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 01:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)