Distant education has become remarkably prevalent in the 21st century. Due to the COVID pandemic, it became essential to reduce all social interactions between students to minimize the potential damage. Even though children and young adults are less susceptible to the virus, social communication limitation prevents the further spread of the disease. However, remote education also limits the development of interactional possibilities among students, as highlighted in the article by Jad Sleiman. It is crucial to examine the scope of the potential effects of remote education presented in the article to prove how this particular learning method may negatively affect future generations.
Schools are vital not only for education but also for the general development of any infant learner. When children go to school, they realize that their home and family are not the only interaction elements worth paying attention to (Sleiman). Their life priorities change to accommodate to new circumstances. People begin to socialize and develop different behavioral patterns to communicate with their peers and superiors. It is also worth mentioning that other students create a supportive environment in which learning becomes less stressful and collaborative.
The argument that children lose a significant part of their lives learning remotely is valid, as online courses remove them from live communication. My reaction is positive because the author of the article correctly noted the limitations students feel from friends’ lack of contact at school. On the one hand, its upsides allow any person from any region to participate in the educational process. It makes information acquisition more convenient for students who cannot visit a school in person due to a physical disability or illness. While online classes provide improved comfort in the short term, the author’s argument still makes sense from a psychological perspective. This particular method of learning effectively removes the socialization part out of the learning process. Remote education may not seem as detrimental in young adults, but it severely hampers the development of teenagers and children. It deprives them of communication with peers and superiors outside of the working conditions.
I agree with the argument that limited interactions with peers can also lead to the removal of the sense of individuality and lower self-esteem. Children learn about their abilities and flaws by comparing themselves to other students (Sleiman). It gives them valuable information on what is to be improved, because they would instead attempt to be better or on par with other children than adhere to the teacher’s advice. This complexity of class relations is severely limited by remote education, which leads to the worsening and deceleration of the learning process because children have only one source of critique to rely on.
Personal school attendance also serves as a method of mental conditioning. It emulates working conditions and prepares children for their future careers. Their peers are their colleagues, and the teacher is an employer. This method helps prospective employees get accustomed to the idea of the necessity of leaving home for work. Remote education mixes two different mentalities, complicating the student’s ability to distinguish between rest and work.
In conclusion, remote education should not be considered a permanent measure. In times of a global pandemic, it is an acceptable substitute to decrease the loss of human lives; however, its upsides are too insignificant to replace personal school attendance. I agree with this article and that the author insists on personal contact between students as the optimal way of psychological and social development. Remote learning not only has disadvantages, but they far outweigh the benefits in the long run.
Work Cited
Sleiman, Jad. “Some Lessons Zoom Can’t Teach.” WHYY’s the Pulse, 2020, Web.