Discussion on distance education

It is gratifying to hear that there is an alternative way for people to study outside the school building. It was interesting to see how the world is moving towards globalization and development. I agree that technological advancement is a clear argument for almost everyone. I believe that the development of distance education is on the path of wide acceptance of students and teachers as it benefits both parties (students and teachers), the government and the business sector. In my opinion, distance education, online education or interactive education, whoever wants, as an alternative way of learning, traditional class education is an indication of the development of the world but it cannot be changed.

Andrew Feinberg, in his essay, considering the discussion of distance education, states that as a pioneer of such a program, he was more interested in online education. The definition of the purpose of the program is so clear that it is a “virtual classroom with intellectual and interpersonal relationships” (A. Feinberg). I personally advocate distance education, and I know that this approach can help non-traditional students. According to Feinberg, “intellectual and human interaction” can be found in online education. This is because teachers like talented and intelligent students can be found anywhere in the world, regardless of nationality or age. Such students can be raised with the help of online education but I think this task is as easy as teaching in a traditional classroom. I said that because reading depends on how enthusiastic and selfless the students are.

I’m not happy about Feinberg saying, “The quality of these online discussions is far better than I can directly encourage.” Feinberg shared his personal experience as an online teacher. The downside here is that not all teachers get the same thing. In an article entitled “Guidelines for Becoming a Good Online Student”, Linda Soye expressed frustration at reminding students of poor reading habits in their schedules. The obvious thing here is attitude. One of the problems with online education is the attitude of instructors, students and administrators (D. Valentin). The quality of SolutionHow depends on the attitudes of the participants towards the importance of online education and program. As one professor put it, “Students’ interest, motivation, questions and interactions should be reflected in the learning process” (A. Arsham). Student-teacher interaction is as important in traditional classroom lectures as it is in the learning process. The exchange of personal information and opinions shows that both parties are interested in what is being discussed. This means that when students ask questions or ideas in class, they take them seriously.

Because students and teachers interact physically and simultaneously with each other, there is an advantage to observing stakeholders in the classroom discussion area. So the students’ point of view is quick. This cannot be done through distance learning, which requires teachers to e-mail so they can waste time reminding themselves of their schedule. Therefore, Feinberg cannot completely say that online gambling can be more than online gambling. But it is gratifying for Feinberg that distance learning methods cannot replace classroom learning.

Another important aspect of the problem of distance education is the price that Feinberg ignores. Although the author noted the benefits of distance education, he thought that “distance education is not a cheap alternative to campus” (A. Feinberg). During the discussion, he looked at the needs of parties involved in online education spending: government, corporations, teachers and students. Feinberg argued that the government was interested in reducing spending on education, and that resource providers were clearly interested in sales and profits. Therefore, the main focus here is on the difference between cost effectiveness and cost effectiveness. As Doug Valentin Atkinson puts it: “A program can be successful, but if it does not help the goals of the program, it cannot be cost effective: it can be effective in doing the wrong thing” (Atkinson, 1983).