1

Vietnam National University

University of Languages and International Studies

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

School of English 2

COLLEGE WRITING COURSE

Reading – Writing Assignment Submission

Student’s Name: Nguyễn Vân Ly – Ngô Thị Lan Anh – Đoàn Minh Trang

Student ID No: 23040491 – 23040224 – 21041072

Assignment Topic: With the advancement of technology that facilitates online

communication, face-to-face contact will soon become a thing of the past.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Date of submission:

I confirm that the work submitted has been produced through my own efforts.

Student’s Signature:

Conditions:

✔ There will be automatic deductions of 10% for work, which is 10% over or

under the word limit.

✔ Plagiarism will be penalized with 0 (Zero). If permitted to resubmit, a maximum

of 40% will be awarded.

✔ Work not submitted on time without prior approval will be failed and a

maximum mark of 40% awarded for the resubmission.

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SEARCH STRATEGY....................................................................................................3

EVALUATION OF SOURCES...................................................................................... 5

OUTLINES.....................................................................................................................12

GENERAL OUTLINE............................................................................................ 12

DETAILED OUTLINE........................................................................................... 14

DRAFT 1........................................................................................................................ 18

PEER’S COMMENTS.................................................................................................. 20

FINAL DRAFT.............................................................................................................. 22

REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 24

FINAL PACKAGE REFLECTION.............................................................................24

 3

SEARCH STRATEGY

Topic: With the advancement of technology facilitates online communication,

face-to-face contact will soon become a thing of the past. To what extent do you agree
or disagree?

Step 1: Topic sentence

I’m not at all convinced that face-to-face communication will be obsolete due to
technological digital equipment, since in ancient times direct meetings still had benefits
to connect people in many different contexts.

Step 2: Keywords

Face-to-face communication, obsolete, technological digital equipment, benefits.

Step 3: Consider any alternative keywords or phrases

Face-to-face communication: direct meetings

Technological digital equipment: modern electronic devices

Obsolete: Outdated, antiquated

Benefits: Advantages

Step 4: Plan your search

Keyword Alternative words

KEYWORD 1:

Face-to-face
direct meetings
communication

AND

KEYWORD 2: OR modern electronic devices

 4

Technological digital
equipment

AND

KEYWORD 3:

Obsolete OR Outdated OR Antiquated

AND

KEYWORD 4:

Benefits OR Advantages

Step 5: Identify suitable databases & other relevant resources

Databases Other resources to try

Google Scholar Books, including text book

Proquest E-readings/Short loans

Website
 5

EVALUATION OF SOURCES

1.

Title: Why FaceTime can’t replace face-to-face time during

social distancing

https://theconversation.com/why-facetime-cant-replace
-face-to-face-time-during-social-distancing-136206

Author: Anna Sui & Wuyou Sui

Initial appraisal:

Author: Anna is a PhD Candidate in the School of Health and

Author’s Rehabilitation Sciences at Western University under the

credentials/expertise supervision of Dr. Jessica Polzer. Her research interests

(academic background, include: utilizing qualitative methodologies to critically

scientific experience, explore the ways in which we engage with various every

affiliations) day and health technologies, and the ways in which these
technologies can reproduce dominant discourses.

https://theconversation.com/profiles/anna-sui-959435

Dr. Wuyou (Yoah) Sui received his PhD in Kinesiology at

Western University in 2020. Dr. Sui’s expertise is in the
broad areas of health behaviour change, digital health, and
mental health and well-being. Dr. Sui is currently pursuing
a post-doctoral fellowship in the Behavioural Medicine
Lab at the University of Victoria.

https://theconversation.com/profiles/wuyou-sui-1024154

Date of Publication April 29, 2020

When was the source

published?

Edition or Revision First edition

 6

First edition or revised

and updated?

Publisher The Conversation

Critical content analysis:

Intended Audience general readers

What type of audience?

a specialized/scholarly
or a general audience?

Objective Reasoning Facts & opinions

(fact/opinion? valid and Valid & well-researched

well-researched?)

Coverage Extensively cover the topic

extensively or
marginally cover your
topic?

Writing Style The article is analyzed in an easy-to-understand, giving

organized logically? specific examples to prove the thesis.

clearly presented? easy

to read? proper use of
citations/references

2.

Title: Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face

Interactions

https://psychminds.com/communication-online
-vs-face-to-face-interactions/

Author: Nicole Plumridge

 7

Initial appraisal:

Author: Nicole is a Board Certified Behaviour Analyst

Author’s credentials/expertise (BCBA) as well as an author. She holds a

(academic background, scientific Master’s degree in Psychology from Kingston

experience, affiliations) University, England. Nicole has experience

working in centres, clinics, and public schools
providing therapeutic services to individuals with
Autism Spectrum Disorder, learning difficulties
and behavioural issues as well as providing
training and support for families, caregivers and
teachers. Nicole is the founder and main
contributor to Psychminds, which she established
as a platform to open a dialogue regarding topics
relating to psychology, mental health, and
wellness.

https://psychminds.com/user/tort/

Date of Publication April 13, 2020

When was the source published?

Edition or Revision First edition

First edition or revised and

updated?

Publisher Psychminds

Critical content analysis:

Intended Audience General audience

What type of audience? a

specialized/scholarly or a
general audience?

Objective Reasoning Facts & opinions

(fact/ opinion? valid and Valid & well-researched

well-researched?
 8

Coverage Extensively cover the topic

extensively or marginally cover

your topic?

Writing Style Writing style is clear and precise, while analysis

organized logically? clearly is easy to understand

presented? easy to read? proper

use of citations/references

3.

Article title: Digital contact does not promote wellbeing, but face-to-face
contact does: A cross-national survey during the COVID-19
pandemic

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/146144482110621
64

Author: Martha Newson, Yi Zhao, Marwa El Zein, Justin Sulik,

Guillaume Dezecache, Ophelia Deroy, Ophelia Deroy

Initial appraisal:

Author: Martha is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University

Author’s of Greenwich and Centre Lead for the Changing Lives Lab

credentials/expertis Group at the Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion,

e (academic University of Oxford.

background, https://www.marthanewson.com/about
scientific
experience,
Yi Zhao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
affiliations)
Biostatistics and Health Data Science at Indiana University
School of Medicine.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yi-Zhao-101
 9

Marwa is a research fellow at the Institute of Cognitive

Neuroscience, University College London. Her research
investigates how and why humans engage in collective
decisions and aims to characterize the cognitive and neural
mechanisms underlying collective decisions. Her PhD work at
the Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (Ecole Normale
Superieure) investigated how perceptual decisions about facial
expressions of emotion are shaped by contextual social
information.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/icn/marwa-el-zein

Justin Sulik is a research fellow in the Cognition, Values &

Behavior (CVBE) research group, Ludwig-Maximilian
University of Munich. He studies the psychology of science,
investigating how non-experts reason about scientific issues,
their attitudes to science, and the role of diversity in scientific
problem solving.

http://justinsulik.com/

Guillaume Dezecache is an Assistant Professor of Psychology

at the Université Clermont Auvergne and Researcher at the
LAPSCO CNRS (UMR 6024). His work deals with social
cognition in disasters.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guillaume-Dezecache

Ophelia Deroy holds the Chair for Philosophy of Mind and

Neuroscience at the Ludiwg Maximiliam University. Her recent
work focuses on collective experiences, and shared uncertainty.

https://www.philosophie.lmu.de/de/personen/kontaktseite/ophel
ia-deroy-79fa89f4.html
 10

Bahar Tunçgenç is a Senior Lecturer at the Psychology

Department of Nottingham Trent University. Her research
explores the social-developmental roots of bonding, behavioral
alignment and wellbeing.

https://www.bahartuncgenc.com/

Date of December 7, 2021

Publication

When was the

source published?

Edition or First edition

Revision

First edition or
revised and
updated?

Journal title INC

Volume of journal 26

Issue of journal 1

Page range of 426 - 449

article

DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211062164

Critical content analysis:

Intended Audience scholarly audience

What type of
audience? a
specialized/scholarl
y or a general
audience?

Objective Facts & opinions

Reasoning Valid & well-researched
 11

(fact/opinion? valid
and
well-researched?

Coverage Extensively cover the topic

extensively or
marginally cover
your topic?

Writing Style The main points was organized logically with in-text citations,

organized following by a list of references.

logically? clearly
presented? easy to
read? proper use of
citations/references
 12

OUTLINES

GENERAL OUTLINE

I. Introduction

a. Hook: Technology has provided fertile ground for digital startups with
revolutionary transformations associated with the scope of electronic
inventions.

b. Background: The inundation of high-tech gadgets may pave the way for
the prevalence of communication avenues, mainly virtual meetings and
one-on-one encounters.

c. Thesis: Although online one is at an advantage owing to cutting-edge

technological innovations, in-person contact still plays an indispensable
role, as people witness lots of merit in this modality.

II. Body

a. Opposing argument 1: Opponents of face-to-face contact may argue

that through onscreen eye contact, psychophysiological rejoinders,
cooperative countenance and autonomous stimulation can be
spurred. (Hietanen et al., 2020).

Rebuttal to argument 1: Eye contact is a "hard-wired social cue"

that ensures the curiosity and concentration of listeners, yet
socialising through digital screens seems to be deprived of this clue.
(Sui & Sui, 2020).

● Study by Daft and Lengel (1986, as cited in Newson et al.,

2021) & Kock (2005, as cited in Newson et al., 2021)

● Study by Sui & Sui (2020)

● Study by Newson et al. (2021)

b. Opposing argument 2: Proponents also argue that interpersonal

media can foster more close-knit, prolonged bonds than in-person
contact (Scott and Fullwood, 2020; Walther, 1996)
 13

Rebuttal to argument 2: The closest intimacy developed via

in-person contact came after video calls, voice meetings, and live
chat (Sherman et al., 2013, as cited in Newson et al., 2021).

● Study by Sui & Sui (2020) and Newson et al. (2021)

● Study by Birdwhistell (1970, as cited in Plumridge, 2020)

c. Opposing argument 3: The final criticism advanced by sceptics of

face-to-face contact is that direct or online contact passing
non-verbal clues may strengthen relationships and satisfactorily
impact welfare (Goodman-Deane et al., 2016).

Rebuttal to argument 3: According to Dienlin and Johannes (2020),

juveniles' passive web surfing is in line with inferior welfare, as
opposed to deliberate face-to-face engagement that enhances life
satisfaction (for a review, see Verduyn et al., 2017).

● Study by Lee et al. (2011, as cited in Plumridge, 2020)

● Study by Plumridge (2020)

● Study by Plumridge (2020)

III. Conclusion

a. Own point of view:

● Online meetings cannot yield to in-person ones

● Reasons:

♦ The real-life conversation, in which effective

interactions need a bland of verbal and non-verbal

clues, is sophisticated.

♦ Insufficient details imparted in text-based or

audio-based contact

b. Final thought:

● Digital breakthroughs are conducive to social interactions

● A medley of virtual and in-person encounters is a must.

 14

DETAILED OUTLINE

I. Introduction

a. Hook: For the past ten years, technology has provided fertile ground for
digital startups with revolutionary transformations associated with the
scope of electronic inventions.

b. Background: A 2016 Statista survey speculates that humans will use

approximately 75 billion IoT-connected devices in 2025. This inundation
of high-tech gadgets may pave the way for the prevalence of
communication avenues, mainly virtual meetings and one-on-one
encounters.

c. Thesis: Although online one is at an advantage owing to cutting-edge

technological innovations, in-person contact still plays an indispensable
role in contemporary society concerning non-linguistic signs, closeness
and well-being.

II. Body

a. Opposing argument 1: Opponents of face-to-face contact may argue

that through onscreen eye contact, psychophysiological rejoinders,
affirmative countenance and autonomous stimulation can be
spurred. (Hietanen et al., 2020).

Rebuttal to argument 1: This view looks plausible at first, but recent

evidence actually demonstrates that socialising through digital
screens seems to lack eye contact, body language and gestures, which
are worthwhile factors that ensure listeners' curiosity, concentration,
engagement and sympathetic rate (Sui & Sui, 2020).

● Grounds:

♦ Messages could not arouse sentiments and further

connections as missing fundamental signs, like eye

contact, mutual feelings, physical touch and
modulation. (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Kock, 2005).
Even with emoticons of which one's brain can pick
up sentiments (Aldunate and González-Ibáñez,
 15

2017), text-based interactions are inferior for the

communicator regarding zest or kinship (Sprecher
and Hampton, 2017).

♦ Plumridge (2020) supports this point by pointing

out that a smartphone can be a distraction that

people are inclined to scroll for recreational
purposes, thus confining the continuous movement
of conversation. Compared to effortlessly flowing
one-on-one contact, virtual one can solely impart
the crux due to the usual short text lengths and a
"utilitarian" trait. (Plumridge, 2020)

● Warrant: In a nutshell, the sufficiency of non-verbal clues

from one-on-one interactions could assist one in smoothness
of conversation and acquiring deep emotions and messages.

b. Opposing argument 2: Proponents also argue that virtual

interpersonal media can foster more close-knit, prolonged bonds
than in-person contact (Scott and Fullwood, 2020; Walther, 1996)

Rebuttal to argument 2: Admittedly, online meetings enable

interconnections between people from diverse backgrounds;
however, empirical research shows that the closest intimacy
developed via in-person contact came after video calls, voice
meetings, and live chat (Sherman et al., 2013, as cited in Newson et
al., 2021).

● Grounds:

♦ According to Sui and Sui (2020) and Newson et

al. (2021), owing to interrupted internet

connection or defective cameras,
microexpressions, which are unconscious and
fleeting countenance, are missed in
computer-mediated communication. In fact,
without instinctively processing microexpressions,
fatigue occurs, and turn-taking suffers.
 16

● Warrant: Clearly, strong relationships tend to occur when

meeting in person, not through digital screens.

c. Opposing argument 3: The final criticism advanced by sceptics of

face-to-face contact is that onsite or online contact may satisfactorily
impact welfare (Goodman-Deane et al., 2016).

Rebuttal to argument 3: The core of this claim is valid, yet it suffers

from a flaw in its application. According to Dienlin and Johannes
(2020), juveniles' passive web surfing is in line with inferior welfare,
as opposed to deliberate face-to-face engagement that enhances life
satisfaction (for a review, see Verduyn et al., 2017).

● Grounds:

♦ Lee et al. (2011) assert that ten-minute one-on-one

meetings are more beneficial for life quality than

internet-based.

♦ According to Plumridge (2020), social media

platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter

could impede focus, guiding people in inert
participation and exerting a detrimental impact on
mood. She also puts forward that constant internet
use confines the amount of time spent chatting
with loved ones, which induces the deterioration
of requisite social skills.

● Warrant: It can be concluded that social platforms associated

with passive engagement are driving factors in self-isolation
and low well-being, so with the aim for improved mental
health, in-person encounters could be a better option.

III. Conclusion

a. Own point of view:

● Online meetings cannot yield to in-person ones

● Reasons:
 17

♦ The real-life conversation, in which effective

interactions need a bland of verbal and non-verbal

clues, is sophisticated. (Sui & Sui, 2020)

♦ Insufficient details imparted in text-based or

audio-based contact (Sui & Sui, 2020)

b. Final thought:

● Digital breakthroughs are conducive to social interactions;

countless prospects of the Internet for interconnectedness.

● A medley of virtual and in-person encounters is a must for a

good life.

References

Newson, M., Zhao, Y., Zein, M. E., Sulik, J., Dezecache, G., Deroy, O., & Tunçgenç, B.
(2021). Digital contact does not promote wellbeing, but face-to-face contact
does: A cross-national survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media &
Society, 26(1), 426–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211062164

Plumridge, N. (2020, April 13). Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face Interactions -

Psychminds. Psychminds.
https://psychminds.com/communication-online-vs-face-to-face-interactions/

Statista Research Department. (2016, November 27). Internet of Things (IoT) connected
devices installed base worldwide from 2015 to 2025.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-wor
ldwide/

Sui, A., & Sui, W. (2020, April 29). Why FaceTime can’t replace face-to-face time
during social distancing. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/why-facetime-cant-replace-face-to-face-time-during
-social-distancing-136206
 18

DRAFT 1

For the past ten years, technology has provided fertile ground for digital startups
with revolutionary transformations associated with the scope of electronic inventions. A
2016 Statista survey speculates that humans will use approximately 75 billion
IoT-connected devices in 2025. This inundation of high-tech gadgets may pave the way
for the prevalence of communication avenues, mainly virtual meetings and one-on-one
encounters. Although online one is rising to prominence owing to cutting-edge
technological innovations, in-person contact still plays an indispensable role in
contemporary society concerning non-linguistic signs, closeness and well-being.

Opponents of face-to-face meetings may argue that through onscreen eye

contact, psychophysiological rejoinders, affirmative countenance and autonomous
stimulation can be spurred. (Hietanen et al., 2020). This view looks plausible at first, but
recent evidence demonstrates that socialising through digital screens seems to lack eye
contact, body language and gestures, which are worthwhile factors that ensure listeners'
curiosity, concentration, engagement and sympathetic rate (Sui & Sui, 2020). Besides,
messages could not arouse sentiments and further connections as missing fundamental
signs, like eye contact, mutual feelings, physical touch and modulation. (Daft and
Lengel, 1986; Kock, 2005). Even with emoticons of which one's brain can pick up
emotions (Aldunate and González-Ibáñez, 2017), text-based interactions are inferior for
the communicator regarding zest or kinship (Sprecher and Hampton, 2017). Plumridge
(2020) supports this point by pointing out that a smartphone can be a distraction that
people are inclined to scroll for recreational purposes, thus confining the continuous
movement of conversation. Unlike effortlessly flowing one-on-one contact, virtual one
can solely impart the crux due to the usual short text lengths and a "utilitarian" trait. In a
nutshell, the sufficiency of non-verbal clues from one-on-one interactions could assist
one in the smoothness of conversation and acquiring multi-layered messages.

Proponents also argue that virtual interpersonal media can foster more
close-knit, prolonged bonds than in-person contact (Scott and Fullwood, 2020; Walther,
1996). Admittedly, online meetings enable interconnections between people from
diverse backgrounds; however, empirical research shows that the closest intimacy
developed via in-person contact came after video calls, voice meetings, and live chat
(Sherman et al., 2013, as cited in Newson et al., 2021). According to Sui and Sui (2020)
and Newson et al. (2021), owing to interrupted internet connection or defective
cameras, microexpressions, which are unconscious and fleeting countenance, are missed
 19

in computer-mediated communication. In fact, without instinctively processing

microexpressions, fatigue or misunderstandings occur, and turn-taking suffers. As a
consequence, there is a probability of disputes and broken bonds. Clearly, strong
relationships tend to form when meeting in person, not through digital networking.

The final criticism advanced by sceptics of face-to-face contact is that onsite or

online conversation may satisfactorily impact welfare (Goodman-Deane et al., 2016).
The core of this claim is valid, yet it suffers from a flaw in its application. According to
Dienlin and Johannes (2020), juveniles' passive web surfing is in line with inferior
welfare, as opposed to deliberate face-to-face engagement that enhances life satisfaction
(for a review, see Verduyn et al., 2017). Proving this, Lee et al. (2011) assert that
ten-minute one-on-one meetings are more beneficial for life quality than internet-based.
Moreover, according to Plumridge (2020), social media platforms like Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter could impede concentration by guiding people in inert
participation, affecting mood detrimentally. She also puts forward that constant internet
use confines the amount of time spent chatting with loved ones, which induces the
deterioration of requisite social skills. It is apparent that so as to improve mental health,
in-person encounters could be a better option.

To conclude, computer-mediated meetings cannot yield to in-person ones for

insufficient details imparted and sophisticated real-life conversation in which effective
rapport needs a medley of verbal and non-verbal signs (Sui & Sui, 2020). It would
appear that digital breakthroughs are conducive to social interactions alongside
countless prospects of the Internet. Hence, humans must consider a medley of virtual
and one-on-one encounters to lead a high-quality life. (Lee et al., 2011 & Plumridge,
2020)

(653 words)
 20

PEER’S COMMENTS

Group 8 (Kim Hong, Dinh Cao, Phuong Hao)

No
Checklist Students’ response
.

The whole essay

1 Word counts 653 words

2 Essay genre? Argumentative essay

Introductory paragraph

Do the building sentences lead logically to

3 Yes
the thesis statement?

Yes, it expressed that the whole

4 Is the thesis statement an effective one? essay biased towards F2F
interaction

Body paragraphs

Do the topics of the body paragraphs appear

5 Yes
in the same order as in the thesis statement?

In which paragraph(s) are ALL the grounds

6 Paragraph 3
relevant to the main claim of the paragraph?

In which paragraph(s) are some grounds

7 No
irrelevant to the main claim?

Concluding paragraph

In what way(s) is the essay concluded

8 (thesis restatement, summary of main ideas, Yes
prediction, etc.)?
 21

Is the final thought logically linked to the

9 Yes
whole essay?

10 Are new ideas avoided in the conclusion? No

Coherence & cohesion

a. Mark all the transitional expressions with

a “TE".

b. Categorize the transitional expressions

used into 3 groups:

- Basic and high-frequency linking words Although, but, thus, however,

(and, but, because, first of all, finally) moreover,...

- More complicated linking words and

11 In a nutshell, Admittedly, clearly
phrases (e.g. it may appear, as a result)

- Reference and substitution (e.g.

pronouns, articles.

synonyms, comparative reference)

c. Which transitional expressions are used

incorrectly? (specify the paragraph in
which they occur)

In-text Citation and reference list (APA 7th)

Are all the in-text citations consistent in

12 Yes
style (APA style)?

Do the sources in the list match those cited

13 no find the references in the draft
in the main text?

14 Are all the references in APA style? no find the references in the draft
 22

FINAL DRAFT

For the past ten years, technology has provided fertile ground for digital startups
with revolutionary transformations associated with the scope of electronic inventions. A
2016 Statista survey speculates that humans will use approximately 75 billion
IoT-connected devices in 2025. This inundation of high-tech gadgets may pave the way
for the prevalence of communication avenues, mainly virtual meetings and one-on-one
dialogue. Despite the prominence of online modality based on cutting-edge
technological innovations, in-person contact still plays an irreplaceable role in
conveying non-linguistic signals, enhancing closeness and stimulating well-being.

Opponents of face-to-face meetings may argue that through onscreen eye

contact, psychophysiological rejoinders, affirmative countenance and autonomous
stimulation can be elevated. (Hietanen et al., 2020, as cited in Newson et al., 2021).
This view looks plausible at first, but recent evidence demonstrates that socialising
through digital screens seems to lack eye contact, body language and gestures, which
are worthwhile factors that ensure listeners' curiosity, concentration, engagement and
sympathetic rate (Sui & Sui, 2020). Not to mention that nonverbal clues contribute to
approximately 65 per cent of social implications (Birdwhistell, 1970, as cited in
Plumridge, 2020), Daft and Lengel (1986) and Kock (2005) ascertain that only by eye
contact, mutual feelings, physical touch and modulation, could messages arouse
sentiments and further connections (Newson et al., 2021). Even with emoticons, of
which the brain can pick up emotions (Aldunate and González-Ibáñez, 2017), text-based
interactions are inferior for the communicator concerning zest or kinship (Sprecher and
Hampton, 2017). The clearness of non-verbal clues in one-on-one interactions could
assist one in acquiring multi-layered information and confirming that the
communicative partner is keen on the subject.

Proponents also argue that virtual interpersonal media can foster more
close-knit, prolonged bonds than in-person contact (Scott and Fullwood, 2020; Walther,
1996; as cited in Newson et al., 2021). It must be admitted that online meetings enable
interconnections between people from diverse backgrounds; however, empirical
research shows that the closest intimacy developed via in-person contact followed by
video calls, voice meetings, and live chat (Sherman et al., 2013). According to Newson
et al. (2021) and Sui and Sui (2020), due to interrupted internet connection or defective
cameras of computer-mediated communication, microexpressions, which are
unconscious and fleeting countenance, are absent. Without instinctively processing
 23

microexpressions, fatigue or misunderstandings occur, and turn-taking suffers, as a

matter of fact. Furthermore, there is a probability of disputes and broken ties, as online
communication entails mediocre synchronous clues in far-flung areas or nascent
industries (Newson et al., 2021). Clearly, strong relationships with high synchronicity
tend to form when meeting in person rather than through digital networking.

The final criticism advanced by sceptics of face-to-face contact is that either

onsite or online conversation may satisfactorily impact welfare (Goodman-Deane et al.,
2016, as cited in Newson et al., 2021). Such thinking is valid to some extent yet
overlooks the facts. According to Plumridge (2020), social media platforms like
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter could impede concentration by guiding people in inert
participation, affecting mood detrimentally. Verifying the same, Dienlin and Johannes
(2020) claim that passive web surfing is in line with inferior welfare among juveniles,
as opposed to deliberate in-person engagement that enhances life satisfaction. As for
empaths, video conferences were the mainspring of meagre welfare, albeit an
audiovisual pervasion (Newson et al., 2021). Lee et al. (2011) also assert that ten-minute
one-on-one meetings are more beneficial for life quality than internet-based ones. All
these findings prove the utmost significance of direct dialogue in boosting mental health
and joy.

To conclude, computer-mediated meetings cannot yield to in-person ones for

non-verbal cues, intimacy and life satisfaction. It may appear that digital breakthroughs
are conducive to social interactions alongside countless prospects of the Internet.
Harnessing these possibilities, humans must consider a medley of virtual and
one-on-one encounters to lead a high-quality life (Sui & Sui, 2020; Plumridge, 2020).

(633 words)
 24

REFERENCES

Newson, M., Zhao, Y., Zein, M. E., Sulik, J., Dezecache, G., Deroy, O., & Tunçgenç, B.

(2021). Digital contact does not promote wellbeing, but face-to-face contact

does: A cross-national survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media &

Society, 26(1), 426–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211062164

Plumridge, N. (2020, April 13). Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face Interactions -

Psychminds. Psychminds.

https://psychminds.com/communication-online-vs-face-to-face-interactions/

Statista Research Department. (2016, November 27). Internet of Things (IoT) connected

devices installed base worldwide from 2015 to 2025.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-wor

ldwide/

Sui, A., & Sui, W. (2020, April 29). Why FaceTime can’t replace face-to-face time

during social distancing. The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/why-facetime-cant-replace-face-to-face-time-during

-social-distancing-136206

FINAL PACKAGE REFLECTION

1. What have you learned from doing this assignment?

○ This project has provided us with quality and selective sources of
information. At the same time, it has helped us manage time and arrange
schedules most scientifically and reasonably.
○ The project was also a chance for us to practice our logical thinking and
critical thinking skills.

2. Was the work divided equally between three members?

 25

○ Yes. Each of the members contributed to different work. We make sure

that everyone has to do parts of this reading-writing portfolio.

3. What could have been done to improve the quality of the assignment?
○ Our team has re-selected quality and reliable sources of information for
reference after listening to comments from lecturers.
○ At the same time, the team members have also read a lot of articles and
research papers to annotate and write a complete final essay.

4. Was there any emerging problem during the process of assignment

accomplishment? Specify the problem(s) if any?
○ One of the biggest problems our team had was making arguments that
were not strong enough. But after being commented on by the lecturer,
our team promptly revised it.

5. Do you have any negative thoughts about the overall project? What comes
to your mind specifically?
○ Definitely yes. This subject is rather complex for freshmen like us. The
process of research needs to be done thoroughly. For a long time, we just
did it again and again, despite the constructive feedback of Miss Tuyet
and our classmates. Overall, it seems to us that college writing or
scientific research in general requires perseverance as well as
meticulousness.

6. How will you use what you’ve learned from this course in the future?
○ This subject was very useful for us, especially, in the next 3 years, we
will have to write a graduation essay. The knowledge of how to write a
complete essay, select reliable information, and think logically will be
maximized in its value not only in the learning process but also in life
and work.