In 1989, the striking appearance of WWW marks a milestone of the information access, then the great source for education. However, recently, the WWW has been being blamed for destroying the quality of student’s assignments. This writing aims to clarify the pros and cons of using the WWW in studying. In my opinion, the negative impacts of the WWW more than the positive ones.
Firstly, the WWW contains a large quantity of unauthentic and unreliable sources of information. According to Douglas, 1997, the Internet in general and the WWW in specific, furnish unlimited information. However, not only do scientists or professionals share their academic knowledge but many internet users also post their own experience or understanding, and unfortunately, most web administrators are not able to check the reliability and accuracy of the updated documents. Even some vandals usually deliberately upload wrong materials or try to modify the true available data with their purpose of sabotage that the web admins are not capable of controlling. Moreover, unlike books or a published journal, information on the WWW is subject to change which is not based on a dependable foundation. Therefore, students who have a lack of familiarities with searching information cannot identify trustworthy materials to complete their assignments. Secondly, the WWW is regarded as a factor which triggers users’ slothfulness and uncreativity. Before the invention of the WWW, the students usually spend hours searching printed books or journals in order to find information for their task. Nevertheless, nowadays, with the assistance of the WWW, students just sit in front of the devices connected the Internet, toss a query a machine, wait a few minutes and suddenly a lot of accessible sources of information appear on their screen. The sources of information from the WWW are quips, blips; pictures and short summaries are available so students only take some the copy-paste clicks, they can quickly complete their assignment. In this way, abusing the information from the WWW prevents the students from cogitating by themselves because all the information, which they need, is accessible on the Internet instead of searching from a large of books. Moreover, students’ assignment lacks their individualities, creativity, and depth because of the influence of other people’s opinion. Thirdly, the Internet makes it easier for students to commit plagiarism. It is straightforward to copy large portions of electronic information into your work because of the copy and paste the power of a modern computer. Besides, according to Richard Cummis, students do not have enough skills or are not trained regarding copyright law and proper concern for the intellectual property of others, it would be simple for students to illegally copy materials and claim the thoughts of others as their own. As we know, plagiarism is viewed as a terribly negative attitude with the students’ assignment, even when performed in a very slight extent. The assignment would be got zero or even is not accepted.
However, we cannot deny the advantages of the WWW for students’ assignments. It helps students senseless tediousness or higher motivation. Unlike traditional books and journals which just provide information via text channel, the WWW is capable of supplying information in the form of time-based media elements such as sounds or videos. As a result, readers feel more invigorating when working. Furthermore, it is demonstrated by Richard Cummins that scholars of all abilities and motivational levels can produce better work in the time valuable. In addition, the WWW allows you to find additional or up-to-date information on your topic. Once, books or journals are published, their content is frozen in time and sometimes is also subjective while the document which is uploaded on the internet can be updated continuously owing to its original publication.
In accordance with the pieces of evidence above, the WWW is like a double-edged sword. Nevertheless, personally, the quality of students’ assignments is being influenced more negatively rather than the benefits the WWW brings.
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 383, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of the WWW more than the positive ones. Firstly, the WWW contains a large quanti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t their own experience or understanding, and unfortunately, most web administrato...
^^
Line 2, column 2728, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld be got zero or even is not accepted. However, we cannot deny the advantages o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sly owing to its original publication. In accordance with the pieces of evidenc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, even so, in addition, in general, such as, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 13.1623246493 198% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 10.4138276553 259% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 41.998997996 195% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 8.3376753507 360% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3551.0 1615.20841683 220% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 651.0 315.596192385 206% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45468509985 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05120793913 4.20363070211 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22245015947 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 332.0 176.041082164 189% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509984639017 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1085.4 506.74238477 214% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 14.0 2.52805611222 554% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 16.0721442886 187% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.696172132 49.4020404114 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.366666667 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 7.06120827912 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 3.4128256513 293% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148546411814 0.244688304435 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0443939347708 0.084324248473 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567439159846 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100684936588 0.151304729494 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283780031593 0.056905535591 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.4159519038 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 198.0 78.4519038076 252% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.33 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.