It is frequently argued that learners study far more with their dons than other sources such as the internet or television. From my perspective, it can not be denied that students can learn a lot from the internet and TV set and these have become an indispensable part of education yet I believed that educators also have a crucial role in students' learning. And in this essay, I will demonstrate my point of view by analyzing the merits of assimilating with their schoolteachers and the sundry disadvantages of absorbing through the internet and tiny screen.
To begin with, it can not be denied that studying with schoolteachers brings back multiple assets. Since people merely were tiny toddler at kindergartens until they grow into under-graduates, there are always schoolteachers who assist them to accumulate comprehension. Apparently, no one can read by this method without teacher’s instruction as they are predecessors who have an in depth intelligence, they know how to grasp effectively in the wake having experienced previously. Not only do they have academic experiences, but they also realize distinctive students' needs and capabilities to give the most effective methods of teaching them. Provide that apprentices solely educate themselves through online training, they will get trouble in digesting what they heard and saw as there is too much information to classify and select. Henceforth, without teachers, they impossibly make sense of when and how to start. In other words, teachers always manage to give intriguing and profound lessons to learners, which ensures that trainers learn from accurate and useful knowledge. Notwithstanding this may not occur when sophomores study with their tutors. If a student seems not to have an understanding, educators will give a helping hand to him and together address obstacles. This is favorable for students now that not only they can pick up added information but also do they obtain a number of practical solving-problem skills which is needed for their futures. What is more, when being taught by well-versed professors, trainers are likely to have a logical routine for grasping. For instance, several idle graduates enthusiastically stated that they were thankful to their assistants on the grounds that they always reminded them of doing homework, supported meticulously, which made them more motivated and better. Thereby, the productivity of their learning could be improved a lot.
Furthermore, educators can help undergraduates cultivate momentous soft skills besides studying. While attending face-to-face classes, juniors may interact with their tutors and classmates, which make them have a chance to develop their communication. To illustrate, if they have any questions or answers, they will boldly ask professors and dispute with friends to express their opinions. Moreover, assistants instruct learners how to become decent citizens. Apprentices are taught moral lessons to behave well to others. Mentors also inspire them about the optimistic life and the route to overcome adversity. Accordingly, scholars can step by step mature to enter life, which makes dons various from computers or televisions.
On the other hand, it is not frequently radical to have supervisors' guides, juniors can study themselves by another sources such as internet or privileged webs. The reason for it is that there are a huge number of documents on the Internet, which are contributed diversely by people entire the world including element scientist, experts and ones who have detailed knowledge. This can be a quite trustworthy authority to get them to figure out. The more excited seniors feel about it, the more they want to trace. It is also a way for them to help themselves become self-reliant. It is a part and parcel method being applied in almost universities, there, alumnus must elaborate lessons on the contrary have less announcement from lectures. The information absorbed directly is easily comprehended than tedious sermons in classes, besides, teaching full knowledge in class spends numerous time as scholars can provide them basic, which is not enough for them to know inside. Subsequently, learning with lecturers is likely to render scholars more passive. As they merely look forward their supervisors, whenever they grant any origin, teenagers take in it in dimly way. Actually, it is tough for them to be had ability to manage intricate and predicted issues.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that technology can be educative, on the contrary the role of supervisors is not replaced. The ocean of philosophy may be really accessible to undergraduates only when it is handed down by lecturers.
- It is generally acknowledged that families are now not as close as they used to be Give possible reasons and your recommendations
- Students learn far more with their teachers than other sources Internet or television To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- Some people believe that studying online is more effective than studying on campus while others disagree Discuss both the views and provide your opinion 78
- Students today can easily access information online so libraries are no longer necessary Do you agree or disagree 78
- Some people say that traffic accidents are caused by the increasing number of motorbikes Others blame for man s fault Which point of view do you agree 89
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, apparently, besides, but, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, moreover, really, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt, such as, in other words, on the contrary, to begin with, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 13.1623246493 251% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 7.85571142285 255% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 26.0 10.4138276553 250% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 25.0 7.30460921844 342% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 74.0 24.0651302605 307% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 97.0 41.998997996 231% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3954.0 1615.20841683 245% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 738.0 315.596192385 234% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35772357724 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21211621267 4.20363070211 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06051460651 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 381.0 176.041082164 216% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516260162602 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1225.8 506.74238477 242% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 5.43587174349 258% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 2.10420841683 333% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 35.0 16.0721442886 218% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1396078935 49.4020404114 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.971428571 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0857142857 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.37142857143 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 24.0 8.67935871743 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18796618576 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0483658464117 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611575503272 0.0667982634062 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108641353029 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820054672131 0.056905535591 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 214.0 78.4519038076 273% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, apparently, besides, but, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, moreover, really, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt, such as, in other words, on the contrary, to begin with, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 13.1623246493 251% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 7.85571142285 255% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 26.0 10.4138276553 250% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 25.0 7.30460921844 342% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 74.0 24.0651302605 307% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 97.0 41.998997996 231% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3954.0 1615.20841683 245% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 738.0 315.596192385 234% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35772357724 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21211621267 4.20363070211 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06051460651 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 381.0 176.041082164 216% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516260162602 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1225.8 506.74238477 242% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 5.43587174349 258% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 2.10420841683 333% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 35.0 16.0721442886 218% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1396078935 49.4020404114 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.971428571 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0857142857 20.7667163134 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.37142857143 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 24.0 8.67935871743 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 3.4128256513 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18796618576 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0483658464117 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611575503272 0.0667982634062 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108641353029 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820054672131 0.056905535591 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 214.0 78.4519038076 273% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.