Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.
The main reason to develop technologies is to improve our efficiency at work. It is not uncommon for people to invent meaningful technologies for educational purposes. The prompt recommends that technologies most likely to distract students from real learning. In my opinion, I strongly disagree with this recommendation and argue that students are benefited from technologies rather than distracted by them for two reasons.
First, the internet can reduce resource differences between wealthy and low-income families. Thus, this kind of technology can benefit most low-income students. For instance, Coursera, one of the biggest online course platforms, offers lots of free courses on different subjects. Consequently, students from all over the world can study any course anytime and anywhere. The above example illustrates that the internet is likely to prevent needy students from lacking resources.
Further, even if we assume that most of the students are wealthy, the internet can still improve education during a hard time. For instance, one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, close to half the world’s students are still affected by partial or complete school closures. Over 100 million additional children will fall below the minimum proficiency level in reading due to the health crisis. If we don’t use the internet to help people connect, our students can only stay home and do nothing. Thus, the simplest way to resolve this problem is to link everyone by the internet. Teachers can teach students from all around the world and run no risk of infecting a covid-19. On a macro scale, the internet can prevent students from stopping learning during the pandemic, such as covid-19.
Of course, some argue that technologies, such as an iPhone or an iPad have so many apps that can distract our students from learning. However, just like a knife or a gun, these can help people and hurt people. The point is to use them in the right way. If we do so, we are likely to have the most powerful tool to improve our learning efficiency. People who use these technologies in the right way maximize learning effectiveness.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-28 | qsdzlbnwtpzecdeugi | 33 | view |
| 2024-02-19 | Zahid6400 | 75 | view |
| 2024-01-19 | rimpiG | 54 | view |
| 2023-11-09 | Feiyang Wang | 79 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | weonalaz | 58 | view |
- Although innovations such as video computers and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students these technologies all too often distract from real learning 50
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this period most of the complaints re 55
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, so, still, thus, for instance, kind of, of course, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1793.0 2235.4752809 80% => OK
No of words: 346.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18208092486 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79209300596 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 215.323595506 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.557803468208 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.0771133622 60.3974514979 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.380952381 118.986275619 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4761904762 23.4991977007 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273280154419 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801512613066 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498951714565 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166654232989 0.150359130593 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0415372138471 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.