Should schools monitor students' online activities?
With the spread of the internet, the number of students facing undesirable issues online, including cyberbullying, is increasing. In this regard, some people say that schools have to monitor their students' online activities to control their inappropriate internet use. However, I do believe that monitoring them cannot be a great option for the following reasons.
Firstly, schools cannot secure a solid basis for their actions. Monitoring the activities of students is obvious violation of their right to privacy. Thus, to do so, the actions will need to be justified by commonly admitted reasons, such as laws. However, most laws and regulations that currently exist to regulate students' online activities are vague. For example, there is an Illinois Act to prevent cyberbullying and harmful posting. It mentions that schools can take actions to regulate their students when it is reasonable, instead of clearly defining certain situations. If there is no obvious standard to judge the fairness of actions, it will be inevitable to face argues of whether the action was proper. This may even result in a disadvantageous situation to schools, such as happened in Minnesota. Thus, I insist that monitoring students are not a good idea as there are no laws and regulations that will clearly justify schools' actions to monitor students' internet use.
Secondly, investing money to educating students is worthier than monitoring them. The purpose of educating students is to prevent students from misbehaving by letting them know what to do and what not to do. On the other hand, monitoring is more likely to find the users with misbehaviors and punish them. Some young students misbehave just for fun not recognizing how undesirable their actions were. For them, education is the most necessary thing than punishment. On top of that, the cost for educating is more affordable, compared to monitoring many students. Schools are run with confined money, and wise determination of where to spend their money for their students are one of the primary questions. For this reason, I would like to say that schools need to find another way to reduce their students’ online misbehaviors, rather than monitoring them.
Thirdly, schools will not be able to successfully monitor the students’ online activities. The idea of monitoring assume that they will be able to access to all of possible students’ online activities. However, it is impossible. To be specific, many people may have experienced during their childhood that when teachers or parents are trying to prevent them from what they want to do, they would do it secretly rather than not doing it. Similarly, when schools try to regulate students with their internet use, they will find the ways to be out of schools’ supervision by creating secret accounts or buying secret second-handed phones. If then, the schools’ monitoring actions can be useless and just waste of their time and money. Thus, I disagree with the idea of monitoring students to regulate their online activities.
I agree that there will be advantages of monitoring students’ online behaviors to reduce related issues. However, considering its fairness, cost, and expected effect, I believe it would be better to find another way such as educating students about the desirable attitudes to use the internet.
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 66
- Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education 62
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporti 50
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and suppor 50
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner Over the past two years the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically Many Central Pl 54
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, such as, on the other hand, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 33.0505617978 157% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2806.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 535.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24485981308 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87649887635 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456074766355 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 862.2 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.886665084 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7586206897 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4482758621 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1724137931 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375227281034 0.243740707755 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123358612902 0.0831039109588 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107867159976 0.0758088955206 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.246420266932 0.150359130593 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468013953076 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.