‘The Internet will never replace traditional course books in schools.’
How far do you agree with this prediction?
There is a huge range of resources available to the modern teacher, and the right selection is
crucial in delivering effective lessons. I agree that there will always be a place for course books in
the school curriculum, despite the many benefits of the Internet.
Firstly, course books (whether conventional or digital) have been developed by pedagogical
experts and designed to be incorporated into a subject syllabus, leading to testing procedures such as
formal examinations or continuous assessment. This means that they are proven to improve
students’ academic achievement, enhancing their potential for progression to further or higher
education. Furthermore, the use of modern course books allows pupils to coordinate their studies as
part of group work, hopefully making their lessons less teacher-led and more about autonomous
learning. This in itself teaches study skills such as independent research and synthesising sources,
rather than old-fashioned rote-learning. This is where the Internet, in fact, can play a useful part: to
supplement and add to knowledge which the students are assimilating via their course books.
However, it is the role of teachers and school management generally to ensure that use of the Internet
remains a guided learning process, and not an exercise in data-gathering from Internet sources
which may be unreliable or even misleading.
It is true that the Internet can be invaluable for adults (for example in distance learning or
self-study modules) who are able to discriminate between sources and sift information to marshal
their facts. However, this is a mature skill and we should not assume that school age pupils are ready
to do this.
Overall, it appears that course books, with their quality and depth of material, are set to
remain an integral part of the syllabus. The internet can be judged a useful supplement to this, if
used carefully and under supervision.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-22 | javlonbek2708 | 84 | view |
| 2019-06-10 | erfan.mohamadi | 84 | view |
| 2019-04-23 | Iraj | 84 | view |
| 2018-05-22 | Turonxoja | 84 | view |
| 2018-05-22 | Turonxoja | 84 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, for example, in fact, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1653.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 303.0 315.596192385 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45544554455 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01568187256 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613861386139 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.1777813759 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.75 106.682146367 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 21.0 4.38176352705 479% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172060705042 0.244688304435 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627803715118 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.042943055292 0.0667982634062 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0411552861684 0.151304729494 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0358779854656 0.056905535591 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.0946893788 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.4159519038 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.93 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.78957915832 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.