Schools have a limited amount of money to spend. Some people suggest that it should be spent on good teachers, while others say it should be used for buying equipment like computers. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
In situations where schools are facing financial crunch situations, they have an option either to spend on good teachers or on technology such as computers. This essay intends to look into both choices. However, there are no technology shortcuts to good education, and even with limited resources, blended (mixed) learning is the answer.
To begin with, spending on hiring the best teachers is better because children require the ongoing guidance and encouragement to persevere in the school years. Caring supervision from human teachers is the only known way of generating motivation for the hours of a school day. While computers appear to engage students, the engagement is usually fleeting (lasting for very short time) and children are soon distracted. No technology can provide the tailored (well cut, smart, best suited)attention for students that dedicated teachers can, and thus, attempts to use technology as a stand-in (substitute, in place of) for capable teachers are bound to fail.
However, there are some technology enthusiasts who claim that it is advantageous to spend on computers. They argue that computers are becoming better at providing customized (modified to suit some task) direct instruction and at assessing student’s knowledge. They also say that computers are better at repetitive tasks like vocabulary drills. Teachers find these jobs very monotonous. Therefore, they opine that computers are better.
On the other hand, though the resources of schools are limited, the focus should be on blended (mixed) learning. Both teachers and technology are important. Resources should be equally spent on both. Blended learning allows much of the work of basic instruction to be done by computers so that teachers can keep students focused on studies and assess them from time to time. Blended learning does not eliminate teachers, but instead eliminates some of the job functions that teachers find most onerous (difficult). Technology will not improve our education system if we marginalize or eliminate teachers. Likewise, our education system will not meet modern needs until we incorporate technology.
To sum up, for primary and secondary schools that are underperforming or limited in resources, efforts to improve education should allocate resources equally on both. We should focus on finding ways to let technology do what it does best so that we can allow teachers to do what they do best.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-01 | vishal sachdeva | 67 | view |
| 2022-11-01 | vishal sachdeva | 56 | view |
| 2022-10-06 | vishal sachdeva | 73 | view |
- Write a letter to a friend and ask him her to look after your house in your absence give reasons for your travel and any specific instructions requests 11
- It is seen that older adults are not given enough respect and facilities in many countries. What could be the reason for this? What are effects of this? 84
- Everyone of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems To what extent do you agree or disagree 67
- In some countries university students live at home with their families while they study whereas in other countries students attend University in another city Do you think the benefits of living far away from home during the university outweigh the disadva 78
- In some countries young people do not take care of their elderly relatives Instead they appoint trained professionals who take care of elderly Is it positive or negative trend according to you 77
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 442, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...minate teachers, but instead eliminates some of the job functions that teachers find most o...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, likewise, look, second, so, therefore, thus, well, while, such as, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2035.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 380.0 315.596192385 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35526315789 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85461549773 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555263157895 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9457939667 49.4020404114 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9047619048 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0952380952 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252113923497 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752512869715 0.084324248473 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595105729976 0.0667982634062 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127185853067 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0269616089937 0.056905535591 47% => 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: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 50.2224549098 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.51 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.