Traditional classrooms in the past held lectures with multiple participants. Now that technology makes it easier and faster for students to access information, the need for traditional classroom discussion is becoming less popular. It’s because the internet is a more effective method than the regular classroom.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? What is your personal opinion?
Over the past decades, there has been a seismic shift begot by the technical advancement in educational aspect. While some commentators advocate the advantages of convenience and immediacy brought by electronic learning platforms, the aim of this essay is to explore the vital significance of retaining face-to-face lectures with students, firstly the essential transfer of exclusive skills, secondly the significant cost involved.
First of all, there is ample evidence suggested that employment of the Internet-based tools on teaching constitutes a hindrance of academic development. This is because these means impede direct communications among teachers and students, not to mention the interaction among students themselves. Recent empirical research from the Hong Kong University ascertain that students who graduated from remote learning generally acquire a lower level of presentational skill in comparison to their counterparts coming from those traditional classrooms. Consistent with this line of thinking, a decadence of some essential skills is likely to be observed on the condition of applying the Internet at large. Therefore, such utilisation weakens the effort spent on enhancing educational achievement.
Another important factor to consider is that the usage of these tools is tentamount to a financial burden for individual student. This is due to the fact that the ensuing installation cost of personal laptop required by these learning platforms tends to remain exorbitant to families dwelling in remote regions, as well as those in penury. Results from extensive studies conducted by the Hong Kong Government established that 60% of families remain unequipped with this necessitated equipment in their household. Seen in this light, students who enrolled in such online courses are warranted to invest more than their peers to cater for this inherent prerequisite of studying in remote classroom. Consequently, their personal financial burden intensify.
In conclusion, despite the upside of adopting the leading-edge technology, the traditional way of teaching still has a pivotal role to play in terms of affordability and enriching interpersonal skill. It is predicted that the orthodox vehicle might render obsolete once the detrimental effects of its counterpart are eradicated.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-10 | RockyGagKy | 89 | view |
- In some countries, using the internet in school is getting popular. Is it positive or negative development?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. 78
- Many teachers assign homework to students every day. Do you think that daily homework is necessary for students?Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 78
- The chart shows the division of household tasks by gender in Great Britain. 78
- To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:Some of the methods used in advertising are unethical and unacceptable in today’s society.Give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience. 89
- The charts below show the percentage of food budget the average family spent on restaurant meals in different years. The graph shows the number of meals eaten in fast food restaurants and sit-down restaurants.Write a report for a university lecturer descr 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... on enhancing educational achievement. Another important factor to consider is ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, while, in conclusion, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 340.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.81470588235 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20498503362 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.620588235294 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.418949234 49.4020404114 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.214285714 106.682146367 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2857142857 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06120827912 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.67935871743 35% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102409207971 0.244688304435 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0289543891342 0.084324248473 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0292113727328 0.0667982634062 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0516362099833 0.151304729494 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0177358308641 0.056905535591 31% => 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: 18.1 13.0946893788 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.24 8.58950901804 131% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 78.4519038076 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.78957915832 169% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.