Computers are now the basis of the modern world. They should therefore be introduced into classrooms, and their programs used for direct teaching purposes. However, dependence on computers in teaching may carry a certain degree of risk to students.Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
It would be almost impossible to envisage today’s world without computers. My own life is completely ruled by these machines, in both work and leisure. Thus, there appears to be a convincing rationale for allowing them into classrooms to undertake some of the teaching itself, yet I would say this is not a good idea.
The main reason is that computers do not provide the empathetic interaction necessary for genuine learning. Human beings are innately gregarious, with an embedded urge to communicate, yet these are instincts which static electronic circuitry can obviously never reciprocate, immediately introducing limitations. An example occurred recently, when colleagues sent me advanced ‘avatar’ programs to provide simulated speaking partners. I dutifully forced it upon my students, but true to my predictions, few tried this system, few wanted to, and I received not one of positive feedback. The concept was eventually abandoned, illustrating how high-minded expectations must ultimately succumb to human reality.
Proponents of using computers in the classroom would argue that these devices resonate with the technologically savvy youth. This union of human ingenuity with microchip potential has indeed been demonstrated in other spheres, and there certainly exists an eclectic mix of engaging programs, offered through devices which today’s students are highly conversant with, if not totally proficient at. Logic then suggests the exploitation of their natural proclivities for direct pedagogic purposes, in theory creating a symbiosis, which may yield interesting results.
However, students are mostly familiar with computer technology only when confined inside the narrow domain of social networking or game-style diversions. This does not necessarily translate into respecting these tools as purveyors of academic learning - quite the opposite in fact. In the absence of a guiding human presence, these much vaunted programs are surely reduced to passive vehicles, unlikely to sustain serious interest.
All this is why computers can only remain auxiliary to teachers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-22 | Gurjeet Kaur08 | 73 | view |
| 2019-08-28 | Ulya B | 84 | view |
| 2019-07-24 | subashtimalsina112 | 78 | view |
| 2019-07-19 | trang130120022002 | 84 | view |
| 2019-07-18 | subashtimalsina112 | 78 | view |
- You have seen an advertisement for an evening course to study a foreign language. Write a letter to the institution offering the course. In your letter ask for details of the course, ask if the course teachers are qualified native speakers, request that t 78
- It is necessary for parents attend a parenting training course to bring their children up. Do you agree or disagree? 78
- You live in a room in college which you share with another student. However, there are many problems with this arrangement and you find it very difficult to work. Write a letter to the accommodation officer at the college. In the letter,•Describe the si 70
- Levels of youth crime are increasing rapidly in most cities around the world. What are the reasons for this, and suggest some solutions. 61
- Computers are now the basis of the modern world. They should therefore be introduced into classrooms, and their programs used for direct teaching purposes. However, dependence on computers in teaching may carry a certain degree of risk to students.Discuss 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...owing them into classrooms to undertake some of the teaching itself, yet I would say this i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, then, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1810.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 310.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83870967742 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12408504404 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.712903225806 0.561755894193 127% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4310757768 49.4020404114 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.666666667 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 20.7667163134 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.06666666667 7.06120827912 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.161792371308 0.244688304435 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0470209252759 0.084324248473 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0357031416956 0.0667982634062 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0798019767869 0.151304729494 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0182403731754 0.056905535591 32% => 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: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 50.2224549098 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.59 12.4159519038 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.2 8.58950901804 130% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 78.4519038076 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.