In 1989, the striking appearance of WWW marks a milestone in information accessibility, especially to education. However, recently, the WWW has been being blamed for destroying the quality of student’s assignments. This writing aims to clarify the pros and cons of using the WWW in studying. In my opinion, the negative impacts of the WWW are more than the positive ones.
Firstly, the WWW contains a large quantity of unauthentic and unreliable sources of information. According to Douglas (1997), the Internet in general and the WWW in specific provide unlimited information. However, not only do scientists or professionals share their academic knowledge but many internet users also post their own experience or understanding; even some vandals usually deliberately upload incorrect materials or try to modify the true available data to sabotage, and unfortunately, most web administrators are not able to check the reliability and accuracy of the updated documents. Moreover, unlike books or published journals, information on the WWW is subject to change which is not based on a dependable foundation. Therefore, students lacking familiarities with searching information cannot identify trustworthy materials to complete their assignments. Secondly, the WWW is regarded as a factor which triggers users’ sloth and uncreativity. Before the invention of the WWW, the students usually spend hours searching printed books or journals in order to find information for their tasks. Nevertheless, nowadays, with the assistance of the WWW, students just sit in front of the devices connected to the Internet, toss a query to a search engine, and a few minutes later a lot of accessible sources of information appear on their screen. The sources of information from the WWW like pictures, analysis, short summaries... are available so students only take some the copy-paste clicks for gaining information to quickly complete their assignment. In this way, abusing the information from the WWW prevents the students from ruminating. Moreover, students’ assignment lacks individuality, creativity, and depth because of the influence of other people’s opinions. In consonance with a Kristin Purcell’s survey (2012), 88% of teachers absolutely agreed that in the past students’ cognitive skill is superior to that of the ones nowadays. Thirdly, the WWW makes it easier for students to commit plagiarism. It is straightforward to copy large portions of electronic information into your work thanks to the powerful copy-paste function of a computer. Besides, according to Richard Cummis, students who are not trained so as to understand regarding copyright law and proper concern for the intellectual property of others will accidentally copy materials illegally and claim the thoughts of others as their own. As we know, plagiarism causes negative results with the students’ assignment, even when performed in a very slight extent. The assignment would be got zero or even not accepted.
While the WWW offers a number of serious concerns, it also access offers a number of advantages to students’ assignment. Firstly, unlike traditional books and journals which just provide information via text channel, the WWW is capable of supplying information in the form of time-based media elements such as sounds or videos. As a result, readers feel more engaging when working. Furthermore, it is demonstrated by Richard Cummins that scholars of all abilities and motivational levels can produce better work in the time valuable. Secondly, the WWW allows students to find additional or up-to-date information on their topic. Once, books or journals are published, their content is frozen in time and sometimes is also subjective while the document which is uploaded on the internet can be updated continuously owing to its original publication. Thirdly, the WWW stimulates students’ curiosity to approach the information of the related fields. For example, when researching a piece of information in Wikipedia, students happen to meet other links to a related issue, then they continue to seek by clicking into these links, so they unconsciously make knowledge acquisition process for themselves. As reported by Rothenberg (1997), it is an effective way to extensively understand the issue in different aspects and make long-term memory for students.
In accordance with the pieces of evidence above, the WWW is like a double-edged sword. World Wide Web serves as the most effective tool for students to look for information in order to submit for the assignment. It is no doubts true; however, in fact, the WWW is being convicted of damaging the quality of students’ assignments. In my opinion, we do not support for abusing the WWW in studying.
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
- TOPIC: The world wide web has destroyed the quality of students’ assignments (ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY) 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he WWW are more than the positive ones. Firstly, the WWW contains a large quanti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 2270, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...rd Cummis, students who are not trained so as to understand regarding copyright law and ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 2646, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...would be got zero or even not accepted. While the WWW offers a number of serious...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd make long-term memory for students. In accordance with the pieces of evidenc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, as to, even so, for example, in fact, in general, no doubt, such as, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 13.1623246493 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 10.4138276553 230% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 106.0 41.998997996 252% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 35.0 8.3376753507 420% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4043.0 1615.20841683 250% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 737.0 315.596192385 234% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48575305292 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21034969277 4.20363070211 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25901018374 2.80592935109 116% => OK
Unique words: 372.0 176.041082164 211% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504748982361 0.561755894193 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1237.5 506.74238477 244% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 15.0 2.52805611222 593% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.76152304609 231% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 16.0721442886 218% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.3673216012 49.4020404114 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.514285714 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0571428571 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42857142857 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.67935871743 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 3.4128256513 293% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172711368672 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04614812732 0.084324248473 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570716399168 0.0667982634062 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114021843885 0.151304729494 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0309206527953 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 225.0 78.4519038076 287% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.33 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.