Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.
The celerity with which innovations spread within our fields of studies as well as in our daily life i.e work, home and so on, is undeniable. The author avers that these tools divert our concentration from actual learning, however I reckon that this debate merits further discussion.
As explicitly said in the assumption innovations offer schools improved methods for instructing students and the gains derived from these far outweigh their potential diverted uses. Slides through computers or videos with subtitles to teach foreign languages can metamorphose insipid and pedantic instruction into a pragmatic and living interaction where teachers and students can engage in a collaborative process to render learning more enriching. In higher grades not only these tools do not distract from real learning but heighten the interest and concentration as students in astronomy, for instance, would be delighted to benefit from NASA's satellite orbiting, providing them with live informations on the interstellar system. Some contents on platforms such as Schoolmouv or Youtube also act as bulwarks for students who need additional explanations or for those whom home's studying follow-up is hardly apt. It is also crucial to comprehend the defining role of technologies in our current and future world, and an initiation at computers' use is a prerogative to ace in most fields.
While it is clear that computers and the Internet can act as facilitators in the learning process, the conditions and scope in which these technologies are supplied must be carefully demarcated, taking into consideration the field of study or students' ages. However, distraction does not arise from any material support, which at worst accentuate it, but from students themselves. As the old adage goes "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink" thus students who are not interested in or have decided not to be so, might find whatever thought or object passing by more attracting than is the taught topic. Moreover, since schools and universities are able to incorporate such facilities into the learning process, they can control and monitor it as well by restraining their use to the required extent. Schools in modern days implement this on a wide scale, by means of centralized monitoring systems and locked softwares.
Opponents may argue that one can not ignore the veracity of the teaching's conditions in many countries, illustrated by motley hurdles facing pedagogues when it comes to fulfill both tasks, teaching and overseeing forty sixth-form students who are trying to circumvent the barely updated school's internet control, due to the lack of funds. Their adoption does not suggest either these being panaceas of ills plaguing education. Indeed, these find a great number of detractors because of being all too often used as the substitute of professors, which causes distraction from real learning. As it does not prevent students from giving up, pedagogues are then required in order to thoroughly pay attention to their needs and gaps. Some research conducted this year reported that the worldwide lockdown, along the use of videos and computers alone have been detrimental to students and have been distracting them from real learning.
To sum up, such modern tools contribute to provide the best environment for students to be well prepared, the impact of which should not be undermined nor exacerbated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 448, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...s;You can lead a horse to water but you cant force it to drink' thus students w...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, while, for instance, i reckon, such as, as well as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2896.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 546.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30402930403 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89523772449 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 215.323595506 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575091575092 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.5032298933 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.888888889 118.986275619 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.3333333333 23.4991977007 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352864896262 0.243740707755 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0951187859379 0.0831039109588 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699982327145 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162932175791 0.150359130593 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0997129206996 0.0667264976115 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.8420337079 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.93 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 100.480337079 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.