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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
It is needless to say that we’ve been increasingly relying on new technologies year after year. While some people may think that such reliance could affect humanity negatively, I think that the advantages coming from it eclipse its side effects. As far as education and learning is concerned, I think that new technological innovations have really improved methods for instructing students without distracting them from real learning. Thus, I do not agree with the author’s claim.
First, let’s focus on the advantages that new technological innovations brought regarding ways of teaching. Computers, internet, projectors and smart white-boards really improved the way teachers can do their job. Whether it is about an history teacher showing students war movies, or a physics teacher projecting experiments that could not be done in classes, technology allows teachers to find a better and more concrete way to teach students.
Furthermore, it is essential to underline the importance that technology had , especially in the last two years. With the advent of a global pandemic, schools were inaccessible to students nor teachers. Internet, virtual classrooms, and platforms such as Google Teams and Zoom made teaching and learning possible even from home. Without these technological innovations learning might have come to a stop. It is true that distance learning is not as effective as learning in schools, and that there are a lot of negative aspects about it. Students used to log into virtual classes and then not follow them, as well as found many ways to cheat. Nonetheless, these negative sides would have been present even in normal ways of teaching, thus showing that the negative sides will never overcome the positive ones.
On the other hand, it is really easy to get distracted while learning with these new methods. Youtube videos, apps, everything which is on the web almost always comes with advertising or some other kind of distraction While on a book you can’t really find anything other than what you’re supposed to study, you’re more tempted to scroll among your favorite videos while looking at an explanatory video on youtube. Thus, it is up to the student to not get distracted and ending up on his/her phone while following online classes.
In conclusion, I would say that technological innovations really improved the quality and the practicality of instructing new students.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 67, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'technologies'' or 'technology's'?
Suggestion: technologies'; technology's
... we’ve been increasingly relying on new technologies year after year. While some people may ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 235, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...s can do their job. Whether it is about an history teacher showing students war mo...
^^
Line 5, column 77, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rline the importance that technology had , especially in the last two years. With ...
^^
Line 9, column 137, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...acticality of instructing new students.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, look, may, nonetheless, really, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, i think, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as well as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2045.0 2235.4752809 91% => OK
No of words: 386.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29792746114 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87919077732 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572538860104 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.1386343312 60.3974514979 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.611111111 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4444444444 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.72222222222 5.21951772744 186% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252649812614 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700208525097 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576587516792 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125745425613 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0380649834221 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.