Technology is becoming increasingly prevalent in the world today. In the
not too distant future, technology will completely replace the teacher in the
classroom. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Almost any day of the week we can look at a newspaper and read an article about the prevalence of technology in teaching. There are several points of view on this matter. The first claims that usage of technology in the teaching process is inevitable and in near future it will replace teachers in classrooms. An alternative point regards nothing can replace teachers as presence of them in the classrooms are important for students.
On the one hand, it is obvious that in recent years there have been some changes in teaching methods and a new invention of technology allows many students to study without the presence of a teacher in the classroom. This trend is becoming increasingly popular. It does not matter whether you like it or not you have to recognize the fact that technology will not be tired up as teachers and can work for a long time, so the effectiveness of the teaching process will be increased. Moreover, nobody can deny that it is exceedingly difficult to replace robots with something else totally.
However, this attitude may cause a lot of concerns among people who believe that conservative way of teaching is the only way that students can study in classrooms. It can be argued that robots cannot give motivation properly as they are just aimed for good marks. Of crucial importance is how we define the matter in question. It is often said that the ordinary way of teaching left in the past and our future is robots. But it is necessary to take into account all the circumstances of each individual case.
From my point of view, the former opinion makes sense definitely, as it follows from my own experience, as I was taught in conservative way of teaching. In any way, an attitude to this issue always depends on a particular person’s character and his or her personal background.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'invention'.
Suggestion: invention
... some changes in teaching methods and a new invention of technology allows many students to s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 7.0 243% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 1.00243902439 1097% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 6.8 132% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 3.15609756098 285% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 33.0 5.60731707317 589% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 33.7804878049 142% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.97073170732 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1507.0 965.302439024 156% => OK
No of words: 316.0 196.424390244 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.76898734177 4.92477711251 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 3.73543355544 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77770057665 2.65546596893 105% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 106.607317073 166% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560126582278 0.547539520022 102% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 283.868780488 168% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.45097560976 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 1.53170731707 392% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.33902439024 92% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.07073170732 187% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 8.94146341463 168% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.4926829268 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.0835481235 43.030603864 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.466666667 112.824112599 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0666666667 22.9334400587 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2 5.23603664747 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 3.70975609756 189% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.09268292683 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210917015907 0.215688989381 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663001078089 0.103423049105 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644191544594 0.0843802449381 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12081272151 0.15604864568 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100227343004 0.0819641961636 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.2329268293 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 61.2550243902 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.3012195122 100% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 11.4140731707 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.06136585366 100% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 40.7170731707 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.9970731707 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.