The use of technology is increasing rapidly in the modern world. Growing technological influence can even be seen in the classroom. Despite this, it is disagreed that technology will completely replace the classroom teacher in the foreseeable future.
Analyzing the inability of technology-driven teacher to both cater to students' learning needs and instill motivation will show this. Firstly, teacher powered by artificial intelligence would have difficulty interpreting the educational needs of classrooms of students. For example, Honda Asimov, one of the world's most advanced robot, has trouble distinguishing simple human emotions. If today's advanced artificial intelligence cannot categorize these physical cues, it is difficult to believe that a robot could be capable of altering study plans and teaching styles in a dynamic classroom setting. Thus, this makes it clear that a technology-driven teacher is not going to be operation in near future.
Secondly, a robotic teacher would not be able to establish connections needed to motivate students. The American scientific theory of education plays a good example here, This widely supported theory argues that young learners are most motivated when they share an emotional connection wit their instructor. As most would agree expecting children to form an emotional connection with machinery is unrealistic, the argument technology will replace the teacher in classroom can be debunked.
In summary, a robotic teacher would lack the classroom dynamism and emotional intelligence needed to be an effective instructor. Thus, it is clear why having a class run entirely by a machine is an idea that will not e realized anytime soon. It is predicted that computer technology will not replace traditional human teachers in the foreseeable future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... technology is increasing rapidly in the modern world. Growing technological infl...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, still, thus, for example, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 41.998997996 67% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1531.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 273.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60805860806 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15196729441 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 176.041082164 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.582417582418 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 506.74238477 96% => 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: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5032839483 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.357142857 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 7.06120827912 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326630099076 0.244688304435 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133531328532 0.084324248473 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120254038127 0.0667982634062 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23264845416 0.151304729494 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122416465947 0.056905535591 215% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 78.4519038076 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => 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.