Today’s typical methods of teaching involving direct communication between teachers and students will not exist by 2050. To what extent do you agree or disagree and give reasons.
With the immense advancement in the technology, there have been numerous developments in every aspect of our lives. Modern technology has totally changes our approach to learn study or teach. But in future, will there be no two-way communication between teacher and children anymore? This essay will scrutinize both sides before supporting any argument.
To begin with, let us discuss the importance of face to face interaction between teacher and student. First and foremost, traditional methods enable teachers to evolve their practice based on student’s understanding. For example, each and every child have their own way of grasping knowledge, for some pictorial representation works best, for others stories might work better. Secondly, a teacher provides an emotional element to a student’s life. A significant aspect of this method is to observe the learning process including feedback and sharing their personal experiences whenever required. To illustrate, if a student misunderstood or misbehave in classroom, teacher often use their own personal life learning to make him understand. However, a computerized teacher would be less in tune with what student needs.
Conversely, with the emergence of technology, students often prefer to learn with the help of internet. The communication advancements like Youtube, Facebook or Skype have changed the world around us and teaching methodologies are no exception. To exemplify, many universities are coming up with distance learning and online course for students who cannot be physically present in the classroom. By adopting such methods, the education is becoming more accessible and affordable. Furthermore, it is also being responsible to reduce financial burden of recruitment, infrastructure and amenities. For instance, this budget can be used to invent more improved technologies to help teachers.
To conclude, having considered a range of arguments, there is no doubt that teaching methods are evolving rigorously but still traditional methods which involves direct communication between educator and learner has its own importance. I firmly believe that by 2050, teacher will be assisted by modern technology to improve the classroom environment but there is no way, it can lost its existence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-02-11 | anjalee990 | 66 | view |
| 2017-07-23 | jay.patel.4545 | 95 | view |
- Today s typical methods of teaching involving direct communication between teachers and students will not exist by 2050 To what extent do you agree or disagree and give reasons 66
- some people prefer to buy local products while other prefer international products Discuss both views and give your opinion 90
- being a celebrity such as famous film star or sports personality brings problems as well as benefits.do you think that being a celebrity has more benefits or more problem? 84
- Employers sometimes ask people applying for jobs for personal information such as their hobbies and interest and whether they are married or single. Some say that this information may be relevant and useful. Other disagrees. Discuss both views and give yo 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 197, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...r approach to learn study or teach. But in future, will there be no two-way communication...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'lose'
Suggestion: lose
...environment but there is no way, it can lost its existence.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, as to, for example, for instance, no doubt, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 341.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69501466276 5.12529762239 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18038672072 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 176.041082164 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627565982405 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.4309883622 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.210526316 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9473684211 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.47368421053 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200890118918 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0602374250578 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0549196429034 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123080724439 0.151304729494 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0528313971569 0.056905535591 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 50.2224549098 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.48 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.85 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 78.4519038076 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.