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?
The use of technology is increasing rapidly in the modern world. Growing technological influence can even be seen in the classroom. Despite this, I disagree that technology will completely replace human teachers in the foreseeable future. Analysing the inability of a technology-driven teacher to both cater to student learning needs and instil motivation will show this.
Firstly, a teacher powered by artificial intelligence would have difficulty interpreting the educational needs of a classroom of students. For example, Honda Asimov, one of the world’s most advanced robots, has trouble distinguishing simple human emotions. If today’s most advanced artificial intelligence cannot categorise these basic 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 operational anytime in the near future.
Secondly, a robotic teacher would not be able to establish the emotional connection 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 relationship with their instructor. As most would agree expecting children to form emotional ties to machinery is unrealistic, the argument that technology will replace the teacher in the classroom can be debunked.
However, a computerised teacher would not tire, and this endurance makes it the optimal
choice for lesson exercises that require repetition. A primitive instance of this is exemplified by iPad apps that teach young children simple vocabulary in entertaining ways. Because this machinery-based lesson arrangement can carry on indefinitely, children can continue learning for much longer periods of time than realistically possible with a human teacher. As convincing as this point is, exercises requiring repetition are only a small part of the overall teaching process. Thus, technology cannot be expected to carry out all tasks of human teachers in the classroom.
In summary, a robotic teacher would lack the classroom dynamism and emotional intelligence needed to be an effective designer. Thus, it is clear why having a class run entirely by a machine is an idea that will not be realised anytime soon. As this essay has shown, computer technology will not replace traditional human teachers in the foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-28 | kargar84 | 78 | view |
| 2019-02-16 | Reza_omniscient | 83 | view |
- Are you against or in favour of boarding schools? 89
- All over the world, the number of overweight people is growing. What do you feel are the main causes of this? What are the effects? 89
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?The extended family (grandparents, aunt, uncle, cousins) now is less important than it was in the past. 76
- Scientists agree that many people eat too much junk food and it is damaging their health. Some people think that this problem can be solved by educating people, while others believe that education will not work.Discuss both views and give your own opinion 73
- Every one of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious problems.To what extent do you agree or disagree? 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 9.8082437276 173% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 13.8261648746 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 43.0788530466 58% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 52.1666666667 77% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2146.0 1977.66487455 109% => OK
No of words: 383.0 407.700716846 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60313315927 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15845964215 2.67179642975 118% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 212.727598566 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545691906005 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 618.680645161 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.1554593895 48.9658058833 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.3 100.406767564 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.15 20.6045352989 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.45110844103 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.53405017921 132% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31230043394 0.236089414692 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106683969388 0.076458572812 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.098563812641 0.0737576698707 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173049761788 0.150856017488 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107482385425 0.0645574589148 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 58.1214874552 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 10.9000537634 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 86.8835125448 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.