Does the advent of Internet change the role of teacher? To what extent do you agree?
Recently, the phenomenon of "the advent of Internet change the role of teachers" and its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debating the proposition that the role of teachers might be remarkably fruitful, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a remarkable number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that the Internet can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the technological standpoint, the advent of the Internet can provide the society with profound effects, which might stem from the fact that new communication ways and computer networks are inextricably bound up. Regarding my personal experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment that discovered the effects of the Internet on students' education. Thus, invaluable ramifications of both modern devices and the Internet of objects distinctly can be observed.
Within the realm of education science, without the slightest doubt, the advent of the Internet and changing the role of teachers might exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of learning methods. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the role of teachers can relate to the reality that the demerits of electronic learning can pertain to distance learning methods. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that if the downsides of the presence of the Internet were correlated positively with responsibilities of teachers, the local authorities would ultimately address new assessment methods. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the preconceived notion of a good balance between the Internet and teachers.
To conclude, despite several compelling arguments on both sides, I opt to vigorously support the idea that the merits of the advent of the Internet far outweigh its downsides.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-31 | Rafia Jawad | 85 | view |
| 2024-08-17 | Rafia Jawad | 88 | view |
| 2024-08-14 | Rafia Jawad | 85 | view |
| 2024-06-06 | Sridarani | 70 | view |
| 2024-05-24 | Sridarani | 69 | view |
- People s poor health is because of lifestyle how the lifestyle influences the health And how national health services should response to the issue how should health medical department responds 77
- Compare the advantages and disadvantages of three of the following as media for communicating information State which consider to be the most effective Comics Books radio television film theater 84
- Medical technology can increase life expectancy Is it a blessing or curse 88
- Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 84
- Television serves many functions Watching TV makes us relax We can learn knowledge and information from TV programs Besides TV can also be seen as a companion To what extent do you agree with this 77
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nd its corresponding impact has sparked a long-running dispute. Whereas many people are debati...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 367, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...scovered the effects of the Internet on students education. Thus, invaluable ramificatio...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, moreover, regarding, so, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.5418719212 85% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 6.10837438424 164% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 31.9359605911 135% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 1207.87684729 135% => OK
No of words: 289.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6401384083 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2419394033 2.71678728327 119% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 139.433497537 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584775086505 0.580463131201 101% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 379.143842365 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.5024630542 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 52.4201084375 50.4703680194 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.181818182 104.977214359 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2727272727 20.9669160288 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45454545455 7.25397266985 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 6.9802955665 57% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 2.91625615764 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227025126008 0.242375264174 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0835819639363 0.0925447433944 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0626994102735 0.071462118173 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128404313586 0.151781067708 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488835057817 0.0609392437508 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 12.6369458128 145% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.17 53.1260098522 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.73 11.5310837438 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.83 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 55.0591133005 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.3980295567 119% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.