Loading…
Loading…
Writing structure library
Compare the two responses to the same prompt.
With the development of technology, computer and internet are used in the education more and more1. Some people think that in the future, the technology will replace the teacher. But some people don't think so. I will discuss both views in this essay.
Some people think technology can replace teacher. Because computer have a lot of knowledge2, students can learn everything on the internet. They can watch the video and do the exercise at home, don't need go to school3. Also, online learning is very cheap, poor student also can study. So they think teacher is not necessary in the future.
But other people don't agree. They think teacher is very important and can not be replaced. Teacher not only teach knowledge, but also teach students how to be a good person. When student have problem, teacher can help them and encourage them. Computer can not do this thing, because computer have no feeling.4 So teacher is still important.
In my opinion, I think technology can not replace teacher completely. Technology is only a tool to help teacher and student. Teacher can use technology to make the class more interesting. So I think in the future, teacher and technology will work together, this is the best way5.
Two article errors plus a misplaced adverb. "Computer" and "internet" need determiners ("computers and the internet"), and "in the education" should be "in education" (uncountable, no article). Chinese has no article system, so these slip in constantly — proofread every noun.
Subject-verb agreement ("computers have" or "a computer has") and, more deeply, an idea stated but never examined: computers store information, they do not "have knowledge". The essay asserts the point instead of thinking it through, which caps development at Band 5.
A missing infinitive "to" ("don't need to go") and an informal contraction unsuited to academic writing. Band 6+ expects "do not" in this register; contractions and dropped particles read as spoken Chinese-English.
The idea — machines lack empathy — is valid, but "this thing" and "have no feeling" are vague, childlike wording. A stronger version names what is missing: emotional support, motivation, the reading of a confused face. Precise nouns are what lift vocabulary out of Band 5.
The conclusion states a preference but never says why blending the two is best. A comma splice also joins it to the previous clause. Band 6+ needs the reason attached, and separate sentences or a proper conjunction.
As online courses and learning software grow more capable, a genuine question has emerged about whether they might one day make classroom teachers unnecessary. While some see technology as an eventual replacement, others insist the human teacher is irreplaceable. In my view technology will transform teaching profoundly but will not remove the teacher, because the parts of learning it handles well are only part of what education involves1.
Those who predict replacement have a stronger case than critics often admit2. A well-designed program can explain a concept as clearly as most teachers, repeat it endlessly without impatience, and adjust its pace to each learner. For a motivated student in a country short of qualified staff, this access is transformative, and it is far cheaper than hiring more teachers. Dismissing these advantages as mere convenience underestimates how much routine instruction software can already deliver.
However, this view treats teaching as the transfer of information, when much of a teacher's real work lies elsewhere. Teachers notice when a quiet student has stopped following and intervene before the gap widens; they judge when to push and when to reassure; they model the habits and curiosity that no program can instil. Above all, they hold a class together as a social group, and most young learners simply will not sustain effort without that human relationship. A screen can deliver content, but it cannot make a distracted teenager want to learn.3
The likeliest future, therefore, is not replacement but redistribution. As software takes over routine explanation and marking, teachers are freed to concentrate on exactly the things machines cannot do: motivating, mentoring and responding to individuals. Far from making teachers obsolete, technology may finally let them spend their time where it matters most.
In conclusion, while I accept that technology will reshape the classroom and absorb much of the teaching that machines do efficiently, I do not believe it can replace teachers, because education depends on human judgement and relationships that software cannot reproduce5.
The thesis frames the whole debate: it concedes technology's strength and defines the limit in one line, giving the essay a clear position with built-in nuance. This kind of controlled thesis is a Band 7+ marker.
Hedged, evaluative language. Rather than flatly saying one side is right, the writer weighs how strong each case is — this measured tone is precisely what the Band 5 essay's blunt "some people think... but other people don't agree" lacks.
A precise, concrete contrast that does the work the Band 5 essay only gestured at with "computer have no feeling". Naming the exact thing machines lack — the power to create motivation — is what turns a cliché into an argument.
The essay resolves the two views with a single reframing (redistribution, not replacement) instead of the Band 5 "work together". It gives the synthesis a precise name and then explains the mechanism, which is what earns the higher band.
The conclusion states the reason behind the position, not just the position. Compare the Band 5 close, which asserts blending is "best" without ever saying why — supplying the because is a core Band 7 habit.
Both essays discuss both views and conclude that teachers and technology should coexist, so the outline is the same. The Band 7 essay concedes the replacement case at full strength before answering it, names precisely what machines cannot do, and resolves the debate with one sharp reframing (redistribution, not replacement) whose reasoning it spells out. The Band 5.5 essay reaches a similar idea but through vague wording ("this thing", "have no feeling"), asserts points without examining them, and is weighed down by recurring article, agreement and infinitive errors that a Mandarin speaker must hunt for deliberately. To move up, replace vague nouns with the exact thing you mean, attach a reason to every claim, and proofread once solely for articles and verb endings.