The cliche relates like-mindedness to better learning and dissimilarity in thoughts to the opposite, clearly a disastrous idea. When we work with like-minded people, a lack of alternate viewpoints is concomitant, and redundancy in ideas is inevitable. Further, like-mindedness does not equate to better learning and may hinder learning as like-minded people are more likely to share the same knowledge base, preventing them from considering alternate viewpoints. It may appear that such an endeavor might be beneficial as it allows for the ready acceptance of ideas and saves time. However, this natural conclusion does not consider that like-minded people are unlikely to have a point of contention in thoughts, and people are more likely to reaffirm existing ideas not arrive at new ones.
It is a guarantee that such learning will suffer from a lack of alternate viewpoints, whereas unlike-minded people are more likely to exchange differing views providing a dynamic view of any concept in consideration. Accolite, a software development firm, attributes its success to heterogeneous teams with personnel from different backgrounds, which brings in differing viewpoints while solving a problem. Additionally, these distinct ideas also help team members learning by challenging and improving their existing methodologies and concepts. Thus, we can say that at any learning place of learning, be it school, college, or university: a heterogeneous crowd promotes more critical and enhanced learning.
Moreover, coming together of people sharing similar thoughts might lead to redundancy in ideas. It may also happen that because of such a situation, the learning of either party gets restricted as people sharing similar ideas are more likely to have a similar knowledge base and their mastery in respective domains. Consequently, leading to a situation where people are unlikely to have conflicting points, limiting possibilities for the development of new ideas. On the other hand, conflicting views give an opportunity to create new logic and devise new methods, which otherwise would have been absent. Thus, a group with people from different groups is more likely to arrive at distinct and nascent viewpoints.
Concomitant to the cliche is the perspective of similar-minded people enjoying better understanding, easy sharing of ideas, and time-saving. However, on digging deeper, we find that such an arrangement would only lead to an exchange of redundant ideas. A class of students in a school compromising of local students is less likely to ask more questions and less likely to critically analyze the concepts they are learning at school when compared to a class with students from different backgrounds, even though a class of like-minded students may find it easier to share ideas and have a better understanding of peers.
In conclusion, peer learning is a natural and significant part of our learning. A heterogeneous crowd is more likely to enjoy better peer learning compared to a homogeneous one. A group of people with different mindsets is more likely to bring more viewpoints to a discussion when compared to a group with the same mindset. Additionally, a like-minded group would be inclined and limited to an exchange of redundant ideas only. Though it may appear that a homogenous crowd will enjoy an effortless sharing of ideas, the learning may get restricted within certain domains.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 611, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... otherwise would have been absent. Thus, a group with people from different group...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ve at distinct and nascent viewpoints. Concomitant to the cliche is the perspec...
^^^
Line 9, column 15, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nderstanding of peers. In conclusion, peer learning is a natural and significa...
^^
Line 12, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...restricted within certain domains.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, whereas, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 58.6224719101 145% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2896.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 533.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43339587242 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15235635977 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440900562852 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2359783242 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.636363636 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2272727273 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04545454545 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167455868827 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563294050138 0.0831039109588 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0355952505536 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109506519262 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390366963474 0.0667264976115 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.