The problem of poor teacher performance that has plagued the state public school system is bound to become a good deal less serious in the future. The state has initiated comprehensive guidelines that oblige state teachers to complete a number of required credits in education and educational psychology at the graduate level before being certified.
The argument states how the poor performance of teachers in public school underlies in the lack of several educational aspects in their training, and therefore, improving credits and psychological education will improve their performance. However, the author assumption has insufficient points to support how such strategy in improving their performance.
First of all, the author argument of poor performance is not specific. What kind of poor performance which classify a teacher to be a poor-performing one is not clearly stated. For instance, if their performance is measured from the average grade of their students, even a well-performed teacher can still be qualified as poor-performing if his/her students have poor performance. Therefore, in this case, such performance-measuring factor is insufficient to measure a teacher performance.
Second, the author assumes the increasing credits of teacher educational training will improve their performance. However, this argument fallacy is that, the author implies all of teacher training institutes are equally poor-performing. This is obviously untrue in fact. It is evident some institutions have higher standard than others, and it is unclear whether the author implies all of such institutions require to raise their standards, or low-standard institutions should match the standards of the high-standard institutions. If the teachers qualified as poor-performing ones are caused from their lack ability of handling the students, even they may have increased knowledge from such training, such strategy will be useless.
Thirdly, the author implies that the teacher education institutes lacks of psychological education. It is unclear what kind of psychological education is required to improve, since the author statement of “poor performance” is too general. Furthermore, the author assumes that all of poor performing teachers have psychological issues. This may be false in some cases in fact, for instance, some teachers may excel in handling students, which may lead them to be classified as high psychological values, however, they may have poor delivery of materials and lack of knowledge, which may lead them to be classified to be poor-performance.
In summary, even it is true that improving educational standards and psychological ability of the teachers may improve the quality of teachers, the author fails to describe what kind of poor performance he/she want to improve, and the specific strategy needed to tackle such issue. Therefore, the argument of improving credits and educational psychology in higher education institutes for teachers may not be beneficial for improving poor-performing teachers at all. If the problem for the poor performance underlies in the students, such strategy will not be beneficial at all. Even though the problem underlies in the teacher performance or psychological aspects, specific approach to tackle the problem is needed to tackle individual needs of their weaknesses.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'raising'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: raising
...mplies all of such institutions require to raise their standards, or low standard instit...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 211, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'wants'.
Suggestion: wants
...be what kind of poor performance he she want to improve, and the specific strategy n...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, still, therefore, third, thirdly, well, for instance, in fact, in summary, kind of, first of all, in some cases, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2550.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56768558952 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1234187281 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.371179039301 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.9312657856 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.210526316 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1052631579 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.10526315789 5.70786347227 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181134830662 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760344132411 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453190039158 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119827129284 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0309340789081 0.0628817314937 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.