Claim: Group assignments that students must
work together to complete should replace a
substantial amount of traditional lecture-based
instruction in college and university courses.
Reason: It is vital for students to gain
experience collaborating with peers to study a
topic and to achieve a common goal.
The provided claim for the issue that group assignments should be replaced with a substantial amount of lecture timing because it is important for students to learn and develop collaborating skills is a contentious issue. On one hand, lectures can provide insights to a student because of constant engagement with the faculty. While, on the other hand, students collaborating with other colleagues could provide a valuable skill that might be an integral part of their career. However, in my point of view, a student might benefit a lot from lectures and engagement with a professor.
Firstly, if a student is constantly engaged in a collaboration with his or her peers then that student will not be able to develop any individual learning skills which is an important aspect of the career. For example, a student who always works on a project with a team will get trained or habituated to work as a group. This student might not be able to think as creatively and effectively as he would have thought if he or she were in a group. Furthermore, if a student works always tends to work with a particular group of students, then that too, will pose a problem. Here, the student is not only working the majority of his or her time in a group but also conversing with the same people. This might not develop his social skills with which the aim of the collaboration was originally formulated.
Secondly, the issue claim is based on the assumption that the lectures can not be collaborative. However, with the growing digital technology, the faculties could form a community on many platforms for students to share ideas and collaborate. In fact, the faculty could also directly assist them in case the students need them. This will help save a lot of time for students. As an example, consider a hypothetical scenario where the students of computer science and engineering are developing a website based on face recognition that uses machine learning. The students might get stuck for a long trying to solve an equation that can have a simpler alternate approach. As a result, they might end up wasting a lot of their time trying to solve it. Had there been more time devoted to lectures, the students could ask the faculty who could have aided the procedure and saved a lot of time.
However, with the huge benefits of lecture-based instructions, a student must have the skills to take part in a collaborative environment. Along with the ability to comprehend and learn skills individually, a student should engage in teamwork and provide his or her assistance in his or her area of expertise. This not only improves their social skills but also helps them to appreciate and learn from other's ideas. Thus, in conclusion devoting more time to traditional lecture-based learning along with small collaborative projects might prove to be much more beneficial to students than focusing just on either of them.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2418.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89473684211 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87094494947 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457489878543 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 756.9 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.8789377875 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.909090909 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4545454545 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.31818181818 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320203673832 0.243740707755 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106407169597 0.0831039109588 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074694464399 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212310712162 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.054699054227 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.