Educators should base their assessment of students' learning not on students' grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas, trends, and concepts that those facts illustrate.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
A thorough and well rounded education is a vital component needed for success in this modern era. In the United States during a student’s primary education they spend over a decade exposed to numerous facts and concepts in several fields of study. During this time they will take annual standardized exams testing their knowledge of the facts presented in coursework. Is this method of testing a student’s grasp of facts a true indicator of a thriving learning environment? Although a successful education must be firmly anchored with factual memorization, as the prompt above suggests, educators should favor assessments that examine students’ ability to conceptualize ideas and trends surrounding these facts over simple regurgitation.
This assessment surrounding concepts and trends becomes even more important during secondary education. Student success can no longer just be based on factual knowledge but requires a more nuanced approach to measuring understanding of a subject. An example of which can be seen especially in the healthcare sciences. Consider a nursing student studying away at memorizing pages of accepted normal lab values, he or she may identify a serum potassium level of 3.5 as within textbook normal range and select to hold the ordered dose of potassium during a simulation. If the patient presented with diabetic ketoacidosis then this student would have incorrectly held a vital medication. The student would have needed to understand that in DKA the potassium level is actually not representative of the actual electrolyte within the cells due to migration from the acidosis. The student would need to not only be able to consider facts such as lab values but also consider larger concepts such as the underlying disease process of a patient. A clinical educator would be well aware of the complexities of medicine and should be evaluating students’ abilities to identify not only correct values but as well as their ability to critically think through a broader picture of their patient presentation.
Further examples in which the ability to rationalize concepts and trends supersede strict memorization of facts can be seen within the fields of chemistry and psychics. While educators must certainly make sure students have a grasp on basic physical facts of matter or memorize some of the more common and useful theorems or formulas, they would be more apt to quiz them on conceptual ideas rather than have them simply identify which value is closely approximated with Avagadro’s constant or the exact rate of gravity for example. The chemistry student’s ability to take these known physical facts and apply them directly to a concept questions such as one involving the interactions of atoms to identify whether a covalent bond will occur or not has more merit. And the psychics teacher will get more insight to a student’s understanding by asking him or her to explain why the object falling on an incline requires measurements of the friction coefficient rather than just asking them to substitute numbers into some given formula.
Learning is a complex process that involves many different techniques. While many may argue that educators should be assessing the students’ grasp of facts alone, this does not take into account the degree necessary for full evaluation of a student. Testing students on facts alone does not entirely measure their understanding of the subject at hand as discussed earlier. Assessing students on facts may be acceptable during an early learning period, as these facts most definitely do form a foundation of understanding. Nonetheless, educators should transition to a more abstract evaluation to better form an accurate and full representation of student learning.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 568, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... dose of potassium during a simulation. If the patient presented with diabetic ket...
^^
Line 5, column 2, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...ure of their patient presentation. Further examples in which the ability to ration...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 280, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ic physical facts of matter or memorize some of the more common and useful theorems or form...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 774, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'psychics'' or 'psychic's'?
Suggestion: psychics'; psychic's
...ll occur or not has more merit. And the psychics teacher will get more insight to a stud...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 45, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...ning is a complex process that involves many different techniques. While many may argue that e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 78, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun may seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much may', 'a good deal of may'.
Suggestion: much may; a good deal of may
...volves many different techniques. While many may argue that educators should be assessin...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 666, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ull representation of student learning.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, may, nonetheless, second, so, then, well, while, for example, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3174.0 2235.4752809 142% => OK
No of words: 593.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35244519393 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93473315629 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97653406495 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 296.0 215.323595506 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49915682968 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 992.7 704.065955056 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.6439390043 60.3974514979 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.272727273 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9545454545 23.4991977007 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.81818181818 5.21951772744 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.332937519934 0.243740707755 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103193195302 0.0831039109588 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572910895555 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221287401671 0.150359130593 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0416200717886 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 176.0 100.480337079 175% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.