Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.
The proposition that students must be taught facts only after they have learnt the concepts, ideas and trends required to explain those facts is an allusion to the deductive method of teaching where facts or observations are preceded by generalization. The opposite strategy is called as the inductive method where facts are to be taught before conceptualizing. Given that both the methods are advantageous, depending upon the circumstances, the binary recommendation is unwise.
At the first instance, the recommendation appears to have considerable merit considering the manifold advantages of the teaching that instills ideas before facts. The method is useful to learn about a large number of facts and concepts to be taught in a shorter time. For example, students can be taught about a Law in physics and then asked to predict the results of many related experiments, or they can be taught about a Mathematical theorem or formulae and then asked to solve myriad related numerical or word problems. Similarly, there are studies in psychology or statistics, where due to a very large sample size; it is wiser to understand the resulting trend instead of tediously scrutinizing every sample result.
Moreover, This method gives a teacher more control and predictability of the learning outcomes because it is up to him or her to decide the sequence of information to be presented. Interestingly, many scientific theories have been conceptualized using the deductive approach before any corroborating observations could be made e.g. Higgs-Boson particle theory, ‘string’ theory, etc. Thus, this strategy helps appreciate the theoretical aptitude of children require to make such contributions. However, teaching facts before ideas or trends is a natural way of gaining knowledge. This process can be helpful in many cases. For example, for students pursuing Laws studies learning about the facts of internet phishing can help judge the relevance of current cyber security laws, thus paving for their reforms. Or, management students can learn about the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of managing an enterprise by learning about case studies thus helping them formulate management strategies. If the responsibility of generalizing a trend from the given facts is put on the students, it will invoke their greater participation, hence rendering it a student-centered approach. The more the time is spent on generalizing facts, the greater is the retention and transfer of knowledge.
Moreover, not every student has the mental ability to grasp concepts before learning facts. For instance, that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact and the gravitational force is the underlying idea or concept. It is easier for students to learn about gravity from the revolution of the sun and not the vice versa. Similarly, it is easier for them to fathom the concept of wave-particle duality in electrons from the facts of the ‘double slit’ experiments. Likewise, there are many abstract ideas which are easier to understand by learning facts before ideas or trends e.g. Darwinian process of natural selection, photoelectric effect, chemical reaction mechanisms, etc.
In conclusion, while teaching concepts, trends or ideas before facts is useful for some subjects or topics, the opposite strategy is also advantageous depending upon the subject being taught and the mental maturity of the students. While the former pedagogy allows for faster learning of many concepts or facts in shorter time, the latter is a more student-centered approach paving for better retention and transfer of knowledge.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 200, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ts. The method is useful to learn about a large number of facts and concepts to be taught in a sh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 476, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'making'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: making
...heoretical aptitude of children require to make such contributions. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 504, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ren require to make such contributions. However, teaching facts before ideas or ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 688, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fect, chemical reaction mechanisms, etc. In conclusion, while teaching concepts, ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, e.g., first, hence, however, if, likewise, moreover, similarly, so, still, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in short, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3088.0 2235.4752809 138% => OK
No of words: 561.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50445632799 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86676880123 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2581120578 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475935828877 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 959.4 704.065955056 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.2552405539 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.260869565 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3913043478 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.39130434783 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => 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: 0.217039292534 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653243557213 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056618382941 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126455725725 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0405263862095 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.1639044944 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 100.480337079 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.