Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.
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.
The statement contends that the Educators' primary purpose is to teach their students, the ideas, trends, and concepts and only then teach facts that relate to those concepts. My view on the same is highly subjective. I agree with this to an extent as some students are fascinated by the facts so much that they tend to neglect the main idea and concepts on which the facts are based on. however, some trends are such that they are better understood by facts first, than the concept itself.
Firstly, taking primary education as a subject, small children tend to get influenced easily, as compared to the elder ones. To those little ones, giving the main idea and teaching concepts first, seems plausible. For example, instructing them on a topic related to math, say percentages and applications. If the faculty starts with the statement that if you ate half a pie, how much of the pie is still left? Or something like if you divide a circle in 4 equal parts, what percentage will be a quarter circle to the whole? Such questions will encourage students to go deep into a topic but will finally end up losing hope when the actual idea flows into the picture. And, thus, will end up gaining knowledge superficially. Conversely, had the educator asked the same questions after teaching the necessary concept theoretically and then surprisingly, in the end, made them aware that they are used in real-life factual data. It would have made them happy learning something, they thought was boring, at first look.
Additionally, the same can be applied while teaching some boring chemistry equations or physics laws to students. Or say, some computer programming language which seems a hectic thing to even look at, for some. And, then teach the real-life applications like building an Android app using the same code or develop personal virtual assistance on your laptop.
On the other end, in business, economics, and political science, it is of the primary importance of making students understand the facts and where they are applied in life, then merely just start with didactic bookish concepts. Even, in major fields of arts, designing, music and so on, starting up with the facts and to be precise, a pragmatic approach would be more beneficial to students, than just mere raw concepts.
To sum up, whether or not educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts is a very subjective discussion. In the final analysis, it primarily depends on the area of thought to be taught and vacillates from teaching concepts and main ideas first to making the students learn about the facts, on which they are based, in the first place.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 12, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...just mere raw concepts. To sum up, whether or not educators should teach facts only after...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, so, still, then, thus, while, for example, to sum up, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2271.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 459.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9477124183 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57225873807 2.79657885939 92% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542483660131 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1103568054 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.55 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.95 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.65 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => 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: 0.286782579042 0.243740707755 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760873238551 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100000790841 0.0758088955206 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165385932542 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121600279566 0.0667264976115 182% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => 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: 11.73 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.