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.
This is a controversial topic that discusses the efficient way of teaching to children. The author argues that it is important to teach facts after the students are well versed in the ideas, trends and concepts that help explain those facts. Indisputably, it is a logical way of teaching and might help students in their education. Nevertheless, there are many factors that the author ignores while making this claim. Thus, it is not surprising to disagree with their claim on the basis of lack of evidence.
First of all, facts are something that needs to be rote learned rather than understanding. This a process that is hated universally and yet employed by majority of students and encouraged by teachers. There are some instances where this method of learning is a requirement. To illustrate, imagine a classroom where the teacher has asked their students to solve "4+1". The answer is simple and involves a concept called addition which children needs to understand rather than rote learn. But the interpretation that "+" means to apply this concept is rote learned without any explanation. Even if the teacher would like to give the students some explanation regarding why "+" represents addition, it is unnecessary and is not important to the student. Hence, there are situations where rote learning is required.
Continuing from the above example, any mathematics teacher would obviously start his lecture by explaining the fact that "+" means addition and further discusses the concept of addition. Here, this systematic approach of fact followed by concept is necessary of better understanding. This is applied to every concept of mathematics and many other subjects too. Science teachers insist the importance of fact "The earth revolves around sun" and build their concepts of solar system from it. Social teachers explain the fact that "Hitler is a bad person" and construct the reasons for this fact gradually. Therefore, accumulation of concepts from facts can be an effective way of learning in children and adults and is followed by majority.
Adding to this, many professions that these students grow up to be require the ability to learn facts prior to concepts and sometimes these explanations are not provided either. Assume a waiter in training in a restaurant and their chef or supervisor ordered them to by heart the menu to utter the menu without any paper help near the customers. This is a valid request and the waiter does not need to learn the concepts behind these dishes to do their job. This situation is applicable to many others too. Doctors who need to recommend medicines and scientists who need to know every element in the periodic table for their work. All these professions have educators or mentors who encourage fact learning rather than concept or trend approach. Even teachers need to rote learn the names of the students before entering the class. Educating children about this method (facts before concepts) of learning at early stages can help them in their future professions.
In conclusion, though the author's idea of learning concepts before facts is a well intentioned method to improve the education of children, it does not address many circumstances where it is not valid. It is a noble statement that does not provide much credibility for implementation in real life. Unless more factors are added to the author's statement or modified to fit its constraints, it cannot be considered to be true or eligible. In fact, following these claim's might break a tradition that is implemented by teachers in their lectures to educate their children which might grow up to be a disadvantage in their future occupations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...professions. In conclusion, though the authors idea of learning concepts before facts ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 335, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e. Unless more factors are added to the authors statement or modified to fit its constr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, nevertheless, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, while, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3125.0 2235.4752809 140% => OK
No of words: 603.0 442.535393258 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1824212272 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9554069778 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92548312651 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469320066335 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 955.8 704.065955056 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.2724591718 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.806451613 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4516129032 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8064516129 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239868147897 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0660083593057 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0606446311297 0.0758088955206 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148362442229 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567792166582 0.0667264976115 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 148.0 100.480337079 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.