Many people believe that it’s better to learn something in a group rather than individually. Do you agree or disagree?
Gathering knowledge through team-work is getting popularity. Group-work is thought to be more beneficial than solo-learning by a lot of persons. I agree that working as a team to learn something new provides advantages over individual-learning.
Group-studies create the opportunity for the participants to learn through sharing. Firstly, brain-storming activities forces the learners to bring-out new thinking as a process of the lessons. For instance, the students are required to think about a particular area of study. Once they have generated their ideas, the opinions are being evaluated by others. During the process, the weak ideas get rejected through logics and facts. Secondly, the students have the option to share their opinions as well as problems with each other. Here, the inclusion of more than one human brain tremendously increases the effectiveness of group-study. A team of learners enjoy the advantages of brainstorming as well as sharing which makes this process unique.
Moreover, team-learning is considered to be more sustainable because of its ability to promote the participants use more than one organ. As the receipants become engaged in group-taks, they have to use multiple organs not limiting to eyes, hands, ears, tongue and brain. Studies show that a person learning through audio-visual method can have sustainable learning than the student who only uses eyes to read, because of the use of several organs used in audio-visual learning. Similarly, the participative process of group-learning promotes the recipients to use get involved using whole body. The involvement of the person at maximum level makes the learning sustainable.
In today’s world, the number of proponents of group-learning is gradually increasing. Knowledge sharing and making it sustainable is becoming more important than just learning something. Group-work, in my opinion, will be resourced with better methods to increase its efficiency in near future.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, well, for instance, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 7.85571142285 25% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 299.0 315.596192385 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64882943144 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28821906949 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595317725753 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 508.5 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 9.0 2.52805611222 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.2975951904 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9096619557 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.8947368421 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7368421053 20.7667163134 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47368421053 7.06120827912 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168258481849 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0546621893599 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499226667788 0.0667982634062 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117069527499 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460887588307 0.056905535591 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.0946893788 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 50.2224549098 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.19 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 9.78957915832 66% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.1190380762 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.