After making a presentation in class, you want to evaluate it. Which of the following do you think would be better for you?
1. Watch the recording by yourself
2. Invite other attenders to discuss and give opinions.
Nowadays in academic world, presentations become a vital part of education in classes from middle school to graduate studies at universities. A successfully and skillfully done presentation influences both scores of a student and his/her status in eyes of teachers and professors. Presentation is not an inborn or inherent skill but it is learned and can be further developed. There are several ways to improve the quality of presentation which will be so advantageous in later stages of both academic and career life.
According to me one of the strategies to improve the quality of presentation is to discuss the weaknesses and strengths of your presentation with attenders who were present in your presentation section. First of all they are better acquainted with the shortcomings of your presentation since they had the opportunity to observe you carefully and notice the weakness and strengths. While giving a lecture and presenting a specific topic, the person is deeply engaged with management of time and transferring information that can hardly notice the faults made in pronunciation, grammar or intonation. Besides the person is unaware of his/her body movements and the way makes eye-contact with audience. A participant will provide a greater inside about the presenter’s mistakes in language and delivery of presentation.
Furthermore after discovering the weaknesses, Presenter should look for possible solutions for improvement of such errors and faults. Having discussion over the problems with attenders provide an opportunity for the individual to better find solutions and develop strategies for improvement. A group of attenders ,who had the opportunity to observe the presenter carefully, have different backgrounds of knowledge and certain degrees of creativity. Hence, the presenter will have the chance to hear their new and creative solutions that he/she otherwise would not be able to reach.
Consequently, group thinking and discussion with attenders over evaluation of the quality a presentation seems extremely beneficial. Since they can not only give better insights into the nature of presenter’s weaknesses and faults but also they can provide better and more creative solutions and suggestions for improvement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 520, Rule ID: ACCORDING_TO_ME[1]
Message: This phrase can sound awkward in English. Consider using 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.
Suggestion: In my opinion; I think
...tages of both academic and career life. According to me one of the strategies to improve the qu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...language and delivery of presentation. Furthermore after discovering the weaknesses, Prese...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 312, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...es for improvement. A group of attenders ,who had the opportunity to observe the p...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, so, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 13.8261648746 174% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 43.0788530466 44% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 52.1666666667 102% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1911.0 1977.66487455 97% => OK
No of words: 342.0 407.700716846 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58771929825 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23622396988 2.67179642975 121% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 212.727598566 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.546783625731 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 618.680645161 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 9.59856630824 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2796343816 48.9658058833 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.4 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8 20.6045352989 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 5.45110844103 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228630143457 0.236089414692 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0721823191842 0.076458572812 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0361192759711 0.0737576698707 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133155401265 0.150856017488 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250731235202 0.0645574589148 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 11.7677419355 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 10.9000537634 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 86.8835125448 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.002688172 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.