As far as I am concerned, the first plan is more practical and effective in helping the teachers to improve their teaching.
First and foremost, choosing a small group of teachers to attend lectures could save time and money. Since these teachers are excellent, there will be little difficulty for them to understand the training lectures by experts. Therefore, the lectures won't take very long time. On the other hand, because these teachers will only spend a short time in taking the course, the expense will not be a burden for the school. However, the online courses in the second plan have certain weakness. If the lectures are live, the expense per hour is huge and the schedule is not flexible. Nevertheless, if the lectures are video recordings, the contents may be out-of-date or of inferior quality. Therefore, in terms of economy and time, offline courses are more reliable.
Moreover, offline lectures are more likely to replicate or approximate the high school teaching scenarios because highschool students and teachers speak to each other face to face in reality, in which, for instance, body languages such gestures often get involved in order to make themselves understood. And apparently, attending the lectures in person rather than through Internet could examine if the knowledge is easy to understand when the media and locations are both limited. For example, if you attend online training classes, there is little chance to communicate with others and the experts are neither able to know whether they are understood.
Last but not the least, it is a significant process that the process that trained teachers provide training for other teachers. This process is similar to the product testing before the final release. Before some teaching methods are employed in the real classes, those methods should be modified or adapted due to the difference between the theories and practice. More importantly, the methods could be tested and localized in order to fit the actual situations in the school. Many factors could influence the effect of those up-to-date methods. For example, the average teachers and distinct students all should be considered.
In conclusion, it is better to attend the experts in person and provide training for other teachers later. Not only because of the economy and money, but also because the offline courses provide similar scenarios and the sharing process can test and modify the methods.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 13.8261648746 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.0286738351 36% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 43.0788530466 35% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 52.1666666667 84% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2060.0 1977.66487455 104% => OK
No of words: 396.0 407.700716846 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20202020202 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61806704917 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 212.727598566 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515151515152 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 642.6 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.452592365 48.9658058833 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 100.406767564 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 20.6045352989 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.7 5.45110844103 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192759299081 0.236089414692 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.057743564459 0.076458572812 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647243955017 0.0737576698707 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112849140303 0.150856017488 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342853316567 0.0645574589148 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 86.8835125448 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.