There are different opinions on the effective method of evaluating students, which is a significant matter in today's education system. Even though some people think that even if students work in a group, they should be evaluated independently and only based on their personal performance, I believe otherwise, maintaining that when students work in a team, the performance of the whole group must be considered and evaluated. In what follows, I will delve into the most persuasive reason to substantiate my perspective.
Without a doubt, the most consequential reason corroborating my stance on this subject is that when students become aware that the whole group is assessed rather than individuals, they put their effort into the correct path. All group members try their best to do their parts in the best way to not dissipate their teammates' strive. Some years ago, compelling research was done on this subject. Students were divided into two groups, and each group was asked to work on a similar project for a spell of one week. The first group was told that they would be evaluated individually, but the second group was notified that the performance of the whole group would be assessed at the end of the week. The result was staggering; the first group could not finish the project, while the second group did it utterly and in the best way. Therefore, this reason manifests that when students are urged to work in a team, the whole team is supposed to be evaluated rather than each member discretely.
Although the previous reason is the first one crossing the mind at first glance, another remarkable point deserving some words here is by apprising the students that the entire group is going to be appraised, they are more inclined to help each other to achieve the team goal. This gives rise to a teamwork spirit in them, which is lucrative for both their future career and education. Drawing from my own experience, in the second year of my education at university, we were supposed to work in a group in an aircraft design course. Each member undertook a distinctive part of the project, and mine was to design the wing. The week before the due date, my friend working on the interior design section did not finish his part. Consequently, other team members, including me, helped him to finish his part since we knew that the entire team would get the same grade. Had the professor not used this approach, we would not have helped him, and the teamwork spirit in me now would not have existed at all. Thus, this point illustrates the fact that grading the entire group help students to improve their teamwork skill.
To make the long story short, many people are in favor of the notion that each student should be graded based on his personal achievements and performance, no matter whether he is doing the project solely or in tandem with his friends. Nevertheless, the foregoing points lead us to conclude that not only does considering the entire group's performance y improve the entire team's productivity, but it also poses teamwork spirit in each member.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 334, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
...at not only does considering the entire groups performance y improve the entire teams ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 374, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
...groups performance y improve the entire teams productivity, but it also poses teamwor...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, thus, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 15.1003584229 185% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.0286738351 154% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 43.0788530466 123% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 52.1666666667 115% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2557.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 526.0 407.700716846 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86121673004 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62238979715 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 212.727598566 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488593155894 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.0 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.1344086022 129% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.8130042952 48.9658058833 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.85 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3 20.6045352989 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55 5.45110844103 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261498996255 0.236089414692 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798106932079 0.076458572812 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576296447625 0.0737576698707 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158975539579 0.150856017488 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0477270306002 0.0645574589148 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 11.7677419355 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 10.9000537634 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 86.8835125448 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.0537634409 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => 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: 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.