For schools, assessing teachers’ teaching efficiency is a very important issue. But is it better for other teachers to assess or let students assess teachers?
Teachers are undoubtedly the sole representatives of a nations' education system. Given the importance of their role in shaping up the society, assessing the performance of teachers becomes quintessential. One of the important aspects of assessing the performance of teachers is that people do not concur if it is whether the students or the colleagues who must be involved in performance assessment process. Turning a blind eye to those who support or repudiate the contention, I lean towards the fact that the students must drive this performance assessment.
Among a plenitude of reasons, reliability is an important factor. Performance assessment by colleagues is done by employing a variety of tools and techniques including - but not limited to - publications, how busy the classes are and the teacher's theoretical knowledge - probably assumed by face to face interviews, debates and written tests. While these factors stand out for a good teacher, this approach is unreliable and time consuming. The outcomes may as well be driven by favoritism between colleagues, which may ultimately make the assessments unacceptable. A good teacher must only be assessed by his ability to articulate his ideas and his involvement in his duties. This can be reliably captured by asking the student's opinion.
Students being the only receivers in the educational system, naturally qualify to assess their teachers. Teachers, despite their knowledge, cannot always think from a students standpoint of what is actually required to make the classes interactive. Students, who submit the assignments can assess the difficulty and usefulness of them, which cannot be done by other teachers. Therefore, performance assessment by students strive to improve the system of education as whole, instead of merely judging the teachers capabilities based on various parameters.
With these reasons in mind, among a plenty of other arguments, I reiterate that students must be involved in assessment of a teacher's performance. The performance review process must be responsibly designed to make sure that they are judged only by their capabilities within their role as a teacher and not influenced by any other factors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 56, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...doubtedly the sole representatives of a nations education system. Given the importance ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 722, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
... can be reliably captured by asking the students opinion. Students being the only re...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 168, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...r knowledge, cannot always think from a students standpoint of what is actually required...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 126, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
...nts must be involved in assessment of a teachers performance. The performance review pro...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, if, may, so, therefore, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 43.0788530466 56% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 52.1666666667 92% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.0752688172 223% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1863.0 1977.66487455 94% => OK
No of words: 340.0 407.700716846 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47941176471 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17151856912 2.67179642975 119% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 212.727598566 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547058823529 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 618.680645161 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0056420664 48.9658058833 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.4375 100.406767564 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.125 5.45110844103 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => 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: 0.339188433029 0.236089414692 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117424905929 0.076458572812 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07293270103 0.0737576698707 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220107381033 0.150856017488 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316131203586 0.0645574589148 49% => 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: 15.0 11.7677419355 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 10.9000537634 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.01818996416 122% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 86.8835125448 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => 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: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.