A teacher’s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge
of the subject being taught.
There is no shortage of opinion on the primary qualifications that a teacher must possess to deliver and attract his students. Some prefer teachers with excellent knowledge on the subject matter whereas others prefer mentors with the ability to deliver the teachings in an effective way. If I were asked to choose, I would definitely prioritize teachers with the ability to relate well with students. I firmly believe this because of two specific reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent paragraphs.
First of all, teaching is a two-way street. The main objective is to transfer one's knowledge and idea unto another. So, teacher must be capable of relating with the needs of the student and plan his teaching method accordingly. Drawing from my own personal experience, a lecturer in my undergraduate program used to teach us with the help of presentation slides. Usually, he used to outline the basic points of the topic in the slide and explain the details orally. Personally, I found his teaching method very cumbersome and inefficient. Most of the students in the class were either busy doodling or brooding. Clearly, this lecturer has in-depth knowledge about the subject but can't relate to students' need for a new teaching approach. For this reason, I believe effective knowledge transfer is only possible if a teacher can relate to the need of the student's teaching method.
Similarly, a teacher who can relate to the students can easily comprehend his student's intellectual level. While teaching any class, a teacher must realize his audience, whether they are of the beginners' level or an intermediate or an advanced level. This helps the teacher to identify the starting point for lectures. I must admit my opinion is profoundly influenced by my own personal experience. My professor of Hydropower Engineering, before commencing his course for the semester used to take a pre-qualification test. From this test, he deduces the intellectual level of the students attending his class and on the basis of that, he used to plan his lectures. As his classes were modeled as per our requirements, it was very interesting and effective. It is clear to see why a teacher who can relate to students' needs thrives.
In the light of the aforementioned reasons, in my opinion, a teacher's ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 268, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an effective way" with adverb for "effective"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...th the ability to deliver the teachings in an effective way. If I were asked to choose, I would def...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 79, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...reet. The main objective is to transfer ones knowledge and idea unto another. So, te...
^^^^
Line 3, column 681, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...n-depth knowledge about the subject but cant relate to students need for a new teach...
^^^^
Line 7, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
...forementioned reasons, in my opinion, a teachers ability to relate well with students is...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, if, similarly, so, well, whereas, while, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 1977.66487455 102% => OK
No of words: 396.0 407.700716846 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09090909091 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93910321725 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 212.727598566 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.502525252525 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 632.7 618.680645161 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 9.59856630824 135% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.5654042674 48.9658058833 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.6363636364 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 20.6045352989 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.45110844103 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37873319524 0.236089414692 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109198787746 0.076458572812 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.166978034145 0.0737576698707 226% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.335557827321 0.150856017488 222% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.256000017029 0.0645574589148 397% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 11.7677419355 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 86.8835125448 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => 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: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.