As it is obvious, education constitutes one of the main stages of children’s lives. In this regard, teachers play a pivotal role in children’s beliefs formation. Thus, the issue of teaching and corresponding methods has attracted both academics and practitioners in recent years. Furthermore, it has also raised a question that to what extent teachers have to speak of their own personal beliefs and values in the classrooms.
One of the advantages of speaking of social and political views in the classroom is that in this way students become familiar with these issues which also makes them study and gain knowledge in relevant subjects. As a result, students start to read more books, watch more constructive videos, and do more research which would also increase their skill in some ways. For example, students try to find resources on the internet which would improve his/ her searching skill.
In addition, when teachers share their political views in classrooms, they probably explain their reasons to support such a view. This would not only motivate students to discuss in the classroom but also teaches them about the advantages and drawbacks of each view. It is possible only when the teacher explains these features indiscriminately.
On the other hand, when teachers explain and discuss their political attitudes in the classroom, students may support or oppose each attitude, based on their received information and conducted research, and choose one attitude to support. In fact, students may differ in their political attitudes, which can trigger a dispute between them and finally if it is not controlled properly, it can adversely affect their relationships. Thus losing friends can be one of the negative impacts of sharing political views by teachers. Statistics show an increasing trend in the number of disputes among students at schools, which are mainly occurred over their different attitudes.
To sum up, I strongly assert that the advantages of explaining political issues by teachers in classrooms are more than its mentioned disadvantage since it can improve their reading, research, and discussion skills, although it may hurt their friendship, if not controlled properly.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, if, may, so, thus, for example, in addition, in fact, speaking of, as a result, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 15.1003584229 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1879.0 1977.66487455 95% => OK
No of words: 348.0 407.700716846 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39942528736 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93753364418 2.67179642975 110% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568965517241 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 618.680645161 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => 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: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3020487538 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.266666667 100.406767564 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2 20.6045352989 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.4 5.45110844103 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
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: 0.215285241946 0.236089414692 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0718261397107 0.076458572812 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582568952876 0.0737576698707 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119947586409 0.150856017488 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499264006382 0.0645574589148 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 10.9000537634 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.01818996416 116% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.