In classrooms today, many projects are assigned to teams of students instead of just one student to encourage team work. Some are also of the opinion that this scheme inculcates valuable skills like communicating, defending your position and trusting other people. However effective learning mostly happens when one individual works alone on a task.
Firstly, in a team there is seldom and equal contribution by team members. Bright students are mostly taking the initiative and the responsibility to finish the task. Few others, who are not keen on doing the project slide away from making any contribution. As a result, most of the ideas included in the assignment are the ones that assiduous students came up with. Inspite of this disparity in amount of work done, everybody is graded equally. The teacher generally evalutes the project, not measure how much each student endeavored. Notwithstanding equal rating, the hardworking students are the ones who learn from the project. The classmates who evaded any responsibility do not learn and the purpose of assigning the projects is wasted.
Secondly, in a group the work is distributed, thus team mates individually do not see the whole picture. Whereas, if one were to work alone on the entire task, he would be familiar with each of the minute details and whole picture as well — how the whole project comes together with each module. This understanding is very importent to learning. For example, in a project a group of sophomore engineers were assigned the task of building a robot that detects the walls in a maze and finds an escape route. Some of the electrical engineers worked on the motor functionalities of the robot where as the computer engineers worked on the algorithm to detect a path that leads out of the maze. They worked together on sensors and its feed. However electrical engineers knew nothing about the algorithm used and computer students knew nothing about the motor functions. Thus none of them had the complete view of the system. Though, the robot was functional, they could not address certain glitches that required a knowledge of both the components.
Thus learning by oneself, although time consuming, is an effective way of learing by projects. On facing difficulty one can ofcourse consult his friends, but he should learn how the problem was resolved. On assigning projects to individuals, teacher would eliminate the possibility of some students escaping the workload, and everybody will be thorough with the concepts.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 507, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...ls in a maze and finds an escape route. Some of the electrical engineers worked on the moto...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 589, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
... the motor functionalities of the robot where as the computer engineers worked on the al...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 865, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...knew nothing about the motor functions. Thus none of them had the complete view of t...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'for example', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.253303964758 0.229887763892 110% => OK
Verbs: 0.171806167401 0.158761421928 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0528634361233 0.0866891130778 61% => OK
Adverbs: 0.057268722467 0.046263068375 124% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0198237885463 0.0685040099705 29% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.121145374449 0.118717715034 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0550660792952 0.0351676179071 157% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82984164599 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0154185022026 0.0309702414327 50% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00220264317181 0.00188951952338 117% => OK
Determiners: 0.138766519824 0.0887237588012 156% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0132158590308 0.0209618222197 63% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0264317180617 0.0139019557991 190% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2518.0 2387.08602151 105% => OK
No of words: 411.0 408.028673835 101% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12652068127 5.86048508987 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.48200974243 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.369829683698 0.338922669872 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.313868613139 0.251872472559 125% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.231143552311 0.174417080927 133% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.131386861314 0.112833075102 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82984164599 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 212.727598566 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542579075426 0.524397521467 103% => OK
Word variations: 62.2054518766 59.2087087015 105% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6684587814 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.8695652174 20.5533526081 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9897470891 48.84282405 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.47826087 120.699889404 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8695652174 20.5533526081 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.608695652174 0.644075263715 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.5376344086 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.54480286738 54% => OK
Readability: 49.2564265313 45.7405998639 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.72566371681 1.45489161554 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299483606962 0.300154397459 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0841831622458 0.103427244359 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0858096840287 0.0752933317313 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.482160811858 0.497263757937 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.169056636372 0.151897553556 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112785783451 0.114077575197 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621615546411 0.0781384742642 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.40804223857 0.336927656856 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.139287598048 0.067059652881 208% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216691197116 0.210909579961 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0234795907731 0.0618886996521 38% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8870967742 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.86379928315 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.91756272401 224% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 8.42114695341 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 2.4623655914 122% => OK
Neutral topic words: 9.0 2.75985663082 326% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.6433691756 139% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.