When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e-mail, they will produce better work for the project.
During the period of the pandemic, more and more works are turned into an online mode in which group members, like classmates and colleagues, have to communicate most of the information by email. Some people doubt the efficiency to communicate by email and state that group members will produce better work for a project if they communicate in person instead of by email. From my perspective, I agree with the idea because I consider that communicating in person leads to a high-quality discussion, contributing to both observing problems and generating brilliant ideas which determine the quality of a project together.
Firstly, communicating face to face helps people to identify problems in the project by expressing opinions more comprehensively. To begin with, it is easier for people to pay attention to questions asked in face-to-face communication rather than from a long email. Even a video meeting performs a better job in exchanging opinions than email. For example, I once conducted an interdisciplinary project online when covid-19 broke out. In the beginning, we just communicated by email and it seemed that everything went well. However, it was a video meeting that unveiled a huge problem: everyone just understood the goal from their own perspective and we hadn't reached an agreement about it among us. Furthermore, we found that what incurred this consequence was the difficulty to express one’s view completely within only a few words in the email. In the contrast, a video meeting can encourage us to express more comprehensively, disclosing potential misunderstandings. This experience made me realize the importance of in-person communication.
Secondly, discussing in person contributes to the generation of new ideas. It is known that people express their thoughts in various ways except for words. Facial expressions and body languages convey plentiful information as well as make the discussion more vivid than those bland emails. Therefore, members presenting in the in-face discussion will be more engaged in the discussion, which fertilizes the generation of excellent ideas. The examples mentioned above also gave me a vivid education about this point. When my university was open again, we scheduled to have meetings offline every week, which were treasurable times in my college life. We exchanged our ideas actively, drawing and coding with passion together. This immersing atmosphere bred some brilliant ideas which cannot be explained in a few words, helping us get the scholarship at our university.
Admittedly, writing emails gives people more space to clarify their thoughts. Nevertheless, it can be done by writing work diaries. Moreover, we cannot ignore the role that communicating in person plays in clarifying thoughts as well which makes in-person communication more irreplaceable.
To conclude, I hold the opinion that communicating in person performs a better work for a preject than the email.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 655, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
... goal from their own perspective and we hadnt reached an agreement about it among us....
^^^^^
Line 9, column 107, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rms a better work for a preject than the email.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, except for, for example, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 43.0788530466 100% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 52.1666666667 132% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2501.0 1977.66487455 126% => OK
No of words: 459.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44880174292 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19415241223 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546840958606 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 790.2 618.680645161 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 9.59856630824 146% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5723563394 48.9658058833 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.208333333 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.125 20.6045352989 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91666666667 5.45110844103 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => 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: 0.255903867495 0.236089414692 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0676478588176 0.076458572812 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0906470685749 0.0737576698707 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161045423316 0.150856017488 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0914718055357 0.0645574589148 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 11.7677419355 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 58.1214874552 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 10.9000537634 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.01818996416 114% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 86.8835125448 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.002688172 200% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => 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.