Organizing kids into peer groups is good for them.
The speaker talks about some negative outcomes of forming peer groups of children. She talks about a study conducted on 22 normal 11-year-old boys in a summer camp. These kids were chosen to have a similar background and therefore be equal peers.
She says that the first thing the scientists did was divide the boys into two groups. By doing so, the scientists observed that the kids in each group became very competitive towards the ones in the other group of children and gave their own groups some pompous names. They also started teasing and insulting each other. These findings are in stark contrast with the idea mentioned in the reading passage where it is expressed that peer groups decrease conflicts and make the kids more tolerant.
Later, the kids in the summer camp study were formed into a single group and were tasked with things like fixing the water tank so that all can drink clean and fresh water. It was observed that over time, the conflicts decreased and the kids were able to better cope with others. So much so that most conflicts completely disappeared after a while. This observation challenges the concept presented in the reading on how competitive games build teamwork in young children and help them be more cooperative because being in a single group helped the kids figure out teamwork better than pitting them against each other did.
The last thing the speaker mentions is that the scientists believe if the supervision of the adults was not present during the summer camp experiment and the structure provided by the adults was removed, the conflicts would be even worth and more bad things might have happened. This finding is again in exact contrast with the idea mentioned in the reading which says children are able to resolve their issues in peer groups because everyone is equal and therefore conflicts tend to resolve without outside intervention.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1586.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95625 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37618391544 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5375 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.6878902019 49.2860985944 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6153846154 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.84615384615 7.06452816374 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203743807506 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693969488869 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566505112915 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124507321687 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575385624008 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24 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.