The issue of traditional written exams has received considerable critical attention. The debate about its efficiency has gained fresh prominence with many arguing that its benefits are evident. However, an arguable weakness is the arbitrariness in its structure with negative impacts on the overall performance and education of the pupil.
The past decade has seen the rapid development of written review in almost every aspect of the student life, from the beginning to the end the students need to be in front of a piece of paper under timed condition to prove their value under the educational system measurement. However, this method of analysis of the student progress has a number of limitations. Firstly, it is claimed that student cannot perform well under stressful conditions. According to a study performed by the University of Cambridge, there is a negative correlation between stress and overall performance, and the data conclusively shows a decrease in performance of up to 35%.
Another problem with this approach is that it fails to take other cognitive skills into account rather than memory. A serious weakness of the existing method of testing students currently is that lack of a wide variety of skills, such as empirical knowledge, which cannot be assessed with an exam. The methodological approach of most written exams only takes into account the theoretical knowledge that only covers a minimum range of the learning process. A considerable among of literature has been published on the effectiveness of empirical exams compared with the traditional form. These studies proved doubtless the outstanding benefits of combining the theory and practice.
In summary, this essay has discussed the evident implications of the written evaluation reaching the conclusion that it is not efficient enough to have a comprehensive approach in order to evaluate all the student skills.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, well, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 5.94088669951 118% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 20.9802955665 81% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 31.9359605911 166% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.75862068966 191% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1610.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 299.0 242.827586207 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38461538462 5.00649968141 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00216362511 2.71678728327 111% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 139.433497537 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581939799331 0.580463131201 100% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 379.143842365 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.57093596059 108% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 7.0 1.56157635468 448% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 1.71428571429 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.5020102826 50.4703680194 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.846153846 104.977214359 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 20.9669160288 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.15384615385 7.25397266985 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 6.9802955665 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 2.75862068966 217% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156232025655 0.242375264174 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0503842791788 0.0925447433944 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.024817093664 0.071462118173 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.085800867985 0.151781067708 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0149724001348 0.0609392437508 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 12.6369458128 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.1260098522 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 10.9458128079 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 11.5310837438 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.85 8.32886699507 118% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 55.0591133005 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.