Experience is a more effective way to teach compared to books. Experimental learning or traditional learning in high school and university, which one do you agree is more effective?
Recently, experimental learning has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question “Is experience method better or traditional book?”. Whereas it is a widely held view that practical tuition is a more effective way for education, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the educational standpoint, effective learning ways are bound up inextricably with pedagogical principle, which indicates they lead to both well-educated pupils and high education. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between academic classes and traditional education as well as an exponential increase in online methods. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of schooling properly is correlated positively with not only outdoor learning but also practical approaches.
Within the realm of the modern education, without the slightest doubt, high education levels attribute to instruction materials, in that it would come down to traditional books, tedious schools, and classic methods. A salient example of such attribution is using new technologies, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take searching approaches for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint the traditional education problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of practical learning and traditional teaching.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that new experience methods are the most effective ways for education. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...oes 'all's well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 8.36945812808 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.75862068966 260% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1676.0 1207.87684729 139% => OK
No of words: 289.0 242.827586207 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79930795848 5.00649968141 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31613559841 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 139.433497537 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643598615917 0.580463131201 111% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 379.143842365 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 3.65517241379 192% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 12.6551724138 79% => 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: 28.0 20.5024630542 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.4785002569 50.4703680194 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.6 104.977214359 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9 20.9669160288 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8 7.25397266985 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 2.91625615764 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292277622313 0.242375264174 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103750694195 0.0925447433944 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086450168786 0.071462118173 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164692118206 0.151781067708 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0544150589087 0.0609392437508 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 12.6369458128 161% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.14 53.1260098522 49% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 10.9458128079 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.95 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.65 8.32886699507 128% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 55.0591133005 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 23.5 9.94827586207 236% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.3980295567 127% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 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.