Recently, the phenomenon of experimental education and its efficacious impact on the individual's learning process has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question "Does experimental learning work well in formal education and is experimental education more advantageous than theory-based education?" Whereas it is a widely held view that experience is more beneficial compared with the books and theoretical learning in formal education, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the experience standpoint, efficacious learning is bound up inextricably with practical education, which indicates they lead to both satisfactory educational consequences and skillful students. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2015 demonstrates the relationship between theoretical learning and pupils' educational improvement as well as an exponential increase in effective academic education. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of experimentally educational curriculum is correlated positively with not only more skillful students but also significant educational results.
Within the realm of education, without the slightest doubt, significant educational results attribute to more skillful students, in that it would come down to good professionals, better educational outcomes, and a fruitful formal education. A salient example of such attribution is theoretical education, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take academic books for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint theory-based education problems. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of experimental methods of learning in enabling the pupils to thrive academically.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes ''all's well that ends well,'' after analyzing what elaborated above, I entirely agree that experience is more beneficial compared with the books and theoretical learning in formal education.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 235, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eoretical learning in formal education.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, 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 : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 8.36945812808 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 20.9802955665 81% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 5.75862068966 347% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1834.0 1207.87684729 152% => OK
No of words: 300.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11333333333 5.00649968141 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.45189159093 2.71678728327 127% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 139.433497537 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59 0.580463131201 102% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 379.143842365 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => 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: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 12.6551724138 71% => 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: 33.0 20.5024630542 161% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 118.510300641 50.4703680194 235% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 203.777777778 104.977214359 194% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.3333333333 20.9669160288 159% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.77777777778 7.25397266985 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245101055804 0.242375264174 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0969311368836 0.0925447433944 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0793823884471 0.071462118173 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168792919598 0.151781067708 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659295560072 0.0609392437508 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 24.0 12.6369458128 190% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 12.6 53.1260098522 24% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 18.2 6.54236453202 278% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.7 10.9458128079 180% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.75 11.5310837438 163% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.54 8.32886699507 127% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 55.0591133005 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 38.0 9.94827586207 382% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 15.2 10.3980295567 146% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.5123152709 181% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.4444444444 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 71.5 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.