Some education systems make students focus on certain subjects at the age of 15, while others require students to study a wide range of subjects until they leave school. What are the benefits of each system? Which do you think is a better educational system?
Sentiments diverge on whether the students should be required to learn some particular fields instead of steeping themselves in a wide array of subjects. Although these teaching methods equally provide learners academic benefits, mixed-subject studying is more rational to be applied in the education system.
Admittedly, school-goers can gain a variety of advantages through these types of educations. When it comes to the curriculum with some main core subjects, in-depth knowledge can be formulated by focusing students on these fields. Instead of separating their time to focus on too many syllabus, school-goers can make use of their time budget to dig into their main core educations, which consequences a better academic outcome. Conversely, from the scientific perspective, children at the age of 15 can effortlessly inculcate new sources of knowledge due to the pinnacle phase of the brain’s development. Therefore, it is a good opportunity for 15-year-old learners to foray into a wide range of subjects.
Notwithstanding some foreseeable benefits of learning main core curriculums, the extensive in-depth understanding is more practical for students’ education. Multi-knowledge children can have separated views on a particular problem, which allows them to give the most reasonable solution. For instance, there was a competition conducted in Vietnam comparing the solving issue's ability among three groups of students. The result signified the overwhelming triumph of academic school goers to others. Further and even more importantly, a potential career benefit is also witnessed. Children can orient their future occupations by recognizing the strengths and underbellies through official lessons, so they will not have to spend much time thinking about this issue but studying.
By way of conclusion, each type of teaching approach bring benefits to 15-year-old students; however, they should be educated with different subjects instead of several major fields
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-13 | Phuong1810 | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | phamnhung | 89 | view |
| 2023-03-26 | Rahat | 56 | view |
| 2022-12-08 | phuongnguyen1234 | 61 | view |
| 2022-11-07 | xuananhle | 84 | view |
- Today many countries import food from different parts of the world Is this a positive or negative development 61
- In the future all cars buses and trucks will be driverless The only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passengers Do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages 66
- The table shows information about department stores and online stores in Australia in 2011 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 11
- Today many countries import food from different parts of the world Is this a positive or negative development 78
- The maps below show a bookstore in 2000 and now 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 279, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun syllabus seems to be countable; consider using: 'many syllabi', 'many syllabuses'.
Suggestion: many syllabi; many syllabuses
...f separating their time to focus on too many syllabus, school-goers can make use of their tim...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 695, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d underbellies through official lessons, so they will not have to spend much time...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, however, if, so, therefore, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 294.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.75170068027 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19368193963 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.639455782313 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.2636301564 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.785714286 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06120827912 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22366500245 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628954494796 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0460271628464 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132265097977 0.151304729494 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447474959732 0.056905535591 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.07 12.4159519038 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.48 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.