Nowadays many high schools and universities require students to work on projects in groups, and all members of the group receive the same grade (mark) on the project. Do you agree or disagree that giving every member of a group the same grade is a good way to evaluate students?
In this modern era, team working plays pivotal roles in education and career. Much breath and ink are extended in arguing about assessing group members' duties. While some people think it had better give the same mark for a group member to receive all group members' pleasure, others believe that it is not fair to allocate similar grades for all group members in group work projects. When it comes to me, I firmly concur with the latter assertion. There are many reasons to support this idea, but two are elaborated in the following article.
First and foremost, giving the same mark to every group member undermine group members' sense of responsibility. To explain more, it is more likely that some group member does their assignment effectively compared with others. Therefore, by giving the same score for everyone, the people who try more on their tasks and spend more time and energy to do their work, maybe experience deeply disappointed. Consequently, they start to do their assignments slowly and ineffectively. Similarly, when a lazy member of the group saw this result, they try to be more disorganized since they detect doing tasks correctly and ineffectively leads to the same effect. Hence, by giving the same grade to every group member, groups’ member may be anarchists and disordered. Had assiduous students receive more positive feedback from their teachers, they would have been more responsible in their work.
Another reason which is worthwhile to mention is that giving the same grade for all the group members in team working projects is not a useful idea for students and university futures as a whole. In other words, by this strategy, students recognize that there is not any law or discrimination between people who do their work weakly and others who do their job effectively. Therefore, they may follow other rules to be prosperous in their lives. For example, students may try to cheat on others to thrive in their careers or education. Similarly, if the university wants to acquire more government financial budget, it had better have a merit-based evaluation system. The more have a brilliant student, the more chance the university receives financial support from the governments.
In summary of what has been illustrated above, based on the foregoing reasons, it is a logical idea to have an evaluation system among the group members. Not only is it beneficial to students and university future status, but it helps students to enhance their sense of responsibilities as well.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-03 | Pooja dave | 85 | view |
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client."Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienc 39
- When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used public park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: 42
- College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to 66
- Because the world is changing so quickly people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past 73
- Because the world is changing so quickly people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, hence, if, may, similarly, so, therefore, well, while, for example, in summary, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2102.0 1977.66487455 106% => OK
No of words: 414.0 407.700716846 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07729468599 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75602488703 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 212.727598566 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509661835749 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7039148174 48.9658058833 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.1 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.394856412387 0.236089414692 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124091667445 0.076458572812 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142830048612 0.0737576698707 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242503456158 0.150856017488 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104467602104 0.0645574589148 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 11.7677419355 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 86.8835125448 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.