Experience is a more effective way to teach compared to books. Do you agree or disagree?
The importance experiential versus traditional education, which was always debatable, has now become more controversial. The substantial influence of experiential learning in creating well-rounded individuals has sparked controversy over the potential effect of this trend on institutionalised learning models in recent years. It can be agreed that both learning styles have a great impact, yet both have their drawbacks. This essay will elaborate on the effectiveness of “learning through doing” versus learning through written material, and how a combination of the two is essential in creating adaptable adults with transferable skills, and thus it will lead to a logical conclusion.
At the outset, there are numerous reasons why a combination of experiential and traditional learning models is the ideal scenario, but the most conspicuous one stems from the fact that this combination builds resilience, confidence, and know-how in learners because it is a well-rounded approach, which is preferable to simply learning through hands-on experience (limiting in terms of literacy and numeracy skills) or books (limiting in terms of no “real world” experiences that build more capable citizens). As an example, studies by Monash University reveal that students who receive a dual education perform better in their 20s, when life becomes uncertain and fraught with difficult life choices. A dual education, thus, plays a vital role in creating versatile individuals.
However, it has some drawbacks and some people tend to believe that a traditional education is preferable, as it fosters strong intellects and prepares students for the reality of a cut-throat, academically biased world. As an example, studies reveal that employers recruit based on academic performance alone. Experiential education, hence, is not always recognised as a valid form of education.
In conclusion, the push towards a dual education is compelling, however, it has some drawbacks that should not be overlooked.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | manraj123 | 70 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | Alireza.r.68 | 85 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | manraj123 | 55 | view |
| 2020-01-28 | manraj123 | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-27 | Alireza.r.68 | 88 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, look, so, thus, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 8.36945812808 131% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => 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: 1719.0 1207.87684729 142% => OK
No of words: 299.0 242.827586207 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7491638796 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29166659292 2.71678728327 121% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 139.433497537 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598662207358 0.580463131201 103% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 379.143842365 138% => 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: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 0.931034482759 537% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 3.65517241379 55% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 12.6551724138 87% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 122.59413654 50.4703680194 243% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 156.272727273 104.977214359 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1818181818 20.9669160288 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45454545455 7.25397266985 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
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: 0.0692348515611 0.242375264174 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0206415538817 0.0925447433944 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0234965358084 0.071462118173 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0316182188319 0.151781067708 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0335425360784 0.0609392437508 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.2 12.6369458128 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 53.1260098522 67% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.9458128079 137% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.2 8.32886699507 122% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 9.94827586207 166% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.5123152709 124% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 11.1111111111 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 10.0 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.