Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The education system is often at the center of interesting debates; some of them focus on the structure of schools themselves, but others are based on more abstract topics, such as which is the most correct way to educate students at every level. On this line of thought, some argue that educators (that is, teachers or advisors) should not present facts as they are; instead, they should first assure that their students have familiarity the appropriate context, in order for them to better understand the concept. This reasoning can indeed bring improvements to the learning system, though only to some extent.
In fact, the entire study-then-teach philosophy undoubtedly ensures that students grow as critical thinkers, as they are forced to contextualize the topic that is being analyzed before it is actually thought in class. This approach might be useful for advanced philosophy courses at the college level, where – for example – the concept of Platonic Love shall not be studied as is; it is indeed only after a thorough analysis of the various philosophers’ views that the student can come with its own idea on the subject and understand it. Therefore, at the beginning of a new topic, the educator might list a series of sources where the student can first have an overview, and only after that the professor may start its actual class.
Nonetheless, the previous example does not take into account the other, more numerous, situations in which this recommendation should not be applied. Especially at the junior high or high school level, during classes students are merely required to understand the topics they are taught and only after they may develop a critical opinion on the subject. The thing is, without the thorough guidance provided by the educator, these classes of students might not fully grasp the topic at hand and this may result in a worse performance later on.
Even after agreeing with these considerations, one could still argue that the academic way of teaching – that is, the one in which the educator teaches its lesson and then the students study it – is somewhat boring to most of today’s adolescents. Indeed, by stimulating their curiosity through pointing them to the right material to first explore the subject and only then teaching them about the main fact, educators could have a more solid grasp on the student’s often low attention spans and obtain a more efficient learning effect. An answer to this argument could be that while the claim is sound, the teacher should still maintain his guiding role by first telling the students about the topic in a thorough way, and only then pointing them to further material for deepening their knowledge.
In fact, the often boring lesson where the instructor just repeats its lesson and the students hear in a passive way should surely be enhanced, though the best way of doing it would be to ensure that the students understand about the main aspects of the topic; only after the lecture the teacher should guide them by citing the main sources to better understand the context and criticize its implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 711, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a thorough way" with adverb for "thorough"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...st telling the students about the topic in a thorough way, and only then pointing them to further...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 101, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a passive way" with adverb for "passive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...epeats its lesson and the students hear in a passive way should surely be enhanced, though the b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'may', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'in fact', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.220869565217 0.240241500013 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.144347826087 0.157235817809 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0713043478261 0.0880659088768 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0765217391304 0.0497285424764 154% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0452173913043 0.0444667217837 102% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126956521739 0.12292977631 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0417391304348 0.0406280797675 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66492600672 2.79330140395 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0226086956522 0.030933414821 73% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.126956521739 0.0997080785238 127% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0347826086957 0.0249443105267 139% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.015652173913 0.0148568991511 105% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3130.0 2732.02544248 115% => OK
No of words: 520.0 452.878318584 115% => OK
Chars per words: 6.01923076923 6.0361032391 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.58838876751 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.359615384615 0.366273622748 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.267307692308 0.280924506359 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184615384615 0.200843997647 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0903846153846 0.132149295362 68% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66492600672 2.79330140395 95% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 219.290929204 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476923076923 0.48968727796 97% => OK
Word variations: 55.8919140975 55.4138127331 101% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 20.6194690265 63% => OK
Sentence length: 40.0 23.380412469 171% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.1801042532 59.4972553346 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 240.769230769 141.124799967 171% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.0 23.380412469 171% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.674092028746 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 66.7307692308 51.4728631049 130% => OK
Elegance: 1.46405228758 1.64882698954 89% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388597295994 0.391690518653 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.166741441728 0.123202303941 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0943311137112 0.077325440228 122% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.693619746384 0.547984918172 127% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.133387404889 0.149214159877 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203840475443 0.161403998019 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457162239532 0.0892212321368 51% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.4988681481 0.385218514788 130% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0583689520956 0.0692045440612 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286118709401 0.275328986314 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265759295793 0.0653680567796 41% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.4325221239 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88274336283 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 7.22455752212 97% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 13.5995575221 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.