Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:Some people think that some lessons for young children(age 4-8) which include video games can serve as effective and interesting ways of learning, while others think that these lessons are quite distracting and can be seen as a waste of time.
Education, especially for children with a young age, has long been taken as a kind of importance. In order to help little kids have better academic performance and higher studying efficiency, teachers and parents spare no efforts. With the limitation towards technology increasingly developed, however, some lessons now even include some video games. This novel method to learn spare a vibrant discussion. Some people think it makes children get absent-minded more easily, but I disagree with it.
To begin with, the video games included in the course make children understand the knowledge in a less boring way. That is because that it is hard for little kids to keep concentrated for a long time as the university students. Using the melody and colorful vision, children can be attracted to the screen and mimic the words in the video spontaneously. Take my little brother’s experience as an example. My brother, who had some talent in science courses when he was in the primary school, felt deeply depressed about English. Due to his poor vocabulary, he never could get a high score in English and considered himself as an “linguistic idiot”. To relieve stress, his classmates encouraged him to play video games made by the British for a while. The video games were so attracting that he got a good rest. Meanwhile, he found that the words in the games were deeply remembered in his mind without studying hard like before. From this moment, he suddenly found that video games should not be just a way to entertain, but also an efficient way to learn. Considering his story, studying through video games can be efficient but interesting.
Second, studying through video games can be feasible. People nowadays cannot live without electronic devises. With so many apps that can play video games, young children can acquire knowledge everywhere. They can just learn and review the lessons by playing the video games in their parents’ smart phones when they are waiting the bus and so on. Moreover, with the instant feedback of the results, they can easily find out their weakness. Compared to the past, children could get same instant feedback merely through tests and assignments which took up too much time. According to a survey by a famous institution in Canada, kindergartens in the North America apply 20% more video games to teaching than before. The more that they apply, the more chances kids can get reviewed actually. Thus, video games offer more convenience.
Admittedly, video games may attract children too much that they would just stand before the screen hours and hours without feeling tired. While, if a parent can supervise this frequently, how this can happen? If some kids spend too much time on learning in a boring way, it can also harm a lot. Thus, playing video games included in the course cannot be thought as a definite excuse to waste time and distract oneself.
To sum up, playing video games enabled us to learn more happily and conveniently. While the traditional way to learn is primary, the new method like playing video games should be also taken as an important way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to spare'
Suggestion: to spare
...video games. This novel method to learn spare a vibrant discussion. Some people think...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 255, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a boring way" with adverb for "boring"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...me kids spend too much time on learning in a boring way, it can also harm a lot. Thus, playing ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, thus, while, kind of, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 9.8082437276 194% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 43.0788530466 91% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 52.1666666667 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2611.0 1977.66487455 132% => OK
No of words: 522.0 407.700716846 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00191570881 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.48103885553 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68229062381 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 212.727598566 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521072796935 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 795.6 618.680645161 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.6003584229 150% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1958918308 48.9658058833 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.2258064516 100.406767564 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8387096774 20.6045352989 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45161290323 5.45110844103 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265214379976 0.236089414692 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0713928261007 0.076458572812 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511350713765 0.0737576698707 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154873332133 0.150856017488 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413573631455 0.0645574589148 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 11.7677419355 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 58.1214874552 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 10.1575268817 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 10.9000537634 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 86.8835125448 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.