92
Educators should base their assessment of students' learning not on students' grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas, trends, and concepts that those facts illustrate.
The statement claims that ability to explicate the knowledge should be the core of evaluating a student’s academic performance rather than the understanding the fact itself. To communicate with what one has learned is very helpful in terms of education and practice. It helps students to study more deeply and use what education taught them practically. Yet, despite its benefits, to the ability to an explanation is not the appropriate criterion for the evaluation for students. It is closely related but a separate ability from what many academic courses aim to teach. Moreover, the meaning of ‘illustrate’ depends on who is the audience of the illustration.
To understand the knowledge and to explain it to others are closely related. Students can get familiar with the course materials by having group study sessions with other students. In the process of mutual teaching, not only they are more motivated by the responsibility to their friends, but also, they can understand the knowledge more clearly by organizing it into the deliverable form that can help others to understand as themselves did. In addition, to illustrate is a very important skill in nowadays. Since society today is fractured into various specialized fields, people from another field needs detailed explication to construe what students are saying about. For example, consider an architect who is presenting his scheme of a corporation headquarter building in front of its board whose members would know a lot of management or manufacturing but not much about the construction of buildings. He cannot tout his plan efficiently if he cannot explain his idea clearly although he is able to paint, understand, and even memorize his idea in his mind.
However, with all the boons and importance of the illustration education, it is not proper to select it as the kernel of the appraisal in education given the subject who evaluate the performances of students. It requires its own class for it one dedicated only to the communication or presentation skills. Unlike in group study session with peers who are not completely understood the course materials or people from different fields, forms of assessment of an academic course is for people who already know about the ideas even in presentation. For example, in the test, the lecturer or professor would not expect his or her student to elaborate about quantum mechanics in a vernacular way. Series of the equation and few sentences to show the definitions of the variable would work. Even if the educator uses the illustrative assessments, the audiences including the peer students are supposed to know the idea that is being presented. From the eye of a newcomer to the field, what is an excellent presentation for the professor, for example, the proof of Fermat’s last theorem, one of the most incredible intellectual performances in modern mathematics, would look like abstract or even totally inscrutable, and full of jargons. Besides, it would be very rare that students have to let novices to know about advanced mathematics with colloquial languages. In short, educationally and practically, the explanation standard is not necessary.
The reasoning above shows that communication with the wisdom instructed into students mind through class is important, but it is not the golden standard of the academic evaluation. It benefits students a lot, but making it the essential part of the evaluation would be not necessary given the context that the evaluation is held. The more course materials deal with an advanced theme, the abstracter the explication will be - and that is the point of the advanced theme. To require them to illustrate it into an understandable form to the ordinary layperson is not only overwhelming but also impractical. Educators should educate their students and see them how they do. It is communication educators’ job to check that how do they communicate to others with the knowledge they have in their mind.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: IN_NOWADAYS[1]
Message: nowadays is used without 'in'. Use simply: 'nowadays'.
Suggestion: nowadays
...to illustrate is a very important skill in nowadays. Since society today is fractured into ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 608, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "needs detailed" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'detailing' or 'to be detailed'.
Suggestion: detailing; to be detailed
...fields, people from another field needs detailed explication to construe what students a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 672, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a vernacular way" with adverb for "vernacular"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...nt to elaborate about quantum mechanics in a vernacular way. Series of the equation and few sentenc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, look, moreover, so, for example, in addition, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 95.0 58.6224719101 162% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 12.9106741573 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3361.0 2235.4752809 150% => OK
No of words: 643.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22706065319 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.03561760524 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1544002021 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 304.0 215.323595506 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472783825816 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 1057.5 704.065955056 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 13.0 4.38483146067 296% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0984205538 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.035714286 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9642857143 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.10714285714 5.21951772744 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.83258426966 248% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152731401035 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0435283826547 0.0831039109588 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510044318702 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108372938059 0.150359130593 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0624362260264 0.0667264976115 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.