Experience is a more effective way to teach, compared to books. Experimental learning or traditional learning in high school and university, which one do you agree is more effective?
Recently, the differences between experimental learning and traditional learning has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question “which one is more effective?”. Whereas it is a widely held view that experiment ia a more effective way to teach, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the educational standpoint, the experimental learning is bound up inextricably with learning from good and bad consequences, which indicates they lead to both broadening horizons and maturity. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between environmental factors and a new lifestyle as well as an exponential increase in fundamental issues. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far supports the contention that the likelihood of major impacts is correlated positively with not only forming personal attitude but also extracurricular policy reform.
Within the realm of society, without the slightest doubt, public opinion attribute to traditional learning, in that it would come down to classic discipline, truancy, and child-labor. A salient example of such attribution is a hidden agenda, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take a feasible solution for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint current inefficient system problems. Besides, this criterion is an indispensable part of modern lifestyle. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal role of surveillance and education.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I firmly believe that both experimental and traditional learning must be taken into consideration. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we conceive the more we research, the further we discover.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.5418719212 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 8.36945812808 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 20.9802955665 100% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 31.9359605911 113% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1686.0 1207.87684729 140% => OK
No of words: 292.0 242.827586207 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77397260274 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34750069914 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 139.433497537 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.684931506849 0.580463131201 118% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 379.143842365 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.6157635468 152% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0838664362 50.4703680194 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.692307692 104.977214359 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4615384615 20.9669160288 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46153846154 7.25397266985 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245290946741 0.242375264174 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664339105677 0.0925447433944 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103171874207 0.071462118173 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151353408093 0.151781067708 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.153346067578 0.0609392437508 252% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 12.6369458128 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.1260098522 61% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.48 11.5310837438 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.84 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 55.0591133005 205% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 9.94827586207 171% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 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.