Some people think that we should group children according to their intelligence level; others believe that children who are of different intelligence should be mixed up and be taught together. What is your opinion?

Over the past decade, classification on students’ intellectuality has been receiving a great deal of public attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on children’s academic performances. Although certain educators, on the one hand, encourage that corresponding gifted students should be clustered with their counterparts, I hold a belief that it is not without drawbacks. This will be proven by analyzing the merits mentioned below.
Admittedly, there are some arguments in favor of organizing those parallel peers in a group. First, this practice is believed to promote teachers’ efficiency of lesson preparation thanks to students’ resemblance in terms of receptivity. In other words, it tends not only to curtail a considerable amount of time consumption on school fundamental lectures but also to optimize it, which is eventually conducive to facilitating students’ greater understanding with respect to further demanding knowledge. Second, gatherings of high intelligence students may give a rise to their classmates’ motivation to strive in study. Inherently, this is responsible for the establishment of a competitive learning environment, which effectively stimulates the comprehensive cultivation of those quick-witted learners in a massive extent.
Nevertheless, the resultant problems would move in tandem once the aforementioned practice is widely applied. First, students’ dissociation upon their intelligence quotient may come at the expense of lower intelligence ones in terms of mentality. Undoubtedly, this will thrive children to the susceptibility of inferiority, thereby acting as a deterrent for them to confidently manifest their full potentials in non-academic areas, such as arts. Additionally, the advocates of abolishing intellectual separation among students may argue that it would produce certain negative effects on teachers. This means that the occurrence of grouping them associated to their pedagogical qualifications will emerged accordingly, which is perceivably a primary precursor contributed to skeptical concerns on teacher evaluation upon apparent certificates instead of teaching quality.
In conclusion, despite the positive points of categorizing students based on intelligence, its side effects should also be taken into consideration. It would probably necessitate proactive remedies to alleviate related impacts on both teachers and learners.

Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

"classification on students’ intellectuality" -> "classification of students by intellectual ability"
Explanation: The term "intellectuality" is not a standard academic term and is vague. "Intellectual ability" is more precise and commonly used in academic contexts.
"receiving a great deal of public attention" -> "attracting significant public attention"
Explanation: "Attracting significant public attention" is a more formal and precise way to describe the extent of public interest.
"encourage that corresponding gifted students" -> "advocate for grouping gifted students"
Explanation: "Advocate for" is more specific and formal than "encourage that," and "grouping" is clearer than "corresponding."
"I hold a belief" -> "I believe"
Explanation: "I believe" is a more straightforward and academically appropriate expression.
"not without drawbacks" -> "not without its drawbacks"
Explanation: Adding "its" clarifies that the drawbacks refer to the grouping strategy.
"merits mentioned below" -> "advantages discussed below"
Explanation: "Advantages" is more specific and academically appropriate than "merits" in this context.
"teachers’ efficiency of lesson preparation" -> "teachers’ efficiency in lesson preparation"
Explanation: "In" is the correct preposition for indicating the manner in which something is done, making the phrase more grammatically correct.
"curtail a considerable amount of time consumption" -> "reduce the significant time required"
Explanation: "Reduce the significant time required" is more direct and formal, avoiding the awkward construction of "curtail a considerable amount of time consumption."
"optimize it" -> "optimize their preparation"
Explanation: Adding "their" clarifies that the optimization is related to the teachers’ preparation.
"give a rise to" -> "lead to"
Explanation: "Lead to" is a more direct and formal expression than "give a rise to."
"comprehensive cultivation" -> "comprehensive development"
Explanation: "Development" is more commonly used in academic contexts to describe the growth or improvement of students.
"in a massive extent" -> "to a significant extent"
Explanation: "To a significant extent" is more precise and academically appropriate than "in a massive extent."
"students’ dissociation upon their intelligence quotient" -> "students’ separation based on their intelligence quotient"
Explanation: "Separation based on" is clearer and more direct than "dissociation upon."
"thrive children to the susceptibility of inferiority" -> "lead children to feelings of inferiority"
Explanation: "Lead children to feelings of inferiority" is clearer and more direct, avoiding the awkward construction of "thrive children to the susceptibility of."
"acting as a deterrent for them to confidently manifest their full potentials" -> "deter them from fully realizing their potential"
Explanation: "Deter them from fully realizing their potential" is more concise and formal.
"the occurrence of grouping them associated to their pedagogical qualifications" -> "the grouping of students based on their pedagogical qualifications"
Explanation: "The grouping of students based on their pedagogical qualifications" is clearer and more grammatically correct.
"emerged accordingly" -> "followed accordingly"
Explanation: "Followed accordingly" is more appropriate in this context, indicating the consequence of the grouping.
"skeptical concerns on teacher evaluation upon apparent certificates" -> "skeptical concerns about teacher evaluation based on apparent certificates"
Explanation: "About" is more appropriate than "on" in this context, and "based on" clarifies the basis of the evaluation.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8

Band Score for Task Response: 8

Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both sides of the argument regarding whether children should be grouped by intelligence or mixed together. The introduction clearly states the topic and presents the writer’s opinion against grouping by intelligence. The body paragraphs discuss the advantages of grouping gifted students and the drawbacks of such practices, thus covering the prompt comprehensively. However, while the essay presents both perspectives, it could benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the mixed approach as a viable alternative.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the writer could include a brief discussion of the benefits of mixed-ability classrooms, providing a more balanced view. This could involve mentioning how diverse classrooms can foster social skills and collaboration among students of varying abilities.
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The essay maintains a clear position against grouping students by intelligence throughout the text. The writer articulates their belief in the drawbacks of such a system in both the introduction and conclusion, reinforcing their stance. However, there are moments where the language could be simplified for clarity, which might confuse the reader about the position being taken.
- How to improve: To ensure clarity, the writer should aim for more straightforward language and sentence structures. Additionally, reiterating the main argument in each body paragraph could help to reinforce the position more effectively.
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents several ideas, such as the efficiency of lesson preparation and the motivation of gifted students, but these points could be developed further. For instance, while the idea of a competitive learning environment is introduced, it lacks specific examples or evidence to support the claim. The discussion of the negative impacts on lower intelligence students is more developed, but it could also benefit from concrete examples or studies to strengthen the argument.
- How to improve: The writer should aim to provide specific examples or real-world implications to support their claims. This could involve citing studies or statistics that illustrate the effects of grouping versus mixing students, thereby extending and substantiating the ideas presented.
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally stays on topic, focusing on the debate surrounding the grouping of students by intelligence. However, there are instances where the discussion veers slightly off course, particularly in the second body paragraph, where the focus shifts to teacher evaluation without a clear connection to the main argument.
- How to improve: To maintain focus, the writer should ensure that each point made directly relates back to the central question of the essay. Clarifying how each argument ties into the overall discussion of student grouping will help keep the essay cohesive and on topic.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and presents a well-reasoned argument. With some adjustments to clarity, development of ideas, and a more balanced view of the alternatives, the essay could achieve an even higher score.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 7

Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction effectively sets the stage for the discussion by outlining the topic and the writer’s stance. The body paragraphs are organized to first present arguments in favor of grouping students by intelligence, followed by counterarguments. However, the logical flow could be improved. For instance, the transition between the first and second body paragraphs could be smoother, as the connection between the benefits of grouping and the drawbacks is somewhat abrupt.
- How to improve: To enhance logical organization, consider using clearer topic sentences that not only introduce the main idea of each paragraph but also link back to the thesis. Additionally, using transitional phrases such as "On the contrary" or "Conversely" at the beginning of the second body paragraph could help signal the shift from positive to negative aspects more effectively.
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay uses paragraphs effectively, with each paragraph focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of grouping students, while the second addresses the disadvantages. However, the paragraphs could be more balanced in length and depth. The first body paragraph is significantly longer and more detailed than the second, which may lead to an imbalance in the argumentation.
- How to improve: Aim for a more balanced approach by ensuring that each paragraph contains a similar amount of detail and analysis. This can be achieved by expanding on the points made in the second body paragraph, providing more examples or elaboration on the negative impacts of grouping students, thus ensuring that both sides of the argument are equally represented.
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a reasonable use of cohesive devices, such as conjunctions and transitional phrases, to connect ideas within and between sentences. Phrases like "on the one hand" and "on the contrary" are used effectively to present contrasting views. However, there is a tendency to rely on a limited range of cohesive devices, which can make the writing feel somewhat repetitive and less engaging.
- How to improve: To diversify the use of cohesive devices, consider incorporating a wider variety of linking words and phrases. For example, instead of repeatedly using "first" and "second," you could use "firstly," "additionally," "furthermore," and "in contrast." Additionally, employing more complex cohesive devices, such as "this suggests that" or "as a result," can help to create a more sophisticated and fluid argument.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of coherence and cohesion, there are areas for improvement in logical organization, paragraph balance, and the variety of cohesive devices used. By addressing these points, the overall clarity and effectiveness of the argument can be significantly enhanced.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7

Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary with terms like "intellectuality," "receptivity," "dissociation," and "susceptibility." These words reflect an attempt to use academic language, which is appropriate for the task. However, some vocabulary choices appear somewhat forced or less common, such as "corresponding gifted students" and "quick-witted learners," which may not resonate as naturally in context.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, the writer could incorporate more varied synonyms and phrases that are commonly used in academic writing. For instance, instead of "corresponding gifted students," using "gifted students" or "high-achieving students" would sound more natural. Additionally, integrating idiomatic expressions or collocations relevant to education could further enrich the vocabulary.
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: While the essay includes some precise vocabulary, there are instances of imprecise usage. For example, the phrase "the occurrence of grouping them associated to their pedagogical qualifications" is convoluted and may confuse readers. The term "intellectuality" is also less common and could be replaced with "intelligence" for clarity.
- How to improve: The writer should focus on clarity and precision in word choice. Simplifying complex phrases and opting for more straightforward vocabulary can enhance understanding. For instance, instead of "the occurrence of grouping them associated to their pedagogical qualifications," a clearer expression could be "grouping students based on their teachers’ qualifications." This not only improves precision but also makes the argument more accessible.
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally exhibits good spelling, with only minor errors. However, the phrase "will emerged accordingly" contains a grammatical error ("emerged" should be "emerge"), which detracts from the overall quality. Additionally, "a massive extent" could be better phrased as "a significant extent" to avoid awkwardness.
- How to improve: To improve spelling and grammatical accuracy, the writer should proofread the essay carefully. Utilizing tools like spell checkers or grammar-checking software can help identify errors. Furthermore, practicing writing shorter sentences can reduce the likelihood of grammatical mistakes and enhance clarity.

In summary, while the essay demonstrates a commendable level of lexical resource, focusing on natural vocabulary usage, enhancing precision, and ensuring grammatical accuracy will help elevate the score further.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 7

Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good variety of sentence structures. For instance, complex sentences such as "Although certain educators, on the one hand, encourage that corresponding gifted students should be clustered with their counterparts, I hold a belief that it is not without drawbacks" effectively convey nuanced ideas. Additionally, the use of conditional structures, such as "this will thrive children to the susceptibility of inferiority," showcases an attempt to express hypothetical outcomes. However, there are instances of awkward phrasing and overly complex constructions that may hinder clarity, such as "which is perceivably a primary precursor contributed to skeptical concerns on teacher evaluation upon apparent certificates instead of teaching quality."
- How to improve: To enhance the diversity of sentence structures, consider incorporating more varied sentence openings and lengths. For example, mix shorter sentences with longer, more complex ones to create a more dynamic flow. Additionally, aim for clarity by simplifying overly complex sentences. Practicing sentence combining exercises can help in achieving this balance.
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a reasonable level of grammatical accuracy, with only a few noticeable errors. For example, the phrase "the occurrence of grouping them associated to their pedagogical qualifications will emerged accordingly" contains a grammatical error; "emerged" should be "emerge." Furthermore, punctuation is generally well-handled, though there are instances where commas could enhance readability, such as before "which effectively stimulates the comprehensive cultivation of those quick-witted learners in a massive extent."
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, focus on subject-verb agreement and verb tense consistency. Regularly reviewing grammar rules and practicing with targeted exercises can help. Additionally, consider reading the essay aloud to catch awkward phrasing and punctuation errors, as this can often highlight areas that need correction or simplification.

Overall, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of grammatical range and accuracy, focusing on clarity and precision will further enhance the effectiveness of the writing.

Bài sửa mẫu

Over the past decade, the classification of students by intellectual ability has been receiving a great deal of public attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on children’s academic performances. Although certain educators, on the one hand, advocate for grouping gifted students with their counterparts, I believe that this approach is not without its drawbacks. This will be proven by analyzing the merits discussed below.

Admittedly, there are some arguments in favor of organizing those parallel peers in a group. First, this practice is believed to promote teachers’ efficiency in lesson preparation thanks to students’ resemblance in terms of receptivity. In other words, it tends not only to reduce the significant time required for fundamental school lectures but also to optimize it, which is eventually conducive to facilitating students’ greater understanding with respect to further demanding knowledge. Second, gatherings of high intelligence students may lead to an increase in their classmates’ motivation to strive in their studies. Inherently, this is responsible for the establishment of a competitive learning environment, which effectively stimulates the comprehensive development of those quick-witted learners to a significant extent.

Nevertheless, the resultant problems would move in tandem once the aforementioned practice is widely applied. First, students’ separation based on their intelligence quotient may come at the expense of lower intelligence ones in terms of mentality. Undoubtedly, this will lead children to feelings of inferiority, thereby acting as a deterrent for them to confidently realize their full potential in non-academic areas, such as the arts. Additionally, the advocates of abolishing intellectual separation among students may argue that it would produce certain negative effects on teachers. This means that the grouping of students based on their pedagogical qualifications will emerge accordingly, which is perceivably a primary precursor contributing to skeptical concerns about teacher evaluation based on apparent certificates instead of teaching quality.

In conclusion, despite the positive points of categorizing students based on intelligence, its side effects should also be taken into consideration. It would probably necessitate proactive remedies to alleviate related impacts on both teachers and learners.