ghvslrug h;weiHF;EORIGH;oiefhgae;irug

It’s widely believed by some people that linguistic teachers should better praising students’ works which are done pretty well, rather than trying to find inaccuracies and mistakes in them. In my opinion, I completely agree that criticism is extremely important in the performance of any job. On the one hand, almost every sort of work can’t be done perfectly and has a room for improvement. Language skills are really hard to get and masters are the ones who were taught to help pupils to achieve more in a dialect usage. For instance, a pedagogue may suggest a new better kind of vocabulary which learner wasn’t aware of before and can exploit it in the future projects that will demonstrate their betterment. Another point to consider is that rigorous performance assessment probably adversely affects the growth of potential of disciples. People might take criticism too seriously and become afraid to express themselves fully. For example, there are people who are by their nature are prone to harsh self-criticism, so an unwanted evaluation of their work, which was done fine in principle, can demotivate a student to keep trying their best. In conclusion, strict teaching is more beneficial for discovering mistakes and improving language skills.