The advancement of techonology is believed to have lowered children creativity. Agree or disagree? Why?
Nowadays, in a progressively advancing era of technology, it is questioned whether children are influenced negatively by the invention and expansion of technology, hence becoming a controversial topic for discussion not only among professionals, but also other critic groups. While a proportion of the current community disaprove the undesire effect of technology, I, however, agree that children are now less creative than they are in the past for several reasons.
Firstly, children are now relying more than ever on technological devices in order to shorten their way toward perceiving and elaborating information. In other words, being in the exposure to a wide variety of information source coming from a newly established network called “internet”, children in recent time tend to have no problem finding reliable explaining for their concern, thus, becoming more dependent on the internet, search engines in particular. As a result, children nowadays have a lower capacity of producing personal critical point and ideas during personal research, slowly promoting a certain pattern that prohibit creative thinking and ideas due to the reliability and availability already provided by the net. Furthermore, as popular trend suggests, technological tools and machines are being implemented deeply into mutiple division of education, most of which were highly-advance, this also means that such features are able to help student understand each and every lessons more throughoutly by enhancing the illustration value. Consequently, student now have less tension to focus in studying, which leads to being restrained to a shallow mentality and one particular format while unable to break free from the prominence.
Secondly, techonology has consealed the children’s ability to generate new ideas and willingly support it. Specificallly, the involvement of numerous techonological construction and being in an overall technologically-advance era limit children from thinking differently due to the accessability of the internet nowadays. When one is able to come up with a new idea or eager to express their concern, informing others is an essential course of action to continouly progress, however, as easy as it may be for a person to share their perspective online, it also comes with a lot of consequences, one being the disagreement from a proportion of the community. As a result, this could be highly discouraging to the uploader, particularly the juvenile, and may cause the newly kindled idea and passion to perish.
The opposing views claim that technology do not make children less creative than they are in the past. Its undenieable that technology has allowed children to freely discover a wide range of information source online, which may contemporary be viable to their creativity. In particular, a sub varient of technology, the construction department may inspired children toward their future goal, this is however uncompensatable by its drawback since the effect above is highly temporary and unlikely. Conclusively, technology, while still having positive impact on children is insignificant to its negative counter-part, hence the opposing argument is posed invalid.
To sum up, those are the reasons why I agree that technology has made children less creative than they are in the past.
- Some people believe car should be developed at a smaller size in the future, some think it would be more beneficial for cars to be smaller in the future. Which of the two pathways would you prefer and why? 90
- The advancement of techonology is believed to have lowered children creativity. Agree or disagree? Why? 90
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, in particular, as a result, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 15.1003584229 166% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2825.0 1977.66487455 143% => OK
No of words: 507.0 407.700716846 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57199211045 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.48103885553 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.36690145788 2.67179642975 126% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 212.727598566 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552268244576 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 910.8 618.680645161 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 20.1344086022 154% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.589606347 48.9658058833 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 176.5625 100.406767564 176% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.6875 20.6045352989 154% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.875 5.45110844103 200% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178430290811 0.236089414692 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610772945943 0.076458572812 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418719759999 0.0737576698707 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103889431441 0.150856017488 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236459074134 0.0645574589148 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.6 11.7677419355 175% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.09 58.1214874552 40% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.10430107527 213% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 10.1575268817 174% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.62 10.9000537634 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.01818996416 128% => OK
difficult_words: 163.0 86.8835125448 188% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.002688172 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.0537634409 143% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.247311828 156% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.