The statement contends that technology is responsible for less creativity in children today. Although, some may disagree, I believe that that statement is absolutely correct. The children in the past were much more creative than they are today.
Children develop creativity in them by thinking over a problem they may face or indulging in newer experiences and interests that they have never been exposed to. With the advancement of technology and easier access to more information, children no longer seek to think thoroughly and thus creatively about the possible solutions to a given problem. Rather, they use the internet to search for already existing solutions. This not only hampers the development of creativity in children but also makes them more dependent on the technology. Today's parents also have the same mentality which encourages the children to seek existing solutions than think for better and creative solutions.
With the increase of technology in our surroundings and their easy access, present-day children have less time to indulge in other physical or mental activities. For instance, a child would rather play a video game or watch TV during his/her free time than learn a new sport or activity like football or painting that has better chances of developing creativity in the child. Such was not the case in the past. Children did not have such advanced technology and easy access to them, hence, they were forced to participate in more productive activities like reading a book or learning a sport, etc. Lack of extracurricular activity in the child's spare time is the main cause of declining creativity in today's children.
Although, some argue that with the advancement of technology, we have better access to each other's ideas and better communication systems that help in sharing ideas and concepts. This sharing of ideas not only helps a person get a better perspective of someone else's point of view but also forces them to think in another direction. The argument seems true, but the proponents of this argument fail to recognize the inherent assumption. The assumption that the side effects of using technology have little to no effect on children. Agreed, they might use technology for spreading ideas but the amount of time spent in doing that is a very small portion of the overall time spent on using the technology.
In conclusion, I believe that technology has made children less creative than they were in the past.
- It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 73
- Some people say that the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think access to much information creates problems. Which view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- TPO-11 - Integrated Writing Task A recent study reveals that people especially young people are reading far less literature,novels, plays, and poems,than they used to. This is troubling because the trend has unfortunate effects for the reading public, for 73
- TPO-13 - Integrated Writing Task Private collectors have been selling and buying fossils, the petrified remains of ancient organisms, ever since the eighteenth century. In recent years, however, the sale of fossils, particularly of dinosaurs and other lar 80
- Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, may, so, thus, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 52.1666666667 113% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2068.0 1977.66487455 105% => OK
No of words: 403.0 407.700716846 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13151364764 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78225633557 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 212.727598566 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498759305211 0.524837075471 95% => OK
syllable_count: 645.3 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7565966205 48.9658058833 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.842105263 100.406767564 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2105263158 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15789473684 5.45110844103 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.435554532334 0.236089414692 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156404110658 0.076458572812 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.196272680614 0.0737576698707 266% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.364599253202 0.150856017488 242% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.261476742886 0.0645574589148 405% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 11.7677419355 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.01818996416 103% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 86.8835125448 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.