Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past.
The way of living is changing constantly and the advent of technology has transformed it in many ways so that human beings in different ranges of age have been affected by that. It appears giving more attention to the consequences of this factor on children’s creativity is a vital matter. In this regard, some people believe the growth of technology has had a positive effect on creativity. Meanwhile, others think children have been more creative before technological improvement. Personally speaking, I consider technology as an inhibitor of fostering creative characteristics in children and state my reasons for this view in the following paragraphs.
First of all, children are frequently learning creativity by playing and unfortunately, the majority of plays stifle this characteristic in children. Nowadays, plays are designed based on technology and anything related to game stages is already defined so that prevent children from free-thinking. Indeed, they do not have any power of decision and must pass the stages one by one until the final phase. Literally, they repeat one defined process without having any power of relocation. In contrast, in the past, they played outside with their friends. In this way, they were able to identify the form of playing. Obviously, kids determined the type of game and the rules related that by themselves. For example, mud play was one of the favorable plays in the past, before the development of technology. That offered endless opportunities for creative expression, including mud sculpture, mud picture and designs and also mud body painting. Certainly, children in the past were more creative than the technological' world of today.
Besides, the educational system is another influential factor in levels of creativity in children, affected adversely by technology. The quality of creativity in children is relied on how well they educated by schools. Before, children were more involved in writing essays and poems. Also, they practiced handwriting more than today. As the availability of training resources was less than these days, pupils were trying to solve problems by themselves, while nowadays, the internet and other facilities based on technology provide teachers and students with different resources about their lessons. Furthermore, children now are writing by means of software and employing a variety of software for paining instead of paper and pencil. By and large, decreasing creative intellectual stimulations has resulted in a considerable decline in children’s ability to use their imagination to produce new ideas, make things, and so forth. As a result, previously, in the world of a low level of technology, children were allowed to develop their creativity better than in recent years.
In conclusion, in the past, the creativity trait was more powerful in children than today because two main agents, including playing tools and education methods, were the most appropriate stimulators for developing this property.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-08 | nguyenthaian0127 | 90 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | yuktapradeep | 60 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | theprasad | 66 | view |
| 2023-05-18 | fanassertive | 71 | view |
| 2023-05-18 | weiwei | 70 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People benefit more from traveling in their own country than from traveling to foreign countries 90
- tpo18 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better for children to choose jobs that are similar to their parents jobs than to choose jobs that are very different from their parents job 73
- Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past 93
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement One of the best ways that parents can help their teenage children prepare for adult life is to encourage them to take a part time job 70
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, furthermore, if, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, as a result, by and large, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 9.8082437276 10% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.0286738351 45% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 52.1666666667 150% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 466.0 407.700716846 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45493562232 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04427108444 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 212.727598566 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545064377682 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 796.5 618.680645161 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.94265232975 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4859794713 48.9658058833 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.916666667 100.406767564 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4166666667 20.6045352989 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.45110844103 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 11.8709677419 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.432536300301 0.236089414692 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121815535945 0.076458572812 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0917261257117 0.0737576698707 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255792534112 0.150856017488 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626075265393 0.0645574589148 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 11.7677419355 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 58.1214874552 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 10.9000537634 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 86.8835125448 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.