Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
There is a widespread opinion nowadays that technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. A lot of academical research has been done recently to explore this topic in detail by scientists, psychologists and professors from all over the world. To a certain extent, it can be true: some recent researchers of a Russian State University claim that children who tend to spend their spare time playing computer games or watching television instead of spending more time in the “real life” activities tend to show weaker interpersonal skills and act in a more straightforward way in the academic tests provided during the studies. However, the key point is the understanding of the term “creativeness” in a right way. And if we consider this issue from another’s perspective, we can assume that new technology and the wide access to it of children from all over the world can contribute to the world’s creativeness in a most breathtaking and tremendous way.
Traditional academic tests make conclusions about the creativity of children from the traditional tests elaborated some years or even decades ago. They eventually can show the advantage of children less attracted by technology in coping with certain problems or cases in study. On this occasion the way of thinking and theorizing of “technological” children can show some points of weaknesses in terms of diversity and imagination.
Equally important, there is a risk to become virtuality dependent for a child spending too much time with modern gadgets. Children’s neurological system is more liable and vulnerable than that of an adult and sometimes children become oblivious to their surroundings, to reality itself, and tools start making rules for them, whereas it should be the other way round.
Nonetheless, it would be rash to conclude that the technology cannot enhance creativity and help children to develop their skills and imagination. A prime example of the advantage that technology brings all over the world is the free access to the resources and information for the children who stood no chance even a couple of decades ago to get to learn the things they can get access to now. A lot of free online courses, virtual museum tours, the access to world’s cultural heritage can boost children’s creativity, inspire them and show the path that one can take. Another important gift that technology brings is the incredible opportunities to create for disabled children from all over the world. The new tools and programs now allow to draw, construct, design, invent and create in the most fascinating way, giving equal chances to those originally left behind.
In the final analysis, it appears that technology can be both the enemy and the main ally. It can make the life of our children full of opportunities and give them tools to create a world of their dreams or conversely drag them away from the reality in the utopian virtual world, taking control of their desires and depriving them of their best qualities and competences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 722, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a right way" with adverb for "right"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...nderstanding of the term “creativeness” in a right way. And if we consider this issue from ano...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
... terms of diversity and imagination. Equally important, there is a risk to become vi...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 743, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'drawing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: drawing
...d. The new tools and programs now allow to draw, construct, design, invent and create i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, however, if, nonetheless, so, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 13.8261648746 174% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 43.0788530466 86% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.0752688172 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2565.0 1977.66487455 130% => OK
No of words: 499.0 407.700716846 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14028056112 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98808011549 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 212.727598566 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507014028056 0.524837075471 97% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 29.0 20.1344086022 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.6955749645 48.9658058833 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.882352941 100.406767564 150% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3529411765 20.6045352989 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17647058824 5.45110844103 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => 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: 0.160233137596 0.236089414692 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688285940277 0.076458572812 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0946922208982 0.0737576698707 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0909333408303 0.150856017488 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438493595064 0.0645574589148 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 11.7677419355 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 58.1214874552 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 10.1575268817 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 86.8835125448 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 10.002688172 195% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.0537634409 135% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => 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.