Prompt: Television cannot replace the book as a learning tool, which is why children are less well educated today. Ċ To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Did the technology Era decrease children capacity to learn? Are they less educated than the previous generation because of TV? I do not believe it. In this essay, I will outline reasons to support my opinion and explain my point of view. Ċ To begin with, after the development of the internet, education has been trying to embrace tech tools aiming to diversify the way of studying. To illustrate this, one case in point would be my father, as a teacher, has noticed that primary school children were having access to smartphones, already. Hence, since those machines are constantly present in daily life, allying them to methods of teaching was an attempt to turn the activity of studying more interesting to generation alpha kids, who are born knowing how to call Siri and ask anything they need. Ċ In stark contrast, although, I do believe that using a TV associated with reading would assist toddlers in the learning process, this phenomenon is not an excuse to transform television into a sort of surrogate book. Quoting one of RuPaul's Drag Race most iconic phrases, reading is fundamental. As an active action, picking a book and reading it stimulate brain areas and connections profoundly, leading information to long-term memory more effectively than in movie viewers who relish the passive action. Indeed, a TV set cannot replace books, and, conversely, books cannot replace the television. I do not consider today's children schooling system deficient comparing to boomers' education at their time. Ċ In conclusion, television and books cannot replace one another, and kids are not less educated today than generations before, therefore, the benefits of using those elements together outweigh the benefits of using them individually.