This seemed like an intriguing prompt to bring in to close our debates about technology in the classroom. Throughout this module, we have been discussing for and against technology being used in certain ways in different classrooms across the nation. Though we can all benefit as aspiring educators from technology becoming an ever-changing asset to the educational landscape, it's integration is still very debatable and sketchy. This blurb on the EducationWeek website caught my eye immediately and infers something quite important for my own subject matter. Could it be too invasive for us to let a machine grade essays? A recent study suggests that machines can be just as useful in evaluating essays as a human is. The subject is controversial. Yes, I think that "automated grading would reshape assessment and reshape teaching". But could it also hurt in the process? Is this giving our students their best FAIR shot?
As an English major and aspiring educator, the aspect of "constructive criticism" for an essay or writing assignment is essential to maintaining an effective writing style, a strong writer's voice, and exploring the texts that we encounter all the time through different analytical lenses. I was struck by this prompt because if an essay can be evaluated by a machine for every criteria that a professor can expect a student to expound upon, could English teachers be expendable and almost useless? I can see how this technology may benefit by reducing the grading load that the teacher would have to evaluate, but it seems to be taking the place of an educator so much so that it is not facilitating help for the teacher, but shoving them out the classroom door.
Debates about this are truly important because they affect teachers being potentially replaced by machines that can do the same job. Technology is helping shape students of the future, but will it be the shaping force behind students or the shaping tool used by teachers to facilitate learning? I am not sure that this tool can be used without potentially putting an expiration date on certain subject teachers. It seems like a good tool that can be misled and become very problematic when evaluating students for necessary criteria.
Though automated grading has been used for decades for standardized testing as well as Scantron tests where there is generally only one potential answer for a given question, this tool is providing the teacher help in grading student's work. This can helpful for teachers of any subject such as Math, Science, History, Music, and English. However, when essays and written assignments are involved, it is different. Essays generally involve personal opinion and individualized thought. I am not sure that an automated grader can help evaluate an essay for correct thoughts being expressed when they vary from student to student. In this case, the variance is very wide and I don't see this being as helpful as some suggest.
What do you think? Does this make you nervous? How do you see it? Sound off with comments!
Girard, after reading your article, I would like to comment that this does make me very nervous! I was once told by an English teacher at my high school that "if the administration could replace us with robots they would!" At first, I assumed she was being a bit cynical, but with this article, I'm forced to ask how real her assertion may have been. I agree that writing is a mode of self expression that cannot be judged through the formulaic "yes or no, correct or wrong" system of bubble-in-the-answer, standardized test. By having automated grading for essay writing, we reduce ours students' writing to a formula that cannot be changed. There would be no creativity! Although my fears may sound extreme, I have already seen in many classrooms teachers that only show their students one method of writing essays, and they grade their students on this one method. Should a student not follow the method/rubric, they lose points, and presumably, are nervous in the future about trying to express themselves in that mode again. While technology should be integrated into the classroom to benefit our students, assuming that ALL technology is beneficial can become a detriment to progress in education.
ReplyDeleteGirard, if computers replace human teachers, students will lose out on learning that occurs when there is a personal interaction between two people. What are your thoughts on this statement?
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteI agree heavily with your statement as well as Lizz's comment. By eliminating most of the face to face communication that education has held in high regard for so long, I do think that we are limiting the amount of learning that a student can absorb. This is not to say that students do not have the individual potential to learn material on their own, it is just saying that I feel it is less effective. In my personal experiences, I have learned far more material when I learn by an educator in person because there is an aspect to physically forcing me as a student to engage in what I am learning. I know there are distractions that lead students away in a classroom, but I feel that I learn better in that setting anyway. If I am learning from something or someone online, there are just as many if not more distractions that can hinder the learning setting. I have learned a great deal from online classes such as this one, but I don't feel that it is as effective as learning in person and will integrate certain aspects when I am educator to help aid in this deficit.
Girard,
ReplyDeleteAfter taking a load of education courses, I definitely agree with your comment and points made at the end of your post. This semester alone I realized I learned twice as much and better from communicating and reflecting with my peers. I know I learned the information originally from my teacher, which to me is much better than self teaching (lack of interest when alone, teacher motivation is not there, no peer reflection, etc). Being able to reflect and share ideas among people in the same community has proved over and over to be beneficial. Now, when it comes to grading I am baffled at the concept of a machine grading an essay. I'm not an English teacher but like you mentioned, sometimes essays can be personal or emotional- an to my knowledge I didn't think a machine could pick up on these concepts. From an art educators perspective this becomes scary. If a machine can grade an essay- whats stopping them from creating a machine that can scan a piece of art work and identify all the elements the student used or is lacking and shove out a grade? Seems plausible to me. But this would take away from important skill building opportunities- such as teacher-student interaction, critiques, peer reflection and more. As of now I would not want this device used in my classroom as a dominant grading tool, but maybe it could provide a base to grading (machine first, and teacher looks it over). Either way this technologies consequences should be considered carefully before implementing it into a classroom.