4 ms·

Math homework can be auto graded as well. I wouldn’t shred a tear that no one reads whether I got the arithmetic questions right or wrong. The point of all the

Math homework can be auto graded as well. I wouldn’t shred a tear that no one reads whether I got the arithmetic questions right or wrong. The point of all the works is to improve your abilities. Your first short story written at the age of 7 isn’t going to be a blockbuster, it’s just trash you write to improve your ability to write. Using robo grading means more absolutely horrible essays that have no value on their own can be written and graded without a teacher having to spend the huge amounts of time it takes to grade them.

michaelt 8y ago
You might be right that the writing I did at age 7 was absolutely horrible trash with no value. But my teachers went out of their way to give me the opposite impression. Why do you think that was?
ebiester 8y ago
The answer is incorrect. Your answer: 18 The answer: 18 Anyone who has taken an autograded test or two will know it has bugs. Sometimes, they don't trim (see above) or not expressed in a way that a computer determines is equivalent. In the case in the article, we are talking about mass graded assessments, and we can see that those who have access to wealth also have access to those who can teach them to game the system. For something as small as assessments, it probably doesn't matter on an individual level - that's always been true and one of the ways that wealth keeps its statistical advantage. However, this will also creep into the poorer school districts and as that happens, this gets truly problematic. While you are right that the point is to improve your ability to write, the feedback loop from a trained professional is a key portion of improvement. Getting students trained by machine feedback will be a further reinforcement of privilege - your writing judged by computers will become a tell-tale sign of your upbringing.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> The point of all the works is to improve your abilities. And why should one try to improve his ability to write? Writing is for human consumption. Essays should be scored by humans.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Fallacious argument I think. I use a timer on my jog; a robot is measuring me! Should be a human coach? Dog food is for dogs; dogs should be manufacturing it? Silly. Emotionally based, and valid for that aspect. But not a good logical argument.
  - nickserv 8y ago
    Perhaps not logical, but of great emotional importance. Having kids know no one will read what they have to say is in effect telling them what they do isn't important, isn't worth the time to read... I remember a few times when I had interesting exchanges with my teachers based on my writing, and this was certainly motivating to me. It's like when a 3 year old draws something for you: it's objectively terrible, but you appreciate the effort, and want to encourage more of the same. What would a machine think of it?
  - saint_fiasco 8y ago
    You jog for your own benefit, not for other people, so you can measure your jogging however you like. Dog food, however, is for the benefit of dogs. At some point in the manufacturing process a dog has to taste the food, because they are supposed to eat it . Or at least a human has to make sure it smells nice, because they are supposed to buy it. Same with essays. They are for humans to read, so humans have to test them.
sct202 8y ago
I think that robo-grading is missing the ability to give cohesive feedback on someone's performance. A teacher who reads a students papers over the course of a year (or years) will be able to provide guidance to the student on how to improve. The robo-graders might be able to spit out a semi-accurate grade, but they won't be able to tell the student what they could improve and how.
- ycombobreaker 8y ago
  What's more, with black box ML techniques it may be the case that "advice" exists, but that it cannot be effectively interpreted.

michaelt 8y ago

You might be right that the writing I did at age 7 was absolutely horrible trash with no value. But my teachers went out of their way to give me the opposite impression. Why do you think that was?

ebiester 8y ago

The answer is incorrect. Your answer: 18 The answer: 18 Anyone who has taken an autograded test or two will know it has bugs. Sometimes, they don't trim (see above) or not expressed in a way that a computer determines is equivalent. In the case in the article, we are talking about mass graded assessments, and we can see that those who have access to wealth also have access to those who can teach them to game the system. For something as small as assessments, it probably doesn't matter on an individual level - that's always been true and one of the ways that wealth keeps its statistical advantage. However, this will also creep into the poorer school districts and as that happens, this gets truly problematic. While you are right that the point is to improve your ability to write, the feedback loop from a trained professional is a key portion of improvement. Getting students trained by machine feedback will be a further reinforcement of privilege - your writing judged by computers will become a tell-tale sign of your upbringing.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> The point of all the works is to improve your abilities. And why should one try to improve his ability to write? Writing is for human consumption. Essays should be scored by humans.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Fallacious argument I think. I use a timer on my jog; a robot is measuring me! Should be a human coach? Dog food is for dogs; dogs should be manufacturing it? Silly. Emotionally based, and valid for that aspect. But not a good logical argument.
- nickserv 8y ago
  Perhaps not logical, but of great emotional importance. Having kids know no one will read what they have to say is in effect telling them what they do isn't important, isn't worth the time to read... I remember a few times when I had interesting exchanges with my teachers based on my writing, and this was certainly motivating to me. It's like when a 3 year old draws something for you: it's objectively terrible, but you appreciate the effort, and want to encourage more of the same. What would a machine think of it?
- saint_fiasco 8y ago
  You jog for your own benefit, not for other people, so you can measure your jogging however you like. Dog food, however, is for the benefit of dogs. At some point in the manufacturing process a dog has to taste the food, because they are supposed to eat it . Or at least a human has to make sure it smells nice, because they are supposed to buy it. Same with essays. They are for humans to read, so humans have to test them.

sct202 8y ago

I think that robo-grading is missing the ability to give cohesive feedback on someone's performance. A teacher who reads a students papers over the course of a year (or years) will be able to provide guidance to the student on how to improve. The robo-graders might be able to spit out a semi-accurate grade, but they won't be able to tell the student what they could improve and how.

ycombobreaker 8y ago
What's more, with black box ML techniques it may be the case that "advice" exists, but that it cannot be effectively interpreted.