tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post4098516889533350375..comments2024-03-29T04:34:05.185-04:00Comments on CURMUDGUCATION: Essay-Grading Software & Peripatetic PenguinsPeter Greenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16511193640285760299noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-6212511408539542362014-12-28T11:56:38.378-05:002014-12-28T11:56:38.378-05:00ThanksThanksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577230762999527486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-11762201390562103422014-09-25T15:20:13.393-04:002014-09-25T15:20:13.393-04:00I found and posted this yesterday, dealing just wi...I found and posted this yesterday, dealing just with this subject: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/machine-grading-and-moral-learning<br /><br />"... However, functionalism’s critics believe there is a question-begging assumption at its heart. The functionalist argues that if two essays are functionally equivalent, then what produced each essay must be a mind, even if one of the essays was in fact produced by a machine. But as philosopher John Searle famously argued in his Chinese Room thought experiment, the functionalist argument ignores the distinction between derived and original meaning. Words have derived intentionality because we use words as artificial vehicles to express concepts. If the mind is like a wellspring of meaning, words are like cups, shells for transmitting to others what they cannot themselves create. The same is true of all conventional signs. Just as a map is not a navigator and an emoticon is not an emotion, a computer is not a mind: it cannot create meaning, but can only copy it. The difference between a Shakespearean sonnet and the same sequence of letters as the sonnet produced randomly by a thousand typing monkeys — or machines — is that a mind inscribed one with semantic meaning but not the other. When Shakespeare writes a sonnet, the words convey the thoughts that are in his mind, whereas when a mindless machine generates the same sequence of words, there are simply no thoughts behind those words. In short, functionalism’s focus on the behavioral concept of “functional equivalence” forgets that a sign depends on the meaning it signifies. We cannot treat syntactically equivalent texts as evidence of semantically equivalent origins.<br /><br />Put another way: I don’t give plagiarized papers the same grade I give original papers, even if the text of the two papers is exactly the same. The reason is that the plagiarized paper is no sign: it does not represent the student’s thinking. Or we might say that it is a false sign, meaning something other than what it most obviously appears to. If anything, what I can infer from a plagiarized paper is that its author is the functional equivalent of a mirror. As a mirror is sightless — its images are not its own — so too is a plagiarized paper mindless, all of its meaning stolen from a genuine mind. In a Dantean contrapasso, I grade plagiarizers with a mark harsher than the F that recognizes an original but failed attempt at thought: I drop them from my course and shake the dust from my feet. We should do the same with functionalism.<br /><br />John Henry’s Retort<br /><br />Of course, essay-grading software is not functionally equivalent to a professor in the first place, even for the narrow purpose of providing feedback on academic essays. It cannot be, because grading is a morally significant act that computers are incapable of performing. Functionalism, in falsely reducing human acts to mechanical tasks, also reduces the polyvalent language of moral value to a single, inappropriate metric.<br /><br />If minds are computers, then they should be evaluated by norms appropriate to computers: namely, by their efficiency in mapping inputs to outputs. So if professors and grading software are functional equivalents — outside of the Ivy League, at least — then they should be evaluated using the same criteria: the number of comments they write per paper, their average response time, the degree to which their marks vary from a statistical mean, and so on. This is the latent normative view of functionalism, particularly when it’s turned from a philosophical theory into a technical program: if machines can perform some task more efficiently than human beings, then machines are better at it. However, efficiency is not the moral metric we should be concerned with in education, or in other essentially interpersonal, relational areas of human life...."Sahilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610179287237833742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-40647367038878032392014-04-30T12:17:25.029-04:002014-04-30T12:17:25.029-04:00I believe we agree that computer grading, as an is...I believe we agree that computer grading, as an isolated score generator, is unacceptable. Use of computer assessments to inform the engaged teacher as a part of a grading process is more viable. The teacher is the deciding factor and makes the final call.JeffPencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08820852819515107300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-16868068550526526112014-04-30T11:11:49.709-04:002014-04-30T11:11:49.709-04:00Just wrote about Perelman's new toy. I agree t...Just wrote about Perelman's new toy. I agree that software has its uses, but the use of computer grading goes far beyond the software's limitations.<br /><br />http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2014/04/computer-writer-vs-computer-grader.htmlPeter Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16511193640285760299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-28379440963774082792014-04-30T10:57:34.919-04:002014-04-30T10:57:34.919-04:00I teach writing. I grade writing. I engage my stud...I teach writing. I grade writing. I engage my students in the writing process. My students consistently achieve higher scores on the Georgia State Writing Assessment, which is graded by real people.<br />* Software does not grade essays but does provide useful feedback in the assessment process.<br />* Software does not teach writing but does provide support to the teacher who is engaged with students in the writing process.<br />"For Perelman, he believes that these kinds of systems can work in tandem with real human professors — but they aren't a substitute. "" - http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5664404/babel-essay-writing-machine<br />I agree. JeffPencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08820852819515107300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-30968054886273180082014-04-30T10:44:13.332-04:002014-04-30T10:44:13.332-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.JeffPencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08820852819515107300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-76466074116617309032014-03-11T14:35:07.561-04:002014-03-11T14:35:07.561-04:00I cannot imagine the crap that future writers will...I cannot imagine the crap that future writers will have to put out there to prove they can write. I took a week-long summer class in writing at Teacher's College of Columbia University. We learned that here are all kinds of wonderful writing and the key is the strong verb; Sentence length was not important, although the students are encouraged to use complex and compound sentences when they need them in their writing. The key to improving their writing was teacher and peer conferences. We published every 3-6 weeks depending on what we were writing. Some of the best writing in our grade 5 series of novels came from authors such as Gary Paulsen. Paulsen's "Storm" story, one of a collection about sled dogs, had paragraphs that were one word long. Sentences that were one word long. The kids loved that because it indicated how important that thought was. The best authors write sentence fragments on purpose. I shudder too think what Paulsen would get on the Pearson rubric. You made many good points and I LOVE your topic headings. LOL!Philly Girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543951612451538559noreply@blogger.com