SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a notable shift toward sanctioned use of AI in schools, some educators in grades 3–12 are now using a ChatGPT-powered grading tool called Writable, reports Axios. The tool, acquired last summer by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, is designed to streamline the grading process, potentially offering time-saving benefits for teachers. But is it a good idea to outsource critical feedback to a machine?
[...]
"Make feedback more actionable with AI suggestions delivered to teachers as the writing happens," Writable promises on its AI website. "Target specific areas for improvement with powerful, rubric-aligned comments, and save grading time with AI-generated draft scores." The service also provides AI-written writing-prompt suggestions: "Input any topic and instantly receive unique prompts that engage students and are tailored to your classroom needs."
[...]
The reliance on AI for grading will likely have drawbacks. Automated grading might encourage some educators to take shortcuts, diminishing the value of personalized feedback. Over time, the augmentation from AI may allow teachers to be less familiar with the material they are teaching. The use of cloud-based AI tools may have privacy implications for teachers and students. Also, ChatGPT isn't a perfect analyst. It can get things wrong and potentially confabulate (make up) false information, possibly misinterpret a student's work, or provide erroneous information in lesson plans.
[...]
there's a divide among parents regarding the use of AI in evaluating students' academic performance. A recent poll of parents revealed mixed opinions, with nearly half of the respondents open to the idea of AI-assisted grading.As the generative AI craze permeates every space, it's no surprise that Writable isn't the only AI-powered grading tool on the market. Others include Crowdmark, Gradescope, and EssayGrader. McGraw Hill is reportedly developing similar technology aimed at enhancing teacher assessment and feedback.
Related stories on SoylentNews:
SWOT Analysis of ChatGPT in Computer Science Education - 20240215
OpenAI Admits That AI Writing Detectors Don't Work - 20230911
An Iowa School District is Using ChatGPT to Decide Which Books to Ban - 20230817
A Jargon-Free Explanation of How AI Large Language Models Work - 20230805
Why AI detectors think the US Constitution was written by AI - 20230718
Dishonor Code: What Happens When Cheating Becomes the Norm? - 20230301
Amid ChatGPT Outcry, Some Teachers are Inviting AI to Class - 20230221
Seattle Public Schools Bans ChatGPT; District 'Requires Original Thought and Work From Students' - 20230119
ChatGPT Arrives in the Academic World - 20221219
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Tuesday March 12 2024, @02:57AM
The most destructive thing I have seen ranking/ grading people do is plant in them the idea that they are better than everyone else.
Once they get that "superiority" meme planted in them, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" mentality comes into play, and the "teamwork" meme of the group rapidly disintegrates into a "dog-eat-dog" situation, everybody trying to compete to be the lead dog, everyone trying to delegate, no one's doing the work.
I've seen this happen. I consider this relentless ranking one of the main tools used by management to absolutely ruin an organization.
It turns the workplace back to grade-school where everyone hates the "teacher's pet".
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]