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: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 13 2024, @02:20PM (1 child)
"It's also been known for ages that you need to take a stab at the doing the thing before checking the answer."
Or why we learn more from our mistakes than from our successes?
For some years I was the hardware bloke for a big user group. Got in a bunch of retired middle school PCs, still loaded with "educational" software. Being curious, I took a stab at it, and quickly realized the software did not teach the subject at all; rather, it taught how to get the software to spit up the desired response.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday March 13 2024, @08:28PM
That's definitely related. There's simply a lot more things that can be learned from failure than success to begin with. There may only be one way of succeeding at a task, or there may be a few. Edison failed to invent a durable light bulb in hundreds of different ways before he found one way that worked. These days, there are a few other designs that were developed later on and now we've mostly abandoned it entirely for LEDs.
As far as software goes, educational software is usually a hunk of garbage for anything other than rote memorization of things like math facts. I fondly remember games like Number Munchers, Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego and the Super Solver's series. They were relatively entertaining, but they were also fairly limited in terms of the content that the students would get out of it. It wouldn't take that long before it was just about the game and not about the learning. IMHO, the software is best for things where you need to encourage the students to practice repetitive skills a lot. I loved Mario Teaches Typing when I started to learn to type because it just made a bunch of sense. Learning to type is kind of tedious, and the game did a great job of scaffolding the process and making it engaging. By the end, you would be typing regular text rather than just hitting the right keys.