Growing up in your standard American school system, the thought of a machine grading a test is not an unfamiliar one. I think we are all used to filling in the bubbles as neatly as possible so the scantron grades your exam correctly. While I am used to machine grading on multiple choice tests, I have never heard of machines grading student writing.
Honestly, this sounds a bit concerning to me. Partly because I have very little knowledge on the subject, but also because I don't have faith that a machine will be able to understand more abstract principles which accompany written works. This is exactly the sentiment Les Perelman expresses in the article, "Humans Fight Over Robo-Readers."
The article states that there has been research conducted which resulted in the claim that machines can grade writing about as well as a human can. Perelman is quick to criticize this claim by pointing out what he sees as flaws in the research conducted by Mark D. Shermis.
Perelman points out that, "machines don't understand meaning," and that poses an issue when it comes to grading student writing. Another issue he has with robo- readers, is that he believes their implementation will cause teachers to teach students to write in a way the machines like, instead of teaching them writing in its true form.
I agree with Perelman. I think curriculum has already been tailored for the sake of students passing standardized tests instead of for retention. With the addition of these robo- readers lesson plans will be further diluted and restructured for the sake of passing tests instead of for the sake of learning.
In order to get a taste of this machine grading, I played around with the website, virtualwritingtutor.com. I used a rough draft of a working thesis I have for my upcoming history paper to test the website (I'll paste it below). Of all of the options, I think the "Check Writing" option is the most interesting, because it gives you a decently in depth analysis of your text.
Working Thesis:
"It is the current sentiment of the Chinese government, that the educational reform, which took place during China’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), was a great misstep in the push to modernize the nation. It is believed that the massive increase of schools in rural areas, contributed to a poorer quality of education, while simultaneously harming China’s economic growth. However, the truth of the education reform’s impact on the rural sector may not be as grim as has been presented. By conducting his own research, Dongping Han, has not only found proof of compelling economic growth and stimulating economic expansion, but he claims that the two are linked, with an increase in education being an integral component of the area’s economic prosperity."
My grammar and punctuation were pretty good. However, when I came to the section where the website analyses your vocabulary, I'll admit, I was a bit offended. According to my vocabulary profile, I only used low level words. I by no means think I am the best writer out there (I am far from it). However, I would not have described my word choice as being at a beginner level. I know I have a lot of room for improvement as far as writing is concerned, but again, my pride was bruised after using the robo - reader.
But I would like to point out that just because I did not like how the machine graded my thesis, it doesn't mean it did anything wrong. Maybe I do need to improve my vocabulary, but without an actual person to give me feedback, I am left in the dark about how to improve, or even if I actually need to improve my writing.
I am curious as to what extent schools will implement these robo - readers, and when they will deem theses machines to be "ready" to accurately grade student papers. I still don't think it's a good idea, because it leaves a lot of room for unanswered questions. Without an actual human who is capable of understanding abstract concepts which apply to writing, it seems using machines just open up students to a more rigid writing structure that would destroy creativity and variance in form.