Will Richardson posted this item on Tumblr:
Automated assessment programs do not respond as human readers. While they may promise consistency, they distort the very nature of writing as a complex and context-rich interaction between people. They simplify writing in ways that can mislead writers to focus more on structure and grammar than on what they are saying by using a given structure and style.
Here’s what I know will happen once we move to the machines: we’ll help kids learn how to write what the machines want instead of focusing on the power and beauty and uniqueness of human communication. I can name a slew of brilliant writers who would probably fail the test because they wrote in a unique, compelling style that went far beyond our traditional thinking around “good writing.” Sure, in the name of efficiency we can choose to set the bar low and reward kids for putting together a sentence that’s barely readable but conveys a simple thought regardless. But why wouldn’t we choose something better?
He was presented with the notion that a developer is working on a software application that would machine score English essays. It is interesting to reflect upon the nature of humanity that would preclude this happening in written communication. At present, we believe quite strongly that computers cannot grasp fine elements of reflection, creation, synthesis, and other capacities as well as they may be programmed to assess punctuation, spelling, basic structures, and similar features of communication.
What do you think about this?