Robo-readers
While robo-readers are able
to score student essays at a rapid rate, they have many shortcomings that
overwhelm their benefits. Such a generic system will take variety out of
writing and eliminate valuable feedback.
The biggest problem with robo-readers
is that they “cannot draw out meaning” and “[care] nothing for creativity or
truth,” (Kolowich, Steve. “A Win for Robo-Readers.” Inside Higher Ed.) The point of writing should be to send a message
and to get a point across; if robo-readers are the sole audience of a piece,
and the message isn’t even being considered, then what’s the point of writing
at all?
Robo-readers also don’t
offer as much advice for improvement as a live reader would. Teachers are
always able to give valuable, specific feedback about their students’ writing,
and that helps the students grow as writers. The generic comments issued by the
robo-readers such as, “A few grammar errors detected,” and, “a few misspelled
words,” (“Robo-readers: the new teachers’ helper in the U.S.” Reuters) really aren’t valuable
feedback.
Robo-readers also have the
potential to take the variety out of students' writing. Because they grade by
such conventional principles, students can't be as stylistically creative with
their writing. Students will be downgraded for using short paragraphs, and
sentence fragments, which often add flair to writing. Michael Winerip says in "Robot
Eyes As Good As Humans When Grading Essays" that, "if those are
breaking the rules, you're going to get a more and more homogenized form of
writing."
The quality of writing
should be valued more than the speed at which it's graded; therefore, the job
of scoring students' writing should be left to those who can appreciate content
and variety and give valuable feedback.
