Computers To Mark English Essays

digitig writes "According to The Guardian, computers are to be used in the UK to mark English examination essays. 'Pearson, the American-based parent company of Edexcel, is to use computers to "read" and assess essays for international English tests in a move that has fueled speculation that GCSEs and A-levels will be next. ... Pearson claims this will be more accurate than human marking.' Can computers now understand all the subtle nuances of language, or are people going to have to learn an especially bland form of English to pass exams?"

Comments

Don't they already do this?

[darkshot117]

I seem to remember back in school my English teachers would grade as if they were a computer, failing to actually read into the meaning of things and simply complain about obscure grammar errors (which no one in the real world even knows about) and simple typos. From the sound of this, nothing is going to change.

Re:Don't they already do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a writing instructor, let me put it this way: I very, very seldom see a paper with misspellings and grammar mistakes that is nonetheless a well-written paper. It happens, but not often. Grammar and spelling mistakes are a symptom of sloppiness, as are poor reasoning, lack of organization, and lack of adequate support. If you can't be bothered to remember primary-school English, it is not likely that you are willing to master rhetorical structure.

When we read a paper, we actually don't care what you're saying. There usually isn't an "interesting" score. In my case, I evaluate on three, ten-point, holistic scales: Content (which basically refers to amount and quality of support), Organization (rhetorical structure), and Mechanics (yes, grammar, vocabulary, adhering to the style guide, etc.). I do this so I don't have people claiming that their hopeless muddle of a paper got marked down for "obscure grammar errors (which no one in the real world even knows about) and simple typos".

Guess what? Writing is not speaking. Those "obscure rules" are, indeed, usually only applied in writing. I ramble, swear, and disregard the conventions of "proper" English when speaking. But that is because those rules do not really apply in that sociocultural setting. In formal writing--you know, what you're being taught in writing class--they matter a great deal. If you don't follow them, you sound like an idiot, and no one will listen to you.

Why are these "obscure" rules used as a "canary test" of your intelligence and noteworthiness?

Because of what I wrote in my first paragraph. Intelligent, methodical, and rational people care enough to follow them.

I'm sorry, but that's how it works in the "real world".

Re:Don't they already do this?

[DirePickle]

What?

Re:Don't they already do this?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Just because I write a book of philosophy that is grammatically incorrect but possibly deeply insightful doesn't not make it any less important.

If you're capable of writing a book of philosophy that is deeply insightful, you should also be capable of writing one that's grammatically correct. Doing so would set you apart from someone who is capable of neither, and it'd set you apart at a glance.

It's also common courtesy to the reader. Generally, people have no trouble reading something that's grammatically correct, no matter how poor their own grammar is. However, it's at least annoying, and sometimes frustrating and difficult to understand something that's incorrect. Depending how incorrect you are, I might decide that deep insight you have isn't worth the effort of reading your book.

In other words, if you want your philosophy book to actually be read, you'll proofread it, spellcheck it, and clean it up -- just as, if you want to actually be hired, you'll shower, shave, and put on a tie for the interview.

how many authors have had no editors?

An editor is helpful for two reasons: To catch the mistakes you don't, and to ensure that the publisher's name doesn't get tarnished by subpar writing.

It shouldn't be the editor's job to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence. Meet them halfway.

What's more, we're rapidly moving towards mediums that don't need a "publisher", per se -- anyone can start up a blog, or ramble on Slashdot, without any editor at all. If you think it's worth having an editor correct your grammar in a dead-tree book, surely it's worth having correct grammar in what you write online -- but do you really want to hire an editor for your blog? At that point, it just makes economic sense to learn some "basic common English" skills yourself.

Re:kairos

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I take no part in this debate, I would ask you not to mistake an appeal to authority as factual knowledge.

Re:Depressing

[psnyder]

I had seen a student who knew very little about biology do her homework by scanning in her book for specific phrases mentioned in the questions and looking for some semblance of an answer once she's found the phrases. By the time she was done, she hasn't even read the chapter but her answers would probably get her a "C"

This is the way I always did it, and it got me A's. In fact I was taught to do this in a 6th grade "Study Skills" class. Ironically, it's a very good skill to have in the "real world" as it's a way of quickly obtaining the information you need. You could even draw a parallel between this and Googling something or any kind of computer "find" or "search".

The ability to skim for an answer is not a problem. It's one of the solutions that children employ to deal with a school system that puts more emphasis on grades rather than inspiring them to actually learn a subject. The "inspiration" to get good grades works for some (especially with parental support), but with "average" being a 'C' (often a very shallow understanding), it can be argued that it's not working for most.

As you said, "It took a college education and many years of reading to undo these "lessons" and really discover the joy of writing essays."

Skimming is a skill. Learning a system, and figuring out to survive in it is also a skill. The emphasis on that 'joy' is what's usually lacking. Get a student inspired and the rest usually takes care of itself.

Re:kairos

[rastilin]

Although I take no part in this debate, I would ask you not to mistake an appeal to authority as factual knowledge.

I begin to suspect that quoting "logical errors" is a new form of karma whoring. The appeal to authority only means that a person isn't automatically correct simply because they are in a position of power. What you failed to note in your flurry of smugness is that we have a person who actually has first-hand information on the subject. Thus making his perspective, while not automatically right, far more relevant to the subject than that of a thousand slashdotters.