Robo-Readers and Robo-Graders are proposed programmes that may one day replace humans when it comes to assessing quality in an essay. Some programs, like the e-Rater, can rate 16,000 essays in 20 seconds. (Winerip) They use algorithms based on what makes a "good" essay without taking into account every factor that truly does make an essay good. (ETS, Winerip) This is an alarming prospect.
The Robo-Readers and Robo-Graders use algorithms and rules to score the essays. Not only is this one-sided and superficial and insufficient when it comes to grading a paper holistically, but it makes it easy for those who desire to cheat on their standardized test. They can throw in words, phrases, and make their essay longer to take advantage of the Robo-Grader's rigid rules. An essay can be completely nonsensical and generally poorly written and yet receive a high score because it contains everything the algorithms are looking for. (Winerip) A teacher would give an essay filled with nonsense key words a bad grade. They would realize what's going on, when a computer has little or no way of distinguishing between key words that fit because they are simply there and keywords that fit because they are part of a well-written essay.
Another unfortunate aspect of assessment that the readers lack is the consideration of poetic and unconventional writing. Teachers may grade a paper better if they are strikingly well written and make the paper pleasant to read. (Simon) A computer would simply look at the words processed and not care what lyrical order they are in or how engaging and beautiful the words they process are.
That's not to say these Robo-Graders have no benefits. They are exponentially quicker than human graders and don't take things into account like personal beliefs (even subconsciously, human graders may hold these) or frustration with sloppy handwriting. (Simon)
The question is, though, do these benefits come close to outweighing the loss of poetry, wordplay, and pleasant writing that will no doubt be present as students strive for the best scores?
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Early American Maps
This is a political and geographical map, detailing both cities and rivers. The map is very detailed. There is some information on various Native Americans (such as the Iroquois) that includes information on political relations with the English. There is most detail along the coast because the coasts were the most settled. There is a very interesting picture of very muscular beavers working in a systematic manner like a factory. This may be a representation of the plentiful resources of the New World. Alternatively, it can be seen as the exploitation and destruction of nature by the settlers. The cartographer names everything according to English names, regardless of existing names. The names are also indicative of how readily they conquered the nation as their own, regardless of its inhabitants. Valerie Babb has noticed in other maps that “a growing sense of European entitlement to the Americas is evident.” It appears in this map also.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Op-Ed
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-weschler-corruption-20111101,0,2370887.story
This op-ed piece was interesting and well written in the sense that it departed from the average "just facts" newspiece. The writer contrasted his trip to Uganda and his confrontation with police officers who hassled him for a bit of money because they are so underpaid to rich American campaign financers who seek to get richer. He notes that in some countries, corruption arises out of a need for money to live, but in America, it is the rich who are corrupt. The point is difficult to make, and it was mostly successful. The writer did a good job at connecting these two ideas, though it would be nice for readers who don't know him if he had answered which he thought was worse rather than just leave the reader without reassurance. Still, it was a decent Op-Ed piece.
This op-ed piece was interesting and well written in the sense that it departed from the average "just facts" newspiece. The writer contrasted his trip to Uganda and his confrontation with police officers who hassled him for a bit of money because they are so underpaid to rich American campaign financers who seek to get richer. He notes that in some countries, corruption arises out of a need for money to live, but in America, it is the rich who are corrupt. The point is difficult to make, and it was mostly successful. The writer did a good job at connecting these two ideas, though it would be nice for readers who don't know him if he had answered which he thought was worse rather than just leave the reader without reassurance. Still, it was a decent Op-Ed piece.
My Fears
I am generally a cautious person. Perhaps it's because some of my fears are things that are a major part of life. I'm not scared of spiders - I know I'll probably never encounter a poisonous one. I'm not scared of heights in general, as long as I know I'm safe. What I am scared of is machinery and other human creations and their reliability to function properly in dangerous situations. I hate elevators, escalators, and carnival rides. I'm not a fan of cars - but that's a large part due to the people driving them more than cars themselves. For that reason, I prefer trains, boats, and planes. They all could go wrong - but I know there are experienced people who will try their best for that not to happen.
My fears are probably not the most rational or conventional, but they affect my life all the same.
My fears are probably not the most rational or conventional, but they affect my life all the same.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"Sound and Fury" Response
(I missed the beginning of the film, so do forgive me if I get the details wrong.)
In Sound and Fury, were introduced to a discourse that some are unware of its very existence: Deaf Culture. There are deaf schools, deaf communities, and deaf families and they take pride in their ability to live a fulfilling life with their handicap. But it is a handicap, and although it can be fixed, many of the people whose stories were told in this film felt it shouldn't be.
Were introduced to two families: one that is entirely deaf, and the other that is comprised of a deaf twin, but also hearing parents and a hearing twin. The parents of the hearing mother are deaf, and the parents of the deaf brother belonging to the deaf family and hearing brother belonging to the hearing family are hearing.
The deaf parents and grandparents have been deaf all of their lives and would likely never develop speech, but present technology has developed cochlear implants that could grant the ability to hear and speak to the deaf family's four-year-old daughter, and the hearing family's eleven-month-old son.
Surprisingly, there is uproar from the deaf side. Instead of being happy that the childrens' handicaps are more or less gone with the help of a cochlear implant, they are sad and scared that if people can be "cured" of deafness, deaf language, sign language, and even deaf people may go extinct all together.
The deaf people in the film believe that there is a deaf culture, and by a formerly deaf person suddenly being able to hear will remove them from the culture. This was difficult for me to understand personally, because surely you can still use sign language if you're able to hear, and thus be as much a part of deaf culture as you were before. Only know, you're multicultural; you are a part of the hearing culture that delights in music, the sounds of nature, and tones of voice, and you're part of the deaf culture in which body language and the other senses are likely much more important.
With criticism and arguments from both sides, the mostly-hearing family decides to go ahead with the cochlear implant and are delighted that their son can now hear. The deaf family decides to move to a more deaf-friendly community and not get a cochlear implant for their daughter. I personally believe the deaf parents are denying their daughter the best life she can have by not taking every action to make sure she doesn't suffer from a handicap. She can still communicate with them through the sign language she already knows and will likely continue to develop; they are denying her the opportunity to communicate with those who don't know sign language, and to pursue hobbies, friendships, and careers of which hearing is helpful or even required.
The hearing family seemed to make a much wiser choice in getting a cochlear implant for their son. Even if it was not his choice to have one, I am sure he will appreciate the fact that a hearing life is a much easier and possibly more fulfilling life. That's not to say deaf people don't lead fulfilling lives - I'm sure many do - but deafness is a handicap, and until we live in a world where every possible concession is made for those who are deaf, it makes life more difficult. However, not being a part of the Deaf Culture Discourse, I suppose it is impossible to truly know the full story and feelings of those who are a part of that specific discourse.
In Sound and Fury, were introduced to a discourse that some are unware of its very existence: Deaf Culture. There are deaf schools, deaf communities, and deaf families and they take pride in their ability to live a fulfilling life with their handicap. But it is a handicap, and although it can be fixed, many of the people whose stories were told in this film felt it shouldn't be.
Were introduced to two families: one that is entirely deaf, and the other that is comprised of a deaf twin, but also hearing parents and a hearing twin. The parents of the hearing mother are deaf, and the parents of the deaf brother belonging to the deaf family and hearing brother belonging to the hearing family are hearing.
The deaf parents and grandparents have been deaf all of their lives and would likely never develop speech, but present technology has developed cochlear implants that could grant the ability to hear and speak to the deaf family's four-year-old daughter, and the hearing family's eleven-month-old son.
Surprisingly, there is uproar from the deaf side. Instead of being happy that the childrens' handicaps are more or less gone with the help of a cochlear implant, they are sad and scared that if people can be "cured" of deafness, deaf language, sign language, and even deaf people may go extinct all together.
The deaf people in the film believe that there is a deaf culture, and by a formerly deaf person suddenly being able to hear will remove them from the culture. This was difficult for me to understand personally, because surely you can still use sign language if you're able to hear, and thus be as much a part of deaf culture as you were before. Only know, you're multicultural; you are a part of the hearing culture that delights in music, the sounds of nature, and tones of voice, and you're part of the deaf culture in which body language and the other senses are likely much more important.
With criticism and arguments from both sides, the mostly-hearing family decides to go ahead with the cochlear implant and are delighted that their son can now hear. The deaf family decides to move to a more deaf-friendly community and not get a cochlear implant for their daughter. I personally believe the deaf parents are denying their daughter the best life she can have by not taking every action to make sure she doesn't suffer from a handicap. She can still communicate with them through the sign language she already knows and will likely continue to develop; they are denying her the opportunity to communicate with those who don't know sign language, and to pursue hobbies, friendships, and careers of which hearing is helpful or even required.
The hearing family seemed to make a much wiser choice in getting a cochlear implant for their son. Even if it was not his choice to have one, I am sure he will appreciate the fact that a hearing life is a much easier and possibly more fulfilling life. That's not to say deaf people don't lead fulfilling lives - I'm sure many do - but deafness is a handicap, and until we live in a world where every possible concession is made for those who are deaf, it makes life more difficult. However, not being a part of the Deaf Culture Discourse, I suppose it is impossible to truly know the full story and feelings of those who are a part of that specific discourse.
Friday, September 16, 2011
America in Lyrics
Though this song, "Mr. President" by Janelle Monae, was written in 2007 in the middle of President Bush's second term and dealt with many of the issues of his presidency, many of the problems still exist in America today. This is a clear, relevant song about the trials of many Americans and issues that America as a nation faces to this day. Although clearly frustrated, the song seems ultimately hopeful, and is not sung too grumpily, which again, I believe, is a good representation of the typical feelings of the American people.
Hey, Mr. President
Tomorrow I'm paying my rent
My fuel is running low
And I've got places to go
Quit slowing me down
Can we talk about the education of our children?
A book is worth more than a bomb any day
And remember a mirror to Africa
Who will bring the cure before it’s too late?
Don’t you see the hurt in their eyes?
So much disappointment in many faces
Use your heart and not your pride
We can’t go on and keep pretending, oh
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
How I Write
The way I write isn't particularly interesting, creative, or philosophical, unfortunately. I think about what I want to write and then I sit down and write. I edit and add details as I go, and often read over and make many more changes. I think revision is a good technique to get the best out of writing.
I often handwrite my rough draft so I'm forced to edit the entire thing as I type it again. It makes it difficult to skim over sections that may benefit from different phrasing, or may even need a complete renovation.
I think about what I write a lot after I've written it. I think about things that I've learned from writing that particular work, and think about things I could have done differently. I think it's interesting how much we grow and change in our writing.
I believe practice, revision, and second opinions make perfect, so I try to uphold these practices in my writing.
I often handwrite my rough draft so I'm forced to edit the entire thing as I type it again. It makes it difficult to skim over sections that may benefit from different phrasing, or may even need a complete renovation.
I think about what I write a lot after I've written it. I think about things that I've learned from writing that particular work, and think about things I could have done differently. I think it's interesting how much we grow and change in our writing.
I believe practice, revision, and second opinions make perfect, so I try to uphold these practices in my writing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)