It was a very good interview we thought though must say we do not have THAT much faith in AI. A wonderful tool for Q&A in hard fact topics like math, physics & science but can never see it gaining powers of discernment to mark English essays for instance.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Maybe social studies essays too - since everyone writes differently, I’m not sure AI would be able to pick up on all the subtle quirks in writing style.
I think it would be fine in English, I've had a few conversations with it about themes and metaphors of books and it was really good. I've also debated it on a few topics that would come under social studies, and if you can prove your point it will concede, but if it thinks you haven't sufficiently proven your point it will admit what you got right, but then correct you on the rest. And at the rate that it is improving, I imagine by 2028 it will be better and less biased than teachers. I don't know whether exam papers are still returned to students like they were in my day, but I think that would be extra important now in case something did go wrong, the student has recourse.
There still needs to be some level of human involvement in marking. Maybe any essay or test that scores below a C should be reviewed by a human, especially when it comes to English and writing.
Or the As…I think all polemic should be assessed by humans - however as we well know the bias in education is so horrendous AI may actually be less bias…
I naively had no idea that NCEA assessments and exams were marked internally.
Rather like letting the fox guard the chicken coup!
Currently it is in teachers and schools best interests to get high results.
All marking should be by independent, external markers, either human or AI.
It will mean we will get a true and transparent view of educational standards and as teachers workloads will be lessened, they can concentrate on teaching.
another nudge towards groupthink and punishing anyone who dares to question the official narrative. Remember - with the insertion of just one algorithm, a LLM can be programmed to reward those who toe the line and fail those who don't. Think 2 + 2 =4? That'll be correct only if our overlords say it is.
An appalling idea - AI is not able to be a discerning marker of human essays and the most recent interactions and reports from those who are testing AI are showing disturbing, VERY disturbing, trends in AI's abilities and the built-in biases in its original programming. It's been rolled out to replace human thinking and create bots who don't think to check anything about it. Yes, you can call it a tool, but its a warped tool, and what are the aims of its creators to warping society? There needs to be a lot more research about AI before its rolled out for use in something as important as our children's futures in education and qualifications.
I think it's a case of a who watches the watchers situation. Who controls the AI and what sources does it draw on to complete marking? Useful for science and maths type subjects, but as others have said, writing, apart from spelling and grammar is quite a different matter.
It was a very good interview we thought though must say we do not have THAT much faith in AI. A wonderful tool for Q&A in hard fact topics like math, physics & science but can never see it gaining powers of discernment to mark English essays for instance.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Maybe social studies essays too - since everyone writes differently, I’m not sure AI would be able to pick up on all the subtle quirks in writing style.
I think it would be fine in English, I've had a few conversations with it about themes and metaphors of books and it was really good. I've also debated it on a few topics that would come under social studies, and if you can prove your point it will concede, but if it thinks you haven't sufficiently proven your point it will admit what you got right, but then correct you on the rest. And at the rate that it is improving, I imagine by 2028 it will be better and less biased than teachers. I don't know whether exam papers are still returned to students like they were in my day, but I think that would be extra important now in case something did go wrong, the student has recourse.
Yes, I've been very impressed too. I'm just not sure about "discernment"? Must ask my "Guru" when I have a moment..
Fantastic tool for objectively quantify-able subjects - but in the humanities - where polemic is important I foresee issues…
But hey…I don’t want the human mind replaced either…tricky
There still needs to be some level of human involvement in marking. Maybe any essay or test that scores below a C should be reviewed by a human, especially when it comes to English and writing.
Or the As…I think all polemic should be assessed by humans - however as we well know the bias in education is so horrendous AI may actually be less bias…
I naively had no idea that NCEA assessments and exams were marked internally.
Rather like letting the fox guard the chicken coup!
Currently it is in teachers and schools best interests to get high results.
All marking should be by independent, external markers, either human or AI.
It will mean we will get a true and transparent view of educational standards and as teachers workloads will be lessened, they can concentrate on teaching.
another nudge towards groupthink and punishing anyone who dares to question the official narrative. Remember - with the insertion of just one algorithm, a LLM can be programmed to reward those who toe the line and fail those who don't. Think 2 + 2 =4? That'll be correct only if our overlords say it is.
An appalling idea - AI is not able to be a discerning marker of human essays and the most recent interactions and reports from those who are testing AI are showing disturbing, VERY disturbing, trends in AI's abilities and the built-in biases in its original programming. It's been rolled out to replace human thinking and create bots who don't think to check anything about it. Yes, you can call it a tool, but its a warped tool, and what are the aims of its creators to warping society? There needs to be a lot more research about AI before its rolled out for use in something as important as our children's futures in education and qualifications.
I think it's a case of a who watches the watchers situation. Who controls the AI and what sources does it draw on to complete marking? Useful for science and maths type subjects, but as others have said, writing, apart from spelling and grammar is quite a different matter.
No more teachers pets results?