Very interesting! I have shared this with my grade 9 teacher colleagues (Albany, NY). I think on balance this is a good thing - and probably inevitable, whether I think it's good or not - but I have two concerns. One you addressed: over time there will be a temptation, both in terms of "work smarter not harder" and in terms of saving mon…
Very interesting! I have shared this with my grade 9 teacher colleagues (Albany, NY). I think on balance this is a good thing - and probably inevitable, whether I think it's good or not - but I have two concerns. One you addressed: over time there will be a temptation, both in terms of "work smarter not harder" and in terms of saving money, to lean all the way into AI grading. Over time, I imagine teacher knowledge and skill will atrophy. Related, this might be particular to NY public high schools, but twice a year the entire English department scores high stakes standardized tests together. As annoying as it can be, I think there is some (difficult to measure) value in the process that we would lose. The other concern is adding diesel fuel to a trade-off. That is, "rubric writing" (or, in this case, comparative writing, which I believe amounts to the same thing) is how you develop as a writer, but it's also how writers get put into boxes. AI, I imagine, would accelerate the amount of efficiency and value placed on standardized writing. Which, on one hand, is foundational, but on the other hand, can be stifling.
Very interesting! I have shared this with my grade 9 teacher colleagues (Albany, NY). I think on balance this is a good thing - and probably inevitable, whether I think it's good or not - but I have two concerns. One you addressed: over time there will be a temptation, both in terms of "work smarter not harder" and in terms of saving money, to lean all the way into AI grading. Over time, I imagine teacher knowledge and skill will atrophy. Related, this might be particular to NY public high schools, but twice a year the entire English department scores high stakes standardized tests together. As annoying as it can be, I think there is some (difficult to measure) value in the process that we would lose. The other concern is adding diesel fuel to a trade-off. That is, "rubric writing" (or, in this case, comparative writing, which I believe amounts to the same thing) is how you develop as a writer, but it's also how writers get put into boxes. AI, I imagine, would accelerate the amount of efficiency and value placed on standardized writing. Which, on one hand, is foundational, but on the other hand, can be stifling.