10 Common AI Marking Myths: Busted!

Share via:

New technological advances tend to be met with a blend of excitement and scepticism. As educators, we’re no strangers to this cycle (remember the calculator, anyone? The Internet? Digital testing?) AI marking offers a host of advantages, from mitigating human biases to streamlining the grading process. Yet, before fully embracing this innovation, it’s crucial to understand both its vast potential and inherent limitations. As with any emerging technology, misconceptions abound. Let’s explore ten common AI myths and the truths behind them: 

AI Myth 1: AI marking is entirely objective.

Truth: While AI can reduce human biases that might come from fatigue, mood, or personal prejudices, the algorithms are trained on human-marked essays. This means the AI inherits the biases present in its training data. AI is a tool that aids objectivity but isn’t completely free from biases. However, with careful planning and regular reviews, it is possible to use AI marking to reduce human bias – stay tuned for our upcoming blog to find out how! 

AI Myth 2: AI can’t understand context or nuance.

Truth: Modern AI models, especially those based on sophisticated architectures like transformers (advanced AI models for understanding context and language nuances), are designed to understand context better than their predecessors. These models consider the relationship between words and phrases, allowing them to capture nuance. However, it’s true that they might not always grasp deeper cultural or philosophical contexts as a human marker might.

AI Myth 3: AI will replace human educators in essay marking.

Truth: While AI can assist in the grading process, it’s not about replacement but augmentation. Teachers provide feedback that is not just about correctness but also about stimulating thought and encouraging development. AI can handle grading or assist in providing quick feedback on repetitive errors, but the nuanced, constructive feedback that educators provide is irreplaceable.

AI Myth 4: AI marking is just about grammar and syntax.

Truth: Advanced AI marking systems can evaluate various aspects of an essay, including its coherence, argument structure, evidence usage, and more. While grammar and syntax are certainly within its purview, the AI’s capabilities extend far beyond mere language rules.

AI Myth 5: AI marking is infallible.

Truth: No system is perfect. There will be instances where AI might misinterpret an essay or give a grade that a human might disagree with. This is why many educational institutions use AI as a supplementary tool, cross-checking with human markers to ensure accuracy.

AI Myth 6: AI marking systems are ‘one-size-fits-all’.

Truth: AI essay marking systems can be customised and trained for specific contexts, curricula, or grading rubrics. Educational organisations can calibrate the AI system using a dataset of their own, ensuring it aligns with their specific standards. Therefore, AI marking can be as diverse and specialised as the educational contexts they’re used in.

AI Myth 7: Students can easily trick AI markers with ‘big words’ or verbosity.

Truth: While earlier systems might have been susceptible to such tactics, modern AI models look for coherence, relevance, and argument quality. Merely using complex vocabulary without proper context or stuffing essays with fluff won’t earn students extra points. In fact, AI models can be trained to detect and penalise such behaviours, ensuring students focus on substance rather than deceptive tactics.

AI Myth 8: AI markers can’t appreciate creativity or originality.

Truth: While it’s true that AI systems operate based on patterns learned from data, advanced models can recognize deviations from common structures as potential indicators of creativity. They can be programmed to acknowledge original ideas or unique approaches, even if they might not “appreciate” them in the human sense. Still, for truly abstract or avant-garde work, human judgement remains crucial.

AI Myth 9: AI essay marking is impersonal and discourages students.

Truth: AI’s feedback can be as specific or general as its programming allows. Systems can be designed to give positive reinforcement and highlight areas of improvement in a constructive manner. In fact, some students might find an AI’s consistency less intimidating than human feedback, which can sometimes come across as subjective or overly critical. However, transparency in how AI essay marking systems are designed is crucial. It ensures that AI feedback is specific, constructive, and can address both strengths and weaknesses. We’ll cover the issue of AI transparency in on of our upcoming blogs.  

AI Myth 10: AI essay marking systems compromise student privacy.

Truth: Privacy concerns are valid, but not inherent to the technology of AI marking. They are more about how the system is implemented. Many AI marking systems operate without storing personal data or the content of essays after grading. Furthermore, reputable AI providers prioritise data encryption and compliance with data protection regulations to ensure student information remains confidential.

What’s next? 

As we integrate AI more deeply into our educational systems, it’s crucial to debunk these myths and misconceptions. While AI offers a host of benefits, understanding its capabilities and limitations ensures that we use this technology in the most effective and responsible manner. In upcoming blogs, we’ll examine how we can reap the benefits of AI grading without perpetuating human bias or endangering the trust in your marking process. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the know! 

Share via:
Topics
Would you like to receive Cirrus news directly in your inbox?
More posts in Better Assessments
Better Assessments

Can E-Assessment Help Bridge The Skills Gap? 

According to the World Economic Forum’s “Future of Jobs Report 2023, an estimated 44% of workers’ skills are expected to be disrupted within the next five years. Explore how e-assessment technology lets testing organisations address the escalating skills shortage and meet the needs of today’s workforce.

Read More »
Better Assessments

ATP 2024: Celebrating Collaboration in Online Testing

Now that we’re somewhat recovered from the 10-hour time difference and 9-hour flight back to Utrecht, it’s time we sat down and reflected on ATP 2024. This year’s “Better Together” theme really hit home, reminding us all just how powerful it is when we join forces.

Read More »
 

Curious about all things e-assessment?

As Cirrus looks to the future, we are excited to bring you the latest news, trends, and useful information about the industry.

 

Subscribe to the monthly Cirrus Examiner to join our ever-growing community of people passionate about the unbridled potential of EdTech.