This chapter looks at the viewpoints of educators on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in grading writing pieces of 3rd–5th grade students. The purpose is to explore the efficacy and accuracy of using GenAI to grade written assignments of students to determine if it is an effective tool. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in an elementary school in a school district in the Southern Tier of New York State. The participants were tasked with using two different GenAI tools to grade the same versions of student papers based on a New York State-given rubric. Participants answered various questions in the form of a questionnaire and an interview to assess the effectiveness of the technology. The results showed that the majority expressed optimism about the experience, and a common agreement emerged that AI’s grading capabilities are satisfactory. Nonetheless, the occasional errors and absence of personality were deemed too significant to definitively assert that GenAI could entirely supplant the role of a teacher in grading written pieces. This study could help provide evidence to promote or discourage the use of GenAI technology in schools as a grading aid.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Identifying GenAI Effectiveness: Grading Elementary Writing

  • Tyler Harnish,
  • Gina L. Solano

摘要

This chapter looks at the viewpoints of educators on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in grading writing pieces of 3rd–5th grade students. The purpose is to explore the efficacy and accuracy of using GenAI to grade written assignments of students to determine if it is an effective tool. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in an elementary school in a school district in the Southern Tier of New York State. The participants were tasked with using two different GenAI tools to grade the same versions of student papers based on a New York State-given rubric. Participants answered various questions in the form of a questionnaire and an interview to assess the effectiveness of the technology. The results showed that the majority expressed optimism about the experience, and a common agreement emerged that AI’s grading capabilities are satisfactory. Nonetheless, the occasional errors and absence of personality were deemed too significant to definitively assert that GenAI could entirely supplant the role of a teacher in grading written pieces. This study could help provide evidence to promote or discourage the use of GenAI technology in schools as a grading aid.