![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerReading this article on advice to teachers in the UK about using AI, they suggest using it for things like "marking quizzes" and "generating routine letters".
And what really annoys me about this is that it's a perfect example of where simple automation could be used without the need for AI.
The precise example in the article is "Generate a letter to parents about a head lice outbreak." - which is a fairly common thing to happen in schools. So why on earth isn't there one standard letter per school, if not one standard letter for the whole country, that can be reused by absolutely everyone whenever this standard event happens? Why does this require AI to generate a new one every time, rather than just being a standard email that gets sent?
Same with marking quizzes. If children get multiple-choice quizzes regularly across all schools, and marking them uses precious teacher time, why is there not a standard piece of software, paid for once (or written once internally) which enables all children to do quizzes in a standard way, and get them marked automatically?
If we're investing a bunch of money into automating the various processes that teachers spend far too much time on, start with simple automation, which is cheap, easy, and reliable.
Also, wouldn't it be sensible to do some research into how accurately AI marks homework *before* you tell teachers to use it to do that? Here's some research from February which shows that its agreement with examiners was only 0.61 (where 1.00 would be perfect agreement). So I'm sceptical about the quality of the marking it's going to be doing...
And what really annoys me about this is that it's a perfect example of where simple automation could be used without the need for AI.
The precise example in the article is "Generate a letter to parents about a head lice outbreak." - which is a fairly common thing to happen in schools. So why on earth isn't there one standard letter per school, if not one standard letter for the whole country, that can be reused by absolutely everyone whenever this standard event happens? Why does this require AI to generate a new one every time, rather than just being a standard email that gets sent?
Same with marking quizzes. If children get multiple-choice quizzes regularly across all schools, and marking them uses precious teacher time, why is there not a standard piece of software, paid for once (or written once internally) which enables all children to do quizzes in a standard way, and get them marked automatically?
If we're investing a bunch of money into automating the various processes that teachers spend far too much time on, start with simple automation, which is cheap, easy, and reliable.
Also, wouldn't it be sensible to do some research into how accurately AI marks homework *before* you tell teachers to use it to do that? Here's some research from February which shows that its agreement with examiners was only 0.61 (where 1.00 would be perfect agreement). So I'm sceptical about the quality of the marking it's going to be doing...
no subject
Date: 2025-06-11 04:16 am (UTC)I think that's fantasy though, because if you can't manage to work with a bunch of humans to explain/discover what your actual requirements are, you will have even less luck in getting what you want from any "AI" model. At a certain point of complexity, I would say the difference between "prompt engineering" and "coding" essentially vanishes.
Software development (and operational care) is a misunderstood and probably underestimated craft by most non professionals, and the talent, patience, mindset, training, learning etc. necessary to understand it is not quick or easy to acquire. Like so many many jobs/professions/crafts. The spirit of the age has a powerful minority that don't want to rely on "experts", and a larger population that want to believe they can understand all the jobs in the world around them, that 'anyone can do it" - but that's fantasy too.
As is proved by these nonsense suggestions for teachers. The people suggesting this don't understand LLMs, software or teaching. The beauty of a human society SHOULD BE THAT they don't need to - IF they work WITH the specialists and experts who DO understand.