Robo-Readers? No thank you.

Robo-readers?  Really? Is this what our society is coming to? A time where we now have robots reading student’s essays because it’s faster? This to me does not seem right at all.

I believe that it would be impossible for a Robo-reader to accurately evaluate someone’s writing because of how fasts they go through them, and for the simple fact that it is not a human doing the reading. Michael Winerip from the New York Times says that most of these Robo-readers, specifically the e-Rater cannot identify truth. “E-Rater doesn’t care if you say the War of 1812 started in 1945.” This is unacceptable. If the Robo-readers are unable to identify truth, how is that accurately evaluating the writing? It’s not.

From the E-Rater website, it shows all the many different features of what the e-rater is able to do. Some of the main ones are: lexical complexity/diction, proportion of grammar errors, and proportion of style comments. These things, yes, are good things to look at in a paper, but they are not the most important things. True statements and facts are what should be included and is what the paper should be graded on. Because the e-rater only scores on the basis of whether or not you can write sophistically does not show whether or not it is a good paper. Some papers, even if they are shorter and use simple sentences are still good pieces of writing, but the e-rater will no score from this because to it, it is not a well-written essay.

We all know that when we are assigned a paper, that someone is going to have to read it and grade it, and that person is our teacher. For them, this is very time consuming, but it is still better than having a robot read the paper. Torie Bosch asks the question of whether or not Robo-readers would ever be able to match the effects that a teacher has on the reading of a paper. She says that with the automated grading it would allow teachers to assign more writing assignments which would improve skills. With this though, if students aren’t able to see red marks written on their paper, or the teacher has no knowledge of what they are writing…is this really going to help improve their writing abilities?

I, for one, think that the Robo-readers are a horrible idea. I realize that reading essays is very time consuming, but having a robot read and grade 16,000 essays in 20 seconds is ridiculous. There is no way that it would be able to give an accurate score, like a human would be able to do. The Robo-readers not only take away from the writers experience to see the mistakes that they made, but it also takes away from the teachers ability to be able to sit down with a student and go over the work together. All in all, Robo-readers are something that I hope I will never have to deal with because it cannot be as accurate as a human would be scoring an essay.

Maps

In this map, I noticed that everything is spaced out equally and divided into bigger sections that are turned into smaller sections. I also noticed that there is some sort of wall that seems to be keeping the map/district in one area and not expanding anywhere else. This map can tell a lot about America. It shows that there was a lot being done to make districts equal among different classes. At the center of this map, is where the highest members of the area live and the social classes expand out from there to show the rank that they have in society. This shows that social class was very important during the 1700s. This relates back to many other narratives during this time because society was always split up according to your social class. This is the same on this map, with the higher social members being in the center of the town and the lower classes being spread out to the outskirts of the town. “In noting how areas of an unfamiliar land replicated locations in Europe and were suited to English industry, Smith made a new landscape seem a natural extension of the old.” This relates back to this map because it is showing that the landscape is becoming more like the European locations than it originally had because it is very spaced out and related back to the social classes.

http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1717m6.jpg

Sound and Fury

Watching the documentary Sound and Fury really opened my eyes up to how different two cultures really can be and how they can come in conflict sometimes. I really found this documentary interesting because I think that there was a very good message in it; that you don’t have to be hearing to be happy.

The documentary focused on one main point: whether or not the cochlear implant was a good idea for a young child, or anyone for that matter. There were very good arguments for both sides and I was able to see them both.

I found myself agreeing with the deaf parents who did not want their child to get the cochlear implant because they felt it would be taking away their deaf culture. I agree with this because I think that if you are born deaf that you’re culture is very important to you. That by knowing sign language you are able to communicate with your family members. I feel like the cochlear implant would be taking this away from the deaf child because they would be able to hear better and then they would be less likely to use sign language to communicate with the other deaf members in their family.

On the other side, I can see where the hearing members of the family were coming from. The operation would be very beneficial to the baby because it would be easy for them to do certain things without a struggle. I think that the parents saw how hard it was for the child to go to school and not be able to communicate with the other children, so it would make them want to have their child get the operation.

I honestly have no idea what decision I would make if I had a child that was born deaf. I believe that both sides of the cochlear implant fight have valid points. I think that for me, knowing some sign language, would want my child to have the best opportunities they can have, but I would not want to deprive them of their deaf culture and I think that sometimes if someone gets the cochlear implant that it does take away some of their deaf identity.

Overall, I really learned a lot from watching this documentary. It really opened up my eyes to see both sides of the argument and see as to why the family felt the different ways that they did about the cochlear implant.