Skip to content

The problems with MOOCs 1: Robo-essay grading

April 5, 2013

Massively Open Online Courses (MOOC) are all the rage in 2013 academia. These are free courses offered on the Web designed to be taken by tens of thousands of students at a single time – offered at no cost to the student.  There is much that is desirable about the MOOC model – in the same way that public libraries are desirable.  But the quality of the total educational experience is dubious.

Several of the MOOC providers are for-profit. (How will they make money?  Perhaps by selling certificates attesting to students’ participation in MOOCs.)  But arguably the most aggressive and prestigious MOOC consortium is EdX – it currently offers courses from Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley; and beginning in Fall 2013, it will expand to include more schools from the US (U. Texas, Rice, Georgetown, Wellesley), Canada (McGill, U. Toronto), Europe (TU Delft, EPFL) and even Australian National U.  I’ve been focusing my attention on EdX – both because of the prestige of member schools and because it is non-profit.

As I will report in subsequent posts, I’ve discovered some questionable pedagogy in several courses I’ve examined.  But before discussing my own investigations, I’d like to point to a news story from yesterday – John Markoff’s New York Times report that EdX is releasing software to allow MOOC instructors (or a conventional college instructor) to have computers auto-grade essays.

There are many problems with auto-grading essays – contemporary automated graders cannot actually “understand” the essay, so instead it must depend on superficial features – features that can be gamed.  In particular, automated graders cannot address the underlying logic, factual assertions, or actual meaning of a student essay.  MIT’s Les Perelman has demonstrated this repeatedly.  The BLT blog previously reported how a nonsense essay by Les Perelman (quoted in red here) received the maximum possible grade from automated grading software.  (Perelman gives a good critique of studies of automated grading software here.)

Using automated grading software in an online environment will allow students, as they repeatedly use the software, to learn what superficial features (e.g., “use big words”) cause the automated grader to give high grades.  We will not be teaching students skills in critical thinking or cogent writing, but rather conditioning them to successfully “game” automated grading software.  

I’m simply stunned that EdX member institutions are taking this seriously.  But, according to Markoff’s report, they are:

[T]he growing influence of the EdX consortium to set standards is likely to give the technology a boost. On Tuesday, Stanford announced that it would work with EdX to develop a joint educational system that will incorporate the automated assessment technology.

Indeed, one of the founders of one of the commercial MOOC provider argues that this training students to “game” the grader is actually a benefit, since it will make learning fun:

“It allows students to get immediate feedback on their work, so that learning turns into a game, with students naturally gravitating toward resubmitting the work until they get it right,” said Daphne Koller, a [Stanford] computer scientist [professor] and a founder of [for-profit MOOC provider] Coursera.

Teaching good writing is admirable.  Teaching critical thinking is admirable.  But the MOOCs are proposing something different:  teaching students to submit and resubmit an essay until a student learns the idiosyncrasies of the automated grading software and is able to regularly “trick” it into giving good grades.

About these ads
6 Comments leave one →
  1. April 5, 2013 9:26 pm

    FWIW I wrote parts of some of the automatic grading engines in use today. Those were never intended to grade for more than style. They was a content engine that could deconstruct individual sentences that could be fed an essay and then pair off sentences against gradable frequently occurring claims. But that would only work for very narrowly defined questions. Otherwise these things were designed to speed up the process of human graders.

    They were never meant to be used independently when they were built. I don’t think it was ever even discussed given how unsuitable they obviously were.

  2. April 8, 2013 4:45 pm

    CD-Host — thanks so much for your frank comment.

    I had an animated discussion with some faculty colleagues on this today.

    What amazes me is that there is a significant fraction of colleagues who are perfectly OK with automated grading.

  3. April 8, 2013 5:00 pm

    What amazes me is that there is a significant fraction of colleagues who are perfectly OK with automated grading.

    Maybe if they knew what we were doing behind the scenes they wouldn’t be. I’ll give you an example. I wrote a collocations part which matches pairs of words that occur frequently together in english: domestic cat, web posting… Certainly colocations are used by foreigners with a high degree of frequency (mistakes). Certain colocations are used by smart writers. Certain colocations are used by terrible writers. Statistically we can group these into about a 1/2 dozen groups and score an essay.

    The computer has no idea what these colocations mean! We are literally saying this is the sort of word pair people from southern asia who have language difficulties use so it is statistically more likely you are making all sorts of other grammar errors. We are literally saying this is the sort of word pair people who study hard used so it is statistically more likely you are saying something correct.

  4. April 8, 2013 5:09 pm

    I had an animated discussion with some faculty colleagues on this today.

    I had to read this twice. In the context, at first glance, the sentence read: “I had an animation discussion … on this today”

    http://www.presentermedia.com/index.php?target=closeup&maincat=animsp&id=4967
    :)

Trackbacks

  1. The problems with MOOCs 2: WeTakeYourClass.com | BLT
  2. The Problem with MOOCs 3: Homework | BLT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 389 other followers

%d bloggers like this: