[rwbcxrz]

> Personally, I feel the solution to insufficient teacher time is to use peer grading much more, and spot checks. Get kids to read and revise each other's works frequently, and teachers should aim to grade at least N papers per student where N is much less than the number of papers a student writes.

That's how it's done in creative writing courses. I've always found it infinitely more helpful than only having feedback from the instructor, even if the instructor's feedback was generally more helpful/useful than peer feedback.

[chessturk]

Things like this story, Word's auto-grader, and Grammerly's style preferences are all surreal to me. We are asking a computer to validate prose meant for human consumption.

Not a reflection of physical reality like sensor data or even accounting information, but the method of communication explicitly invented for production and consumption by humans.

Of course feedback from humans is more valuable than feedback computers, it would be irrational/miraculous if anything was better at giving feedback than a human.

It is a shame it isn't self evident to instructors how poor of a solution this is, and how much better the results are when using critique by peers and instructors -- the classic way of doing things.