Is the Future Now for A.I.?

First of all, allow me to address why I chose this article, despite its thickness:


I just think the content is really cool. Imagine what your class would be like if individualized testing and student control of assessment is a working component of your lesson plan.


The timeliness of the artifical intelligence based testing programs cannot be overlooked. In a world gone mad (said in movie trailer guy voice) with standardized testing, there is no room for individual strengths and, as the article clearly points out, weaknesses. If we as teachers are to address differentiation in the classroom, where does that differentiation go on the standardized test? Oh, wait...there is a section for students to put their name down on the test, isn't there?

Clayton Christensen's term "disruptive innovation" is as apt a term as you're going to find here. This is exactly what is going to happen to the world of assessment if this kind of personalized assessing is happening: it will be cheaper, more effective, and the data the teachers will be able to harvest here will certainly disrupt the previous paradigm in public schools to lead way for a new frontier of valid, quality assessment.

I loved the anecdotes regarding Lexia and ALEKS. These are two programs which serve to identify problem areas the students are having and working on these areas until the students are ready to move on and have mastered the skill. They both remind me of a program I used to use called Criterion, which was actually sponsored by the state department of education. In this program, students wrote on a HSPA type persuasive prompt for the allotted time on the state tests. The computer would then assess the results and come back with a number based off the state registered holistic scoring guide. The student could then see within seconds what score they would have received on the writing. I would use it as a starting off point to making a polished final draft. The problem however was that the program was actually too nice to students: it would grade them significantly higher than I would! I would give 4's to papers that Criterion would grade a 6. But again, this was over five years ago...according to this article, the technology have improved greatly.

Of course, the problem becomes accessibility. Ramaswami goes on to note that A.I. based software and programs become useful only when they can be integrated seamlessly into the classroom and unfortunately for many, this is not the case.

I do take issue with John McCarthy, who I think missed the boat on the film A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The whole point of that film is to illustrate the futality of loving something that can't love back, which is what Brian Aldiss (the author of the original short story) makes clear in the story and the film. Of course they are not going to be fully human and that is the point: how does something that you create to act, think, and behave like a human not understand what love is?

Sorry to get that in there, but as a self-respecting movie fan, I had to do it.