Possible Future?
One potentially important aspect of technology-enhanced multiliteracy centers of the more distant future may be the use of automated writing evaluation (AWE). AWE employs artificial intelligence (AI) to assess student essays and encourage revision. There is increasing research support for the reliability and validity of AWE in delivering feedback to student writing (Shermis, Burstein, & Leacock, 2006), including non-surface aspects, such as semantic quality (Landauer, Laham, & Foltz, 2003). While there is little talk of using such tools in writing centers today, Paul Deane (2012) and others have suggested the possibility. Moreover, as the software improves, such discussions may follow suit. For now, there are institutions exploring the use of AWE to refer students to writing centers [see, Klobucar, et al (2012)], and such moves suggest that writing centers should at least be familiar with the technology – understand the strengths and weaknesses, and be able to respond thoughtfully as students begin incorporating AI feedback into the writing process.
In Utility in a Fallible Tool, Grimes and Warschauer explored how AWE worked in the real world. As noted by Cuban (2009), countless applications of educational technology have tried and failed because of instructor opposition rather than shortcomings in the technologies themselves. While several instructors and students did deem the program undependable, and some instructors’ desire to employ traditional writing approaches reduced their usage, employing the software nonetheless produced significant advantages. Data collected suggested that using AWE streamlined classroom management and strengthened students’ drive to write and revise. The achievements of the AWE strategies Grimes and Warschauer explored were the consequence of several narrow dynamics that are difficult to replicate, some of which included relatively advanced AWE software, robust administrative and instructor peer collaboration, exceptional professional development, and instructors who were prepared and enthusiastic about trying new ideas. AWE has been a hot topic, with various supporters seeing it as a quick and easy solution to a very difficult problem. Others, however, see it as a hazard to the essence of instruction and learning. Grimes and Warschauer observed insufficient evidence for either perception. Instead, they suggested that thoughtful application of AWE had the potential to facilitate students’ intrinsic desire to write and revise, improved writing practice, and greater instructor attention to stylistic and aesthetic points rather than basic mechanics. Such benefits required purposive instructors who could incorporate AWE into a comprehensive writing program that gave emphasis to authentic communication, and who could assist students in diagnosing and adjusting for software shortcomings – many of which were not apparent to untrained users. Therefore, as with most educational technologies, AWE does not offer a remedy for flawed pedagogy, but when used appropriately, it can increase the effectiveness of good instructors working in a comprehensive program.
In Utility in a Fallible Tool, Grimes and Warschauer explored how AWE worked in the real world. As noted by Cuban (2009), countless applications of educational technology have tried and failed because of instructor opposition rather than shortcomings in the technologies themselves. While several instructors and students did deem the program undependable, and some instructors’ desire to employ traditional writing approaches reduced their usage, employing the software nonetheless produced significant advantages. Data collected suggested that using AWE streamlined classroom management and strengthened students’ drive to write and revise. The achievements of the AWE strategies Grimes and Warschauer explored were the consequence of several narrow dynamics that are difficult to replicate, some of which included relatively advanced AWE software, robust administrative and instructor peer collaboration, exceptional professional development, and instructors who were prepared and enthusiastic about trying new ideas. AWE has been a hot topic, with various supporters seeing it as a quick and easy solution to a very difficult problem. Others, however, see it as a hazard to the essence of instruction and learning. Grimes and Warschauer observed insufficient evidence for either perception. Instead, they suggested that thoughtful application of AWE had the potential to facilitate students’ intrinsic desire to write and revise, improved writing practice, and greater instructor attention to stylistic and aesthetic points rather than basic mechanics. Such benefits required purposive instructors who could incorporate AWE into a comprehensive writing program that gave emphasis to authentic communication, and who could assist students in diagnosing and adjusting for software shortcomings – many of which were not apparent to untrained users. Therefore, as with most educational technologies, AWE does not offer a remedy for flawed pedagogy, but when used appropriately, it can increase the effectiveness of good instructors working in a comprehensive program.