AI Project Information Request
ME...@gmr.com.uucp
>From: ka...@b.cs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: AI Project Information Request
>
>
>Automatic checking and automatic grading are different things. I think
> <<* 3. WEAK: I think *>>^
>automatic computer checking is a good thing, especially for spelling
>and simpler grammar.
>
>But there is no reason to grade automatically, just let the students
> ^<<* 23. SENTENCE BEGINS WITH BUT *>>
>work on their papers (with the automatic checker) until they are satisfied.
> <<* 21. PASSIVE VOICE: are satisfied. *>>^
> <<* 17. LONG SENTENCE: 24 WORDS *>>^
>Then have them turn in their work and the final computer critique to a human
>grader.
>
>The situation is similar to programming, where the compiler
>automatically checks the syntax. It would be unthinkable to make people turn
>in programs without letting them compile the programs first. On
>the other hand it would unthinkable to leave a syntax error in
>when the compiler tells you right were it is.
>
>
> <<** SUMMARY **>>
>
> READABILITY INDEX: 10.42
> Readers need a 10th grade level of education to understand.
>
> STRENGTH INDEX: 0.41
> The writing can be made more direct by using:
> - the active voice
> - shorter sentences
>
> DESCRIPTIVE INDEX: 0.65
> The use of adjectives and adverbs is within the normal range.
>
> JARGON INDEX: 0.00
>
> SENTENCE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
> 1. Most sentences contain multiple clauses.
> Try to use more simple sentences.
>
> << UNCOMMON WORD LIST >>
>The following words are not widely understood.
>Will any of these words confuse the intended audience?
> CRITIQUE 1 SYNTAX 2 UNTHINKABLE 2
> << END OF UNCOMMON WORD LIST >>
>
>
>Carl Kadie
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kadie
>CSNET: ka...@UIUC.CSNET
>ARPA: ka...@M.CS.UIUC.EDU (ka...@UIUC.ARPA)
Carl,
Your submission regarding grammar/style checkers sends a mixed
message to me. The content appears to advocate the use of such
systems as tutoring tools. The automatic critique interspersed
throughout the text, however, seems to belie your intention.
First of all, it failed to point out three blatant errors in the text:
> But there is no reason to grade automatically, just let the students work
on their papers (with the automatic checker) until they are satisfied.
- a comma is an inappropriate conjuntion for the two independent clauses
here; a semi-colon would be more appropriate.
> On the other hand it would unthinkable to leave a syntax error in when
the compiler tells you right were it is.
- 'where' is misspelled as "were".
- 'be' was omitted before 'unthinkable'.
Second, I have a number of objections to the types of criticisms the
program does make. You characterize automatic style checking as
"... a good thing, especially for spelling and simpler grammar".
I would call it simple-minded, not simple. The complaint about
the use of passive voice in "until they are satisfied" is ridiculous.
This is not an example of passive voice at all; it's a predicate
adjective. And even if passive voice had been used there, so what?
The strength index in the summary gives the text a low grade on the
basis of two supposed weaknesses: one occurrance of passive voice,
and one sentence which is overly long (24 words). This evaluation
is quite misleading to a student, who will subsequently comb his
papers for constructions like "they are satisfied" to be purged, and
will frantically count words in sentences. No machine or human
critic should object to the use of "they are satisfied" in this
context (or probably any other). And if you want to evaluate
sentence length as an index of readability, number of words is
too superficial an index to use. The readability of a sentence
is better judged by the embedding of clauses, or syntactic complexity.
I think it would be dangerous to have students become obsessed with
counting words in sentences while ignoring sentence structure, just
because the teacher requires them to use an inadequate computer program
as a teaching aid.
I could go on and on. And I think I will, because I get so angered
by the commercial crap which is passed off to gullible teachers and
parents as computer-aided instruction! I don't want my child to
learn how to write with a program that scolds him every time he
begins a sentence with the word 'but', and tells him that he should
"try to use more simple sentences" because "most [of his] sentences
contain multiple clauses". There's nothing wrong with multiple clauses,
even in most of your sentences. Try writing most sentences with
single clauses. The technique will not enhance your writing style,
I assure you. Granted, you don't want to embed clauses in your
sentences to the depths of Hell. But the difficulty in comprehending
sentences with a lot of embedding stems from the syntactic structure,
and not simply the number of clauses. (Nyaaa nyaaa, I just started a
sentence with 'but'. Did it make your skin crawl as you read it? No,
of course not. Some sentences just cry out to begin with 'but', although
not ALL your sentences should.) Which sentence do you find more
readable: the sentence criticized for its length in your text (number 1
below), or my utterly grammatical and very short sentence number 2?
1. But there is no reason to grade automatically, just let the
students work on their papers (with the automatic checker) until
they are satisfied.
2. The man the girl the boy loved kissed died.
I don't want my child's creativity and personality in his writing to
be stifled by a computer program which performs such rigid and
superficial analysis. Nor do I want his writing to be limited to
an average 10th grade level when he's in 10th grade if his writing
ability goes beyond the level of the average 10th grader. Thanks
for including your style checker's criticisms in your message. It
serves as evidence that those programs may do more harm than good
to a child's developing literary talents.
Linda Means
means%gmr...@relay.cs.net