Provide two examples of AI Turnitin having lack of human touch
1. Grading subjective assignments: AI Turnitin often struggles with grading subjective assignments, such as essays or open-ended questions, which require a certain level of human judgement and interpretation. AI lacks the ability to truly understand the nuances, creativity, and depth of human expression, leading to potential inaccuracies and inconsistencies in grading.
2. Providing personalized feedback: AI Turnitin may lack the ability to provide personalized feedback tailored to individual students' needs. While it can highlight grammatical errors, plagiarism, or formatting issues, it might not be able to offer the same level of personalized guidance as a human teacher. Human touch is important in understanding the specific learning gaps and preferences of each student, providing constructive criticism, and offering detailed suggestions for improvement.
1. Lack of Contextual Understanding: AI Turnitin may lack the ability to understand the contextual nuances of a student's work. It might fail to recognize when a student has paraphrased or quoted an original source correctly but in a way that the AI interprets as plagiarism. This lack of human touch can result in false positives, where students are wrongly accused of academic dishonesty.
2. Inability to Distinguish Intentional from Accidental Plagiarism: AI Turnitin may struggle to distinguish between intentional plagiarism and accidental instances where students forget to properly cite their sources or unintentionally paraphrase too closely to the original text. The lack of human judgment and discernment can lead to unfair penalties being imposed on students who did not intentionally engage in plagiarism due to the absence of empathy and understanding.
AI Turnitin, the automated plagiarism detection tool, certainly has limitations when it comes to mimicking human judgment and touch. Here are two examples that highlight the lack of human touch in AI Turnitin:
1. Contextual understanding: AI Turnitin may not fully grasp the context or purpose of a written piece. For instance, if a student is using quotes from other works to support their argument, the AI might flag those quotes as potential plagiarism even if they are properly cited. Human instructors, on the other hand, can understand the purpose and intention behind the use of those quotes and make a more informed judgment.
To overcome this limitation, AI Turnitin can be complemented with manual review by human instructors. They can examine flagged instances individually, considering the broader context of the work, and determine if it truly constitutes plagiarism or not.
2. Originality assessment: AI Turnitin may struggle to accurately evaluate the originality of creative works. For example, in disciplines like art, literature, or poetry, where uniqueness and creativity are essential, AI Turnitin might not be effective. It may not be capable of recognizing the creative expression within such works, potentially devaluing originality and providing misleading results.
To address this limitation, educators or assessors can manually review creative works, taking into account their subjective evaluation of originality, creativity, and artistic expression. While AI Turnitin can still be used to identify potential matches or similarities in the written content, the final assessment should involve human judgment.
In both cases, combining the analytical capabilities of AI Turnitin with the expertise and understanding of human instructors or assessors can help mitigate the lack of human touch and enhance the overall assessment process.