Can I Use A.I. to Grade My Students’ Papers?

I am a junior-high-school English teacher. In the past school year, there has been a significant increase in students’ cheating on writing assignments by using artificial intelligence. Our department feels that 13-year-old students will only become better writers if they practice and learn from the successes and challenges that come with that.

Recently our department tasked students with writing an argumentative essay, an assignment we supported by breaking down the process into multiple steps. The exercise took several days of class time and homework to complete. All of our students signed a contract agreeing not to use A.I. assistance, and parents promised to support the agreement by monitoring their children when they worked at home. Yet many students still used A.I.

Some of our staff members uploaded their grading rubric into an A.I.-assisted platform, and students uploaded their essays for assessment. The program admittedly has some strengths. Most notable, it gives students writing feedback and the opportunity to edit their work before final submission. The papers are graded within minutes, and the teachers are able to transfer the A.I. grade into their roll book.

I find this to be hypocritical. I spend many hours grading my students’ essays. It’s tedious work, but I feel that it’s my responsibility — if a student makes an effort to complete the task, they should have my undivided attention during the assessment process.

Here’s where I struggle: Should I embrace new technology and use A.I.-assisted grading to save time and my sanity even though I forbid my students from using it? Is it unethical for teachers to ask students not to use A.I. to assist their writing but then allow an A.I. platform to grade their work? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

You have a sound rationale for discouraging your students from using A.I. to draft their essays. As with many other skills, writing well and thinking clearly will improve through practice. By contrast, you already know how to grade papers; you don’t need the practice.

What matters is whether an A.I.-assisted platform can reliably appraise and diagnose your students’ writing, providing the explanation and guidance these students need to improve. In theory, such tools — and I see that there are several on the market, including from major educational publishers — have certain advantages. The hope is that they can grade without inconsistency, without getting tired, without being affected by the expectations that surely affect those of us who hand-grade student work.

I notice you haven’t raised concerns about whether the platform provides reliable assessments; you’ll have to decide if it does. (If it isn’t quite up to snuff, it might become so in a year or two, so your question will persist.) Provided the platform does a decent job of assessment, though, I don’t see why you must do it all yourself. You should review the A.I.-annotated versions of your students’ writing, check that you agree with the output, and make notes of issues to bring up in class. But time saved in evaluating the papers might be better spent on other things — and by “better,” I mean better for the students. There are pedagogical functions, after all, that only you can perform.

In sum: It’s not hypocritical to use A.I. yourself in a way that serves your students well, even as you insist that they don’t use it in a way that serves them badly.

Readers Respond

The previous question was from a reader who asked about professional boundaries. He wrote: “I am a retired, married male psychiatrist. A divorced female former patient of mine contacted me recently, 45 years after her treatment ended. Would it be OK to correspond with her by email? Or is this a case of ‘once a patient, always a patient?’”

In his response, the Ethicist noted: “The relevant professional associations tend to have strictures that are specifically about sexual relationships with former patients. … In light of the potential for exploitation within the therapist-patient relationship, these rules are meant to maintain clear boundaries, protect patient welfare, uphold the integrity of the profession and eliminate any gray areas that could lead to ethical breaches. But though you do mention her marital status, and yours, you’re just asking about emailing her — about establishing friendly relations. The question for you is whether she might be harmed by this, whether whatever knowledge or trust gained from your professional relationship would shadow a personal one. Yes, almost half a century has elapsed since your professional relationship, but you still have to be confident that a correspondence with her clears this bar. If it does, you may email with a clear conscience.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)

⬥

As always, I agree with the Ethicist. I would add that the letter writer’s former patient doesn’t realize that the therapist is actually two different people — the professional and the regular person underneath. Therapists portray their professional selves to their clients. The former client may be disappointed upon meeting the therapist outside of the professional context. Additionally, the feelings she has toward the therapist may be based on transference, and they would need to address that. — Annemarie

⬥

I am a clinical psychologist. While the Ethicist’s description of professional ethical boundaries is correct, there is more to the story, and I disagree with his conclusion. A very big question here is why this former patient contacted him after 45 years. That is a question that is best explored and answered within the context of a therapeutic relationship. He would be well- advised to respond in a kind and thoughtful way to convey the clear message that he is not available for ongoing communication, and he should suggest that she consult with another therapist if she feels that would be helpful. — Margaret

⬥

In my case, it was the therapist who reached out to me, seeking to establish a friendship several years after our sessions ended. I was surprised, but he shared that he had since experienced a similar personal tragedy to one I had explored with him in sessions. Since it had been several years since we saw each other professionally, I responded. There was never any hint of romantic or sexual interest. Still, as he continued to reach out to me, clearly desiring a friendship, it never felt right to me. It did feel unprofessional, as his knowledge of me was borne out of a relationship meant to be professional, never personal, as warmly as we might have felt during our sessions. I ended up being disappointed in him for seeking out my friendship. — Liam

⬥

I am a (semi)retired psychiatrist who has been practicing since 1974. In my opinion, “once a patient, always a patient” is correct. Establishing any type of personal relationship with a former patient could undo progress the patient may have made in treatment, and is a slippery slope toward blatantly unethical behavior. As psychiatrists, our responsibility is to work with patients in confronting and resolving issues that are preventing them from having a reality-based perception of their life. With such an outlook, they are more capable of establishing satisfying relationships with others. An ethical psychiatrist is not in the business of providing such satisfaction to his or her patients. — Roger

⬥

I think there is a difference between being friendly and being friends with a former client. As someone who used to attend therapy with a therapist I think dearly of, she made it clear to me that it was OK to send her emails with life updates after our therapeutic relationship ended. But beyond that, I think it would be inappropriate and uncomfortable to pursue a friendship with her, and vice versa, because of the patient-provider relationship that we previously had and the power dynamic that existed between us. The letter writer didn’t share the content of the email his former patient sent to him, but if it’s just a friendly life update, I think it’s fine to write back and thank her for sharing. Beyond that, I feel like it would be unprofessional to meet or pursue a deeper relationship. — Meghan