Grading with Voice Recognition Software

Like most people, I've always done my grading by hand--students hand in a physical paper, I take a stack of them to a cafe or the library, and settle down with my pen. Again like most people, I try to provide useful comments that will help the students in the future.

This quarter I've been trying out the electronic dropbox, where students have to turn the work in online. My main reason for this was admittedly that I wanted to try out the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin, and that requires digital papers. (So far there has been no hint of plagiarism, I am glad to say.) My secondary reason was that I thought it would be worth trying typed comments. My handwriting is not terrible, but my hand does get tired and sometimes I do spill coffee on papers. I've been using Word's tracking and commenting functions. It seems to work reasonably well, except that I find I experience much more eyestrain.

James M. Lang's recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education provides an interesting look at a rather different approach to grading papers electronically--the use of voice recognition software. Lang's colleague, Geoffrey Vaughan, uses Dragon Naturally Speaking to compose responses to papers. Lang states:

"[F]or years now I have been typing up my remarks on students' work. I began doing that because my handwriting is so illegible, but quickly found it had two unforeseen benefits. First, because I can type faster than I can write, I can give more substantial comments on each paper without adding additional grading time. But second, and more important, instead of my students flipping right to the back page of their paper to see the grade and comments together, my students now almost always sit and read my typed comments first (they are stapled to the front of the paper) and only then flip to the end and check the grade. It may be a small change in how they process the graded work, but to me it sends the right message that the written feedback matters more than the grade."

Intrigued by Vaughan's twist on typed comments, Lang asked for a demonstration of how he dealt with student work using Dragon. Vaughan showed how he gave "a full page of text, single spaced, in numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph corresponded to a number he had placed in the margins of the student paper. A short paragraph at the end provides the standard final comment."

Vaughan says

"I used to put some scribbling in the margins of each paper, and I would draw lines from the margin to the bottom or write 'See over' and then write two or three sentences of a final comment at the end of the paper. Now I simply put a number in the margin, and I speak my response to each of those numbered points."

Lang observes, "His paragraphs are conversational, as you might expect, and not perfectly formulated. Vaughn explains to his students that he uses the software, and that they can always come to him to clarify confusing elements in his comments." He notes that

"As we talked, and I read through the samples he had, it became apparent to me that Vaughan's real commitment to this mode of responding to papers relates more to the conversational tone of his responses than to the time-saving element of it. As he explained it to me, the software has inspired him to think about responding to students' work as more of a dialogue than a summary judgment—a model he learned during the year he spent as a graduate student and tutor at the University of Oxford."

During Vaughan's days at Oxford, he'd been accustomed to having students come and read their papers aloud; the tutor would periodically stop them and discuss their ideas as they read. Use of voice recognition software reminded him of that process and makes him feel like he's having a conversation with the student. "It combines the usual American-style, paper-grading process with the model of the Oxford tutorial," he says.

Vaughan's comments reminded Lang of what he finds "the main challenge of evaluating student work"--the two separate functions of the grading process--"to explain to the students the reasons for the grade they received (i.e., you did these things well, and these things poorly) and to help them understand how to improve their performance." Lang observes,

"To turn our response to a student's work into a dialogue in which we are not simply passing judgment but engaging in a conversation about how the student can improve seems like a pedagogical change worth adopting, whether or not it saves time."

Voice recognition software is pretty easy to use these days. I have Dragon's next-to-latest version and use it to dictate long quotations when taking notes. The key to using voice recognition is simply to spend enough time at the beginning getting it used to your voice and the type of vocabulary you use. It's important to make corrections to its mistakes using the software, because that helps train it not to make the same mistakes again.

I don't know whether I'll take to doing my paper comments this way--I am not good at dictating my thoughts--but this might be a great method for others to try.

Van Gogh Correspondence Online

Van Gogh is one of the artists best known to the average undergraduate, and thus a favorite choice for papers. There's now a great new resource available for everyone from freshman enthusiast to advanced specialist: a digital edition of all 902 extant letters from and to Vincent van Gogh is now online at http://www.vangoghletters.org. The site provides transcriptions of the original Dutch or French text, a translation into English, a full zoomable facsimile, and comprehensive annotation. There are also some 2000 illustrations of the works of art discussed in the letters.

This edition, based on fifteen years of research, was edited by Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten and Nienke Bakker of the Van Gogh Museum, in association with the Huygens Institute. (Editorial procedures are explained under 'About this edition'. A six-volume book edition is published in three languages (Dutch, French and English). More information about the books is available at http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/bookedition.html.

Multiple Intelligences

The other day I attended a workshop on Multiple Intelligences, or what one of the handouts called "Eight Ways of Being Smart." The basic idea here is that the types of intelligence measured on IQ tests are not the only kinds of intelligence, and that the wise instructor will try to get through to students through more than one of these.

I think many people these days are familiar with the idea that some people are strongly visual, others more auditory, and still others predominantly kinesthetic. The theory of Multiple Intelligences, propounded by Harvard scholar Howard Gardner, takes this further and proposes that people strong in...

=>Verbal-linguistic intelligence learn best through reading, hearing and seeing words, speaking, writing, discussing, and debating
=>Math-logical intelligence learn best through working with patterns and relationships, classifying, categorizing, and working with the abstract
=>Spatial intelligence learn best by working with pictures and colors, visualizing, using the mind's eye, and drawing
=>Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence learn best by touching, moving, processing knowledge through bodily sensations
=>Musical intelligence learn best via rhythm, melody, singing, listening to music and melodies
=>Interpersonal intelligence learn best by sharing, comparing, relating, interviewing, and cooperating
=>Intrapersonal intelligence learn best through working alone, doing self-paced projects, having a chance to reflect
=>Naturalist intelligence learn best by working in nature, exploring living things, and learning about plants and natural events.

Gardner hypothesizes these "intelligences" somewhat differently than what we might expect if this were just an expansion of the visual-auditory-kinesthetic modes of processing. Rather than having just one dominant mode, the average person would be likely to have strengths in several. One could be strongest, but not necessarily.

While there is research supporting Gardner's ideas, there is not a consensus on their validity. Gardner has been criticized for not really defining intelligence anew. Nonetheless, most educators would probably agree that the first seven at least represent familiar kinds of abilities and that each person has a specific configuration of strengths and weaknesses in these. We also recognize sub-areas: many people who speak well don't write well and vice versa, skill with color doesn't always accompany skill at recalling visual imagery, etc. Primary school teachers have long tried to work with their pupils to strengthen all of these areas. And there seems little reason to abandon strengthening all of these areas at the college level.

At the end of the workshop, my own main question was how we might practically incorporate this into teaching art history. We're in a discipline, after all, that is primarily visual (falls under so-called spatial intelligence) and verbal. There's a certain amount of the logic side of the math-logic area (patterns and relationships, classifying, categorizing, and abstract thinking all have their place in art history), and successful art historians are usually good at working alone on self-paced projects (intrapersonal). But I'm not worried about how those of us who are already art historians function, I'm thinking about all those students sitting there in dark rooms and auditoriums looking at slides. They look at the slides and listen to us talk, and that's about it. If they're already good at processing that kind of input, fine. But it's hard to drag in some of the other learning modes.

To some extent, some of us do have our students do some group work. This gives us a bit of a break from lecturing, and the more extroverted, team-oriented students tend to like it. We don't, however, find very many ways of including music or movement into our classes.

One of the most memorable experiences I had in an art history class was when I first began to attend art history classes, and sat in on the survey class. When we reached the Romanesque, the professor turned on a portable tape recorder and played Gregorian chant while giving us a nonverbal tour of slides of cathedral interiors. I've always thought this was a wonderful way to introduce Romanesque architecture. Almost any period of art after Romanesque could have a musical introduction, but it would take some knowledge and planning. As for movement, that's more of a challenge. Or am I wrong on that?

What are some of the ways YOU have used some of these modalities in teaching art history, especially at the beginning level? What do you think would work well to help students learn?