<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by Kevin Dawkins</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by Kevin Dawkins</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/14036</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/14036/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>While this technology seems like it could be a good idea, I do not see how it could be beneficial in the long run. Too many errors could take place and it would be hard to match the exact context of what the writer was trying to say. </title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/33800?scroll_to=336259</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/33800?scroll_to=336259</guid>
      <description>I can see where this automatic grading could be useful when grading multiple choice and matching answers. However, I do not see the benefit of having this software grading short answers and essay. 

I might be one of the skeptics, but in my mind there is no way for a machine to take words and understand the exact context in which the writer is meaning to use them in. I feel like if this software was to be used in schools then children would eventually be graded unfairly which would result in a whole other mess in itself having to deal with upset students and parents. </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:10:17 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>So, we are allowed multiple opportunities to correct our mistakes? If so, then why study when its ultimately fail proof?</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/33800?scroll_to=336258</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/33800?scroll_to=336258</guid>
      <description></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2015 14:41:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
