Blog post 4 -

Blog post 4

Emma Martin

    The article, What can automation tell us about agency, by Carolyn Miller was very interesting to read and made me consider the negative effects that technology may have when it comes to learning. Carolyn Miller exclaimed that there can be uncertainties when it comes to automated assessment systems and that the agency is a key role in addressing those uncertainties. Agency is the action of a decision, otherwise stated by Caroyln Miller "our attributions of the agency are ultimately moral judgments, matters of human decency and respect, matters of "acknowledgment", to use Micheal Hyde's more theological term" ( Miller, 153 ). As students are being graded with advanced computers, particularly with public speaking and written work, there is a lack of agency. Computers don't have ethics or morals, and the results of the student's assessments could not truly be accurate compared to the student's results graded from person to person. Miller argues this accurately, stating that "writing teachers generally are more sensitive to the difficulties involved in writing assessments, and speech teachers are more sensitive to those involved in assessments of speaking. The reasons for skepticism included the belief that computers could never consider communitive complexities such as creativity, appropriateness to context, the expression of emotion, and individual cultural differences" ( Miller, 140 ). Miller also stated that "Speech tempts us to focus exclusively on bodily motion, personal presence, eye contact, and to neglect symbolic action, mental presence, emotional contact, all of which are manifested in both writing and speaking and all of which are means through which we can infer rhetorical action and agency. I suggest, then, that we think of agency as the kinetic energy of rhetorical performance ( Miller, 147 ). Rhetorical action is how one communicates with another, and how their message is being interpreted. Computers don't have emotions, how can they understand an individual's "kinetic energy of rhetorical performance" if they can't understand the tone that the individual is expressing in their speech or written work? I believe that this leaves results in a lack of connection and appropriate feedback between the individual and their work. The individual will then have a more difficult time understanding what they can improve, compared to if their advisor, audience, or professor were to sympathize or respond to them, which typically helps for future engagements or performances.  

    I agree with Carolyn Miller's statements and arguments over how automated assessment systems aren't necessary for specific tests like public speaking. I personally have experienced both person-to-person public speaking and video speaking. Comparing the two I have learned that although I find video speaking less stressful, it is overall less effective and beneficial to my skills in public speaking. For example, I often struggle with maintaining eye contact and fidgeting, but during my person-to-person speeches, I was able to acknowledge what I was actively doing, which then helps me understand what I can do better next time. Especially if I have that connection with my teacher or professor, I feel calmer if I can connect with them about past experiences and why I struggle. My experiences through the video speeches never allowed me to have that connection, and I wasn't able to learn how to change my behaviors since there was no one actually to speak to on the other side of the screen. 

Miller, Carolyn R, "What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?", Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 26 February 2011.