FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECT ESSAY GRADE (PEG) SOFTWARE

Abstract

The development of increasingly sophisticated software designed to both grade and provide feedback to student written work, called Project Essay Grade (PEG) software, has created significant issues within higher education. Supporters of this technology cite virtually instant grading and feedback as a tremendous upgrade for students. They also cite several studies that indicate no significant differences in actual grades generated by the software and those developed by actual faculty. However, opponents contend that this technology may have adverse effects on the student-teacher relationship that are yet to be fully understood and they also maintain that moving towards a computer based grading system for written work invites the possibility of students ‘hacking’ the software and designing essays not for learning but merely to ‘beat the algorithm’. Studies indicate that undergraduate students may be generally more accepting of this technology as long as the grades meet with expectations. The willingness of faculty to accept this technology remains a critical factor in the process of using PEG software on a large scale. This study surveyed 165 faculty at 3 different universities and revealed that faculty perceptions generally fell into three overarching categories: time constraints, professional/university expectations, and issues of fairness and cheating. Issues of fairness and cheating emerged as the most significant perceptual factor for faculty. ANOVA analysis further revealed that the most significant variable in willingness to accept PEG software was whether or not the faculty taught primarily online or on campus. Overall, faculty had a strong preference not to use PEG software to grade student written work.