By | Wu Yaqi
Simply input an electronic document on the computer, and the writing robot can “write out” a page of paper documents with “perfectly restored” handwriting in just a few minutes. Recently, a product called “writing robot” has become a hot seller on e-commerce platforms, with some merchants using keywords like “class teacher” and “civil servant” in their advertisements to attract many buyers.
According to surveys, the popularity of writing robots is driven by the requirement for handwritten documents in various evaluations at the grassroots level. With some stores selling over 30,000 units, the market heat is evident. At least seventy to eighty documents need to be handwritten each semester, filling up four large notebooks with lesson plans? Must handwrite and fill an entire book or several books of theoretical study notes? Required to transcribe “legal notes”? With this tool, all of these can be achieved painlessly.
However, given the current level of technology, the writing robots on the market essentially convert the electronic version of the documents provided by the user into handwritten text, with the only difference being whether the handwriting resembles that of the user. The machines cannot independently help users generate deeper thoughts and insights. Thus, if a job can be completed using a writing robot, it is likely a mechanical task, lacking originality, and may even be repetitive and ineffective labor. What is the significance of such work? It may only exist in the words of some teachers and officials who say, “to cope with inspections, teaching does not require this,” ultimately reducing it to a formality.
The original intention of emphasizing handwritten assessments may be to view the process of handwriting as a learning process, using this method to clarify thoughts, deepen impressions, and draw attention. However, compared to the rich ideals, the reality is somewhat stark; writing robots have become office tools, diminishing the so-called sense of importance. It is evident that the singular and rigid evaluation systems and assessment standards, similar to “handwriting,” cannot match the realities of work.
In terms of lesson planning for teachers, the 2023 “Opinions from the Ministry of Education and eighteen departments on strengthening scientific education work in primary and secondary schools in the new era” proposed continuously optimizing lesson plans and enhancing targeted scientific education guidance for students. It did not stipulate whether lesson plans need to be handwritten. However, reports indicate that some schools and regions still enforce or advocate for handwriting.
In fact, the compilation of lesson plans need not be confined to a single format, nor is it directly related to the level of teaching quality; it is merely one of the tools for teachers to grasp the overall knowledge system of a course. Many teachers resist handwritten lesson plans because the numerous requirements narrow their autonomy in education and teaching, and whether lesson plans are handwritten has become a criterion for evaluating classroom teaching, deviating from the original intention of writing lesson plans.
Therefore, whether for frontline teachers or grassroots officials, the core work is to complete teaching tasks or address real demands, which require face-to-face, practical engagement. A significant portion needs to detach from paper and be grounded in reality, requiring flexibility in practice and should not bind most time and energy to the cumbersome “paperwork.” After all, vivid and interesting classrooms are not found in neatly organized lesson plans, and the vast potential does not lie in repetitive regulations.
Thus, for some quantitative indicators of work, if relevant departments do not design them with the actual effectiveness and convenience of grassroots work as the starting point, or do not fully consider the characteristics of practical implementation, but merely to complete assessments or facilitate management, prioritizing the form and process of work requirements over the content and effectiveness of the work itself, it has already deviated from the essence. The popularity of writing robots is a response to unrealistic evaluation rules and serves as a reminder.
More Content
