NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring

I have to say from the onset that this annotated bibliography is such a great resource. How great would it be if all of the position statements had this wealth of information appended to the end! It's not surprising that NCTE is against the machine scoring, but their rationale for why they oppose this technology is powerful and persuasive. I'm glad that so much of the objection here relates to the inauthenticity of the writing situation in high stakes writing tests scored by machines. As the statement says, "Computer scoring removes the purpose from written communication" (2), for there is no communication, strictly speaking, between a human and computer. If no one is willing to read a students' writing, why should they care at all what they write? 

I also appreciated their emphasis on assessing writing in a valid way. That's crucial. Here is a link to a document that Dr. Brian Huot put together on writing assessment validity for a workshop he did at Tri-C earlier this year. I found it interesting that the computers get progressively worse as the length of the piece of writing increases. That's something definitely to watch out for. If these computer readers are favored because they help "reduce the costs" (1), we cannot turn over the decisions of what kind, length, and quality of writing we (the faculty) want to see in student writing to those in the 'business' of overtly politically-motivated groups. 

I'm also glad that the position statement focused on portfolio assessment, which aims to capture growth over time (3) and provide plenty of formative assessments. This kind of assessment really provides students with the chance to engage in the revision process and learn from that revision. Programs like Tk20 and many LMSs allow students to collect and organize writing (across different courses) into a portfolio that they can then take with them after they graduate. This is something I'd like to do more with in my classes in the future when I have the time to structure the assignment properly. 

Vie, Stephanie. "A Pedagogy of Resistance Toward Plagiarism Detection Technologies." Computers and Composition 30 (2013): 3-15. 

I'll be perfectly frank: this is the sort of scholarship within comp/rhet studies that needs a serious, critical reaction. I may write it myself if I have time. Although I agree that these plagiarism detection technologies are far from perfect and can't be relied on to be totally accurate, I reject Vie's idea that they should be avoided because they "prize singular authorship above all other forms" (3). This is the sort of pseudo-philosophical nonsense proffered by people (like Peter Elbow) that sounds great on the surface (democratic, student-centered, etc.) but that isn't based  in reality. It's really simple: students shouldn't plagiarize, and they should be held accountable for it. All of the open discussions and "writing events" in the world won't change the fact that some people will plagiarized. Given our society and laws, students need to know this is unacceptable and be held responsible; otherwise, we're setting them up for more serious failure in their futures. This isn't "circular logic" as Vie calls it. I know, I know. Everything is about community and collaboration now, but some comp/rhet people are far too quick to toss out the individual (and the responsibilities given to the individual, like not to plagiarize) in favor of the group, but that is reductive, and that mindset comes at a loss. I think there's a need for a group of scholars within comp/rhet to urge caution agains the onslaught of this 'collaborative everything' mindset. Please don't misunderstand: collaborative learning is important, but so is individual learning and problem-solving. Some writing can be done communally, but some writing (and work) requires isolation and impersonality. See my "Coetzee, Blanchot and the Work of Writing: The Impersonality of Childhood" forthcoming in MediaTropes later this Fall. 

Here's a NYT's article a colleague shared with me a few months ago on isolation versus the 'new groupthink.' 

My notes on BR 4 are contained in the Technology Challenge assignment.