Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/23
NCTE Position Statement on Machine Scoring
NCTE and CCCC position statements are always interesting to me because they seem to present the most idealized vision of teaching possible. This is probably my pessimistic side coming out. It sounds great on paper that high-quality assessment will accomplish so many things for students and teachers. I thought it was interesting that most of the results of high-quality assessment were related to literacy. We, as in teachers, have not yet figured our or accepted multiple rhetorics, dialects, languages in students writing. To me, this shows that we have far to go in accepting the complexity of literacy.
In short the NCTE position on machine scoring is: "Machine Scoring Fails the Test." The move towards computer scoring is an obvious move due to the political and social pressures applied to education. However, the statement points out several major issues with computer scoring. The statement identifies the computers inability to recognize the elements of "good writing," hindrance it places on teachers' creativity, and disadvantages students who are unfamiliar with technology while rewarding those who can utilize surface level features of writing.
The alternative to machine scoring is portfolios. The statement focused on portfolios because of the research readily available on portfolios. I am not a fan of portfolios. I like the idea of having “teams of teachers in evaluating portfolios.” However, in my experience, I have never been able to find a small group or even a partner to portfolios. I realize that if this was mandated by the entire department that it could work. I think if portfolios are used that they should be compiled at the end of all of the students writing classes. For example, if students have to take comp 1 and comp 2, they should have a portfolio at the end of both classes rather than a portfolio for each individual class.
I think that this statement shows, among other things, the need for more research on assessment and more collaboration and action on the part of teachers to address this area. Many of the people who work for the digital assessment companies are not teachers or have little to know teaching experience. Maybe, we, the academy should start grooming people to move into these industries.
Vie, Stephanie. “A Pedagogy of Resistance Toward Plagiarism Detection Technologies.” Computers and Composition, 20 (2013): 3-15.
Vie’s article challenges the use plagiarism detection devices. Vie argues that instructors should take a critical and rhetorical approach to plagiarism detection services and to paper mill websites. Rather than focusing the conversation on preventing plagiarism and the usefulness of detection services, Vie argues for taking these products/services and using them in the classroom. By having students critically engage with and examine these sites, students can gain a better understanding of plagiarism. She calls this a pedagogy of resistance. She calls into question the moral, legal, and ethical standards of using services like Turnitin. I never considered that this company is making money from the intellectual property and creative energy of students.
I identified with this article because of the following quote: “[B]y upholding the singular notion of authorship as something individualistic, commercialized, commodified, these sites reinforce individual authorship to the detriment of more communal forms of writing that are prized in online environments such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and so on”(13). I have often felt that the concerns about plagiarism overshadowed more important aspects of writing instruction. Many students today are accustomed to participatory culture (Henry Jenkins). Perceptions about plagiarism have changed. It is important to consider this when addressing plagiarism in the classroom. The focus on catching students and punishing them does not help to prepare them for various writing situations.
Reflection
This week’s reading reminded how far we need to go in regards to assessment of faculty and students. The way assessment is done now reminds me of chapter 1 of New Learning. It seems like the top-down approach to graded where the teacher is a being who knows all, sees, all and grades all. The students are at the bottom without a clear understanding of expectations. So far, my entire teaching career has been overwhelmed with plagiarism detection technologies. It is a “guilty-until-proven-innocent”. We see how that works in regards to social justice. Why would we bring it into the classroom? I think the systems are another example of a need to move towards the New Learning approach. These programs/services continue move towards the business of education instead of learning.
NCTE and CCCC position statements are always interesting to me because they seem to present the most idealized vision of teaching possible. This is probably my pessimistic side coming out. It sounds great on paper that high-quality assessment will accomplish so many things for students and teachers. I thought it was interesting that most of the results of high-quality assessment were related to literacy. We, as in teachers, have not yet figured our or accepted multiple rhetorics, dialects, languages in students writing. To me, this shows that we have far to go in accepting the complexity of literacy.
In short the NCTE position on machine scoring is: "Machine Scoring Fails the Test." The move towards computer scoring is an obvious move due to the political and social pressures applied to education. However, the statement points out several major issues with computer scoring. The statement identifies the computers inability to recognize the elements of "good writing," hindrance it places on teachers' creativity, and disadvantages students who are unfamiliar with technology while rewarding those who can utilize surface level features of writing.
The alternative to machine scoring is portfolios. The statement focused on portfolios because of the research readily available on portfolios. I am not a fan of portfolios. I like the idea of having “teams of teachers in evaluating portfolios.” However, in my experience, I have never been able to find a small group or even a partner to portfolios. I realize that if this was mandated by the entire department that it could work. I think if portfolios are used that they should be compiled at the end of all of the students writing classes. For example, if students have to take comp 1 and comp 2, they should have a portfolio at the end of both classes rather than a portfolio for each individual class.
I think that this statement shows, among other things, the need for more research on assessment and more collaboration and action on the part of teachers to address this area. Many of the people who work for the digital assessment companies are not teachers or have little to know teaching experience. Maybe, we, the academy should start grooming people to move into these industries.
Vie, Stephanie. “A Pedagogy of Resistance Toward Plagiarism Detection Technologies.” Computers and Composition, 20 (2013): 3-15.
Vie’s article challenges the use plagiarism detection devices. Vie argues that instructors should take a critical and rhetorical approach to plagiarism detection services and to paper mill websites. Rather than focusing the conversation on preventing plagiarism and the usefulness of detection services, Vie argues for taking these products/services and using them in the classroom. By having students critically engage with and examine these sites, students can gain a better understanding of plagiarism. She calls this a pedagogy of resistance. She calls into question the moral, legal, and ethical standards of using services like Turnitin. I never considered that this company is making money from the intellectual property and creative energy of students.
I identified with this article because of the following quote: “[B]y upholding the singular notion of authorship as something individualistic, commercialized, commodified, these sites reinforce individual authorship to the detriment of more communal forms of writing that are prized in online environments such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and so on”(13). I have often felt that the concerns about plagiarism overshadowed more important aspects of writing instruction. Many students today are accustomed to participatory culture (Henry Jenkins). Perceptions about plagiarism have changed. It is important to consider this when addressing plagiarism in the classroom. The focus on catching students and punishing them does not help to prepare them for various writing situations.
Reflection
This week’s reading reminded how far we need to go in regards to assessment of faculty and students. The way assessment is done now reminds me of chapter 1 of New Learning. It seems like the top-down approach to graded where the teacher is a being who knows all, sees, all and grades all. The students are at the bottom without a clear understanding of expectations. So far, my entire teaching career has been overwhelmed with plagiarism detection technologies. It is a “guilty-until-proven-innocent”. We see how that works in regards to social justice. Why would we bring it into the classroom? I think the systems are another example of a need to move towards the New Learning approach. These programs/services continue move towards the business of education instead of learning.
| Previous page on path | Chvonne Parker Bio, page 8 of 24 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/23"
digital play?
link? pic?I agree; what is scary is that digital/machine assessment begins to return us to more hierarchical assessment practices. ugh!
Posted on 25 September 2014, 7:31 am by Shelley Rodrigo | Permalink
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...