Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (September 2005) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

Re: Pilot by Kentucky Comm and Tech Coll System: Outsourcing acad emic functions

From:

Christa Ehmann Powers <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:52:48 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (447 lines)

Greetings Listservers:

My name is Christa Ehmann Powers, and I'm the Vice President of Education at
Smarthinking.  I write regarding recent posts about Smarthinking and
Kentucky's pilot program.

I understand that there are a variety of views and opinions expressed on
this topic.  I also acknowledge that this type of program cannot be
integrated into all institutional contexts-nor do I believe it should be.
For the purposes of this post, however, I'd like to clarify a few issues
that have been addressed in previous messages:

* First and foremost, I'd like to emphasize that within this pilot program
control for the final grade of an essay rests firmly with the faculty
member.  The faculty member determines the final grade-our tutors do not.
* To help faculty members in their evaluation, our trained and experienced
tutors provide written critiques of student essays.  All comments on an
individual essay are written with an awareness of the student's current
assignment and are informed by the student's past submissions, to which the
tutor has access.  A critique involves:
- overarching, qualitative commentary about an essay-commentary that
addresses an essay's strengths and weaknesses
- a completed rubric that addresses both global and local areas of the
essay, for example: main idea/thesis, introduction, content development, and
word choice
- a numeric score as well as sub-scores for the aforementioned issues, all
of which are recommended by a tutor.
* The faculty member then reviews this information from the tutor and
determines the final grade for the student.
* With this in mind, the tutor critique is a supplement to the work of the
professor.  Indeed, this can help professors become more "efficient" within
current time parameters.  To be sure, however, the purpose is not to create
a "paper mill" service.  The goal is to afford professors more time with
their learners-teaching and learning one-to-one or spending time in other
ways as they see fit.
* Regarding issues of quality: all Smarthinking tutors complete an online,
distance training program (outlined in my co-authored book: Preparing
Educators for Online Writing Instructors: Principles and Processes, Hewett
and Ehmann, NCTE 2004).  Our academic director, Dr. Amy Stuber (currently on
maternity leave), oversees and is continually advancing this training
program in light of the most recent findings about online teaching and
learning.  Our tutors are regularly evaluated and undergo additional
context-specific orientation for the Kentucky program.
* Finally, I'd like to emphasize that the program with Kentucky is, indeed,
a pilot.  We are, therefore, learning more about the complexities of online
writing instruction within the context of online grade guidance for faculty
members.  We see this as a potentially powerful strategy in our mission of
making learning more accessible to diverse populations of students.

I hope this information clarifies some of the questions surrounding the
intentions of the program.

With Warm Regards,

Christa

Christa Ehmann Powers, Ph.D.
Vice President, Education
SMARTHINKING, Inc.
1900 L Street NW
Suite 301
Washington, D.C. 20036
P: 202 543 5034 ext 205
F: 202 543 5589
[log in to unmask]
www.smarthinking.com


-----Original Message-----
From: John Orr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pilot by Kentucky Comm and Tech Coll System: Outsourcing
academic functions


Dear Listservers:

About 20 years ago, my college allowed some English faculty to make use
of hired paper graders as a way of lessening the workload for
instructors.  For a couple of semesters, I used them, and found that my
load was not lessened much because 1)I still felt I had to read the
essays in order to teach students effectively and 2) there were types of
useful comment that the hired help could not make and that I could.  In
addition, the wait time for the scoring then was 1 week, which was far
too long to promote effective teaching in a semester-length class.

However, Smarthinking has brought the wait time down to one day.  And
the company would offer a neutral grader, with no knowledge of the
student so no bias (as well as no opportunity to provide
individually-directed help, to be sure).  I can quite easily imagine
some assignments, perhaps few, being scored by outside readers using a
rubric.

As for who monitors the outside scorers, I can imagine a feedback loop
from instructors who have used the system and subsequently scored a few
of the same essays of their own.  I have no idea whether Smarthinking is
planning such an activity.

John Orr
Director, Academic Support Programs and Services
Fullerton College
Fullerton, California 92832

[log in to unmask]
(714) 992-7000, Ext. 26800



-----Original Message-----
From: Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patty Van Osterhoudt
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pilot by Kentucky Comm and Tech Coll System: Outsourcing
academic functions

Listservers,  I would think the Smarthink reader would have to clearly
understand the criteria of the professor's writing prompt in order to
grade fairly.  It seems one would necessarily need to be in the
classroom to understand the scope of the assignment.  This reminds of
when my high school-age children brought home math homework and wanted
my help!
Patty

Nic Voge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Sonya & Listservers,
I think your questions are well-framed and your concerns very
reasonable. I fear, as your questions suggest, that this pursuit of
"efficiency" is ripe for problems and abuses.

I think you are too generous to the college, though, when you say this
"tool" could be used or misused. My opinion is that this pedagogical
choice is based on a flawed view of teaching and learning, and
evaluation and grading in particular. I don't believed it is justified
or even justifiable in pedagogical terms. Teacher evaluation of student
work is an essential aspect of the INTERACTIVE and STRATEGIC nature of
both teaching and learning. Informed, specific evaluation of students
work by the instructor is vital to completing the feedback loop between
teaching and learning. But, this approach mistakenly conceives of
grading as ancillary to teaching and thus amenable to outsourcing.

Another mistaken belief is that writing across disciplines, courses and
levels can be graded along the same criteria. Writing Across the
Curriculum studies demonstrate how utterly simplistic this conception of
academic writing is.

What I see happening here is that there is no powerful constituency in
the college to object to this pedagogical malpractice. Financially
stretched college administrators want to save money and they see this as
a mechanism for doing so. Over-burdened faculty would love to get out
from under one of the more onerous aspects of their jobs--grading. And
there is no countervailing force in the institution to challenge this
path of least resistance in the name of QUALITY of instruction and
learning.

I would bet my bottom dollar that this decision could not be easily
squared with the college's mission statement. Put another way, this
choice doesn't follow from the highest values of the institution, but
from the crassest pursuit of economic "efficiency". Students, the only
constituency likely to challenge this move now that faculty have
abdicated their responsibilities, probably don't have the awareness,
sense of agency and voice they would need to effectively protest.
And, they are less likely, now that pedagogy has been sacrificed in the
name of penury, to acquire them through their education.

Nic

>Will instructor written assignment prompts be reviewed by Smarthinking
>to see if they are well written and clear?
>
>Will students be given the 8 area, 32 item criteria so they know upon
>what they are being assessed?
>
>Will faculty read through the graded essays to become familiar with
>student patterns of change and progress?
>
>Concerns about grading the graders in the comment area are appropriate.
>Since Smarthinking is a for profit business, will they attend to
>excellence in their product or might they sacrifice this in order to
>meet the 24 hour turnaround expected by their "clients"? Who will
>assess the quality of the product being produced by Smarthinking?
>
>As with any tool, this could be used well or misused. I'll be
>interested in how this develops.
>
>Sonya Hildreth ([log in to unmask])
>California State University, Fresno
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Kern
>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:31 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Pilot by Kentucky Comm and Tech Coll System: Outsourcing
>academic functions
>
>Sept. 22
>Outsourced Grading
>Many colleges these days outsource their bookstores or cafeterias or
>dormitories, based on the idea that private businesses may be able to
>provide better service at lower prices. Not everyone agrees with that
>idea, to be sure, but outsourcing of non-academic functions has become
common.
>
>But what about academic functions?
>
>In a move that may take outsourcing past traditional levels, Kentucky's

>community colleges this fall have started a pilot project in which an
>outside company is reading and providing evaluations of student essays
>in freshman composition courses. The program is small to date - only 48

>students are having their papers assessed in this way - but Kentucky
>officials are enthusiastic about the potential for expanding the
>effort. And the company - Smarthinking - sees this as a service it
>would like to offer other colleges.
>
>"The idea is that we can take the grading burden off of professors, and

>free up their time to do other things, such as working with students
>who need extra help," said Burck Smith, CEO of the company, which has
>previously focused on providing outsourced tutoring centers for
>colleges in which students receive assistance online.
>
>Not everyone is enthusiastic about the prospect of outsourced grading.
>"I'm appalled," said Douglas Hesse, board chair of the Conference on
>College Composition and Communication. "This is abdicating something
>that is crucial to instruction," said Hesse, a professor of English and

>director of the honors program at Illinois State University.
>
>The pilot program is being developed by the distance education arm of
>the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, which currently
>enrolls about 40,000 students. Sandra L. Cook, who runs the distance
>education program, said, "We're in a situation now where the demand
>[for courses] is higher than the supply, so we're trying to create
>situations with faculty where we can develop efficiencies."
>
>The system has been working to be sure that the most popular general
>education courses are available online and are strengthened, and the
>grading plan is part of that effort, she said.
>
>Faculty members have long complained about the "laborious grading
process,"
>yet at the same time the system needs to find ways to educate more
>students without getting much more money, Cook said. Currently, class
>size tends not to exceed 25-30, she said, but the system would like to
>double or possibly quadruple that figure. "Our faculty have said that
>to scale up, they need more support," she added.
>
>"We want faculty to concentrate on the management of the course," she
said.
>"We want to see how we can take our master faculty members and spread
>them around among more students."
>
>Enter Smarthinking. The company has a good reputation on many campuses
>where its online tutoring services, which employ many adjunct or
>retired faculty members, have been able to offer students extended
>hours (24/7 in some
>cases) that most colleges could never afford if they were staffing a
>tutoring center. Those same tutors are now being trained to grade
>essays for the Kentucky system or other clients that may come along.
>
>The grading is on a 32-point scale. Students receive up to 4 points
>(along with written comments as needed) in each of eight categories
>(worked out with Kentucky faculty members): main idea, introduction,
>content development, organization, transitions, conclusion, word choice
and grammar.
>Each of those categories have subcategories that also receive 1-4
>points, with the average of the subcategory scores being used to
>determine a category score. In content development, for instance,
>subcategories focus on such elements as topic sentences, the unity of
>paragraphs, and the use of analysis.
>
>Smith stressed that faculty members could use the scores in any way
>they want. Aligning a score to a letter grade is a professor's choice
>as is totally rejecting the score. Smarthinking has pledged to provide
>scores within 24 hours of receiving essays.
>
>"Everything about this makes sense to the student and the institution.
>The student gets quicker turnaround and more consistent grading. The
>institution can get faculty members to focus more intensively on
students," Smith said.
>
>He acknowledged that some people might object to outsourcing an
>academic function, but he said that this service will be in "the best
>interests of the students." Cook also said that she would expect some
>faculty members to worry about this approach, and that's why Kentucky
>is starting with a pilot project.
>
>Hesse, of the college composition group, strongly disagreed. He
>acknowledged that this approach might lead to more consistency in
>grading, and that plenty of colleges use teaching assistants to grade
>papers, rather than a professor. But Hesse said that grading was not a
>function that should in any way be removed from the faculty members.
>The process of reading a paper and evaluating it, Hesse said, is
>crucial not only for assigning a grade, but for thinking about how to
>work with a given student, for evaluating whether certain assignments
>are achieving their goals, for revising lecture plans, and more.
>
>"Grading is a central role," he said.
>
>While faculty members will be able to review and change evaluations,
>Hesse said that either they will do enough work of their own to do that

>well (in which case time isn't saved) or they won't (in which case
>students lose out).
>
>"Let's say somebody has spared me the time of grading - and I hate
>using 'spared' in that way - there will be some teachers who will be
>very diligent, and will take this as one point of view and they will
>reproduce the same work. But I would fear the teachers who would be
>very cursory, and who might agree and say, 'that's an OK score,' but
>they don't know as much as they should about that student's writing."
>
>- Scott Jaschik
>
>Comments
>I just don't see it. While this sounds better than computer-graded
>essays, it still concerns me that the instructors aren't going to know
>their students' work. One of the opportunities I have-and relish-is the

>ability to watch my students develop as thinkers and writers. I need to

>be able to indicate my appreciation of a student's progress in one area

>when that progress is noteworthy. I need to be able to sit down with a
>student and discuss how, exactly, an essay might have been improved,
>ideally in light of that student's other work.
>
>While I applaud the effort to provide greater access to students, I am
>leery of this appproach. Having said all that, however, I will
>recognize that the experiment is underway and I will reserve final
>judgement for a year from now.
>
>Andrew Purvis, at 6:28 am EDT on September 22, 2005
>
>Who is grading the graders?
>I would feel more confident about the grading service being sold to
>Kentucky if the company's CEO had employed the standard English phrase
>"taking the burden off professors" rather than the more colloquial "off

>of." I realize that speech is less formal than is writing, but as chief

>spokesman for a product evaluating written English among college
>students, his choosing to adopt a non-standard phrase hardly helps sell

>his product. Shall we hope that the reporter mis-heard him?
>
>Diane Vanner Steinberg, Asst. Prof. at The College of New Jersey, at
>7:24 am EDT on September 22, 2005
>
>
>Got something to say?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dan Kern
>Reading Skills Improvement
>East Central College AD21
>1964 Prairie Dell Road
>Union, MO 63084
>Phone: 636-583-5195
>Extension: 2426
>Fax: 636-584-0513
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>"What you teach is second
>to whom you teach. If it isn't,
>please find a 'job' very far
>away from students"
>(Andy Maedit)
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
>subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web
>browser to http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html
>
>To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
>subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web
>browser to http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html
>
>To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]


--


Dominic (Nic) J. Voge
Study Strategies Program Coordinator
University of California, Berkeley
Student Learning Center
136 Cesar Chavez Student Center #4260
Berkeley, CA 94720-4260

(510) 643-9278
[log in to unmask]
http://slc.berkeley.edu

FALL 2005 OFFICE HOURS:
Drop-in: TBA
By Appointment: TBA

Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, through the
restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the
world, with the world, and with each other. --Paolo Freire

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web
browser to http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]


---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web
browser to http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web
browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager