Author Archives:

Perhaps Some Good News for Anthony Weiner

Posted by martinkich in faculty and tagged with ,

Anthony Weiner, the former New York congressman whose unfortunate last name made his digital sharing of suggestive photos of himself seem at least as ridiculous as it was tawdry, has entered the Democratic primary to be elected mayor of New York.

Immediately, he has moved into second place in the polls, though with just fifteen percent support among likely primary voters, he is still 10 percentage points behind the frontrunner in an increasingly crowded field. The race is still too close to call—has become even more difficult to call because of Weiner’s entry into it–though commentators have hastened to point out that Weiner is not attracting either high-profile endorsements or contributions from important constituencies such as organized labor.

There has been much discussion in the New York newspapers, on the regional talk-radio programs, on the regional television news shows, and even on the national cable news networks about the circumstances that permit proverbial “second acts” in very public American lives—about the things that factor into the rehabilitation of a very tarnished public image.

I think that Anthony Weiner might take comfort in the seemingly sudden rehabilitation of a phrase even more automatically disdained than his name. Continue reading →

Transcript: President Obama’s Commencement Speech at Morehouse College

Posted by martinkich in students and tagged with , ,

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Hello, Morehouse! (Applause.) Thank you, everybody. Please be seated.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I love you back. (Laughter.) That is why I am here.

I have to say that it is one of the great honors of my life to be able to address this gathering here today. I want to thank Dr. Wilson for his outstanding leadership, and the Board of Trustees. We have Congressman Cedric Richmond and Sanford Bishop — both proud alumni of this school, as well as Congressman Hank Johnson. And one of my dear friends and a great inspiration to us all — the great John Lewis is here. (Applause.) We have your outstanding Mayor, Mr. Kasim Reed, in the house. (Applause.)

To all the members of the Morehouse family. And most of all, congratulations to this distinguished group of Morehouse Men — the Class of 2013. (Applause.)

I have to say that it’s a little hard to follow — not Dr. Wilson, but a skinny guy with a funny name. (Laughter.) Betsegaw Tadele — he’s going to be doing something.

I also have to say that you all are going to get wet. (Laughter.) And I’d be out there with you if I could. (Laughter.) But Secret Service gets nervous. (Laughter.) So I’m going to have to stay here, dry. (Laughter.) But know that I’m there with you in spirit. (Laughter.)

Some of you are graduating summa cum laude. (Applause.) Some of you are graduating magna cum laude. (Applause.) I know some of you are just graduating, “thank you, Lordy.” (Laughter and applause.) That’s appropriate because it’s a Sunday. (Laughter.)

I see some moms and grandmas here, aunts, in their Sunday best — although they are upset about their hair getting messed up. (Laughter.) Michelle would not be sitting in the rain. (Laughter.) She has taught me about hair. (Laughter.)

I want to congratulate all of you — the parents, the grandparents, the brothers and sisters, the family and friends who supported these young men in so many ways. This is your day, as well. Just think about it — your sons, your brothers, your nephews — they spent the last four years far from home and close to Spelman, and yet they are still here today. (Applause.) So you’ve done something right. Graduates, give a big round of applause to your family for everything that they’ve done for you. (Applause.)

I know that some of you had to wait in long lines to get into today’s ceremony. And I would apologize, but it did not have anything to do with security. Those graduates just wanted you to know what it’s like to register for classes here. (Laughter and applause.) And this time of year brings a different kind of stress — every senior stopping by Gloster Hall over the past week making sure your name was actually on the list of students who met all the graduation requirements. (Applause.) If it wasn’t on the list, you had to figure out why. Was it that library book you lent to that trifling roommate who didn’t return it? (Laughter.) Was it Dr. Johnson’s policy class? (Applause.) Did you get enough Crown Forum credits? (Applause.)

On that last point, I’m going to exercise my power as President to declare this speech sufficient Crown Forum credits for any otherwise eligible student to graduate. That is my graduation gift to you. (Applause.) You have a special dispensation. Continue reading →

A Rhetoric of Demonization and Exclusion

Posted by martinkich in ethics and tagged with , ,

In this very polarized political environment, it is perhaps not surprising that much of the political rhetoric has crossed the line that distinguishes partisanship and prejudice, discourse and dogma, persuasive argument and demagoguery.

It is also not all that surprising that much of the most superheated rhetoric is coming from the Far Right. Politics and governance have moved so consistently to the Center-Right that the main talking points of the Left now reflect mainstream opinions among the general population, if not always the positions of a majority (or super-majority) of the politicians who represent us: reasonable measures to insure that all Americans have access to good public education, reasonable measures to insure that all workers are paid and treated fairly by their employers, reasonable measures to insure that all Americans have some access to health care, reasonable measures to insure that Social Security and Medicare are preserved for retirees, reasonable measures to curb pollution and climate change, and reasonable measures to curb gun violence.

These things clearly move in cycles. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Right focused on extreme rhetoric from some on the Left and turned “Liberal” into a term of disdain—as the Cold War ended, a substitute for the previous era’s terms of disdain such as “Commie,” “Pinko,” and “Fellow Traveler.” How telling but predictable, then, that “Socialist” has now become the term of disdain for everything that the Right believes that President Obama represents.

But for the moment, the Far Right has, to use a cliché, politically and rhetorically painted itself into a corner. How else to explain the lunatic-fringe figures who are not just prominently associated with the most extreme Right-ideology but are representing the GOP as candidates for political office and, in some cases, actual office holders? Continue reading →

Michelle Obama’s Commencement Address at Bowie State University

Posted by martinkich in students and tagged with ,

Well, thank you. (Applause.) Oh, my goodness. Thank you so much. (Applause.) Oh, my goodness. It is such a — you all, rest yourselves. You’ve got a long day ahead. It is beyond a pleasure and an honor for me to be here with all of you today.

Of course, I want to start by thanking President Bernim for that very kind introduction, for this wonderful degree, and for his outstanding leadership here at Bowie State University. I also want to recognize Chancellor Kirwan, Provost Jackson, Executive Vice President and General Counsel Karen Johnson Shaheed, Vice Chair Barry Gossett. And of course, I want to thank the BSU Madrigal Singers — they did a great job — the university choir, and DeMarcus Franklin for their wonderful performances here today. You all are amazing. I just wish I could sing. Can’t sing a lick.

I also want to recognize today’s Presidential Medal of Excellence recipient, Professor Freeman Hrabowski, who’s a for-real brother as well. (Applause.) And I want to thank him for his tremendous work as the Chair of the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans. He has done some magnificent work, but we have so much more work to do. Continue reading →

It Doesn’t Matter Whether It’s Actually Illegal. In Fact, It’s Actually Worse Because It’s Probably Legal.

Posted by martinkich in contingent faculty appointments, corporate influence, faculty, legislation and tagged with , ,

A Senate investigation has revealed that between 2009 and 2012, Apple avoided paying taxes on $44 billion in profits that it earned offshore.

Where the corporation did pay taxes on its offshore earnings, it paid at a much reduced rate. Taking advantage of low corporate tax rates in Ireland, it made that country the base–at least for tax purposes–of some of its vast international operations. But, Ireland’s corporation-friendly 12% tax rate wasn’t low enough. So Apple used its leverage to arrange a special tax deal in Ireland and pays just 2% on the profits that it earns through Apple Sales International.

But that’s just proverbial the tip of Apple’s tax avoidance iceberg.

It turns out that Apple Operations International, which has accounted for more than 30% of the company’s total profits—an estimated $30 billion between 2009 and 2012–does not have a tax status in any nation. So, the billions of dollars in profits which that entity produces have somehow gone completely tax free.

As close as investigators have been able to determine, in 2011, a particularly profitable year, Apple paid about $10 million in taxes on net international earnings of about $22 billion. Continue reading →

Transcript: President Obama’s Commencement Speech at Ohio State

Posted by martinkich in students and tagged with

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, thank you so much. Everybody, please be seated. Thank you, Dr. Gee, for the wonderful introduction. I suspect the good President may have edited out some other words that were used to describe me. (Laughter.) I appreciate that. But I’m going to let Michelle know of all the good comments.

To the Board of Trustees; Congresswoman Beatty; Mayor Coleman; and all of you who make up The Ohio State University for allowing me to join you — it is an incredible honor.

And most of all, congratulations, Class of 2013! (Applause.) And of course, congratulations to all the parents, and family, and friends and faculty here in the Horseshoe — this is your day as well. (Applause.) I’ve been told to ask everybody, though, please be careful with the turf. Coach Meyer has big plans for this fall. (Laughter.)

I very much appreciate the President’s introduction. I will not be singing today. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE: Aww — (laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It is true that I did speak at that certain university up north a few years ago. But, to be fair, you did let President Ford speak here once — and he played football for Michigan! (Laughter.) So everybody can get some redemption.

In my defense, this is my fifth visit to campus in the past year or so. (Applause.) One time, I stopped at Sloppy’s to grab some lunch. Many of you — Sloopy’s — I know. (Laughter.) It’s Sunday and I’m coming off a foreign trip. (Laughter.) Anyway, so I’m at Sloopy’s and many of you were still eating breakfast. At 11:30 a.m. (Laughter.) On a Tuesday. (Laughter.) So, to the Class of 2013, I will offer my first piece of advice: Enjoy it while you can. (Laughter.) Soon, you will not get to wake up and have breakfast at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday. (Laughter.) And once you have children, it gets even earlier. (Laughter.)

But, Class of 2013, your path to this moment has wound you through years of breathtaking change. You were born as freedom forced its way through a wall in Berlin, tore down an Iron Curtain across Europe. You were educated in an era of instant information that put the world’s accumulated knowledge at your fingertips. And you came of age as terror touched our shores; and an historic recession spread across the nation; and a new generation signed up to go to war. Continue reading →

But Would It Count toward Promotion and Tenure?

Posted by martinkich in faculty, research

The following item has appeared in Futility Closet [http://www.futilitycloset.com/2013/05/17/in-brief/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FutilityCloset+%28Futility+Closet%29]

In 1962, botanist Reid Moran published an article in the journal Madroño recounting his collection of a bush rue on a mountaintop in Baja California.

The paper’s title was “Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker f. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of About 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles.”

The text read, “I got it there then.”

This was followed by a 28-line acknowledgment section in which Moran thanked the person who had reviewed the text, his college professors, and the person who had mailed the manuscript.

College Educators from across U.S. Take on Ways Online Classes Can Help or Wreck a Student’s Hopes for a Good Education

Posted by martinkich in contingent faculty appointments, corporate influence, faculty, MOOCs, students, working conditions and tagged with

CFHE

COLUMBUS, OHIO—Faculty and staff members from colleges and universities across the U.S. met in Ohio over the weekend to address the some of the toughest issues facing student success in America’s higher education system.

The rapid drive to move students’ classes from campuses to online and the Gold Rush mentality behind many entrepreneurs pushing the new teaching schemes — especially the latest incarnation known as MOOCs (massive open online classes) — was a hot topic at the 5th national meeting of the Campaign for the Future of Higher Education (CFHE).

“The use of MOOCs as substitutes for classes where students get feedback and guidance from a live teacher undermines our campaign’s key principle—that colleges in this country need to be affordable and give our people a good quality education,” says Eileen Landy, professor of sociology at ­­­­­­State University of New York, Old Westbury and an officer in United University Professions.

Proposals to use MOOCs are popping up across the U.S. through spin-offs from Stanford, Harvard and other big name universities as well as from for-profit vendors.

“Let’s not be confused about this,” says Steve Hicks, President of the Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties. “A Harvard MOOC is not a Harvard education and we need to help parents to understand that.” Continue reading →

Annotated Bibliography of Machine Grading of Essays, Part 2

Posted by martinkich in corporate influence, MOOCs, students and tagged with

Ericsson, Patricia Freitag & Haswell, Richard H. (Eds.). (2006). Machine Scoring of Student Essays: Truth and Consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.*

A compilation of seventeen original essays by teachers of composition discussing the assessment methodology and educational impact of commercial computer-based essay-rating software such as the College Board’s WritePlacer Plus, ACT’s e-Write, ETS’s e-rater, Measurement, Inc.’s Project Essay Grade (PEG), as well as essay feedback software such as Vantage Learning’s MY Access!and ETS’s Criterion. Addresses many issues related to the machine scoring of writing: historical understandings of the technology (Ken S. McAllister & Edward M. White; Richard Haswell; Bob Broad); investigation into the capability of the machinery to “read” student writing (Patricia F. Ericsson; Chris M. Anson; Edmund Jones; William Condon); discussions of how students have reacted to machine scoring (Anne Herrington & Charles Moran); analysis of the poor validity in placing students with machine-produced scores (Richard N. Matzen, Jr. & Colleen Sorensen; William W. Ziegler; Teri T. Maddox); a comparison of machine scores on student essays with writing-faculty evaluations (Edmund Jones); a discussion of how writers can compromise assessment by fooling the computer (Tim McGee); the complicity of the composition discipline with the methods and motives of machine scoring (Richard Haswell); writing instructors’ positive uses of some kinds of computer analysis, such as word-processing text-checkers and feedback programs (Carl Whithaus); an analysis of the educational and political ramifications of using automated grading software in a WAC content course (Edward Brent & Martha Townsend); and an analysis of commercial promotional material of software packages (Beth Ann Rothermel). Includes a 190-item bibliography of machine scoring of student writing spanning the years 1962-2005 (Richard Haswell), and a glossary of terms and products.

Wilson, Maja. (2006). Apologies to Sandra Cisneros: How ETS’s computer-based writing assessment misses the mark. Rethinking Schools 20(3).*

Wilson tested Educational Testing Service’s Critique, the part of Criterion that provides “diagnostic feedback,” by sending it Sandra Cisneros’s chapter “My Name,” from The House on Mango Street.Critique found problems in repetition, sentence syntax, sentence length, organization, and development. Wilson then rewrote “My Name” according to Critique’s recommendations, which required adding an introduction, a thesis statement, a conclusion, and 270 words, turning it into a wordy, humdrum, formulaic five-paragraph essay.

Sandene, Brent, Horkay, Nancy, Bennet, Randy Elliot, Allen, Nancy, Braswell, James, Kaplan, Bruce & Oranje, Andreas. (2005). Part II: Online writing assessment. Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports From the  NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project, Research and Development Series.  NCES 2005–457). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

While not a traditional peer-reviewed publication, the NAEP research report is considered a high-quality scholarly source; it describes the results of the 2002 Writing Online study of a national sample of eighth graders writing online and compared the results to those students taking the traditional pencil-and-paper format of the test. The report is a comprehensive comparison, which includes the machine scoring of essays using e-rater 2.0, with one subsection on the AES (pp. 37-44). Results of the study “showed that the automated scoring of essay responses did not agree with the scores awarded by human readers.” Moreover, AES “produced mean scores that were significantly higher” than those awarded by human readers and that the human readers “agreed with each other” at higher rates than the agreement between the AES scores and those produced by the human readers. In rank ordering essay, again human readers and AES did not agree at the same rates as human readers did with each other.

Penrod, Diane. (2005). Composition in Convergence: The Impact of New Media on Writing Assessment. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.*

Argues that since writing and writing assessment are intertwined, and since writing and writing standards are rapidly changing under the impact of digital technology, machine scoring cannot keep up: “The current push for traditional assessment standards melding with computer technology in forms like the Intelligent Essay Assessor, E-rater, and other software programs provides a false sense of establishing objective standards that appear to be endlessly repeated across time and space” (p. 164). Continue reading →

Annotated Bibliography on Machine Grading of Essays, Part 1

Posted by martinkich in corporate influence, MOOCs, students and tagged with

Prepared by the NCTE Task Force on Writing Assessment

The following annotated bibliography on machine scoring and evaluation of essay-length writing is based on the 2012 published bibliography in the Journal of Writing Assessment 5 (compiled by Richard Haswell, Whitney Donnelly, Vicki Hester, Peggy O’Neill, and Ellen Schendel).

The bibliography was compiled by reviewing recent scholarship on machine scoring of essays, also referred to as automated essay scoring (AES), using databases such as ERIC and CompPile. Entries were selected for their attention to machine scoring of essays and publication in peer-reviewed venues (with exceptions noted). We also endeavored to cover the breadth of the issues addressed in the research without being overly redundant. We avoided publications that were very narrowly focused on highly technical aspects of assessment. The earliest research — such as Ellis Page’s 1966 piece in Phi Delta Kappan, “The Imminence of Essay Grading by Computer” — is not included because many more recent entries provide a review of the early development of machine scoring.

The bibliography is organized by publication date, with the most recent entries appearing first. Entries that have been excerpted from the published JWA bibliography are indicated by an asterisk.

Klobucar, Andrew, Deane, Paul, Elliot, Norbert, Raminie, Chaitanya, Deess, Perry & Rudniy, Alex. (2012). Automated essay scoring and the search for valid writing assessment. In Charles Bazerman et al. (Eds.) International Advances in Writing Research: Cultures, Places, Measures(pp. 103-119). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse & Parlor Press.

This chapter reports on an ETS and New Jersey Institute of Technology research collaboration that used Criterion, an integrated instruction and assessment system that includes automated essay scoring. The purpose of the research was “to explore ways in which automated essay scoring might fit within a larger ecology as one among a family of assessment techniques supporting the development of digitally enhanced literacy” (105). The study used scores from multiple writing measures including the SAT-W, beginning of the semester impromptu essays scored by Criterion, an essay written over an extended time line scored by faculty, end of semester portfolios, and course grades. The researchers compare the scores and conclude that when embedded in a course, AES can be used as “an early warning system for instructors and their students.” Authors also noted concerns that over-reliance on AES could result in a fixation on error and surface features such as length.

Perelman, Les. (2012). Construct validity, length, score, and time in holistically graded writing assessments: The case against automated essay scoring (AES). In Charles Bazerman et al. (Eds.) International Advances in Writing Research: Cultures, Places, Measures (pp. 121-150). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse & Parlor Press.  

An accessible critique of the writing tasks (the timed impromptu) and the automated essay scoring process. The author argues that while “the whole enterprise of automated essay scoring claims various kinds of construct validity, the measures it employs substantially fail to represent any reasonable real-world construct of writing ability” (p. 121).  He explains how length affects scoring: for short impromptus, length correlates to scores, but once more time is given to write and subjects are known in advance, the influence of length on scores diminishes.  He also explains how AES is different from holistic scoring in spite of a single number being generated because that number is generated by a set of analytical measures. These individual measures (e.g., word length, sentence length, grammar, and mechanics) are not the same construct it purports to measure (writing ability). The AES program discussed is primarily the ETS e-rater 2.0 system because ETS has been more transparent about it than other AES developers. Perelman draws on his own research into AES, many ETS technical reports and peer-reviewed research in making his argument. Continue reading →