Tag: Carleton

  • Online Learning – How’s It Treating Us?

    So as we begin to wrap up our term online, we can start looking towards the future. That bright, shining future which right now is as clearly visible as a tarnished penny dropped in a glass of chocolate milk.

    Basically, now seems like a pretty good time to be looking back on what we’ve been doing. What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks?

    I reached out to a couple of people for their experience doing online learning this term, and had two trusted and reputable individuals agree to answer a few questions of mine. One, Justin Soll, is a senior Math major, and the other, Jonathan Lafky, is a professor in the Econ department. Both agreed to be named in this post, and neither were compensated for their time, though they do have my eternal gratitude.

    While (as I said) I’m extremely grateful to both of them for taking the time to answer, it’s important to note (and I’m sure they would agree) that a sample size of two is pretty small, so most of this information will be anecdotal. Still, it’s an important perspective to have.

    The Student Side

    Soll’s main takeaway was that “Online learning has been better than I expected it to be… [but] I definitely prefer in person classes over online regardless of what’s going on”. He mentions breakout groups as an unintentional benefit of having class over Zoom, as the ability to actually separate from an otherwise noisy classroom helps him keep on task with his groupmates. The flexibility of asynchronous classes is also a perk; he prefers to ‘attend’ class during its usual timeslot, but can see how others would benefit from the flexible scheduling.

    Asynchronous classes also come with some drawbacks — Soll notes that in one of his classes, which meets asynchronously but assigns weekly group work, “After the first meeting one of my partners just never showed up or contributed ever again.” (He continues “Hm… actually when I put it like that it sounds a little concerning”.)

    For synchronous classes, he mentions feeling a pressure to look “immaculate” on camera in case someone is checking out his video screen, as well as the distractions that come with the ability to tab out and do something else during lecture. The mental energy it takes not to give into distraction also prevents him from engaging fully in class.

    On the tech side, Soll mentions that technological problems have definitely impeded his learning. Most particularly, high internet traffic which happens during the work and school day slows down or even stops his internet for minutes at a time, which results in Zoom actively removing him from the classroom.

    As a senior, Soll feels particularly disappointed, since he set up his class schedule in anticipation of a fun senior spring term. All the classes he signed up for were interesting electives where he would be working with friends, and one class in particular (now made asynchronous) indicated that it would be a lot of group work and no lectures. Meanwhile, the mandatory S/CR/NC policy means that while he’s putting in a lot of effort because he’s excited about his classes, he doesn’t feel the same pressure to deliver polished work which might earn a higher grade.

    But overall? “From my perspective Carleton has made the best of an awful situation,” says Soll. “As far as the transition to online learning has gone, Carleton has done fantastic. I feel like the CSA is taking a greater lead than the administration in terms of emotional support and stuff to students, but I see that as the system working as intended.”

    The Professor’s Side

    Lafky’s perspective on the classroom experience related more to how he understands his students, saying that “I’ve found it to be more difficult to gauge student comprehension on the fly… It’s much harder to read those subtle cues on a video call.” This lack of visible feedback would be extra impactful for professors teaching asynchronously, like Lafky, since only in-person office hours would provide the chance to talk to students one on one.

    However, he also notes that asynchronous teaching has benefits in addition to its drawbacks: “…Teaching asynchronously has made me think more carefully about the different topics that I cover, how all of the concepts fit together, and how they can be disassembled into short stand-alone lectures. I think this will sharpen the way I think about structuring my classes even when we’re all back in person.”

    Technologically, he feels that Carleton’s support for the transition to remote teaching has been “really excellent”, citing the new hardware necessary to teach, the resources to create and edit video lectures, and familiarity with unusual Moodle features that help structure the online course. “ITS and the LTC have provided amazing support on all three fronts, for which I’m very grateful.”

    The Results of Online Learning

    The general consensus seems to be that online learning is doable — not great, but doable. If this is how we have to proceed next year, we’re better prepared and better practiced, and we know what to expect.

    I’d be interested to see a comparison between professors who teach synchronously and who teach asynchronously (and if there are any professors who do both). What are the impacts on one’s schedule, and what risks (technological, environmental, etc.) come about as a result of either practice? It might also be interesting to survey students to see how workloads differ by department and synchronous/asynchronous classes, particularly under the mandatory S/CR/NC policy. (And will such a policy continue, if online learning persists into the future?) Alas, I won’t have time to conduct those investigations myself — much like Justin Soll, I’m a graduating senior this term!

    Once again, I want to extend my thanks to Justin Soll and Jonathan Lafky for taking time out of their schedules to answer my questions. This is a busy and stressful period for everyone, and it was immensely kind of them to do so.

    And hey. If there’s one thing Carleton’s known for, it’s our strong community and supportive culture. That doesn’t go away just because it’s happening over Zoom these days.

  • A Brief Look at Carleton’s Social Media History

    Over the course of winter term, each of the Digital Scholarship interns worked on a project relating to a common theme – Carleton’s history on the internet. I decided to research our social media usage on two different platforms, comparing the culture on LiveJournal in the early 2000s to the culture on Facebook now.

    My comparison took a two-fold approach: what the technological benefits and drawbacks of each platform were, and what social patterns I saw arising out of those affordances. Put simply, what can you do on each website, and what did people want to do?

    What follows is a short write-up of my project, including the pros and cons of each site, what I saw there, and why it matters. If you just want to see the PDF, you can go to the bottom. Otherwise, enjoy.

    LiveJournal

    LiveJournal is a blogging platform where each user could post to their own page, called a journal, or to the page of a community they belonged to, such as Carleton’s. It can host images but is geared first and foremost towards sharing text. It also boasts threaded comments and strong archival abilities, which made it much easier for me to go back and find posts dating anywhere from 2003 to 2008.

    Some things we might take for granted aren’t available, however. Comments can’t be made from the main page of a community, and have to be made on the dedicated page of a specific post. They’re the only way to interact with a post, meaning there’s no middle ground between lurking and starting a conversation.

    In general, it’s a bit hard to assess the culture that existed on Carleton’s LiveJournal community, given how much has changed about how we use the internet in the past twenty years. Posting was less frequent, with days or weeks going in between posts on the page. Many posts were of alumni reminiscing about their time on-campus, or new and incoming students asking for advice.

    Facebook

    Facebook is, similar to LiveJournal, a site where each user can post to their own page or to community pages. There is a mixture of text, image and video posts, as well as semi-threaded comments and the ability to react to posts with different emojis. Facebook also has other features, like the Messenger chat or games, but since those aren’t related to how the Carleton community organizes its groups, I didn’t include them in my project.

    Unfortunately, Facebook’s ability to archive posts is limited. It’s very difficult to navigate to the dedicated URL for a post, and while each group has a tab to find photo posts and video posts, there is no similar method to find text posts. This made it extremely difficult to gather data on post frequency, when communities were started, and how long discussions tend to last.

    Culturally, Facebook is geared most towards current students, who can share overheard quotes, advertise events, and comment on current events. Alumni and incoming students still have the ability to interact, leading to discussions on campus culture in the comments or posts asking for college advice similar to LiveJournal. Even professors sometimes comment on posts!

    However, the most interesting thing to me about Facebook is the way the community is decentralized: groups are formed around a specific topic, like Overheard at Carleton, Lost and Found, or dedicated groups for each class year. Community members belong to multiple groups at once and sort their posting accordingly, rather than having one primary page for all sorts of posts.

    Why We Care

    Looking at what Carleton citizens seek in a community can help us tune into what we want and what we need. These sites are primarily self-governed, with a few mods per group. This means they’re not officially run by Carleton, just affiliated with the community.

    Many departments try to reach out to students on social media, particularly on Instagram. In the future, I would be interested to learn how effective these efforts are. But in the meantime, a key part of engagement is finding out what people want from you. A low-stakes way to share funny moments, advertise events, or ask for help is what Carleton seems to seek in online communities. If there’s a way to translate that for departmental development or alumni engagement, I could see this information being very beneficial.

    Additionally, more research going forward could be done regarding alternative student groups, like Overheard at Carleton Uncut w/ Productive Discourse, which arose out of student frustration with not being able to share political topics on the main Overheard page. Keeping track of pain points with current students can help the administration work on improving Carleton’s culture for everyone.

    What I Learned

    And now, the self-reflection, a key part of any project. I like to think there’s two aspects to a research project: what you learn, and what you learn. Here, it’s what I learned about Carleton, and what I learned about the project.

    What I learned about Carleton is above. It’s also below, in my zine PDF. Check it out!

    What I learned about the project comes in a couple of different forms. I’m going to separate them into project skills and technical skills.

    Working on this project, I was able to practice some of my goals for the year regarding project management. First came writing up a project proposal, which involved coordinating resources, planning out steps, and accounting for any pitfalls. I also developed a plan for measured progress, to avoid jumping straight to the difficult parts without planning beforehand and to make sure I was keeping on track with my work.

    In terms of technical skills, I originally planned to create this project entirely in InDesign, gaining some new layout skills there which I could bring forward into future communications projects for the Digital Scholarship department. Unfortunately, learning InDesign from scratch proved to be more time-intensive than I realized, so I switched to an image manipulation program I was more familiar with called GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program). The end result is a bit different than anticipated, but I’m proud of how it turned out and look forward to more projects like this in the future.

    Sources and Resources

    Carleton’s LiveJournal Community

    Overheard at Carleton

    Carleton College Class of 2020 (Student Official) [and other related class pages]

    Carleton College Lost and Found

    Overheard at Carleton Uncut w/ Productive Discourse

    GIMP

    The Project

  • Ethics Week 8: What Do You Do with Academic Software?

    So this week (and the past couple weeks, actually) I’ve been doing some reading on the legal policies of a company called Gradescope. While this isn’t a full write-up, more an extension of some annotation I’ve been doing lately, I thought it would make a good blog post.

    So, Gradescope. What is it? Who is it? What does it mean for us?

    What is Gradescope?

    Gradescope is a web-based subscription software that allows educators to organize and delegate the collection and grading of assignments, in order to allow them to better focus on the needs of their students.

    Or, simply put: it’s like Moodle (turn in your assignments online) but it also grades stuff if you ask it to and tell it how.

    They’re not giving it to humans to grade, either — they’re grading algorithmically, based on a rubric.

    It’s aimed primarily at STEM, econ and business classes, which makes sense, since quantitative classes would be easier to grade consistently by machine. But their website does boast that it handles papers, even if it’s a little unclear on what aspects of the papers it handles (collection, maybe grammar) vs what aspects are handed to the educator (style and content, hopefully).

    Who is Gradescope?

    Well, as of October 2018, Turnitin owns Gradescope. Turnitin is another web-based software company, this one oriented towards catching plagiarism and determining authorship of papers. They partner with large databases, including Crossref, Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, IEEE and Taylor & Francis, in order to check what percentage of a paper matches with other papers out there. In fact, they claim their content database includes “70 billion current and archived webpages”.

    But their plagiarism checker is a little concerning, missing 44% of plagiarized sources in a 2015 experiment at UT-Austin. Penn State University, in their online guide to Turnitin, outlined various ways to get false positives, none of which inspire confidence in Turnitin’s algorithms.

    • Any rough draft stored in Turnitin’s repository could come up as a false positive when the final draft is submitted.
    • Any copies of the paper submitted to Turnitin to check for plagiarism before the paper is officially turned in for class will be stored in the repository – which can generate a false positive.
    • Turnitin doesn’t check whether a student’s original work is being plagiarized, just whether their work matches with another source in the repository.
    • A paper that expands on/includes material from a previous paper on the same topic can also generate a false positive.

    It’s remarkably hard to find any information on Gradescope’s own effectiveness or practices, incidentally. Their terms of service and privacy policy mention third-party partners and third-party recruiters, but decline to elaborate on either. One can sign in with Google, making Google a third-party partner with access to their data, but I can’t find any clear indication of what recruiters might be present on Gradescope’s site.

    Additionally, though their privacy policy claims to comply with GDPR and Privacy Shield (an opt-in U.S.-E.U. and U.S.-Switzerland privacy rubric that allows members certain privileges), their terms of service were last updated in November 2014 — which means they predate GDPR (adopted April 2016), Privacy Shield (July 2016) and the CCPA (fall 2019), a California-based privacy law which they are also subject to. Their privacy policy was last updated in June of 2018.

    What does it mean for Carleton?

    At present, not much. I haven’t heard of any courses that use either Gradescope or Turnitin, which are subscription-based models that would need to be funded by whatever department chose to use them (or by the college at large).

    While Gradescope’s privacy policy and terms of service are mostly standard legal jargon, there are a couple of things I tend to sideeye – like, what happens if your account is deleted due to a false positive?

    The first of my major issues is that they’re not publicly forthcoming with their revenue streams. Of course they charge for subscriptions from the schools they work with, and their client base is obviously private, but as I said above, I can’t find out what third-party recruiters have access to their site. Nor can I find out how these recruiters get access — do they pay for it? Does Gradescope seek them out, or do they contact Gradescope? What sort of data do they get to look at, and how can users manage their privacy?

    The second is their grading methods. Since they’re owned by Turnitin, it’s very likely they use Turnitin’s plagiarism checker — which, as we know, is faulty, despite its wide access to databases.

    Which brings me to my third point: Gradescope keeps student work, and makes it accessible to the third-party partners they use to do their work (like, for example, Turnitin). Turnitin keeps student work and adds it to their databases so they can check for plagiarism more expansively. This is a feature schools pay for.

    Or, put another way: schools pay for Gradescope and Turnitin to make money from other schools off of their students’ work.

    Gradescope has policies in place that comply with GDPR – meaning, any user has the right to be forgotten. You can write to Gradescope, ask them what information they have on you, and tell them to delete it, and they will do it (with a few caveats related to anonymized and group data).

    But, at the same time, their terms of service are six years out of date. Their privacy policy doesn’t mention the California Consumer Privacy act, and I haven’t been able to find any official statements from Gradescope on the topic. And, possibly most worryingly, it is very unclear whether their partners have the same policies in place. And even if they do, would requesting that Gradescope delete your information would extend to any party with whom they’ve shared that information?

    Sources

    “Turnitin Acquires Gradescope”, Zeligs Hand, Amanda, Turnitin, 3 October 2018. https://www.turnitin.com/press/turnitin-acquires-gradescope

    “Database Content”, Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/about/content

    “How Much Do You Know About Turnitin’s Content?”, Lee, Christine, Turnitin, 30 May 2019. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/how-much-do-you-know-about-turnitins-content

    “Optimizing the Originality Report”, Penn State University. https://turnitin.psu.edu/bestpractices/usingreports/

    “UT-Austin test results for Turnitin”, Schorn, Susan, University of Texas — Austin. https://utexas.instructure.com/courses/633028/pages/ut-austin-test-results-for-turnitin

    “Privacy Policy”, Gradescope, 25 June 2018. https://www.gradescope.com/privacy

    “Terms of Use”, Gradescope, 3 November 2014. https://www.gradescope.com/tos

css.php