Syllabus

There are four graded tasks in PSYC 501: a midterm (50 pts.), a final (50 pts.), weekly discussion board contributions (25 pts.), and a major review paper (50 pts.).

I use an approach in assessing graduate course performance that may be a little different. I grade components using a standardized approach that generates a numerical score. I interpret this number based on two factors - the numerical scores from all members of the group and the range of scores generated by the group. One way to think about this approach is to suggest that I do not feel I know how difficult the tasks are so I let the performance of the group provide me this information. I assume grad grades should be As and Bs unless the range of the sums is very great (i.e., on rare occasions I have given a C). Another way to think about my approach is to understand that you do not want to consistently earn the bottom scores especially if the range of scores is great.

Here are some specific comments about how the discussion board contributions.

Discussion Board

My goal in the discussion board tasks is to create a system that promotes consistent thoughtful responses from all participants and rewards exceptional responses. I will not be grading discussion board performance - this will be done by a GTA assigned to the course. My technique works like this - I use a 4 pt. system for each task. I will work with the GTA assistant to identify the attributes of what will be regarded as an acceptable answer (the GTA will be looking for specific things). This is what will be scored as 3. In other words, meeting the concrete goals we set is not considered a perfect score. I will allow the grader to award the score of 4 to a specified number of students (or fewer) who provide an impressive response that offers more than required components (the extra qualities may involve creativity or completeness). Spending time responding to the responses of others is another factor that will be considered in awarding a score that represents more than meeting the expected minimums. Responses that are off-base or miss expected components will receive a score less than 3. Responses that are late will also given less than 3 points.

One of the challenges in evaluating on-line discussion assignments is the problem of students crafting answers by using the creativity of others. One strategy is to wait until others have provided responses, review these responses for ideas or tendencies, and craft a response based on what others have to say. In this situation, it is difficult to evaluate what students really know about the material. In some situations, I will ask for examples. If the same example is provided by multiple individuals, it makes sense to judgment the first contribution as more unique. So, while I do want you to read and respond to the responses of other students, I have this as a separate goal from your crafting an original response.