I would love to see the rubric for grading long papers. That is something I
haven't mastered yet (actually I've far, far from mastered). But I'm
donating the last one I designed for an essay exam. I was actually fairly
certain that at least ONE student would argue with me about this, but I had
no complaints at all. (They had to answer the first question, and then
answer two more out of the other four.) What you see below is exactly what I
posted on Blackboard for students to see, and this was for a class on
Interpersonal Relationships.
Midterm grading - all questions are worth 15 points
Question 1:
5 points - the theory they selected can get them 5 points. In order to get
full credit, they must mention all or most of the "key ideas" associated
with the theory. Incorrect statements are -1 or -.5 depending on how
incorrect they are and how central the idea is.
2 points each - the other three theories that they are supposed to discuss
are worth 2 points each. In order to get full credit, they need to mention
two of the "key ideas" associated with the theory. Incorrect statements
are -1 or -.5 depending on how incorrect they are and how central the idea
is.
4 points - the question asks them explicitly to address methodology, and
this is worth 4 points. In order to get full credit they must mention some
type of methodology (self-report, meta-analysis, behavioral studies, etc.)
AND critique the methodology. Mentioning methodology can get them +1 or 2
points depending on how clear and interesting/central the methodology is.
But they must also critique/evaluate the methodology to get full credit
(self-report and "just so stories" seem to be the most popular).
Key ideas:
Attachment theory
a.. Something about this theory being less "strategic" or "rational" than
the other theories presented. Emotions are more important. They address
love.
b.. Although less important, they can mention the hallmarks of attachment
(secure base, safe haven, separation protest, desire for proximity) - this
is not necessary for full credit if this is the theory selected
c.. Need to mention that Hazan & Diamond stressed similarity,
proximity/propinquity, and reciprocal liking as triggers for relationships
d.. Although less important, they can mention the attachment types
(avoidant, ambivalent, secure, etc.) - this is not necessary for full credit
if this is the theory selected
e.. Something about how childhood attachment can affect adult
relationships
Buss
a.. Gender differences including:
a.. Men want short-term, women want long-term relationships
b.. Men want pretty, fertile women; women want
money/status/resources/protection from men
b.. Must mention something about the 37 cultures study - cross-cultural
support for the theory
c.. Can mention that he focuses more on desire than behavior - but this is
not necessary for full credit if this is the theory selected
d.. Also, very helpful to mention that the gender differences are based in
different contributions of parental investment (if everything else about the
answer is fabulous, this may not be necessary for full credit if this is the
theory selected).
Gangestad & Simpson
a.. Must mention intrasexual differences - both men and women have long
and short term strategies
b.. If it is the selected theory, they need to mention that this theory
takes into account both individual traits and aspects of the environment
c.. And they need to mention something about trade-offs, conditional
strategies, etc.
d.. Also, they really should mention something about symmetry
Eagly & Wood
a.. Need to mention social structural theory or something about evolved
social roles - this theory is NOT just about social roles though, there is a
physical/genetic/evolution basis to it.
b.. They should mention that E&W critique Buss and re-evaluate his data,
and they focus on different gender differences
a.. Men want a housekeeper, and women want resources - again, this fits
social roles
c.. Also, they need to mention something about how these gender
differences seem to decrease with the increased empowerment of women as
measured by cultural/national/international ratings - this does NOT mean
that the differences decrease as women get richer, which there is lots of
evidence against.
Question 2:
5 points - they can earn 5 points for a description of Lee's theory - in
order to receive full credit, they must mention his different love styles -
and name 3 of them.
5 points - they can earn 5 points for a description of Sternberg's theory -
in order to receive full credit, they must mention the corners of his
triangle (passion, intimacy, and commitment).
5 points - they can earn 5 points for a description of their chosen theory -
in particular, they must describe the relationship of this theory to the
other theories (Lee and Sternberg), not just say there are similarities. If
they chose attachment theory, and start to describe how attachment styles
are similar to Lee's love styles, they must describe all three styles of
attachment, and the connections they draw must make sense to you (and cannot
be contradicted elsewhere in the essay).
Question 3:
4.5 points - they can earn 4.5 points for a description of how the
characteristics they mention relate to evolutionary psychology (Buss, G&S,
or Ellis). They must mention more than one characteristic for full credit.
They need to have a thorough description of the relationship between the ad
and the characteristics. Just saying I mentioned I'm fertile for
evolutionary psychology isn't enough for full credit.
4.5 points - they can earn 4.5 points for a description of how the
characteristics they mention relate to attachment theory. They should
mention more than just styles of attachment, but rather something about
feelings of security or lack thereof. They need to have a thorough
description of the relationship between the ad and the characteristics. Just
saying I mentioned secure attachment for attachment theory isn't enough for
full credit.
4.5 points - they can earn 4.5 points for a description of how the
characteristics they mention relate to other research (Hendrick, Lee, Regan
& Berscheid, Sternberg). They need to have a thorough description of the
relationship between the ad and the characteristics. Just saying I mentioned
Ludus from Lee isn't enough for full credit.
1.5 points - they can earn 1.5 points for creativity in their ad. Everyone
will receive some creativity points. Saying they are divorced, have
children, want to have an affair, are insecurely attached, etc. are good and
clear examples of creativity. However, this measure is somewhat subjective,
so some will just be creative because they are.
Question 4:
3.75 points - they can earn 3.75 points for a clear explanation of the
relationship between Carter and attachment theory - they MUST mention
oxytocin, and they should mention something about the similarity between
mother-infant attachment and adult pairbonds.
3.75 points - they can earn 3.75 points for a clear explanation of the
relationship between Carter and evolutionary psychology. Saying they are
both biological is NOT good enough.
3.75 points - they can earn 3.75 points for a clear explanation of the
relationship between Fisher and attachment theory - they must mention the
three independent "emotions" (lust, attraction, and attachment) either here
or for the next points.
3.75 points - they can earn 3.75 points for a clear explanation of the
relationship between Fisher and evolutionary psychology - they must mention
the three independent "emotions" (lust, attraction, and attachment) either
here or for the above points.
** If they mention other biological support for either evolutionary
psychology or attachment theory, they get an extra point. (I think only one
person did this.)
Question 5:
7.5 points - they can earn 7.5 for a description of the theories that relate
to this study. If they describe the theory without relating it to the study,
they only receive half credit (3.75). They must mention more than one
theory, and they must mention attachment theory and one evolutionary theory.
7.5 points - they can earn 7.5 points for their critique of the study either
on theoretical or methodological grounds. Most people get at least a couple
of points for this even if their critique is not explicit.
If they do NOT mention that secure-secure pairings seem to contradict the
study, but avoidant-ambivalent pairings seem to support the theory, they
lose 2 points.
Also, if they say anything incorrect, they lose at least 1 point (unless it'
s really minor, and then they lose only half a point).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Christine L. Glover 5717 S. Kimbark Ave.
#2
Committee on Human Development Chicago, IL 60637
University of Chicago 773-643-0720
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"To do the useful thing, to say the courageous thing, to contemplate
the beautiful thing: that is enough for one man's life." -- T. S. Eliot
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
