David Wasieleski wrote:
>
> Forgive the analogy, but it seems to me that the question really boils down
> to whether you practice "between-students" or "within-students" grading of
> papers. I, for one, practice the former, but in classes with several papers
> (e.g., Intro), I do "up the ante" as the term goes on, expecting an
> improvement in quality. Still, I attempt to grade based on criteria that
> apply to all students (i.e., "between students") moreso than based on
> improvement "within students." I can see an argument for either
> application, although the latter does open you up to student complaints.
> David W.
I used the same analogy in my original question. I'm not sure that
it has to be either one or the other. There are definite standards for
form (APA standards), organization, information (all wrote about the
same experiment on false memory), number of references, use of tables
and an appendix, and suggestions for future research. But there are
very real differences in the quality and focus of the lit review, the
analyses, and interpretation. Some students chose to perform simple
stats on a portion of the data, while others did a more complicated
mixed ANOVA. Some could barely get through explaining the results in
plain language, while others were able to explain FM in our experiment
as priming and wrote about PDP models. Complexity add points, but only
if the paper reflects real understanding. IMHO, simple, accurate, well
written papers should earn good grades.
All my best,
Pam
Pamela Joyce Shapiro | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Temple University | voice mail: (215) 204-9595
Cognitive Psychology | box # 888-3214
