Yes, I agree with you, John. I think the 0/25 was way too extreme. Especially given that this assignment was a “reaction essay”. It appears that the rubric left ample opportunity for students to share their own personal feelings and thoughts about the topic, which Samantha did. I likely would have graded her similarly, giving an 8/10 to 10/10 for the paper “providing a thoughtful reaction or response to the article rather than a summary” and a similar 5/5 or 4/5 for the paper being clearly written. I think there was room for the paper to be improved, certainly — especially in the area of demonstrating “a clear tie-in to the assigned article” for which I could see very few if any of the 5 points being awarded. It can be difficult to grade with something this subjective. But I do think a “0” should be reserved for students who don’t complete the assignment at all or who clearly do not make any sort of earnest attempt. I think anywhere from a 12/25 to a 18/25 would have been a more fair assessment. But that’s just my personal thought on the matter! I totally recognize the complexity of the situation and respect other viewpoints as well!
After seeing some interviews online with the student, I'm less generous than I was. One video this week showed her saying that she was out with friends when she remembered she had this assignment due. She took less than half an hour, never reading the article assigned and wrote from the hip.
Ooh, good point! I suppose most college students are guilty of doing that occasionally. However, to then be upset to the point of engaging in public outcry upon receiving a poor grade when you know you put barely any time/effort into the assignment is totally unwarranted!
John, I believe that if you had been the instructor, you would have given Fulnecky 12 points out of 25 (which wouldn't have become a national news story as a score of 0 did) and challenged Fulnecky to earn extra points by developing a comprehensive theology of good teasing.
Yes, I agree with you, John. I think the 0/25 was way too extreme. Especially given that this assignment was a “reaction essay”. It appears that the rubric left ample opportunity for students to share their own personal feelings and thoughts about the topic, which Samantha did. I likely would have graded her similarly, giving an 8/10 to 10/10 for the paper “providing a thoughtful reaction or response to the article rather than a summary” and a similar 5/5 or 4/5 for the paper being clearly written. I think there was room for the paper to be improved, certainly — especially in the area of demonstrating “a clear tie-in to the assigned article” for which I could see very few if any of the 5 points being awarded. It can be difficult to grade with something this subjective. But I do think a “0” should be reserved for students who don’t complete the assignment at all or who clearly do not make any sort of earnest attempt. I think anywhere from a 12/25 to a 18/25 would have been a more fair assessment. But that’s just my personal thought on the matter! I totally recognize the complexity of the situation and respect other viewpoints as well!
After seeing some interviews online with the student, I'm less generous than I was. One video this week showed her saying that she was out with friends when she remembered she had this assignment due. She took less than half an hour, never reading the article assigned and wrote from the hip.
Ooh, good point! I suppose most college students are guilty of doing that occasionally. However, to then be upset to the point of engaging in public outcry upon receiving a poor grade when you know you put barely any time/effort into the assignment is totally unwarranted!
John, I believe that if you had been the instructor, you would have given Fulnecky 12 points out of 25 (which wouldn't have become a national news story as a score of 0 did) and challenged Fulnecky to earn extra points by developing a comprehensive theology of good teasing.