Alexander

Little do educators know, a somewhat open prompt like "react to the contents of this article, possibly applying it to your own experiences" is in fact MAGICAL and allows a student to shuffle off the contextual coil and write about whatever they want, obliterating instructor discretion in grading.

bsky.app/profile/dani...

Dan put it much better

Let he who is without sin, etc. etc.

So much hand-wringing about whether the teacher should have issued a zero, or 20%, or some other grade determined after finely combing through all possible worlds of writing—the instructor knows the course! They know what other students wrote! They know the expectations, what was told in class! ffs

And this whole post hoc dispensing of the grading decision only arrives at the same decision the instructor arrived at. It is redundant and unnecessary. Is this how we should treat instructors or TA's or other employees who are in the midst of this, that they are somehow not the most knowledgable?

That dispensed with, this is an attack on the instructor as a transgender person, on her (I believe that's her pronouns) role and belonging in academia, and on higher education entirely. The reaction to this has played directly into all of these, and is a disgrace.

This is a matter of failing to meet minimum standards which were provided at the time of assignment. The zero given for this assignment is arguably completely justified as a matter of plain language, and this is even within a context where instructors may exercise discretion of degree.

The essay which the OU student wrote plainly runs afoul of the requirements set out in the grading rubric. Any student who references no more material than is found in sentence 1 of the abstract cannot be said to have demonstrated they read the assigned material, nor directed attention to specifics.

Here’s my more extensive discussion, including quotes.

bsky.app/profile/etot...

It’s not clear to me that coherence—such as it is—on an unrelated topic should be given credit.

But in any case, following the rubric, there is pretty clearly a case to be made the student did not satisfy the basic requirements. A “reaction paper” might be defined loosely, but not the rubric.

And finally, the student’s essay does have a somewhat coherent line, if messily structured, about how gender norms are innate due to God’s creation. But this is not responsive to the content of the article, and the essay even alludes to her peers’ Discussion Board posts as a launching point.

Suffice to say, given the lack of engagement on the content of the article, there is no evidence presented the student read it, nor any engagement with specific aspects of the article. The student’s primary thesis as it pertains to the article’s topic is self-contradicted after a couple paragraphs.

Basically the rubric asked for evidence the student read the essay, for the essay to respond to aspects of the reading and not a summary, and be coherent. The article was about teasing and gender norms. The essay referenced content of the article which could be found in sentence 1 of the abstract.

It’s here as well. As to whether the essay deserved a zero, I wrote an extensive thread going through the rubric, to show why the essay did not meet the criteria listed.

www.oklahoman.com/story/news/e...

In the spirit of the Discussion Board instructions, does the essay reflect knowledge about the material? No. It does not engage with the material, except to state the article frustrates the reader (specifics are not mentioned) and to disagree with the thesis that teasing = bad (later contradicted).

It did not provide any specifics about the topic of the article even without citing it, which was about teasing and gender presentation. It provided a list of personal beliefs, but repeated a couple of them, raising questions of whether the content rises to the word limit without that.

Regarding general course syllabus instructions, was the essay as detailed as possible? It was not even mildly detailed; it did not quote the reading or reference anything which couldn't be found in only the abstract's first sentence. It did not cite the Bible, but alluded to putative contents.

supposedly says about gender roles—otherwise coherent and follow-able without rereads? While arguable, this aspect of the essay is non-responsive to the topic of the article (as discussed above), which was an explicit instruction in the body of the assignment.

>> school" (par. 3, sen. 4).

This is a contradiction, which immediately demands re-reading to find reconciliation between the two sentences. There is not, to my eye, any other part of the essay which provides this reconciliation.

Is the main thrust of the essay—regarding what the Bible >>

(3) Are the main ideas coherent, and can one understand the essay without rereading? Well, the student states in the first paragraph regarding teasing, "I do not necessarily see this as a problem" (par. 1, sen. 3).

The student later goes on to say "I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in >>

(2) Does the essay address in any capacity an "aspect" of the article, rather than a summary? It does not address any content of the article which can be divined outside the first sentence of the abstract, the quintessential summary of the paper, so NO. It avoids psychological discussion entirely.

So regarding the rubric:

(1) Can the reader assess whether the student has read the assigned article?—The student has not referenced any content in the article beyond what is presented in the first sentence of the abstract. So, NO, there is nothing to suggest the student read the article.

"The current study examines whether being high in gender typicality is associated with popularity, whether being low in gender typicality is associated with rejection/teasing, and whether teasing due to low gender typicality mediates the association with negative mental health."

>> Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who He is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them." (par. 4, sen. 1)

Importantly, here is the 1st sentence of the article's abstract (next skeet>>)

4. "I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students' confidence." (par. 3, sen. 2)

5. "Overall, reading articles such as this one encourage me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a Heavenly >>

>> way to enforce gender norms." (par. 1, sen. 2)

3. "It is frustrating to me to read articles like this and discussion posts [on the Discussion Board] from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people's toes." (par. 2, sen. 1)

In fact, the only sentences which reference the article in any capacity are as follows:

1. "This article was very thought provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society." (par. 1, sen. 1)

2. "The article discussed peers using teasing as a >>

>> the material."

The assigned article is the 2014 article "Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence" by Jewell and Brown, in SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

The student's essay contains 4 paragraphs (one is longer). The article is not quoted at any point.

>> mundane directions to use full sentences and write in paragraphs, in students' own words. There are instructions about separate Discussion Board requirements—at least in a recent syllabus—requiring student posts "to be relevant to the topics covered in the chapter and, exhibit knowledge about >>

>> ideas and thoughts organized into a coherent discussion? Is the writing clear enough to follow without multiple re-readings?

Published course syllabi for this course (PSY 2603, Developmental Psychology) ask students, "For the essay questions, be as detailed as possible. []" along with >>