PSYC 328 Short Answer Questions Unfair

I went to the midterm review session to look over my short answers. For the 1st question their only critique was that I didn't provide examples for acute vs. chronic illnesses however this was by no means indicated in the question and is actually not related to the main purpose of the question. For the 2nd question the TA could not answer why I got marks off but said... She suggested adding more examples however she said what I wrote was great... I took up the whole space to write this response that was apparently one of the best in the class so I do not understand, with the space provided, how I could have given more material. I appreciate their moves to help change their mistakes for the final but this does not change the fact that the midterm grades will have a large effect on our final grade and that they cannot accept and understand that their grading is the problem versus us.

260652694 The grading was very unfair. The professor wanted way more detail than the space available to answer. The grade average was also significantly lower than the multiple choice. I believe despite students making the effort to demonstrate what they had learned in class, they were penalized to bring the overall test average down rather than due to individual performances.

260729555

260745480 I am deeply disappointed with how this issue was dealt with. The questions were vaguely formulated, which did not allow students to show their understanding of the material.

It is clear that 300 students were blamed for a mistake on the professor/TAs' parts regarding either the wording of the question or the mark scheme. There is simply no way that all students this year happen to be less intelligent than all the students last year, which is what was implied.

The way this midterm was handled is unfair. The SA questions were very poorly phrased and were graded by being very biased because our MC average was high. And the fact that this isn't the first time students in her class go through this should very clearly addressed. The TA who came to class said that we should have been more specific when answering the questions, but the wording of the questions did not mention that. I don't believe the students are the ones to blame for a faulty or badly worded exam. For a TA to say "learn all the slides by heart next time" and not give a decent excuse for the way my exam was graded is very unprofessional. I think the way this situation was handled by the professor and the TAs were very unprofessional.

260691906 We were blamed for a faulty grading scheme. Accusing 300 of us for not grasping the material when there is almost a 30% variation in two sections of an exam testing the same material is unprofessional and unrealistic. The proposed “accommodation” is not enough to make up for this.

The short answer questions were rather open ended questions, however the rubric for the short answer questions were very specific. With such a short amount of space, students were expected to give alot of information, and were penalized if they were not able to do so. We were also penalized if our answers were not identical to what was expected of us. For example, I answered the SA question about Janet with Love. I listed how Janet used emotional coping and how she used it - but I did not give the definition of emotional coping. I was only given part marks because I didn't give the definition, even though my answer clearly illustrated I knew what emotional coping was (and the fact that never in the question did it say I needed to provide clear definitions). The professor and the TA say that the SA was meant to demonstrate our understanding while the MC was meant to demonstrate memorization. I do not think the grading of the SA is representative of this. I think the SA questions were poorly worded and the rubric was way too specific for the questions asked. Student ID 260670329

It was unclear in the SA questions, what answers the professor and TAs expected, in comparison to the rubric.

I understand that the teacher expected a different kind of answers in the SA questions, but that was not specified prior to the test or anywhere on the exam sheet. The questions were misleading/poorly worded as the majority of students did not understand them "the way they were meant to be understood".

The Short Answer questions were worded poorly and graded unfairly as is seen by almost 300 students doing very badly on that section of the exam. It seems obvious that the issue here is with the questions rather than 300 students as there was a mismatch between expectations and the question that was asked. also, the "solution" that was offered to the very vague questions was that if students do better on the short answer questions on the final that it will replace our midterm Short Answer grades. this is inadequate as a solution as it is very possible that students should have had a higher grade for the midterm anyways and that the final is just harder or marked in an equally unfair fashion. Students should get the grade that they earned and this is not sufficient. Student I.D 260656902

The SA were way too imprecise with what was asked. 50% of the points were allocated for implicit information. We were never presented with how to answer such questions and how in depth we needed to be.