General Overview
There is no final exam in this course. All assessment is in the form of assignments or regular, bite-sized quizzes whose aim is to give you a chance to engage with what you learn from a variety of perspectives and to tap into a variety of skills (remembering, understanding, explaining, etc). It appears complicated at first, but it's all rather simple:
To pass the course, you need to complete 7 weekly quizzes (which become available every Thursday) and a peer-reviewed assignment where you generate new content based on the topics covered in the course. If you do both of these things sufficiently well, you get a grade of 7. You can stop here OR continue and submit a written assignment at the end of the block, which will determine your final grade (up to a 10). That's all.
This may be quite different to what you are used to from other courses in this Minor or your Major, and at first may also appear rather strange, but I've become quite convinced of the value of such a plan, in the past 2 years of using it in multiple courses (and with 1500+ students). It gives us flexibility, structure, choice, and close alignment between the learning objectives and their assessment.
Keep in mind that deadlines for all assignments are strict, so put them in your schedule and don't forget them! Thankfully, one of the positive changes with Brightspace is that it helps you track your deadlines and progress much better than the previous system!
So let's dive into the details of the various parts of the assessment.
The Mandatory Part (up to a grade of 7)
A. The Weekly Quizzes
The first mandatory part of the assessment for this course is a Weekly Quiz, whose deadline is every Wednesday at noon. The criterion for getting credit for each quiz is that you score a minimum of 80% in it. The quizzes consist of multiple-choice (MC) questions, which are automatically scored and count for 10 points each and open questions, which we grade after the deadline passes and count for 50 points each. You can take these quizzes as many times as you like (we will count the last submitted attempt). After each submission, you should automatically see your score in the MC questions and which answers were correct or not. If you pass all 7 quizzes, you get full credit for this assignment; each missed or failed quiz means an overall grade reduction of 0.5. Keep in mind that these are meant to be done alongside your studying each week and closely follow the content of the textbook and/or lecture, so the criterion will not be difficult for you to reach.
You will find a link to each quiz in the Weekly Units (and, I believe, under the Assessment tab). These are available at noon every Thursday (right after the lecture) and until noon on the Wednesday that follows.
In sum:
Seven quizzes with multiple-choice and some open questions
Deadline every Wednesday at noon
Criterion to receive credit for a quiz is 80%
Every failed or missed quiz means 0.5 reduction in your overall grade
B. The Peer Reviewed Assignment
In Brief
This assignment has two parts. For part 1, you have to create 12 multiple-choice questions (2 for each of the first 6 Weekly Topics). For part 2, you have to suggest 6 Further your Understanding links (1 for each of the first Weekly Topics). This task is peer-evaluated. In other words, to pass this assignment, you will also evaluate another student's submissions. If you pass this assignment, you have a grade of 7 and can go on to submit the optional written assignment (for a grade of 8 and higher).
Part 1 - Multiple-Choice Questions
For each of the first 6 Weekly Topics, create 2 multiple-choice questions, each with three alternatives (so, a total of 12 questions). The questions should relate either to the content of the lecture or the textbook. Each alternative should be accompanied with a short but clear explanation why it is correct or incorrect.
This task is peer-evaluated. In other words, to pass this assignment, you will also be asked to evaluate another student’s questions
Formatting
To make sure your submission is easy to read and evaluate, your submission may follow this format (though if you've come up with a different, but similarly clear, format, that's ok too):
The text of the question should be presented first, with a number (from 1 to 12 before the question). Then, in a new line, the three alternatives, with the correct answer being the first alternative, preceded by an asterisk. Each alternative should be followed by a short explanation for why it is correct or incorrect, in brackets. For example:
1. What would be the result of making pilot studies public?
*a. Researchers will have access to literature that contributed to the file drawer problem. (Pilot studies are themselves studies "in the small", as Meehl explains. If they are unpublished because they are not supportive of the hypothesis, the publication record is biased in favour of the hypothesis = file-drawer problem)
b. Meta-analyses on those topics covered would show an inflated effect size. (The opposite is more likely to be true, if pilot studies have a tendency to show small effects)
c. Researchers will be open to a greater GDPR risk. (Privacy concerns are not related to whether a study is published, but to how the data are handled)
followed by the remaining 11 questions underneath.
Evaluation
Questions should not be mere terminology questions, but assess understanding of the material. They will be evaluated on the accuracy and clarity, as well as the explanations of the three alternatives. At the evaluation stage, you will be asked to look at one of your peer's submissions and give a score (out of 12). For this, simply evaluate each question for the following criteria:
Is the question clear to read and understand?
Is the correct alternative correct and are the two incorrect alternatives incorrect?
Are the explanations clear and accurate?
Does the question assess understanding of the material, rather than be a mere terminology question?
If all of these criteria are sufficiently met, you can score each question with a 1, up to a possible total of 12. If you decide that one or more questions do not meet these criteria, you should provide a brief explanation (there will be a feedback box along with the score box).
A score of 8 out of 12 possible points is needed to pass this assignment. As evaluators, consider this when giving your final score: is this submission sufficient to pass this assignment? Evaluation is fully anonymous.
I double-check ALL grades below 8 and a selection of grades above that.
Part 2 - Further Recommendations
For each of the first 6 Weekly Topics, recommend an article, blogpost, podcast, or video that extends the material presented that week. At least 4 of these recommendations should be texts (as opposed to videos or podcasts) and can be newspaper articles, academic papers, blogposts, or otherwise. The others are your choice. Each of the six recommendations should be accompanied with a short but clear explanation how it relates to and extends the material. By short, I do not mean one sentence; rather I mean a clear description of the content of your recommendation, why you are recommending it (how it adds to the week's topic, how it links to it, etc.) In practice, this means about 100-150 words.
This task is peer-evaluated. In other words, to pass this assignment, you will also be asked to evaluate another student’s recommendations.
Formatting
To make sure your submission is easy to read and evaluate, it should follow this format:
Start each recommendation with the week it is meant for. In your description, include a title and link to your recommendation (this is important: make sure the link you provide is accessible to others and isn't tied to a particular login session) and the reason you chose it. This may be because it provides a critical alternative to the content of the week, because it deepens the understanding of a topic, because it provides a particularly good example or illustration to the content, or whatever other reason you may have. How you do the describing is up to you; you have access to many examples of this, from my own Further Reading sections. Be clear and informative!
Evaluation
Evaluation is pretty straightforward here. The recommendations only need meet two criteria:
at least four of the six recommendations are texts
the recommendations are clearly relevant and interesting to the week's topic; the explanations offered should make these very clear (and be sufficient in length and depth)
My main wish with this assignment is to give you the freedom and opportunity to explore each topic in a way you find interesting and relevant. If you find it helpful for your understanding, then the criteria are met. A score of 4 out of 6 possible points is needed to pass this assignment. As evaluators, consider this when giving your final score: is this submission sufficient to pass this assignment? Evaluation is anonymous.
I double-check ALL grades below 4 and a selection of grades above that.
Deadlines
The deadline for submitting the questions is October 22nd, at end of the day (midnight)
The deadline for submitting the evaluation is October 29th, at end of the day (midnight). Note: the evaluation opens on October 23rd, around 8am.
In sum:
Deadline on October 22nd, at end of the day (midnight)
Create 2 MC questions for each of the first 6 weeks
Recommend an article/podcast/video for each of the first 6 weeks (and explain your recommendation). At least 4 of these should be texts, as opposed to audiovisual links
Review the submission of one of your peers (deadline for the peer review is on October 29th, at end of the day (midnight))
The (optional) Written Assignment (for a grade of 8 or more)
In Brief
The final assignment for this course is optional and consists of a short written assessment of a psychological (or similar) study as presented in mainstream (online) media. The aim of this assignment is to give you the chance to practice the skills learned in this course in a daily scenario.
Some Basic Practical Info
The deadline for submitting this assignment will be Midnight of November 12th (Dutch local time).
There will be a submission link Under Course Information.
The suggested length of the text is approximately 800-1000 words. Of course, length alone is no indication of quality, so use this as a rough indication. If your text is shorter than 700 or longer than 1200 words, it's likely you need to do a little bit of rethinking or rewriting.
I recommend you work on this assignment away from Brightspace until you submit it (in Word or any word-processing programme you use) and copy/paste the text in the assignment submission form, or upload the document itself. I also recommend you double-check that it's been submitted correctly.
Finally, I recommend that you start looking for the report you'll be commenting on as soon as possible (but not necessarily start writing your assignment immediately).
Description of the Assignment
Your task for this final assignment is first to find a report of psychological research in mainstream media and then evaluate it in terms of its methodology, its conclusions, and its reporting, linking to the material we have been discussing in the course.
Some clarifications
What does mainstream media mean? By this, I mean news outlets that may be (online) magazines, newspapers, blogposts and other news outlets, but not social media such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc (though you might find the articles in such places). If in doubt, ask in the Discussion Board. I would suggest you don't use any of the links I have included in the Further Reading sections or my lectures. I think it's beneficial to find the sources on your own.
Sources and assignments should all be in English.
Some examples of outlets are mainstream (online) newspapers and specialised magazines (such as Psychology Today, Science Daily, The New Scientist, Google News, The Psychologist, etc. but don't be limited to these)
The articles should be reports of a study, not a general review of a psychological phenomenon.
Structure
You can structure your description and evaluation however you see fit, but I recommend you first provide a very brief description of the study presented in the news article you've chosen (and link to this article, if it's an online source), identify the variables of interest, describe their operationalisations, and explain what type of study this represented. Thereafter, you can assess the quality of these measures in terms of validity (making reference to what you've learned in the course), whether the conclusions are appropriate for the study's design, and how accurately (or inaccurately) the news article discusses these.
In your assignment, you may identify and link to the original study (if applicable) and link your conclusions to that also.
You may realise that some news articles are thin on the information you need for this assignment. There are different ways to approach this. You may search for other reports of the same study and include descriptions of multiple such reports, you may select something else entirely, or simply describe what information is lacking in order to reach a proper conclusion. As with the open questions in the quiz, the way you explain your thought and search process is more important than the specific answers.
In the end, the reader should know what was studied, what conclusion the news article reached, and what conclusion you reach. If you have further questions about the assignment, please ask them in the Discussion Board.
Assessment Criteria
Some of the criteria your assignment will be evaluated on are:
Are there links to the articles mentioned in the assignment?
Are the independent and dependent variables identified clearly?
Are the measures/operationalisations explained clearly?
Is it clear from the text what the news article's conclusions are?
Does the text explain what type of study is described in the news article?
Is the quality of the measures explained clearly in the text (perhaps also explicitly in terms of validity)?
Does the text explain clearly whether the conclusions are appropriate for the type of study design?
Overall, would you say that this is a good assessment of the news article mentioned in the text, particularly as it relates to its methodology and conclusions? And what do you conclude about this topic, after reading and evaluating it?
Avoid the temptation to just answer these questions and instead make sure your text clearly addresses these matters (as applicable).
Your assignment will be graded with an 8, 9, or 10, depending on its clarity and evaluation of the study, always in relation to the content of the entire course. If it fails to meet the criteria adequately, then it will be graded with a 0 in the Grade Center and your grade will be determined by your work in the mandatory part.
