No one was able to send me a rubric for review papers so here is the one I came up with, for better or worse; I am pasting from excel so IDK how it will look here. I have an html option and am using that.
Category & Value 3 2 1 Poss Pts Pts Citation Accurately cited in the desired APA format Incorrectly cited 2 Primary Claim Accurately notes primary claim of the review Notes only secondary or incomplete primary claim 2 Arguments Identifies 3+ arguments to support the main claim AND fully notes overall quality of evidence Identifies 2+ arguments to support the main claim AND fully notes overall quality of evidence Identifies single argument to support the main claim AND fully notes overall quality of evidence Identifies single argument to support the main claim OR fully notes overall quality of evidence 4 Counter-arguments Identifies 3+ counterarguments to the main claim AND fully notes how evidence is refuted Identifies 2+ counterarguments to the main claim AND fully notes how evidence is refuted Identifies single counterargument to the main claim AND fully notes how evidence is refuted Identifies single counterargument to the main claim OR fully notes how evidence is refuted 4 Gaps & Inconsistencies Fully describes specific gaps, contradictions and inconsistencies Partially describes specific gaps, contradictions and inconsistencies Barely describes specific gaps, contradictions and inconsistencies 3 Conclusions Fully describes authors' conclusions. Partially describes authors' conclusions. Barely describes authors' conclusions. 3 Agreement Agreement based on quality and quantity of author's evidence for AND against main claim Agreement based on quality and quantity of author's evidence for AND against main claim Agreement based on something other than quality and quantity of evidence 3 Future Directions Describes next steps in solving problem the authors have raised Vaguely alludes to a problem the authors have raised 2 Implications Notes both theoretical and practical implications of study Notes only theoretical OR practical implications 2 Total Points 25 Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Visiting Professor, Ashoka University, Delhi, India annette.tay...@ashoka.edu.in Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego tay...@sandiego.edu ________________________________________ From: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest [tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:00 PM To: tips digest recipients Subject: tips digest: October 28, 2015 TIPS Digest for Wednesday, October 28, 2015. 1. quick question about application cycles. 2. Re: quick question about application cycles. 3. Random Thought: A Classroom Truth 4. Proquest Dissertation vs PsycInfo for Dissertation Info: Which Do You Use? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: quick question about application cycles. From: Annette Taylor <tay...@sandiego.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:12:14 +0000 X-Message-Number: 1 One of my students is applying for graduate school next year and the deadlines are upon us. When she checked online for one of the schools it said on the website that the professor she was interested in studying with was not taking applications for the 2015 cycle of applications. We were confused whether this is means for those who are submitting applications by the December 1, 2015 deadline, or whether that is still on the website from last year's application cycle for students who started the program in 2015. If it's the latter then that means that the professor would be considering applications this year, for starting in 216, right? I find the language too confusing. Sigh. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Visiting Professor, Ashoka University, Delhi, India annette.tay...@ashoka.edu.in Professor, Psychological Sciences University of San Diego tay...@sandiego.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: quick question about application cycles. From: Christopher Green <chri...@yorku.ca> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:59:37 -0400 X-Message-Number: 2 Best to e-mail the professor and ask. People are terrific at launching websites, but terrible at updating them. Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 43.773897°, -79.503667° chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ………………………………... On Oct 28, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Annette Taylor <tay...@sandiego.edu> wrote: > One of my students is applying for graduate school next year and the > deadlines are upon us. > > When she checked online for one of the schools it said on the website that > the professor she was interested in studying with was not taking applications > for the 2015 cycle of applications. > > We were confused whether this is means for those who are submitting > applications by the December 1, 2015 deadline, or whether that is still on > the website from last year's application cycle for students who started the > program in 2015. > > If it's the latter then that means that the professor would be considering > applications this year, for starting in 216, right? > > I find the language too confusing. Sigh. > > Annette > > > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. > Visiting Professor, > Ashoka University, Delhi, India > annette.tay...@ashoka.edu.in > Professor, Psychological Sciences > University of San Diego > tay...@sandiego.edu > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=47179 > or send a blank email to > leave-47179-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Random Thought: A Classroom Truth From: Louis Eugene Schmier <lschm...@valdosta.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:41:10 +0000 X-Message-Number: 3 I was reading Daniel Goleman's "A Force For Good" and decided that in the words of David Brooks, we all should be "personalists." It's best described as emotional self-regulation. We should scrub daily our hearts and minds and souls clean with the soap of compassion by practicing, in the Dalai Lama's words, "emotional hygiene." It's best described as emotional self-regulation. That is, we should have unconditional respect and concern for others, and turn that energy outward. We should treat each and every student as a whole individual human being, not just as a unit to whom we lecture, test, and give a grade. No conditions; no exceptions; no preconceptions; no judgments. Just a lot of empathy, what Goleman calls "cognitive empathy," understanding what others think, and "emotional empathy," understanding what others feel," and then putting the two in practice with "empathic concern," The last snuffs out selfishness and ignites engaged kindness, caring, faith, hope, and love. In that vein, I hold this truth to be self-evident, that every student is unique, sacred, noble, chosen, extraordinary, and filled with untold and unique potential for success and significance. It is my absolute truth; it is my single certainty; it is my true north. And, there is great power in that truth. It is the foundation of my avowed vision and the core of my articulated philosophy and the essence of my relationships. In the spirit of John Dewey, Carl Rogers, Abraham Mazlow, Ed Deci, Carol Dweck, Teresa Amabile, Barbara Fredrickson, Richard Boyatis, Sonya Lyubomirsky, Daniel Goleman, Howard Gardner, and a host of others, I am not a mere transmitter; I am a catalytic transformer. I am in the "people business." The "don't belong" and the "they're letting anyone in" students, then, are not the problem in academia. It's the blinding and deafening "weed them out" attitude of too many professors who see too many students as "don't belongs" and "they're letting anyone ins" who are the problem. That tunnel mentality, that dark side of the force, fraught with anger, frustration, anxiety, is the real problem. Remember, all you have to do is add a "d" to anger and you're in "danger." Personally, without seeing and listening through the prism of my vision and philosophy, I would have missed a lot and wouldn't have taken the cap off of opportunities and possibilities, both mine and each of theirs. Then, you become a believing, faithful, hopeful, and loving nurturer, helping each student get out grinding down grit help her/himself get the girt, the resolve and faith to grow in Carol Dweck's can-do "growth mindset." Practicing "lovingkindness" doesn't happen by itself. It is not easy. It is hard to do; it does take a lot of effort. It takes small step by small step. It take soft and encouraging word by soft and encouraging word. It takes person by person. In the words of Leo Buscaglia, "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around." But, as with any physical muscle, the more you constantly work at it, the more you exercise it, the more you build it up; and, the stronger it gets. So, it takes constant awareness, attentiveness, and altertness, especially about ourselves, to get ourselves into better emotional shape and in a better place. But, it's worth it. The "kindness curriculum" developed at the University of Wisconsin and research on compassion coming out of CCARE at Stanford show that. So, this is not "touchy-feely" fluff. It's physically, intellectually, and emotionally healthier; it's more calming; it's far more satisfying and fulfilling. It helps us do a better job of choosing who we see, to what we listen, how we feel, and how we act. And, it's more meaningful. I can attest that to have a fearless heart, to have the strength and courage to be compassionate, to have the dedication to practice unconditional faith, hope, and love can transform lives: theirs and ours. That was the name of the game for me when I taught. When I was in the classroom for me, that "people" vision, that "personalist" philosophy, that hygienic core, summed up in my "Teacher's Oath," my "Ten Commandments of Teaching," and my "Just Like Me" statement not only got the ball rolling each day with a "yes, it created the compelling force that kept it rolling. It was a purpose and meaning that created a powerful intention for me and fed that intention with untold energy. It endowed me with a productive enthusiasm, the energy of which I put into imagining what can be, clarifying where I wished to go, and making the effort to get there. It strengthened me, innoculated me with a quieting empathy, gave me courage, invigorated me, steadied me, gave me faith and hope, and, above all, put me at peace with myself. You see, my vision defined precisely what teaching meant to me. It acted like motrin, allowing me to avoid the aches and pains of complaining, feeling resigned, aggravated, angry, and frustrated. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta, Ga 31602 (C) 229-630-0821 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\ \__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\"If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \ don't practice on mole hills" - / \_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Proquest Dissertation vs PsycInfo for Dissertation Info: Which Do You Use? From: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:40:15 -0400 X-Message-Number: 4 Back in 1984 when I got everything done for my dissertation, I submitted a copy of the bound volume to Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI) at the University of Michigan. In subsequent years, DAI was purchased by a variety of companies (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissertations_Abstracts ) and its present form is Proquest Dissertations (at NYU there is a "Plus" version plus some specialized area databases). In the earlier version of DAI my dissertation has 1985 as the date of "publication" but the Proquest database correctly lists it as 1984. However, when I use PsycInfo, it lists 1985 as the date for the dissertation. Now, outside of a small circle of friends, I don't think anyone cares that there is a discrepancy. But I've just finished a book review of a Festschrift for Richard Shiffrin and cited his dissertation in the context of discussing the Atkinson & Shiffrin model. Below are the two references for Shiffrin's dissertation that I found: Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Search and retrieval processes in long-term memory. (Order No. 6908266). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (302384613). Shiffrin, R. M. (1969). Search and retrieval processes in long-term memory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 29(11-B), 4414. (from PsycInfo) NOTE: In the second ref I have "(from PsycInfo)" as a reminder for where I obtained the reference -- it's inclusion would be a violation of APA style. The Shiffrin entry has the same problem that my dissertation has. I had included both in my reference list and would decide which to use later. But I forgot about this issue until a copy editor contacted me about which reference should be used. I went with the Proquest 1968 version because articles by Atkinson & Shiffrin in the late 1960s use 1968 for the Shiffrin dissertation. The question remains as to why the discrepancy exists. The PsycInfo entry says the dissertation is in DAI which should be the entry of record but the date is wrong (does 1969 reflect when it was published in the paper version of DAI in contrast to the year that dissertation was accepted for the Ph.D., usually representing the graduation date as well?). I've pointed this out to APA but I'm not sanguine about anything being done to reconcile the two sources. So, which source do you use and tell your students to use? I don't know how wide spread the problem is but I do know it affects citing my dissertation. Without additional information, how is one to know which year is correct? On a sidenote: APA originally had book reviews published in the journal "Contemporary Psychology" but Wikipedia says that in 2004 the name was changed to "PsycCritiques". This was more than just a name change because PsycCritiques is actually a database of book reviews that is indexed like a journal but is not exactly treated as a journal. Web of Science (WoS) is often used to identify "official publications" (as defined by meeting criteria for inclusion in the WoS database of sources) and provide citation statistics (e.g., h-number, number of citations, etc.) includes "Contemporary Psychology" in its database (a 1990 book review I wrote reliably pops up) but it does not include book reviews published in PsycCritiques. When queried, I was told by WoS that PsycCritiques is not a journal, hence, not included. This means that old "Contemporary Psychology" book reviews are included in the publication count but recent reviews in PsycCritiques are not. PsycInfo includes all book reviews in PsycCritiques and "Contemporary Psychology" but APA has recently changed the title of "Contemporary Psychology" entries to PsycCritiques. So, my 1990 book review is identified as being published in PsycCritiques. I understand the desire for consistency but I think this is just wrong. If you were citing a book review, would you use the current citation version in PsycInfo or the more accurate WoS version? Morale: Don't accept entries in publication databases as definitive because they may be off in one or more details. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tay...@sandiego.edu To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=47195 or send a blank email to leave-47195-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=47197 or send a blank email to leave-47197-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
