Senior Project

×

How the Senior Project Is Graded

The Psychology Program recognizes that the new realities of world and work call for more flexible and individualized systems of assessment. We offer two grading options for Senior Project – each student selects which works best for them and their project.

EITHER, the student chooses to proceed with the traditional system of the full letter grade range (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D, F)

OR the student chooses to proceed with the A, Pass, D, Fail option.

Note that in the second option above there are only 4 possible grades, versus the 10 possible grades in the traditional system. This second option offers what some students like about the P/D/F system, while also preserving the possibility of an A grade for a truly excellent project. And of course the first option preserves the traditional grading system for those who prefer it. Students will discuss with their adviser, before the final Senior Project board, in order to make their own decision about the grading system.

Senior Project Assessment Guidelines
Grades will be based both on the quality of the project and on the effort put into the project. Note that final grades will be based on quality and effort demonstrated across both semesters! Thus, strong effort in one semester cannot make up for poor effort during the other, and consistent and prolific production of writing in second semester cannot make up for a lack of writing during first semester. As projects may take a variety of forms, it is important to consult with your adviser, Midway Board members, and Senior Project criteria here to confirm clear assessment guidelines for the finished product by the end of Senior I.

Quality of Product
Research Question

• Novel
• Suitable for year-long project in Psychology

Literature Review

• Provides rationale for research question
• Comprehensive in scope, draws on relevant and contemporary academic sources
• Linearly organized
• Literature is reviewed critically (i.e., in addition to providing summaries of the literature, the benefits and limitations of such literature are noted)

Study Design and Execution (where appropriate)

• Free of significant confounds
• Uses valid measures

Results and Discussion (where appropriate)

• Appropriate statistics are used
• Study was preregistered
• Interpretations of evidence (student’s own and/or empirical literature) are offered
• Discussion clearly follows from presented evidence and integrates the prior literature and the student’s analysis
• Thoughtful suggestions for future work are made

Documentation (where appropriate)

• IRB application and approval in appendix
• Proposal or empirical projects: Informed consent, and debriefing, proposed budget, detailed statistical plan, and all measures and methods are described and/or included as an Appendix
• Preregistration is included in appendix

Process

• Raw data are retained (to the extent new data have been collected)
• Final project incorporates feedback from the midway (or provides a clear rationale for why such feedback was not incorporated)
• APA format is followed (except where College-wide policy contradicts APA format; in-text Figures and Tables may be used)
• A 250-word abstract is included
• The project follows the format described in the Bard Student Handbook
• The project is carefully proofread

Presentations

• Mastery over material is demonstrated during the final board meetings (e.g., student demonstrates awareness of relevant scholarly literatures and is able to integrate such literatures with their own work in meaningful and novel ways that were not necessarily already included in the project itself; student demonstrates thoughtfulness and sophistication in conveying criticisms of own work)
• Midway Powerpoint presentation and final poster/oral presentation are thoughtful and clear

Effort
Initiative and Independence

• Student took initiative to schedule and attend regular meetings with the adviser according to agreements established at the beginning of the semester, proposed additional consultation from other knowledgeable individuals in the field, including other members of the board, where appropriate
• Student attended meetings prepared with questions and demonstrated initiative of both thought (e.g., questions about material) and process (e.g., independently at-tempted statistical analyses and literature integration prior to asking for help)
• Independence in thought and work grew throughout the year. It is expected that students will need help with research question and thesis formulation, experimental design, and techniques early on, but by later in the year the student should be proficient in all aspects of the projects – able to understand research methodology, troubleshoot problems, and interpret results with little to no help

Working with Faculty

• Student responded well to and incorporated feedback (as demonstrated by continual additional work – both revised and novel – that is brought to meetings with adviser throughout the year)
• Individual advisers may have additional expectations (e.g., attendance at a weekly lab meeting)

Reliability and Consistency

• Students are expected to work a minimum of 12 hours per week on the project. Work during the January (or summer) break does not make up for low effort during the first semester of the project. As a general guideline to planning the year, for most projects in the first semester, students will be doing a lot of background reading, refining the research question, and developing the thesis and experimental design
• For projects that require collection of data, data collection should aim to begin by the end of the first semester. In the second semester, library research and writing should continue. Data collection should end at least 5–6 weeks prior to the due date for the final paper so that data analysis, data interpretation, and final report writing can proceed

Academic Integrity
Bard takes academic integrity seriously, and the Psychology Program requires that students submit their own original work. Indeed, you’ll be asked to defend your writing during your Senior Project board meeting. Plagiarism (e.g., using the words or ideas from another entity without proper citation) is not acceptable in this—or any—academic context. Thus, using text produced by a generative system (e.g., entering a prompt into a generative artificial intelligence tool like ChatGPT or Google’s Bard and using the output in your Senior Project) does not meet the requirements for original work. Moreover, content produced by such tools is generated based on others’ (uncredited) work, can be inaccurate, and risks reproducing pre-existing biases/other problems from its source material. As always, you should evaluate your sources and methods carefully before drawing conclusions.

The Program urges you to use this critical time in your intellectual development to strengthen your own capacities to learn, think, and write effectively–in your own voice. We want to hear from you–your ideas, your words.

When in doubt as to what constitutes plagiarism, you are encouraged both to consult the student handbook and to ask your adviser for further guidance. There is absolutely no penalty for asking for clarification; however, failing to abide by Bard’s standards for academic integrity can result in failing the Senior Project.