Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Replies: 8   Last Post: Jun 4, 2012 9:10 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Anne E. Posts: 3 Registered: 6/4/12
Posted: Jun 4, 2012 11:38 AM

I teach in a small school. There are four math teachers; each of us has one entire Regents or AP Course. Every year we have a discussion, when grading exams, about how much credit to give (or not) for graphing questions. Here's the situation:

Assuming the question is a non-part I graphing question(such as graphing two lines, graphing two inequalities, graphing a parabola, graphing a parabola and a line), and the student draws the graph(s) correctly, labels everything, identifies point(s) of intersection or overlap of shading correctly, but does not show how they graphed the line or parabola, i.e., does not show a table, or the slope and intercept, or a test point for shading, Do you give full credit, or do you take off points because not enough work was shown?

The Scoring guide often indicates "appropriate work is shown" but what do you consider "appropriate work?" If this were a question on my own test, I would take off points for not showing the table, etc. to draw the graphs. However, this is the Regents . . . I do not want to be shorting my students of points that others could be receiving.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Date Subject Author
6/4/12 Anne E.
6/4/12 loretta boyce
6/4/12 Peggy Niforos
6/4/12 Jennifer Griffin
6/4/12 Morse, Dana
6/4/12 michelle Van Etten
6/4/12 Meg Clemens
6/4/12 JDBRAUNSTN@aol.com
6/4/12 JDBRAUNSTN@aol.com