--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>¼ÓÒ»¸öÆÀÂÛ</B></P>
+
+<P>Comments can be added to an assessment to:
+
+<OL>
+<LI>Add additional explaination or clarification to the assessment (by
+ the student who assessed the piece of work);
+<LI>Query the statements made in the assessment (by the student whose
+ piece of work is being assessed;
+<LI>Try to resolve difficulties which may have arisen during the discussion
+ on the assessment (by the teacher);
+</OL>
+<P>The aim of the comments is to try either reach agreement on the
+ current assessment or persuade the assessor to revise their assessment.
+ This discussion should be undertaken in a reasonable way.
+
+<P>If the work is reassessed then the old comments are discarded and
+ are no longer shown with the new assessment.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Agreement of Assessments</B></P>
+
+<P>A workshop assignment can have either of these characteristics:
+
+<OL>
+<LI>In the submission and assessment phase when the students see the
+ assessments made by other students there is no feedback
+ from the students who submitted the work to the students who made
+ the assessment. There may be feedback from the teacher if the teacher
+ choses to grade the student assessments and then the teacher's grades and
+ comments will be available to both the student whose work it is and
+ to the student who made the assessment. There will be, however,
+ be only one way feedback between peers on any one piece of work.
+
+<LI>In the submission and assessment phase the students see the
+ assessments made by other students and they are allowed to comment
+ on these assessments. They may agree or disagree with the (peer) assessment.
+ If they agree with the assessment then the assessment stands and is
+ used in the final calculations when determining the peer grade given to
+ the particular piece of work. If, however, they do not agree with an
+ assessment the student who made the assessment is given an
+ opportunity to revise it. The revise/disagree loop can continue until
+ either agreement is reached or the deadline is reached. An assessment
+ which is still in "dispute" when the deadline is reached
+ is not used in the final calculations. This gives two way feedback
+ between peers on each piece of work.
+</OL>
+<P>If the second method of working is chosen there is the option of switching off the display
+ of grades. That is, if this "hide grades" option is exercised, only the comments
+ in the assessment are shown to the student who work is being assessed.
+ The grades are shown only after agreement has been reached (on the
+ comments alone). Note that this option only effective when agreement on
+ assessments is required.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Anonymous Grading</B></P>
+
+<P>A peer graded assignment can be graded anonymously. In this
+ case the names (and any photos) of the students doing the grading
+ are not shown. Only the (file) names of the submissions are used to identify
+ the peices of work being graded.
+
+<P>When the peer graded assignment is not graded anonymously, the
+ pieces of work are shown with the names (and any photos) of the
+ students who submitted the work. This may lead to bias in the gradings.
+
+<P>Note that if the teacher's grades are shown to the students these are
+ never shown anonymously.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Peer Graded Assignment Type</B></P>
+
+<P>A peer graded assignment can have one of two types:
+
+<OL>
+<LI>Only feedback on the assessment elements and the general comment
+ is entered. The grading of assessment elements is not seen in the
+ grading pages. Assignments themselves are not given an overall grade.
+ However, the grading performance of the students is measured and
+ this, and only this measure contributes towards the final grades given
+ to the students.
+
+<LI>Here the teacher and peers are asked to provide both feedback and
+ grades. The assignments are given an overall quantative grade as well
+ as the qualative data. The final grade for a student will be calculated
+ from the (weighted) contributions of the teacher's grade, the mean
+ peers' grade and the student's grading performance.
+
+</OL>
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>The Breakdown of the Final Grade</B></P>
+
+<P>The table on this screen shows your final grade and how it was calculated.
+ The final grade is made up from three possible components.
+
+<OL>
+<LI>The teacher's grade for your submitted work.
+<LI>The average of the peer grades for your submitted work.
+<LI>A grade for your performance in the peer grading phase. This
+ performance was based by (a) whether your grades were too high or too low
+ when compared with the average grade of the other students (this is called bias),
+ (b) whether your grades follow, again on average, the grades given by
+ the other students (this is called reliability)
+ and (c) on the quality of your comments on the other pieces of work you graded.
+ This was graded by the teacher. These three performance grades were weighted
+ by the factors 1:2:3 respectively to give an overall "grading"
+ grade. In other words the teacher's grading of the comments is given the
+ same weight as the Bias and Reliability factors combined.
+</OL>
+
+<P>These three components can be weighted as deemed appropriate for the
+ assignment. These weights are shown in the smaller table.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>The Calculation of the Final Grade</B></P>
+
+<P>The table on this screen shows how the the final grades for the students
+ are calculated. The final grades are a weighted sum of up to five components.
+
+<OL>
+<LI>The teacher's grade for their submitted work. This is optional and will be
+ used if the teacher actually assesses the student's work. If the student submits
+ more than one peice of work the "best" grade is used. Here, best
+ means the piece of work with the highest weighted combination of teacher's
+ grade and peer grade...
+<LI>The average of the peer grades for their submitted work. Again if the student
+ submits more than one peice of work the "best" grade is used. The
+ peer grade can optionally
+ include the teacher's grade. This grade would be included if the number of
+ peer gradings is very low or it is thought that the peer gradings are suspect
+ either because of bias (usually on the high side) or for not being reliable.
+ If included the teacher's grade is treated in the same way as a peer grade in
+ the calculation of the average.
+<LI>The student's bias in grading peer work. This is measure of whether the
+ student grades work either too high or too low. It is not an absolute measure
+ as it is based on the difference between the student's grade and the peer
+ averages for each of the submissions they assessed. In general this component
+ should NOT be given a high weighting.
+<LI>The student's reliability in grading peer work. This is a measure on how well
+ a students grades follow the peer average for the peices of work they
+ assessed. The measure discounts the student bias and averages the absolute
+ differences between their grades and the peer average grades. In theory if
+ the students gives high marks for good peices of work and low marks for poor
+ pieces of work their reliability will be high. If it is suspected that the students in
+ general are poor assessors then the teacher's grades should be included into
+ the ppeer averages, this should make the reliability values more meaningful.
+<LI>The average grade given by the teacher for the student's assessments.
+ This includes both the preliminary assessments made by the student on the
+ example pieces of work and any grading the teacher makes on the asessments
+ produced during the peer assessement phase of the assignment. In general this
+ component is probably more important than both the Bias and Reliability
+ components and thus, if available, should be weighted higher.
+</OL>
+
+<P>These five components can be weighted as deemed appropriate for the
+ assignment. For example the teacher's grade might be weighted strongly
+ if the peer grading part of the assignment is only considered a minor part
+ of the assignment as a whole. Alternatively, if the teacher only grades a few
+ of the submissions these grades can be ignored by giving them a zero weighting.
+ If the assignment is all about the students as judges and the providing of feedback
+ then first two components may be set to zero (or low) and the students'
+ grading abilities will determine the final grades.
+
+<P>Note that this screen is used iteratively and the final grades are not normally
+ made available to the students until the final phase of the assignment. Once the
+ the teacher is happy with the final grades and their weightings then they can
+ be made available to the students.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Editing a Comment</B></P>
+
+<P>As with other items there is a short period of time allowed when
+ the text of comments can be amended. The comment is not shown
+ on the assessment until this period has elapsed.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Assignment Elements</B></P>
+
+<P>For ease of grading, a Workshop Assignment should have a reasonable
+ number of "Assessment Elements". Each element should cover
+ a particular aspect of the assignment. Typically an assignment will have
+ something between 5 to 15 elements for comments and grading, the
+ actual number depending on the size and complexity of the assignment. A peer
+ assignment with only one element is allowed and has a similar assessment
+ strategy to the standard Moodle Assignment.
+
+<P>The type of elements dependent of the assignment's grading strategy.
+
+<P><B>Not Graded.</B> The elements are descriptions of aspects of the assignment.
+ The assessor is asked to comment on each of these aspects. As with all the grading
+ strategies, there is also an area for general comments.
+
+
+<P><B>Accumulative Grading.</B> The elements have the following three features:
+<OL>
+<LI>The DESCRIPTION of the assessment element. This should clearly state what
+ aspect of the assignment is being assessed. If the assessment is qualatative
+ it is helpful to give details of what is considered excellent, average
+ and poor.
+
+<LI>The SCALE of the assessment element. There are a number of prefined
+ scales. These range from simple Yes/No scales, through multipoint scales to
+ a full percentage scale. Each element has its own scale which should be choosen
+ to fit the number of possible variations for that element. Note that the scale
+ does NOT determine the element's importance when calculating the overall
+ grade, a two point scale has the same "influence" as a 100 point
+ scale if the respective elements have the same weight...
+
+<LI>The WEIGHT of the assessment element. By default the elements are given the same
+ importance when calculating the overall grade of the assignment. This can be
+ changed by giving the more importance elements a weight greater than one, and
+ the less important elements a weight below one. Changing the weights does NOT
+ effect the maximum grade, that value is fixed by the Maximum Grade parameter
+ of the peer assignment. Weights can be assigned negative values, this is an
+ experimental feature.
+</OL>
+<P><B>Error Banded Grading.</B> The elements will normally describe certain items
+ or aspects which must be present in the assignment. The assessment is made on the
+ present or absence of these items or aspects. The teacher must all set of grade table which
+ give the suggested grades when all the items are present, when one is absent, when two are
+ absent, etc. If certain items are more important than others then those items can be given
+ a weighting greater than one. Minor items can be given a weighting less than one. The
+ overall "error count" is a weighted sum of the missing items. The assessor
+ can always make a minor adjustment to these suggested grades.
+
+<P><B>Criteria Grading.</B> The elements will give a set of "level" statements
+which can be used to rank the assignment. The statements may be cumulative or they may
+each be self contained. The assessor must decide which statement best fits each piece of
+work. The teacher must also relate each criterion statement with a suggested grade. These
+should normally be in order. The assessor can make a minor adjustment to these
+suggested grades.
+</P>
\ No newline at end of file
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>The Final Grades</B></P>
+
+<P>The table on this screen lists the final grades and their breakdown as shown to
+ the students. If there are missing values in the table then it is possible to "go back"
+ and add these. In fact, there are two adjustments which can be made to the Final Grades.
+
+<OL>
+<LI>If a teacher's grade needs to be added then the piece of work can be
+ graded by going
+ to the teacher's Management screen for assignment and clicking on the link "Student
+ Submissions for Assessment". Any otherstanding submissions can be graded. Once this has
+ been done then move the assignment back to Phase 3 and re-calculate the Final grades. In a
+ similar way any assessments which have not been graded can be graded from the Management
+ screen.
+<LI>If it is desired to use a different weighting scheme then the assignment should be moved
+ back to Phase 3 and link "Calculate Final Grades" can be clicked and the new
+ weights entered. After the grades have been re-calcualted the assignment should be moved
+ to Phase 4 to make the new grades available.
+</OL>
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>A Graded Peer Assignment</B></P>
+
+<P>This shows the grades and comments made on the submitted piece of
+ work. You can if you wish reply to this assessment and choose not to
+ accept it (at this stage). If that is the case, please enter your reply in the
+ box at the foot of the page giving the reason why you are not happy with
+ the assessment. Then click on the button at the foot of the page and
+ choose NO when asked whether you are happy with this assessment.
+
+<P>If, on the other hand. you are happy with the assessment simply
+ click on the button at the foot of the page and then click on YES when
+ asked whether you are happy with this assessment.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Grading of Peer Assignments</B></P>
+
+<P>For ease of grading a Peer Assignment is divided into a number of
+ assessment "elements". Each element covers
+ a particular aspect of the assignment. Depending on the type of assessment,
+ for each element you should
+<OL>
+<LI>Enter a Grade by clicking in the appropriate button or selecting an appropriate
+ number from the drop down menu.
+
+<LI>Enter an explaination of why you gave that grade in the Feedback box. If
+ you feel that the reason is obvious then leave the box empty. Note, however,
+ that the teacher may look at your assessment and may well query a grade
+ if there is no explaination.
+</OL>
+
+<P>In other type of asessments, you are asked to determine if various items
+ are present or absent, in others you are asked to choose which statement best
+ fits the peice of work. In both of these assignments you can adjust the grade
+ somewhat as you see fit.
+
+<P>The last box on this form allows you to make a general comment on the
+ work. This should justify your assessment. It should be polite and as far as
+ possible constructive. Your assessment will be shown to the student who
+ produced the piece of work.
+
+<P>You have a limited period of time, typically half an hour, in which to
+ change your mind and alter your grades or comments. Once that period
+ is over the person whose work you are assessing is notified about the assessment.
+ At that stage you can view your assessment but you cannot change it.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Grading the Student Assessments</B></P>
+
+<P>This screen is used to enter the teacher's grade for the assessment made
+ by the student during the submission and assessment phase of the assignment. A relatively
+ simple grading is used, the score out of 20. The treacher can decide what is
+ being graded and the relative scores from the instructions given to the students
+ before the assignment started. For example, at a higher level the students may be
+ required to give critical comments, at an intermediate level the students may be
+ required to point out strengths and weaknesses, and at a lower level the students
+ may be simply pointing out errors and inaccuracies.
+
+<P>If available the Teacher's own assessment is shown before that of the
+ student so an easy comparison can be made. The teacher's own
+ comments can act as a kind of benchmark.
+
+<P>The grades of assessment is
+ saved by clicking on the apprpriate button at the foot of the page. There is a
+ chance to repeat the grading within the "editing" period. Once that
+ time has elapsed the grade is made available to the student.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Grading Strategy</B></P>
+
+<P>A workshop assignment is quite flexible in the type of grading scheme used. This can be:
+
+<OL>
+<LI><B>No grading:</B> In this type of assignment the teacher is not
+ interested in quantative assessment from the students at all. The students
+ make comments of the pieces of works but not grade them. The teacher,
+ however, can, if desired, grade the student comments. These
+ "grading grades" form the basis of the students' final grades.
+ If the teacher does not grade the student assessments then the assignment
+ does not have any final grades.
+
+<LI><B>Accumulative grading:</B> This is the default type of grading.
+ In this type of assignment the grade of each
+ assessment is made up of a number of "assessment elements".
+ Each element should cover
+ a particular aspect of the assignment. Typically an assignment will have
+ something between 5 to 15 elements for comments and grading, the
+ actual number depending on the size and complexity of the assignment. A peer
+ assignment with only one element is allowed and has a similar assessment
+ strategy to the standard Moodle Assignment.
+
+<P>Elements have the following three features:
+<OL>
+<LI>The DESCRIPTION of the assessment element. This should clearly state what
+ aspect of the assignment is being assessed. If the assessment is qualatative
+ it is helpful to give details of what is considered excellent, average
+ and poor.
+
+<LI>The SCALE of the assessment element. There are a number of prefined
+ scales. These range from simple Yes/No scales, through multipoint scales to
+ a full percentage scale. Each element has its own scale which should be choosen
+ to fit the number of possible variations for that element. Note that the scale
+ does NOT determine the element's importance when calculating the overall
+ grade, a two point scale has the same "influence" as a 100 point
+ scale if the respective elements have the same weight...
+
+<LI>The WEIGHT of the assessment element. By default the elements are given the same
+ importance when calculating the overall grade of the assignment. This can be
+ changed by giving the more importance elements a weight greater than one, and
+ the less important elements a weight below one. Changing the weights does NOT
+ effect the maximum grade, that value is fixed by the Maximum Grade parameter
+ of the peer assignment. Weights can be assigned negative values, this is an
+ experimental feature.
+</OL>
+
+<LI><B>Error Banded Grading:</B> In this type of assignment the submissions are
+ graded on a set of Yes/No scales. The grade is determined by the "Grade
+ Table " which gives the relationship between the number of
+ "errors" and the suggested grade. For example an assignment may have six
+ significant items which should be present, the Grade Table will give suggested
+ grades if all are present, one is absent, if two are absent, etc. The individual
+ items can, if desired, be given weighting factors if some items are more important
+ than others. The number of "errors" is a weighted sum of the items not
+ present. By default each item is given a weight of one. The grading table is likely
+ to be non-linear, for example
+ the sugested grades may be 90%, 70%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 0%, 0%, 0% for
+ an assignment with 10 items.The assessor can adjust the suggested grade by up
+ to 20% either way to give the submission's final grade.
+
+<LI><B>Criteria Grading:</B> This is simpliest type of assessment to grade (although
+ not necessarily the most straightforward to set up). The submissions are
+ graded against a set of criteria statments. The assessor choses which statement
+ best fits the piece of work. The grade is determined by a "Criteria
+ Table" which gives the suggested grade for each criterion. For example
+ an assignment may be set up with, say, five criteria statements and the assessors
+ must then choose one of the five statements for each of their assessments. As with
+ the Banded assignment the assessor can adjust the suggested grade by up to
+ 20% to give the final grade.
+</OL>
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Including Self in the Assignment</B></P>
+
+<P>A peer graded assignment can optionally include the student's own work
+ in the set of pieces each student is asked to grade. This will mean that if, say, the
+ number of peer assessors is 5, then each student will be asked to grade 6
+ pieces of work, one of them being their own work.
+
+<P>If the number of peer assessors is set to zero and the include self option
+ is turned on then the assignment becomes a self-graded assignment. This
+ may or may not include the teacher's grading depending on whether that
+ option is set or not.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Managing a Workshop Assignment</B></P>
+
+<P>A Workshop Assignment is more complex than an ordinary assignment.
+ It involves a number of steps or phases. These are
+<OL>
+<LI>The assessment of the assignment should be broken into a number
+ of assessment ELEMENTS. This makes the grading of an assignment less
+ arbitary and gives the students a framework on which to make assessments.
+ The teacher has the role of setting up the assessment elements thus making a
+ grading sheet. (See that page for more details.)
+
+ <P>With the assessment elements set up the teacher will normally submit a
+ small number of example pieces of work. These are practice pieces for the
+ students to assess before preparing their own pieces of work. However,
+ before the assignment is made available to students, these example
+ pieces should be assessed by the teacher. This provides the students
+ with not only examples for the assignment but also specimen assessments
+ on those examples.
+ <P>The submission of example pieces of work by the teacher is optional
+ and for certain assignments may not be appropriate.
+
+<LI>The assignment is now opened to the students. If the teacher has set up
+ example pieces of work the students can be asked to assess a number of these.
+ In this case, the teacher must grade these assessments and the students must
+ reach a satisfactory standard before they are allowed submit their own work.
+ Here, a "satisfactory standard" has been set at 40%. Once a student
+ has "passed" the required number of assessments they are free to
+ submit their own work.
+ <P>When a student submits a piece of work the teacher can, if desired assess that
+ work. This assessment can be incorporated into the student final grade. These
+ assessments, if they are required, can take place either during the submission
+ phase of the assignment or after the submission deadline.
+ <P>If the assignment incorporates peer assessment, students who have submitted
+ work are shown other students' work to assess. When they have made an assessment
+ their peer can see that assessment (but the other student cannot comment on it.)
+ The teacher, however, can, if desired, grade the assessment and that score is taken
+ forward towards the student's final grade.
+
+<LI>After the deadline has passed, the teacher moves the assignment to the next phase
+ where further submissions and assessments by students are not allowed. The teacher
+ can, if wished, grade the peer assessments made by the students. This is not really
+ necessary as provided a reason number of assessments have been made on each
+ submission the "grading performance" of each student can be
+ determined from the relative scores. The teacher now calculates the final grades
+ of the students. These final grades are normally made up of three components,
+ teacher's grade of the student's work, mean peer grade of the student's work
+ and the student's grading performance. The last can include the mean "grading
+ grade" entered by the teacher against a student's comments. These three
+ components are given weights by the teacher before the calculation of the final
+ grades takes place.
+
+<LI>The final phase of the assignment is entered to allow the students to see their
+ final grades. The teacher can, be desired, backtrack the assignment to allow some
+ adjustment of, say, the weights used in the final grade calculation, the revised
+ grades can then be shown to the students.
+</OL>
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Number of Assessments of Student submissions</B></P>
+
+<P>This number determines whether the students are asked to peer assess
+ other students' work. If it is
+ not zero then each student is offered that number of pieces
+ of work from other students. After assessment the originator of the work
+ can view the comments and possibly the grade given by their peer.
+ (The peer assessment process may be iterative depending on the setting of
+ "Agree Assessments" option.) The teacher can also,
+ if desired, grade these assessments and those grades can be used in the calculation of
+ the final marks. The student is shown the teacher's comments and grade
+ for each of their assessments if available.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Number of Assessments of Teacher's Examples</B></P>
+
+<P>This number determines whether the students are asked to assess
+ any example peices of work before submitting their own work. If it is
+ not zero then each student must assess that number of example pieces
+ of work to a satisfactory level. This means that the teacher must grade
+ these assessments before the student can submit work. The student is
+ shown the teacher's comments and grade for each of their
+ assessments.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Number of Comments, Elements, Bands or Criteria</B></P>
+
+<P>The number entered here determines how many items will be used in
+ the assessments. Depending on the type of grading strategy, this number
+ gives the number of comments, assessments elements, bands or criteria
+ to be used in the assessments. Typically an assignment will have
+ something between 5 to 15 assessment items, the
+ actual number depending on the size and complexity of the assignment.
+
+<P>All assessments have a General Comments field. For a "No
+ Grading" assignment the value given here determines the
+ number of additional comment areas. It can be specified as zero and results
+ in the assessment having only a single General Comments area.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Number of Peer Assessors</B></P>
+
+<P>A peer graded assignment will normally have around 3 to 8 peer
+ assessors. That is, in the peer grading phase, each student will be
+ asked to grade this number of pieces of work from the other students
+ in the class. The larger the assignment is, in terms of content, the
+ smaller this number should be, else the grading burden on the
+ students becomes onerous. However, each student should see sufficient
+ examples to gain an insight into what constitutes a good piece of work
+ and a poor piece of work. Further for the grading performance of a
+ student to be assessed meaningfully the greater the number of peer
+ gradings the better. This performance is unlikely to be valid if only three
+ or four gradings are done by each student.
+
+<P>Provided there is enough pieces of work submitted (actually 10 or
+ more), the system will allocate each student at least one "good" and
+ at least one "poor" piece of work. However, this can only be done if the
+ teacher has graded the pieces of work BEORE the allocation of (peer) grading
+ work is done. The teacher does NOT, however, have to grade all the
+ pieces of work, a sample is sufficient. Further, the teacher's gradings need
+ NOT be the final gradings, a preliminary grading is good enough. Note,
+ however, that if the option to show teacher's gradings is turned on,
+ these gradings will be shown to the students at the end of the submission
+ phase.
+
+<P>The number of peer assesors can be zero. In which case the assignment
+ becomes either a self-graded assignment if that option is turned on, or
+ a normal teacher-graded assignment.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Resubmitting assignments</B></P>
+
+<P>By default, students cannot resubmit assignments, they are allowed only one submission.</P>
+
+<P>If you turn this option on, then students will be allowed to submit more than one piece of work
+ to this assignment. This may be useful if the teacher wants to encourage students to do better
+ work by an iterative process.</P>
+
+<P>The assessment of submissions is allocated on the basis of the number of assessments a piece
+ of work has had. Thus new submissions from a student are likely to be candidates for peer
+ assessment. However, if a student resubmits a number of pieces of work in quick succession then
+ they are all equally likely to be assessed. The assignment does NOT give priority to the newest
+ submission.
+
+<P>When the student's final grade is calculated the submission with the highest grade is used. Here
+ highest grade means the weighted combination of the teacher's grade and the peer grade if
+ both are available.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Self Assessment</B></P>
+
+<P>A workshop assignment can optionally include the student's own work
+ in the set of pieces each student is asked to assess. This will mean that if, say, the
+ number of student pieces of work each student has to assess is set at 5, then
+ each student will be asked to assess 6 pieces of work, one of them being their own work.
+
+<P>If the number of student pieces of work is set to zero and the self assessment option
+ is turned on then the assignment becomes a self-graded assignment. This
+ may or may not include the teacher's grading depending on the teacher's decision.
+
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Hiding the Display of Grades</B></P>
+
+<P>This option can be used in a workshop assignment where there
+ must be agreement between the students on each assessment .
+ The default value is to show the student whose work is being
+ assessed both the comments and the grades in the peer assessments. This
+ may lead to more disputes than when the option is turned on and the
+ assessments are shown without the grades.
+
+<P>If the option is taken to hide grades in the peer assessments the
+ grades are revealed once agreement has been reached. This agreement
+ will, of course, have been made only on the comments. If these comments
+ do not reasonably match the grades then the student whose work is being
+ assessed may well appeal to the teacher.
+</P>
--- /dev/null
+<p align="center"><b>Specimen Assessment Form</b></p>
+
+<p>This page shows shows the details of the actual form used to grade
+ your assignment. It will be used by the teacher to grade your work. Further,
+ in a peer graded asignment, the same form will be used by yourself and
+ your fellow students to grade the submitted pieces of work.</p>
+
+<p>Please note that although you can change the grades on
+ this form these changes are NOT saved. This is simply a specimen form,
+ but a very similar form will be used by the teacher and possibly by you
+ during this assignment.</p>
--- /dev/null
+<P ALIGN=CENTER><B>Display of Teacher's Grades</B></P>
+
+<P>A peer graded assignment can optionally make the teacher's comments
+ and grades available to the student's. If desired, these are shown after the
+ submission deadline, or later if the grades are not available then. The teacher's
+ comments and grades may well help the students when making their own
+ (peer) assessments on other student's work.
+
+<P>Note that even when the peer grading is done anonymously, the
+ teacher's grades are always shown to the students with the teacher's
+ name and, if available, their photo.
+
+</P>
projects / moodle.git / commitdiff