Another Assignment Overview

From 21b69d1c4d76c5fab4d43e605ada17936f7a62b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: moodler Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:53:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Removed some old docs --- mod/workshop/Overview.html | 173 ------------------------------------- mod/workshop/todo.txt | 27 ------ 2 files changed, 200 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 mod/workshop/Overview.html delete mode 100644 mod/workshop/todo.txt diff --git a/mod/workshop/Overview.html b/mod/workshop/Overview.html deleted file mode 100644 index 488d2771c4..0000000000 --- a/mod/workshop/Overview.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,173 +0,0 @@ - - - - - Another Assignment Overview - - -

Another Assignment Module

-
-

"Assessment is the most powerful lever -teachers have to influence the way students respond to courses and -behave as learners"
-

-
-

from Graham -Gibbs, "Using Assessment Strategically to Change the Way Students Learn" -in "Asessment Matter in Higher Education, edited by Sally Brown and -Angela Glasner, OU Press, 1999
-

-
-

Overview

-This new module enables the teacher to set up a controlled assignment -which encourages students to become more critical of both their own work -and that of others. In its standard form, the module usually begins with -a preparatory phase where the teacher sets up the assessment criteria. -These will depend on which assessment strategy the teacher decides to -use for the assignment. There are four separate strategies:
-

No grading: 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 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.
Accumulative grading: 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.
Error Banded Grading: 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.
Criteria Grading: 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 criterion 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.

-Next the teacher submits a small number (probably between 5 and 10) -example pieces of work. These most likely have been gleaned from -previous cohorts and should probably include both good and poor attempts -at the assignment.
-
-Lastly the teacher assesses these examples using the "grading form" set -up for the asssignment. The teacher's assessments are there to guide the -students when they start the assignment.
-
-With these three sets of items in place, the assessment elements (and -possibly the associated grade table), the example assignments and the -specimen assessments, the assignment can be opened up to the students. -The students' first task is usually to assess a selection of the -example assignments. As these assessments are produced the teacher -reviews them and, if satisfactory, the individual students are allowed -to progress to the next stage. The teacher may ask a student to -re-assess one or more of the example assessments. This should be easy to -do as once an example assignment is assessed the student is able to view -the teacher's "specimen" assessments. This loop is basically there to -check that the weaker students are aware of the specimen assessments and -have looked at them.
-
-At the end of this initial stage the students should have a fair idea -of what the assignment is about and how it is being assessed. They are -now allowed to submit their own work. This is not a fixed milestone, -each student will reach this second stage independently. With all the -inital assessments graded the teacher can sit back and let the module -run until the deadline date.
-
-The module can be set up to allow single submission or multiple -submissions. Depending on this setting, the student' first submission is -either their first draft or their only attempt.When the students have -submitted work they are asked to assess work from the other students. -They are also shown the assessments of their own work by the other -students. However, they must do at least one assessment before they are -shown the peer assessments. When the assignment allows resubmission the -student may, in the light of the feedback, revise their work and submit -a new copy for peer assessment. The peer assessment of student -submissions continues until the deadline date is reached.
-
-The teacher now has several choices. The module allows a flexible -approach to calculating the final grade for the students. In fact, the -final grade can be a teacher-defined combination of:
-

The teacher's grade of the (final) submission
The average peer grade of the (final) submission
The student's grading performance

-Obviously if (1) is to be included then the teacher has to assess the -student submissions after the deadline. There is no real need for the -students' assessments produced during the peer asessment phase to be -graded by the teacher. The module can assess the quality of these -assignments by internal comparison. This is probably just as well as the -number of assessments generated at that phase could be quite large even -for reasonably sized classes. The final phase of the module is the -release of the final grades to the students.
-
-Thus the module normally runs through four phases:
-

Set up
Student assessment of the example assignments, submission of work -and peer assessment
Calculation of final grades
Release of final grades

-And there's a single deadline occurring between phases 2 and 3.
-
-

Variants

-That describes the "standard" assignment which this module supports. -The module also lends itself to a few other types of assignment. For -example, a "case study" assignment can be handled where the teacher -sets up a number of scenarios for the students to comment on. Here there -are no student submissions the teacher simply grades the students -responses to each scenario and uses those to calculate the final grades.
-
-A second example using the module in an abbrieviated way is as a simple -peer assessment assignment. Here the teacher sets up the assessment -elements but does not submit any example assignments and the students go -straight in to the peer assessment phase, possibly going where no class -has boldly gone before!
-
-For certain assignments the teacher may decide that the example -assignments would simply lead the students into doing a cut-and-paste -exercise to produce their assignments. Here the initial assessment phase -would be better performed on a set of examples from a related subject -rather than those directly pertaining to the particular assignment. In -this way the students are shown what is expected of them and how it is -being assessed but "the cat is still in the bag" so to speak. Careful -monitoring of the assignment would be necessary else many students, not -reading the instructions, would reproduce the examples rather then the -required assignment.
-
-The module can also be set up to ask the students to asssess their own -work. That is instead of peer assessment the assignment becomes one -involving self assessment. Here it is likely that the teacher would -grade the (self) assessments make in the second half of phase 2 and -include these grades in the final grades.
-
-

Conclusion

-Thus the module is quite flexible while still being relatively easy to -set up and run. The module has been keep purposely simple. For example -it does not allow the students to enter into an assessment - reply - -assessment cycle during the peer assessment phase. If that -sophistication is required then the Peer Graded Assignment module should -be used. Other technical restrictions are that the submitted assignments -are limited to a single file, that is although multiple submissions are -allowed each submission can only be just one file. The files themselves -are limited to a prediefined size and the module does not support links -to external pieces of work.
-
-Ray Kingdon
-April 2003
-
- - diff --git a/mod/workshop/todo.txt b/mod/workshop/todo.txt deleted file mode 100644 index b35c3d3024..0000000000 --- a/mod/workshop/todo.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,27 +0,0 @@ -To Do -===== - -Use a better method to measure bias in peer grades, probably based on the - percentage difference rather the relative difference used at present. - -Add time-agreed test to calculation of final grades. - -Comments are seen by a third party, is this standard Moodle behaviour? - -Cron function should email something to the assessor when an assessment is - agreed. - -Add a league table of submissions in the final phase for students. - ---- - -Self assessments may need special handling, remove duplication in student - view - Done - -Add student names to assessments and submissions for teachers - Done - - -Ray Kingdon -28 July 2003 - - -- 2.39.5