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.
+
+
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.
+
+
Note that if the teacher's grades are shown to the students these are
+ never shown anonymously.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/assignmenttype.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/assignmenttype.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..92a4341793
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/assignmenttype.html
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+
Peer Graded Assignment Type
+
+
A peer graded assignment can have one of two types:
+
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/breakdownoffinalgrade.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/breakdownoffinalgrade.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..4c54fe8c6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/breakdownoffinalgrade.html
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+
The Breakdown of the Final Grade
+
+
The table on this screen shows your final grade and how it was calculated.
+ The final grade is made up from three possible components.
+
+
+
The teacher's grade for your submitted work.
+
The average of the peer grades for your submitted work.
+
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.
+
+
+
These three components can be weighted as deemed appropriate for the
+ assignment. These weights are shown in the smaller table.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/calculatingfinalgrade.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/calculatingfinalgrade.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..77d6c0c685
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/calculatingfinalgrade.html
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+
The Calculation of the Final Grade
+
+
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.
+
+
+
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...
+
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.
+
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.
+
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.
+
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.
+
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/elements.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/elements.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a595abb8ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/elements.html
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+
Assignment Elements
+
+
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.
+
+
The type of elements dependent of the assignment's grading strategy.
+
+
Not Graded. 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.
+
+
+
Accumulative Grading. The elements have the following three features:
+
+
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.
+
+
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...
+
+
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.
+
+
Error Banded Grading. 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.
+
+
Criteria Grading. 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.
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/finalgrades.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/finalgrades.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..0f51aa8fbf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/finalgrades.html
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+
The Final Grades
+
+
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.
+
+
+
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.
+
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.
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/grading.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/grading.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b7da8771b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/grading.html
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+
Grading of Peer Assignments
+
+
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
+
+
Enter a Grade by clicking in the appropriate button or selecting an appropriate
+ number from the drop down menu.
+
+
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.
+
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingassessments.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingassessments.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..2ace224d65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingassessments.html
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+
Grading the Student Assessments
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingstrategy.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingstrategy.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..23fec36b1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/gradingstrategy.html
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+
Grading Strategy
+
+
A workshop assignment is quite flexible in the type of grading scheme used. This can be:
+
+
+
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.
+
+
Elements have the following three features:
+
+
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.
+
+
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...
+
+
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.
+
+
+
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. 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.
+
+
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 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.
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/managing.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/managing.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..55f383b30c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/managing.html
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+
Managing a Workshop Assignment
+
+
A Workshop Assignment is more complex than an ordinary assignment.
+ It involves a number of steps or phases. These are
+
+
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.)
+
+
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.
+
The submission of example pieces of work by the teacher is optional
+ and for certain assignments may not be appropriate.
+
+
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.
+
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.
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
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 peices
+ of work from other students. After assessment the originator of the work
+ can view the comments and grade given by their peer. 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 show the teacher's comments and grade
+ for each of their assessments if available.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/nassessmentsofteachersexamples.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/nassessmentsofteachersexamples.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b0f041b1af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/nassessmentsofteachersexamples.html
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+
Number of Assessments of Teacher's Examples
+
+
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.
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/nelements.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/nelements.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..2352c05bbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/nelements.html
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+
Number of Comments, Elements, Bands or Criteria
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/numberofassessors.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/numberofassessors.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..4bbf1ac3ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/numberofassessors.html
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+
Number of Peer Assessors
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/resubmit.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/resubmit.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..0830b5d211
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/resubmit.html
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+
Resubmitting assignments
+
+
By default, students cannot resubmit assignments, they are allowed only one submission.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/selfassessment.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/selfassessment.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..1024d737a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/selfassessment.html
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+
Self Assessment
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/showinggrades.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/showinggrades.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..9f94bbdd3f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/showinggrades.html
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+
When to display Grades
+
+
A peer graded assignment can have either of these characteristics:
+
+
+
In the peer grading phase the students see the feedback on the
+ assessment elements, the general comment and the grades given
+ by the other students. The students are shown both the individual
+ assessment element grades and their overall grade. This may lead
+ into more disputes than the second type of peer graded assignment...
+
+
In the peer grading phase the students see only the feadback on the
+ assessment elements and the general comment made by
+ the other students. The grades for the individual assessment elements are
+ not revealed (although they are held in the system). Further, the students
+ do not see their overall grades as given by their peers. Only when the
+ comments have been agreed are the grades (and the overall grade)
+ shown. This type of peer graded assignment is likely to be less
+ contentious than the first type.
+
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.
+
+
Please note that although you can change the grades and add text 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 by you during this
+ assignment.
+
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/help/workshop/teachersgradings.html b/lang/en/help/workshop/teachersgradings.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..184f4b3ee8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/help/workshop/teachersgradings.html
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+
Display of Teacher's Grades
+
+
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.
+
+
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.
+
+
diff --git a/lang/en/workshop.php b/lang/en/workshop.php
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..76157bceb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lang/en/workshop.php
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+
+ This makes the grading easier and more consistent. As teacher you must add these
+ Elements before making the assignment available to students. This is done by
+ clicking on the assignment in the course, if no elements are present you will be asked
+ to add them. You can change the number of elements using the Edit Assignment screen,
+ the elements themselves can be amended from the "Managing Assessment" screen. ";
+$string['notitlegiven'] = "No Title Given";
+$string['notgraded'] = "Not Graded";
+$string['numberofassessments'] = "Number of Assessments";
+$string['numberofassessmentelements'] = "Number of Comments, Assessment Elements, Grade Bands or Criteria Statments";
+$string['numberofassessmentsofstudentsubmissions'] = "Number of Assessments of Student Submissions";
+$string['numberofassessmentsofteachersexamples'] = "Number of Assessments of Examples from Teacher";
+$string['openassignment'] = "Open Assignment";
+$string['optionforpeergrade'] = "Option for Peer Grade";
+$string['overallgrade'] = "Overall Grade";
+$string['overallpeergrade'] = "Overall Peer Grade: \$a";
+$string['overallteachergrade'] = "Overall Teacher Grade: \$a";
+$string['ownwork'] = "Own Work";
+$string['phase'] = "Phase";
+$string['phase1'] = "Set Up Assignment";
+$string['phase2'] = "\$a Submissions and Assessments";
+$string['phase3'] = "Calculation of Final Grades";
+$string['phase4'] = "Show Final Grades";
+$string['pleaseassesstheseexamplesfromtheteacher'] = "Please assess these Examples from the \$a";
+$string['pleaseassessthesestudentsubmissions'] = "Please assess these \$a Submissions";
+$string['returntosubmissionpage'] = "Return to Submission Page";
+$string['savemyassessment'] = "Save my Assessment";
+$string['savedok'] = "Saved OK";
+$string['savemygrading'] = "Save my Grading";
+$string['scaleyes'] = "2 point Yes/No scale";
+$string['scalepresent'] = "2 point Present/Absent scale";
+$string['scalecorrect'] = "2 point Correct/Incorrect scale";
+$string['scalegood3'] = "3 point Good/Poor scale";
+$string['scaleexcellent4'] = "4 point Excellent/Very Poor scale";
+$string['scaleexcellent5'] = "5 point Excellent/Very Poor scale";
+$string['scaleexcellent7'] = "7 point Excellent/Very Poor scale";
+$string['scale10'] = "Score out of 10";
+$string['scale20'] = "Score out of 20";
+$string['scale100'] = "Score out of 100";
+$string['selfassessment'] = "Self Assessment";
+$string['showgrades'] = "Show Grades";
+$string['specimenassessmentform'] = "Specimen Assessment Form";
+$string['studentsassessment'] = "Student's Assessment";
+$string['studentgrades'] = "\$a Grades";
+$string['studentsubmissionsforassessment'] = "\$a Student Submissions for Assessment";
+$string['studentsubmissions'] = "\$a Submissions";
+$string['submitassignment'] = "Submit Assignment";
+$string['submitexampleassignment'] = "Submit Example Assignment";
+$string['submitted'] = "Submitted";
+$string['submissions'] = "Submissions";
+$string['returnto'] = "Return to";
+$string['teachersassessment'] = "Teacher's Assessment";
+$string['teacherscomment'] = "Teacher's Comment";
+$string['teachersgrade'] = "Teacher's Grade";
+$string['teachersubmissionsforassessment'] = "\$a Teacher Submissions for Assessment";
+$string['thegradeis'] = "The Grade is \$a";
+$string['theseasessmentsaregradedbytheteacher'] = "These Assessments are graded by the \$a";
+$string['timeassessed'] = "Time Assessed";
+$string['title'] = "Title";
+$string['typeofscale'] = "Type of Scale";
+$string['ungradedassessmentsofstudentsubmissions'] = "\$a Ungraded Assessments of Student Submissions";
+$string['ungradedassessmentsofteachersubmissions'] = "\$a Ungraded Assessments of Teacher Submissions";
+$string['view'] = "View";
+$string['viewassessmentofteacher'] = "View Assessment of \$a";
+$string['viewotherassessments'] = "View other Assessments";
+$string['warningonamendingelements'] = "WARNING: There are submitted assessments. Do NOT change the number
+ of elements, the scale types or the element weights.";
+$string['weightederrorcount'] = "Weighted Error Count: \$a";
+$string['weightforbias'] = "Weight for Bias";
+$string['weightforgradingofassessments'] = "Weight for Grading of Assessments";
+$string['weightforpeerassessments'] = "Weight for Peer Assessments";
+$string['weightforreliability'] = "Weight for Reliability";
+$string['weightforteachersassessment'] = "Weight for Teacher's Assessment";
+$string['weights'] = "Weights";
+$string['weightsusedforfinalgrade'] = "Weights used for Final Grade";
+$string['weightsusedforsubmissions'] = "Weights used for Submissions";
+$string['yourassessments'] = "Your Assessments";
+
+?>
diff --git a/mod/workshop/Overview.html b/mod/workshop/Overview.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..2835609af6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/mod/workshop/Overview.html
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+
+
+
+
+ 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/assessments.php b/mod/workshop/assessments.php
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ffe4241db1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/mod/workshop/assessments.php
@@ -0,0 +1,678 @@
+course)) {
+ error("Course is misconfigured");
+ }
+
+ if (! $workshop = get_record("workshop", "id", $cm->instance)) {
+ error("Course module is incorrect");
+ }
+
+ } else {
+ if (! $workshop = get_record("workshop", "id", $a)) {
+ error("Course module is incorrect");
+ }
+ if (! $course = get_record("course", "id", $workshop->course)) {
+ error("Course is misconfigured");
+ }
+ if (! $cm = get_coursemodule_from_instance("workshop", $workshop->id, $course->id)) {
+ error("Course Module ID was incorrect");
+ }
+ }
+
+ require_login($course->id);
+
+ if ($course->category) {
+ $navigation = "id\">$course->shortname ->";
+ }
+
+ $strworkshops = get_string("modulenameplural", "workshop");
+ $strworkshop = get_string("modulename", "workshop");
+ $strassessments = get_string("assessments", "workshop");
+
+ // ... print the header and...
+ print_header("$course->shortname: $workshop->name", "$course->fullname",
+ "$navigation id>$strworkshops ->
+ id\">$workshop->name -> $strassessments",
+ "", "", true);
+
+ //...get the action
+ require_variable($action);
+
+
+/*************** Assess submission (by teacher or student) ***************************/
+ if ($action == 'assesssubmission') {
+
+ require_variable($sid);
+
+ if (! $submission = get_record("workshop_submissions", "id", $sid)) {
+ error("assess submission is misconfigured");
+ }
+
+ $yearfromnow = time() + 365 * 86400;
+ // is there an assessment record, create one and set timecreated way in the future, this is reset when record is updated
+ if (!$assessment = workshop_get_submission_assessment($submission, $USER)) {
+ $assessment->workshopid = $workshop->id;
+ $assessment->submissionid = $submission->id;
+ $assessment->userid = $USER->id;
+ $assessment->grade = -1; // set impossible grade
+ $assessment->timecreated = $yearfromnow;
+ $assessment->timegraded = 0;
+ if (!$assessment->id = insert_record("workshop_assessments", $assessment)) {
+ error("Could not insert workshop assessment!");
+ }
+ }
+
+ print_heading_with_help(get_string("assessthissubmission", "workshop"), "grading", "workshop");
+
+ echo "