Moodle 3.2: Grading Options for Workshops

Applies to: Moodle 3.2.

There are 4 different grading options for grading a workshop. Each grading options comes with a certain type of assessment form and method of grading submissions. This article covers each of these grading options as well as on overview of how grades are calculated:

Overall Score Calculation

The workshop total score is made up of two things: the submission score by the instructor on what students submitted and peer assessment score for how students did based on the peer assessment. Values for the submission and the assessment are determined by the instructor when creating the workshop assignment. The value can be set from 0 - 100 for both items (a combined maximum of 200 pts.)

Moodle uses Artificial Intelligence and plugins to determine assessment scores. The calculation can be quite complex with a strong emphasis on consensus marks. See more detailed information From in Using Workshops.

In all cases, the instructor should review peer assessments for accuracy and consistency when the workshop is in the Grading Evaluation phase. Instructors can also give authors and reviewers feedback and override the Moodle grading in the Grading Evaluation phase as mentioned above. See Evaluate Peer Assessment within a Workshop for more information.

Accumulative Grading

The assessment form for Accumulative Grading consists of a set of criteria.

  • Each criterion is graded separately using either:
    • A number grade (e.g. out of 100)
    • A scale (using either one of the site-wide scales or a scale defined in a course).
  • Each criterion can have its own weight set.
  • Reviewers can put comments to all assessed criteria.
  • The Submission phase of the Accumulative Grading Workshop allows for text entry and attached files.

When calculating the total grade for the submission, the grades for particular criteria are firstly normalized to a range from 0% to 100%. Then the total grade by a given assessment is calculated as weighted mean of normalized grades. Scales are considered as grades from 0 to M-1, where M is the number of scale items.

Comments Grading

The Comments Grading assessment form has some unique features.

  • The Submission phase allows text entry only. Attaching files is not allowed.
  • There are NO scores to be given. ONLY comments may be given.
  • The total grade for the assessed submission is ALWAYS set to 100%.

This strategy can be effective in repetitive workflows when the submissions are firstly just commented by reviewers to provide initial feedback to the authors. Then the Workshop is switched back to the submission phase and the authors can improve it according to the comments. The grading strategy may then be changed to one using numeric grading, and submissions are assessed again using the different assessment form.

Number of Errors Grading

The Number of Errors assessment method is considered easier for reviewers to understand and use. It is suitable for those just starting with peer assessment because it produces quite objective results.

The Number of Errors assessment form consists of several assertions or criteria, used to make sure that certain criteria were addressed in the submission.

  • Each criteria can be marked as Passed or Failed by the reviewer.
  • Various words can be set to express the pass or failure state - e.g., Yes„No, Present„Missing, Good„Poor, etc.
  • Each assertion can be individually weighted.

The grade given by a particular assessment is calculated from the weighted count of negative assessment responses (failed assertions). Course facilitators define a mapping table that converts the number of failed assertions to a percent grade for the given submission. Zero failed assertion is always mapped to 100% grade.

Rubric Grading

The rubric assessment form consists of a set of criteria determined by the instructor and inserted into a table format. For each criterion, several ordered descriptive levels are provided. A number grade is assigned to each of these levels. The form creation code is sophisticated enough to allow for a varied number of evaluative elements for each criterion; and for different point values for each evaluation value.

The reviewer chooses which level answers/describes the given criterion best.

  • Criterion: "Overall quality of the paper"
  • Evaluation levels: 5 - An excellent paper, 3 - A mediocre paper, 0 - A weak paper.

The number of the choice will be the points earned..

There are two forms in which the assessment form can be rendered:

  • In common grid.
  • In a list.

It is safe to switch the representation of the rubric any time.