mirror of
https://github.com/moodle/moodle.git
synced 2025-01-22 16:18:24 +01:00
174 lines
8.8 KiB
HTML
174 lines
8.8 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
|
|
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
|
|
<title>Another Assignment Overview</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h2> Another Assignment Module</h2>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"> "Assessment is the most powerful lever
|
|
teachers have to influence the way students respond to courses and
|
|
behave as learners"<br>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<div style="text-align: right; margin-left: 80px;"><small> 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</small><br>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<h3>Overview</h3>
|
|
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:<br>
|
|
<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 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>
|
|
<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.</li>
|
|
<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.</li>
|
|
<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 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. </li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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:<br>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>The teacher's grade of the (final) submission</li>
|
|
<li>The average peer grade of the (final) submission</li>
|
|
<li>The student's grading performance</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Thus the module normally runs through four phases:<br>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Set up</li>
|
|
<li>Student assessment of the example assignments, submission of work
|
|
and peer assessment</li>
|
|
<li>Calculation of final grades</li>
|
|
<li>Release of final grades</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
And there's a single deadline occurring between phases 2 and 3.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<h3>Variants</h3>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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!<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
|
|
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.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Ray Kingdon <br>
|
|
April 2003<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|