1. Student
1.1. has to submit their work
1.1.1. title
1.1.2. body
1.1.2.1. embedded pictures
1.1.3. attachments
1.2. is asked to assess some peers' work
1.2.1. using the assessment form
1.3. can be asked to assess own work
1.4. can be asked to train the assessment procedure on so called example submissions
1.4.1. example submissions provided by teacher
1.4.2. reference assessment available for comparison
1.4.2.1. reference assessment prepared by teacher in advance
1.4.3. helps to get the common understanding of the assessment form, requirments, levels etc.
1.4.4. can be mandatory
1.4.4.1. either before own submission
1.4.4.2. or after it but before peer-assessment
2. Features
2.1. assignment-like activity
2.1.1. students submit their work
2.2. peer-assessment
2.2.1. students assess their peers
2.3. advanced grading scheme
2.3.1. assessment forms
2.3.1.1. criteria
2.3.1.2. rubric
2.3.2. grades calculation
2.4. two grades
2.4.1. grade for submission
2.4.1.1. how good the submission is
2.4.1.2. weighted mean of received assessments
2.4.2. grade for assessment (grading grade)
2.4.2.1. how well a student assessed her/his peers
2.4.3. both are calculated automatically
2.4.3.1. but can be overridden by the teacher
2.5. modular architecture
2.5.1. other types of assessment forms (grading strategies) can be plugged-in
2.5.2. other methods of grading grade calculation can be plugged-in
3. Introduction
3.1. What is workshop
3.1.1. how would such activity look in a physical classroom
3.2. module history
3.2.1. first contributed module for Moodle
3.2.2. removed from core after 1.9 release
3.2.2.1. disabled by default in 1.9 installations
3.2.3. rewritten in 2009
3.3. current state
3.3.1. back in core for Moodle 2.0
3.3.2. still work in progress but ready to be used in production
3.3.2.1. at least much better/stable/predictable than in 1.x
3.4. future
3.4.1. goal: being the flagship of Moodle
3.4.2. stabilising in 2.0
3.4.3. adding new improvements into 2.1
4. Teacher
4.1. prepares the workshop assignment
4.2. chooses the grading strategy
4.2.1. comments
4.2.2. accumulative
4.2.3. number of errors
4.2.4. rubric
4.3. defines the assessment form
4.3.1. depends on the strategy
4.3.2. consists of so called "dimensions of assessments"
4.3.2.1. elements
4.3.2.2. criteria
4.3.2.3. items of rubric
4.4. controls the workflow
4.4.1. distinct phases
4.4.1.1. submission phase
4.4.1.1.1. students submit their work
4.4.1.2. assessment phase
4.4.1.2.1. students assess their peers
4.4.1.3. grading evaluation phase
4.4.1.3.1. the grades are calculated
4.4.1.4. workshop closed phase
4.4.1.4.1. the grades are pushed into the course gradebook
4.5. allocates submissions for peer-assessment
4.5.1. randomly
4.5.1.1. respects group mode of the activity
4.5.1.1.1. no groups
4.5.1.1.2. visible groups
4.5.1.1.3. separate groups
4.5.1.2. using either
4.5.1.2.1. the fixed number of reviewers per submission
4.5.1.2.2. the fixed number of allocated assessments per peer
4.5.2. manually
4.5.2.1. teacher decides who will assess what
4.5.2.2. new in 2.0
4.5.3. in a combined way
4.5.4. every assessment can have different weight
4.5.4.1. this is new - in 1.x, only teacher's assessments can have different weight
4.6. controls the final grades
4.6.1. can override the calculated ones
4.6.2. works with grades internally in workshop before they are pushed into gradebook
5. Administrator
5.1. upgrade from 1.9
5.1.1. if you do not use workshop now, it is recommended to remove the whole module before upgrade
5.1.2. migration procedure
5.1.3. backwards compatibility issues
5.1.3.1. phases can't overlap
5.1.3.2. phases must be switched manually
5.1.3.3. optional adjustment not used any more
5.1.3.4. negative weight of assessment form elements not supported any more
5.1.3.5. the grading grade calculation changed
5.1.3.5.1. may be still difficult to explain but is explicitly defined in a formula
5.1.3.6. no assessments are dropped automatically
5.1.3.6.1. but can be weighted as zero
6. Developer/Contributor
6.1. sub-plugins
6.1.1. grading strategies
6.1.1.1. how the assessment form looks like
6.1.1.2. how the grade for submission is calculated
6.1.2. grading evaluators
6.1.2.1. how the grading grade is calculated
6.1.3. allocators
6.1.3.1. how submissions are allocated for peer-assessment