Workshop 2.0

1. Pedagogical use cases

1.1. Simple assignment with advanced grading strategy

1.1.1. Students submit just one file as they do in Assignment module

1.1.2. No peer grading

1.1.3. Several dimensions (criterions) of the assessment

1.1.3.1. wighted mean aggregation

1.1.3.2. if only one dimension is used, the Workshop behaves like an ordinary Assignment

1.2. Presentations and performance

1.2.1. Students submits their slides and give a presentation in class

1.2.2. Peer feedback on submitted materials and live presentation

1.2.3. Randomly assigning assessments

1.2.3.1. Motivation to pay attention and take good notes

1.3. Peer Assessment gives opportunity to

1.3.1. see other work and learn from it

1.3.2. formulate quality feedback

1.3.2.1. which will enhance learning

1.3.3. learn from feedback of more than one person (i.e. the teacher)

1.4. Activity focused on work quality

1.4.1. no grading, just comments from teacher and peers

1.4.2. resubmissions allowed

1.4.3. manually switching between submission phase, assessment phase, (re)submission phase, (re)assessment phase etc as needed

2. Implementation

2.1. DB API

2.2. File API

2.3. Portfolio API

2.4. UI

2.4.1. keep the forms as simple as possible

2.4.2. heavily using "Advanced field" feature and default values

2.4.3. Logical groups of fields in mod_form.php

2.4.4. Move phase-specific settings out of mod_form.php to other forms

2.5. Capabilities

2.6. Workshop phases

2.6.1. List of phases

2.6.1.1. Teacher sets up the workshop

2.6.1.2. Students assess the examples provided by teacher

2.6.1.3. Students upload their own submissions

2.6.1.4. Students assess the submissions of their peers

2.6.1.5. Final grades are calculated and sent to the course Gradebook

2.6.2. Both manual and automatic (by-date) moving from phase to phase

2.6.2.1. allow manual switching anytime

2.6.2.2. allow returning to a previous phase (eg. from assessments back to submissions) - manual only

2.6.3. Phases do not overlap, see the backward compatibility issue

2.7. Outcomes integration?

3. Features

3.1. Techer decides on grading strategy

3.1.1. No grades, just comments

3.1.1.1. Several evaluation aspects, each is commented without giving a grade

3.1.2. Error banded

3.1.2.1. List of aspects that should be present in the submission

3.1.3. Accumulative grading

3.1.3.1. Replace wording with "Several aspects, each with its own scale"

3.1.4. Criterion grading

3.1.5. Rubrics

3.1.6. Stephan's suggestion

3.1.6.1. no grading

3.1.6.1.1. just written feedback

3.1.6.2. Criterion with Scale

3.1.6.2.1. Criterion with a point scale from 1 to n with n being sent to grade book

3.1.6.3. Criterion - Level Description

3.1.6.3.1. Criterion with n descriptions of level (in order from worst to best). n should also result in n points being sent to grade book

3.1.6.4. David's comments

3.1.6.4.1. both Criterion with Scale and Criterion LD are covered by the Criterion rubrics - see the spec

3.1.6.4.2. Stephan can you see a case where your types can't be achieved with the one strategy proposed in the specification?

3.2. Teacher uploads sample work and grades it

3.2.1. optional

3.3. Students submit their work

3.3.1. attached files

3.3.2. and comment via HTML editor

3.4. Teachers assess students' submissions

3.4.1. weighting of teacher assessment in relation to peer-assessment needs to be chosen by teacher

3.5. Students can perform self-assessment

3.5.1. weighting of self assessment is the same as that of peers

3.6. Peers assess submissions of others

3.6.1. anonymous

3.6.2. or with user known

3.6.3. option:

3.6.3.1. grader and gradee need to agree on grade

3.7. Final grade for each student is calculated from

3.7.1. Grade for submission

3.7.1.1. self-assessment

3.7.1.2. given by teacher

3.7.1.3. given by peers

3.7.1.4. aggregations?

3.7.1.4.1. depends on weightings entered by teacher

3.7.2. Grade for peer assessments

3.7.2.1. weighted average

3.7.2.2. bias and reliability

3.7.2.2.1. what is the difference?

3.7.2.2.2. make the calculation a little bit mysterious and not very clear for students

3.7.2.2.3. replace with "Required level of assessments similarity"

3.8. students grade sample work and get feedback

3.8.1. regarding difference between their grading and sample grading

3.8.2. if automatic this could be deviation from teacher expressed in point-difference

4. Backward compatibility issues

4.1. Phase "Allow both students submissions and assessments" not supported anymore

4.1.1. problem described in the Chapter 6 of Using Moodle, p.105 (follow the link)

4.1.2. no strong pedagogical use case supporting this phase found yet

4.1.3. this makes the magical setting "Overall allocation" obsolete because nobody can start assessing before the end of submission phase

5. Project goal

5.1. Have the Workshop module in Moodle 2.0

6. Project schedule and milestones

6.1. Milestone 1 (30/04/2009)

6.1.1. The specification is in docs wiki and is reviewed and agreed by the community and Moodle HQ

6.1.2. The implementation plan is transfered into sub-tasks in the tracker

6.2. Milestone 2 (31/05/2009)

6.2.1. All features implemented

6.3. Milestone 3 (30/06/2009)

6.3.1. Major bugs fixed, upgrading from pre-2.0 versions works. The community is asked for the testing

6.4. Milestone 4 (31/07/2009)

6.4.1. The module is moved from contrib back to the core