Child pages
  • Gradability
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Definitions

Grading/assessing/rating/ranking/evaluating/reviewing or giving feedback on a work or artifact.

Unknown macro: {composition-setup}
Unknown macro: {deck}
Unknown macro: {card}
  • I want to assess my students knowledge
    • For every question, student also rates their confidence in their answer; item scoring based on a combination of the two; can track trends of this metacognition across assessments as well as time.
    • I want to give my students feedback on their work
      • I want to give my students grades
      • Feedback / comment with rich-text formatting and attachments for any object
      • Any object can receive a comment or grade; Grouping of objects (e.g., portfolio) that receive feedback; both open and structured feedback
      • Grades are a special case of feedback and non-numerical assessment should be supported; Instructor feedback; self feedback; peer feedback; external to class review; external to system review; multitude of permissions for who can see what
      • Different categories of grades can be of different types, so that attendance is scored with a checkmark, quizzes scored by points, papers scored with letter grades. Different categories contribute to final grade.
    • I want to return comments to the authors about their submitted file(s)
      • I want to be able to discuss online (privately) with the author(s) a document that they have submitted
      • Support for a set of comments or a discussion associated with each submission.
      • support for comments and discussion with a sub-group who have submitted a group submission
      • The comments about the submission might be replaced by other configurable meta-activities like a formal or informal assessment
      • Flexible workflows by which a comment/review process can go through multiple reviewers, blind or not, with a composite assessment.
    • While responding with my comments, I want to ask that a revised file be submitted again.
      • A history of submitted drafts and comments
  • From UX:Portfolio-related+vignettes
    • Evaluate
      • Users with permission may evaluate student submissions for Matrix cells, Wizards, or Wizard pages by filling out and saving Evaluation Forms. Users with permission may also provide feedback at any time to ongoing work in Matrix cells, Wizards, or Wizard pages. Users with permission may grade submitted Assignments and/or rate goals linked to submitted Assignments. Participants may allow comments in Portfolios shared with others.
      • Evaluation should allow much more flexible workflows and roles.
      • From Boston Sakai: Functionality for evaluation should include the option to create rubrics and apply them to almost anything. Users with permission should also be able to share rubrics, use them for peer evaluation, and allow rubrics to feed the Gradebook or a report. Rubrics should be linked to learning outcomes and/or facilitate additional ways to present expectations for learning. Functionality for evaluation should be flexible enough to support multiple models of evaluation, single or multiple, double blind, and/or peer evaluation.
    • Assess
      • Organizers may set up work flows using various portfolio tools to assess participant performance in relation to standards or outcomes.
      • Organizers should have an easy to use interface to design and create assessment work flows that associate goals and standards with student work and instructor evaluation via a minimum number of tools.
      • From Boston Sakai: Functionality for assessment should provide the ability to look at the big picture to determine where students are in their learning and where the program is in facilitating student learning. Programs and institutions should be able to use assessment functionality to express their curricula in ways that students can understand.
        Unknown macro: {card}
  • Unknown macro: {deck}