Previously on Lost...
I will start with a specific question about weird aggregation of my scales, but then (see below) I would love to chat about overall strategy for handling scales and outcomes.
We have 2 commonly used scales in 1.8 installation
Scale1: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3
Scale2: Not satisfactory, Satisfactory, Outstanding
As far as I understand, if we will include those in aggregation in 1.9, they should be transferred to:
Scale1: 1-7 points, with an option to give No Grade (which I think should be equal to getting 0. But may be it's not)
Scale2: No Grade,1-3 points
Thus, if I have 2 assignments using those, then the course total (simple straightforward sum) should be 10.
Well, it is 8 for me.
I was writing all of this, and now I think my problem is that I cannot uncheck "Aggregate only non-empty grades" for a Sum. Is it?
I would love to be able to uncheck it, plus make sure that in such situation my Max Grade for an item which such scale would not get scaled down by one point. So I would not need to drill down to a simple weighted method. Does it make mathematical sense? %)
(Or may be for a Scale to go 0-7 points, where No Grade = 0)
I remember reading about this already somewhere. Just do not remember where.
Another thing that I am lost with is why the first item on the scale is calculated as 1 point (e.g. Not satisfactory = 1), but at the same time it will be shown worth 0%.
Here is a sample: http://test.moodle.org/1.9/grade/report/grader/index.php?id=13
Thank you for any tips on the matter!
Scales, Outcomes - incorrect calculations and overall strategy
by Elena Ivanova -
Number of replies: 9
I guess I will just continue here.
Those of you who are on 1.9, what have you decided to do with scales and outcomes, and why?
Have you included scales in aggregation? Why?
If you were upgrading, how you dealt with users who have already created bunch on custom scales (which would be screwed up by either decision)?
E.g. I've just found out that some users created custom 0-100 scales with 0.5 intervals.
Have you enabled outcomes? Have you included them in aggregation too?
I am leaning towards enabling the outcomes, but not including either them or scales in aggregation.
But may be you did and then found out that it is a really useful feature!
Thank you
Those of you who are on 1.9, what have you decided to do with scales and outcomes, and why?
Have you included scales in aggregation? Why?
If you were upgrading, how you dealt with users who have already created bunch on custom scales (which would be screwed up by either decision)?
E.g. I've just found out that some users created custom 0-100 scales with 0.5 intervals.
Have you enabled outcomes? Have you included them in aggregation too?
I am leaning towards enabling the outcomes, but not including either them or scales in aggregation.
But may be you did and then found out that it is a really useful feature!
Thank you
Hi Elena,
As you know we are working on our upgrade from 1.8.5 with Gradebook Plus V2 to 1.9.4.
We are going to upgrade on the same instance. We have just made an complete, initial round of decision on administrative settings. We will continue unit testing to see if these settings are the best result for our users and then we will have user acceptance testing from our faculty support liaisons.
We have turned off outcomes for this release. We may introduce this feature in the future, but only after our users are accustomed to the various new gradebook pages. In the time that we wait, it is hoped that various suggestions (many of them are yours, thank you!) for improving usability in the gradebook will be brought into the core code.
We have decided not to convert scales to numerical values for gradebook calculation. In our implementation of 1.8 our users already benefited from having decimals in the Gradebook Plus V2 patch/overlay. (On the downside, choosing to upgrade in place has required us to do some scripting of the install and to spend countless hours reviewing the migration of data from that patch to the new gradebook.)
Scales have been a text-based grading function for our users and we want to keep it that way for now.
In summary, not sure our experience is a great match to your interests.
- Kathy C, Brandeis University
As you know we are working on our upgrade from 1.8.5 with Gradebook Plus V2 to 1.9.4.
We are going to upgrade on the same instance. We have just made an complete, initial round of decision on administrative settings. We will continue unit testing to see if these settings are the best result for our users and then we will have user acceptance testing from our faculty support liaisons.
We have turned off outcomes for this release. We may introduce this feature in the future, but only after our users are accustomed to the various new gradebook pages. In the time that we wait, it is hoped that various suggestions (many of them are yours, thank you!) for improving usability in the gradebook will be brought into the core code.
We have decided not to convert scales to numerical values for gradebook calculation. In our implementation of 1.8 our users already benefited from having decimals in the Gradebook Plus V2 patch/overlay. (On the downside, choosing to upgrade in place has required us to do some scripting of the install and to spend countless hours reviewing the migration of data from that patch to the new gradebook.)
Scales have been a text-based grading function for our users and we want to keep it that way for now.
In summary, not sure our experience is a great match to your interests.
- Kathy C, Brandeis University
Hi Kathy, thank you so much!
Your story is exactly what I was looking for.
We have always told users that scales are non-numeric means of evaluation, but, well, I understand those who wanted some kind of decimal points.
For now we lean towards exactly the same decision: scales will be non-numeric (will not be included in aggregation), and outcomes will not be available, until we figure out the best way to utilize those. Hopefully during summer.
We have a big interest in our university in those, since we hope to be able to link them to the official undergraduate student learning outcomes and track them later.
Ideally, instructor should be able to choose on the course level whether to include both scales and outcomes in aggregation or not. (Right now instructor can already decide about the outcomes, but it will not help if the scales aggregation is disabled by the admin). I guess some kind of a role permission can be developed for such purpose.
One thing that is rather nerving to me, if later we will decide to go "numeric" route, we will influence all of the users/gradebooks who would be already accustomed to non-numeric scales.
P.s. Kathy, when do you plan to upgrade? As far as In understand 1.9.5 with great interface patches and new functionality will be released soon. (Not soon enough for us unfortunately
)
Your story is exactly what I was looking for.
We have always told users that scales are non-numeric means of evaluation, but, well, I understand those who wanted some kind of decimal points.
For now we lean towards exactly the same decision: scales will be non-numeric (will not be included in aggregation), and outcomes will not be available, until we figure out the best way to utilize those. Hopefully during summer.
We have a big interest in our university in those, since we hope to be able to link them to the official undergraduate student learning outcomes and track them later.
Ideally, instructor should be able to choose on the course level whether to include both scales and outcomes in aggregation or not. (Right now instructor can already decide about the outcomes, but it will not help if the scales aggregation is disabled by the admin). I guess some kind of a role permission can be developed for such purpose.
One thing that is rather nerving to me, if later we will decide to go "numeric" route, we will influence all of the users/gradebooks who would be already accustomed to non-numeric scales.
P.s. Kathy, when do you plan to upgrade? As far as In understand 1.9.5 with great interface patches and new functionality will be released soon. (Not soon enough for us unfortunately
)
We will upgrade in mid to late May. We are trying to manage it with the least disruption to the grading process as possible, so we are waiting until after grades are due.
With what I have learned in forums and tracker, I am looking forward to 1.9.5, but we will have to start our community in 1.9.4 and explain known issues.
- Kathy C
With what I have learned in forums and tracker, I am looking forward to 1.9.5, but we will have to start our community in 1.9.4 and explain known issues.
- Kathy C
Privet Elena,
We are experimenting with outcomes as well.. I will try to answer your questions:
Those of you who are on 1.9, what have you decided to do with scales and outcomes, and why?
We are now experimenting with outcomes. There's a national standard which has 25 outcomes. I have all added them to our Moodle, site-wide.
Have you included scales in aggregation? Why?
This puzzle's me. I have used a scale from 1 to 5, but the aggregation does not work the way I want it. What I would like Moodle to understand is this:
Outcome 1: average 2,3
Outcome 2: average 4,5
Outcome 3: average 3,8
Etc. I want this aggregation per student, and I don't seem to get this working unless I fiddle around with categories. Also I want to be able to use a cummulative scale, thus adding all scores to one great total.
[we are not upgrading so skipping this question]
It's still pretty new for us. What I'm trying to achieve is get some example courses with example grade-reoprts and show the to teachers. Then it's up to them to decide which way we are going to use Moodle.
Cheers,
Richard.
spasibo
In reply to Elena Ivanova
Re: Scales, Outcomes - incorrect calculations and overall strategy
by Elena Ivanova -
I should have included a screenshot.
You may notice that assignment 2 is using the Scale: "Not satisfactory, Satisfactory, Outstanding"
Take a look at 0%, 50%, 100% near it.
The next column is Category total, which is set to a Sum.
For some reason the % is now 50, 100 and 150%
You may notice that assignment 2 is using the Scale: "Not satisfactory, Satisfactory, Outstanding"
Take a look at 0%, 50%, 100% near it.
The next column is Category total, which is set to a Sum.
For some reason the % is now 50, 100 and 150%
In reply to Elena Ivanova
Re: Scales, Outcomes - incorrect calculations and overall strategy
by Elena Ivanova -
I was thinking about this more, and even though I still do not understand why the aggregated scales behave the way they do, I think instructors should decide on their own whether to include scales in aggregation or not.
Here is a ticket: MDL-18611, please vote
I have made a lot of typos in the actual ticket %) :
"Right now it is up to the admin to decide whether scales should be included in aggregation (or not) for the whole installation. However, some instructors prefer to have simple text labels, and others would like to have calculations attached.
Thus, it would beneficial to allow instructors to decide this on the course level (similar to the outcomes)."
Here is a ticket: MDL-18611, please vote
I have made a lot of typos in the actual ticket %) :
"Right now it is up to the admin to decide whether scales should be included in aggregation (or not) for the whole installation. However, some instructors prefer to have simple text labels, and others would like to have calculations attached.
Thus, it would beneficial to allow instructors to decide this on the course level (similar to the outcomes)."
In reply to Elena Ivanova
Re: Scales, Outcomes - incorrect calculations and overall strategy
by Elena Ivanova -
P.s. I have found a solution: switch the category aggregation to Simple Weighted Mean, and then it will stop doubling % for the item with a scale. I think there is bug there, since Sum and Simple Weighted should behave the same.