The user interface may be a bit unusual at the beginning. However, I think it presents all relevant information in an understandable way once you realize how it works.
I have prepared a screencast of the user interface. I would like to hear some feedback from the community. The similar UI layout could be used consistently in the whole module.
Remember - you will use the module in the future. Now it is your chance to influence how it will look like
Thanks in advance for your help!
Some minor thoughts:
- Is it possible to have all this unbalanced so that some students are reviewed more times than other students?
- The confirm message at the top - this is unlike anything I've seen in Moodle before. I like it, but I think it would be good to standardise it as a UI feature across all modules so that people don't miss it like I did at first.
- yes - with manual allocation, teachers can do whatever they want. The number of reviews per student is a parameter of Random allocation subplugin. So you can, for example, let Random allocator do the initial lottery and then tweak it manually
- yes again - this is something I stole from Mahara interface and it is a sort of experiment. If the community members like it, I can start to persuade the core guys that we should implement this as a part of standard UI. Then, maybe, sometimes in Moodle 3.0 ...
I'm wondering how those kids are getting on with all this work as well as making movies!!
Look forward to seeing the module
according to the Gradebook, those kids are doing well
Thanks for posting it!
I may have missed this specific - can reviewer and reviewee names be hidden from participant?
the anonymity is going to be controlled by capabilities.
- mod/workshop:viewauthornames - user with this capability is allowed to see the name of reviewees. By default, students are allowed.
- mod/workshop:viewreviewernames - user is allowed to see the names of reviewers. By default, students are not allowed.
Really like the 'left to right' concept to visualise who is reviewing each other's work, can't wait to see the next instalment!
Would this allocation be governed by (for example) the maximum number of students that another student can review, or would it be completely free-form in how many students you could allocate to each other?
good question. In early proposals of the workshop (based on the current behaviour), there was a workshop setting like "Number of peer assessments" to be done by each student. However, during the development I realized that this number in fact just a parameter of the Random allocation subplugin. The same reasoning applies to "Allow peer assessment without own submission".
So, basically, teacher shall be able to manualy allocate in a completely free form, having some additional information (the number of allocations per user so far etc.) available.
Thanks for your response!
this is what you can use manual allocator for. I expect teachers will initially use random allocation - to assign everyone to review three submissions, for example. Then they tweak the allocations manually - eg resign a submission from Nermina in your case.
Thanks for your feedback - it really helps me during the development.
So, if a teacher is using the tool to manually allocate submissions because she knows that Mary should not assess work by Juana, she would use "sort by names" mode. On the other hand, if the teacher needs to find a reviewer(s) with the lowest number of assigned work, she would switch to "sort by number of allocations" mode.
Looks great. Question: will you be able to randomly assign within a group.
So if I teach a class of 40 and I assign them intogroups for the assignment, will i be able to use random assignment within the group? Does that make any sense?
Is it only teachers who can grade anonymously or can student do the same? Is this option available to both? Is it for any type of assignment or only peer reviewed assignment?
In the Workshop module, there are capabilities to control this. So it does not matter who did the assessment (whether it was a teacher or a student). What matters is whether the submission author has a capability to see the name of the submission's grader. And vice versa - whether the grader has a capability to see the name of the graded submission's author.
Is it for any type of assignment or only peer reviewed assignment?
Sorry I don't understand this question.