using accumulated grading versus rubric

using accumulated grading versus rubric

by Chuck Gobin -
Number of replies: 3

I've been using Workshop for a while, and I am doing some tweaking in a course that is going on right now. For the first writing assignment, I set up a peer review with "rubric" as the grading type. It went well, but I didn't like the fact that there was no place for students to write comments.

So, for the workshop that's about to go to assessment phase, I made a switch to accumulated grading. For the aspects, I was able to cut and paste the individual criteria categories (one per aspect) as tables. What I ended up with for each aspect was a layout similar to the one in rubric, but with a comment box below.

workshop screencap

 

I set the grade scale to 4, and I had to put the corresponding numbers in parentheses before each description. I think it is intuitive enough that students will be able to figure out the connection (rubric has the radio buttons that make it idiot-proof in that regard).

Here's my question. Let me say up front, I don't even pretend to understand all of the math formulas Workshop uses. So, am I in for any surprises by changing grading types, as long as my grading parameters haven't changed? In other words, using "rubric," I had four levels. In "accumulated grading," I have a four-point grade scale. As long as everything is weighted "1," will the results be the same as if I had used "rubric"?

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chuck Gobin

Re: using accumulated grading versus rubric

by David Mudrák -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Peer reviewers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Plugins guardians Picture of Testers Picture of Translators

will the results be the same as if I had used "rubric"?

No. The calculation of grades is described in details and with examples at .

The grades would be the same only if your rubric contained a column (level) with zero marks. In other words, instead of levels 4, 3, 2 and 1 you would have to use levels 3, 2, 1 and 0.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to David Mudrák

Re: using accumulated grading versus rubric

by Chuck Gobin -

Got it. So, even if students don't pick zero, the scale is different because it exists as an option, correct?

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Chuck Gobin

Re: using accumulated grading versus rubric

by David Mudrák -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Peer reviewers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Plugins guardians Picture of Testers Picture of Translators

Well, it's easy to demonstrate. Imagine there is a rubric with three criteria all having levels 1, 2, 3 and 4. The reviewer gives grades 4, 3 and 2 for these criteria, in order. Then the final grade given by the rubric is:

((4 - 1) + (3 - 1) + (2 - 1)) / ((4 - 1) + (4 - 1) + (4 - 1)) = 67%

(In other words, the submission got 4 + 3 + 2 = 9 rubric points. The maximum possible number of points in that rubric is 12. The minimum number of points is 3. Those 9 points are at two thirds of the interval 3 - 12).

If you used the similar setup with the accumulative strategy (three criteria, each of them having max grade 4 and all having the same weight 1), then the grade is

( 4/4 + 3/4 + 2/4) / 3 = 0.75 = 75%

because the accumulative strategy automatically includes the zero grade as an option. While in case of the rubric, the level with the lowest numerical grade (1 is this case) is considered as the "worst" level performance, regardless the actual value of the level.

To make calculations in rubric more obvious and intuitive, it is strongly recommended to always include the level with the zero mark. With rubric sheets printed on a paper, teachers tend to have an "implicit" zero mark if they simply leave the criterion empty without any level checked. We realized this would have bad consequences when it comes to web based rubrics.

HTH

Average of ratings: -