Skip to content

grading-guide.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
108 lines (78 loc) · 8.64 KB

grading-guide.md

File metadata and controls

108 lines (78 loc) · 8.64 KB

Facilitator Grading Guide

How to evaluate student work across the 16 core challenges and 5 bonus challenges.

Grading Philosophy

This is a learning workshop, not a competitive course. The grading system measures participation and engagement, not perfection.

  • Completion, not correctness: If a student attempted the challenge and produced evidence, they completed it
  • Effort over elegance: A messy first attempt that shows learning is better than a polished copy-paste
  • Partial credit always: Any progress counts. No student should feel like they failed.

Automated Checks

Automated checks run as GitHub Actions workflows shipped inside each student repo (from Community-Access/learning-room-template). They check for:

  • Existence of files, branches, and commits
  • Presence of required fields in templates
  • Absence of merge conflict markers

Automated checks handle the objective criteria. Facilitator judgment handles everything else.

What is auto-checked today (see workflow files under .github/workflows/autograder-*.yml in the template repo, and admin/classroom/autograding-setup.md for the full mapping):

  • Day 1: Challenges 2, 5, 6, 7 (issue filed, commit on branch, PR with Closes/Fixes/Resolves, no conflict markers)
  • Day 2: Challenges 10, 14, 16 (local commit on branch, custom issue template with name/description, agent file with frontmatter and required sections)

The (auto) tag in the per-challenge tables below marks rows where an autograder workflow will post pass/fail results as an issue or PR comment. All other rows require facilitator review.

Per-Challenge Grading

Day 1 Challenges (01-09)

# Challenge Evidence Complete if...
01 Find Your Way Around Issue comment listing findings Student explored multiple tabs and found key files
02 First Issue (auto) Open issue Title is clear and body has context
03 Join the Conversation Comment thread with @mention At least one substantive reply to the peer-simulation issue or a real buddy issue if access is provisioned
04 Branch Out Branch exists Any branch with any name exists
05 Make Your Mark (auto) Commit on branch File was edited and commit message is descriptive
06 First PR (auto) Open or merged PR PR has title + description + Closes #N
07 Merge Conflict (auto) Clean file in PR No conflict markers remain
08 Culture Comment or issue body with reflection Shows genuine engagement with governance files
09 Merge Day Merged PR At least one PR was reviewed and merged

Day 2 Challenges (10-16)

# Challenge Evidence Complete if...
10 Go Local (auto) Branch pushed from local clone Git log shows local commits
11 Day 2 PR PR from locally-pushed branch PR exists with description
12 Code Review Review comment on the peer-simulation PR or a real buddy PR if access is provisioned At least one specific, constructive comment
13 Copilot Evidence of Copilot interaction Shows both Copilot output AND student evaluation
14 Issue Template (auto) YAML file in .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ Has name and description fields
15 Agents Exploration notes in issue or PR Examined at least one agent's instructions
16 Capstone PR, branch, issue, or contribution plan for Accessibility Agents, GLOW, or another meaningful repository, plus peer-simulation or real peer review evidence Has a clear mission, responsibilities, guardrails, and review-ready evidence

Bonus Challenges (A-E)

# Challenge Evidence Complete if...
A Accessibility Audit Issue or PR with findings Identified at least 2 real accessibility issues
B Mentor a Peer Thread showing guidance Helped another student resolve a challenge, or provided high-quality guidance on a peer-simulation issue if real peer access is unavailable
C Cross-Repo Contribution PR to accessibility-agents or git-going repo PR submitted to a repo outside the learning room
D Custom Workflow Workflow file or documentation Created or documented a reusable workflow
E Documentation Champion Doc improvements in any repo Improved existing documentation with a merged PR

Bonus challenges are entirely optional and do not affect core completion. Award bonus points for any genuine attempt.

Completion Levels

Level Day 1 + Day 2 participants Day 2 only participants Label
Workshop Complete 7 of 9 (Day 1) + 5 of 7 (Day 2) 5 of 7 (Day 2) Participated fully
Workshop Complete with Distinction 9 of 9 + 7 of 7 7 of 7 Completed all core challenges
Workshop Complete with Honors 9 of 9 + 7 of 7 + 2 bonus 7 of 7 + 2 bonus Exceeded expectations

Day-2-only participants are evaluated only on Day 2 challenges (10-16). They are not penalized for missing Day 1.

Edge Cases

  • Student used a different tool than described: Still counts. The learning objective is the skill, not the tool.
  • Student's evidence is in the wrong place: Still counts. Redirect them for next time.
  • Student helped others but did not finish their own work: Give credit for completed challenges. Helping others is valuable but does not substitute for personal evidence.
  • Student worked ahead and completed Day 2 challenges on Day 1: Fine. Do not penalize initiative.
  • Student joined on Day 2 without attending Day 1: Evaluate on Day 2 challenges only. They verified their GitHub fundamentals via the Day 2 Quick Start self-assessment. Do not require Day 1 challenge completion.

Authoritative Sources

Use these official references when you need the current source of truth for facts in this chapter.

Section-Level Source Map

Use this map to verify facts for each major section in this file.