Faculty Overview of Tablet Grading¶

Scope¶

Purpose: grading — assessing a student’s performance on a dental procedure.
Contexts: bench (interactive, student present) and Cabinet v2 (blind/anonymous grading of typodont work placed in cabinets; student not present).
Audience: Faculty evaluators using the clinic/lab tablets during or immediately after procedures.

Launch MySimLab on the tablet and sign in with your faculty account.
Choose context: bench (interactive at student workbench) or Cabinet v2 (blind/anonymous in cabinet).
Select student and the relevant procedure/encounter; confirm you’re grading the correct case.
Open the appropriate rubric, complete criteria, add comments/media as needed.
Submit with faculty sign‑off; optionally collect student acknowledgement if required.

Use for simulated, typodont‑based tasks (no PHI/patient data).
Faculty and student are present together at the workbench; interactive questions and coaching during assessment are expected.
Pick the exercise/template; rubrics focus on prep design, reduction, margins, contours, occlusion, finish, and infection control.
Score each criterion (points or pass/fail anchors) and mark NA where appropriate.
Add concise feedback (what went well, what to improve); photos are optional when supported.
Submit to record the assessment to the student’s bench portfolio.

aka: "Faculty grading", "Anonymous grading"

Use for blind/anonymous grading of student typodont work placed in a designated cabinet; the student is not present during grading.
Open Cabinet v2 mode; select cabinet/shelf or scan the case identifier (barcode/QR) to open the anonymous case.
Rubric mirrors bench criteria (e.g., prep design, reduction, margins, contours, occlusion, finish) with yes/no/NA or points; use NA when not applicable.
Emphasizes consistency, calibration between graders, and maintaining anonymity; comments should be objective and tied to criteria.
Supports weighted criteria and critical‑fail flags; faculty sign‑off is required. Student acknowledgement is typically not captured at grading time since the student is not present.

Anchored scales: each criterion includes clear performance descriptors; use NA when non‑applicable.
Comments: brief, actionable comments improve learning; tag issues needing remediation.
Media: attach photos only when permitted by policy.
Save vs. Submit: save keeps it in draft; submit locks the grade and records sign‑off.
Edits: post‑submission edits follow program policy (often require an addendum or re‑open by admin).

Verify context first: student, procedure, and the correct rubric (bench vs Cabinet v2).
Calibrate: use anchors consistently; avoid “halo” effects—score each criterion independently.
Be specific: tie comments to observable criteria; note next‑step actions.
Use NA appropriately: don’t penalize for steps not part of the case.
Submit promptly: complete assessments at the bench or immediately after cabinet review to maintain accuracy.