Diverse forms of testing and grading I am close to an academic who is facing heavy criticism for having used an unorthodox grading scheme in a final exams (there was a multiplication involved to ensure a good grade would mean decent success in two independent parts). 

My main question is:


  Q0: what are the main guiding principles you use when designing a test and a grading scheme? Are there any clear limitations imposed to you (legal, moral, or traditional; internal or external)?


Let us assume that the tests handed out are completely anonymous, so that it is given that the grading only depends on the test handed out, and on no other element.
In particular, of course discrimination by gender or race or religious beliefs is not acceptable, but no need to mention it since (proper) anonymity should prevent it.

I would also like to gather a diverse array of ways to test and to grade. This type of "big list" question is sometimes seen at MathOverflow, I don't know if it is welcome here but I think seeing a variety of grading scheme and exam designs would help inform the answers to Q0.


  Q1: What kind of exam design and grading scheme did you actually use (or enforce if you did not grade but coordinated graders)? What are the motivation behind this choice, and what did you conclude from the outcome? Multiple answers for various pairs of exam design/grading scheme is better unless they directly benefit from being gathered.


It is been asked in comment to specify, so let me add that I am more interested by scientific fields. The question clearly makes sense more generally, but is already quite broad.
I've designed a number of assessments, and also have had recent experience of a rather complex grade calculation going wrong for some students, so I would say first of all that it needs to be kept simple, so that it is transparent to students how you have arrived at the mark. Of course, there needs to be a close correspondence to the curriculum/learning objectives. We also try to think about applying Bloom's taxonomy, so that questions mix the descriptive and the evaluative.


Q0: We have some constraints, some of them being mandated, but others really an attempt to standardise the rubrics within the department where I work. One of these, which makes a fair amount of sense, is to use an assessment grid, so that for each thing the student is graded on (e.g. level of critical analysis), there is an example of the kind of quality level expected within each grade boundary. We also have spent a lot of time thinking about group work and how to fairly grade it. A common approach for us now is to allocate an overall mark for a student group but also have an individual element, or allow for an adjustment based on individual performance. This is hard to get right, as you need to avoid a) team members not pulling their weight; but also b) one "stronger" team member taking all the work on themselves.
Q1 These days I avoid exams in the main, and use mostly assessed presentations, vivas and poster presentations. The grading scheme typically is something like 70/30 aspects of between content and presentation.  As I teach HCI &amp; Information Science, there often needs to be evidence of following a structured design process, rather than merely giving this process lip service. This is almost always clear to see in the student work if it has been done well / at all.