Diverse forms of testing and grading
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.