Multiple Evaluator Workflow - Functional design
This is the first iteration of a functional design for multiple evaluation workflow
See also evaluation workflow related requirements
Scenarios
Looking at the user stories we identified three basic scenario's for evaluation:
- Single evaluation - Student receives one evaluation per submission by one evaluator (current situation).
- Multiple independent evaluations - Student receives N evaluations per submission, created by N different evaluators that work independently.
- Team evaluation - Student receives one evaluation per submission created by N different evaluators that work together. Usually one of the evaluators on the team is the lead evaluator that communicates the evaluation to the student. The lead evaluator uses the evaluations of the other evaluators as an advice.
|
|
|
Scenario 1 workflow |
Scenario 2 workflow |
Scenario 3 workflow |
Terminology
We use the term evaluatable item
as an abstract term for things that can have an evaluation workflow. An evaluatable item can be a matrix cell or portfolio presentation. Since the assignments team is also working on evaluation workflow an evaluatable item could perhaps also be an assignment.
UI Mockups
These mockups give an impression of the screens a site administrator uses for defining the workflow.
|
|
|
Screen 1 |
Screen 2a |
Screen 2b |
|
|
 |
Screen 3a |
Screen 3b |
 |
These mockups give an impression of the screens an evaluator uses creating an evaluation.
|
|
|
Screen 5 |
Screen 6a |
Screen 6b |
Use cases
Use case name |
Evaluate evaluatable item |
Version |
1.0 |
Goal |
The evaluator wants to provide formative or summative feedback to the student and assess the formal progression of the student through the curriculum. |
Actors |
Evaluator |
Preconditions |
|
Triggers |
The evaluator has received a notification that an item needs evaluation. |
Basic course of events |
|
Alternative paths |
Step 4. If the evaluator decides to complete the evaluation on a later time he saves the evaluation without completing the workflow step. The system shows the evaluatable item. |
Postconditions |
|
Business rules |
 |
Notes |
See also screens 5, 6a & 6b |
Author and date |
Mark Breuker, Hugo Jacobs |
Use case name |
Design evaluation workflow |
Version |
1.0 |
Goal |
The administrator wants to allow an matrix cell or portfolio to be evaluated by an evaluator. |
Actors |
Administrator |
Preconditions |
|
Triggers |
A portfolio or matrix cell has been created that needs to be evaluated. |
Basic course of events |
1.     The administrator selects the evaluatable item for which s/he wants to define evaluation (workflow) settings. The system renders a link to the evaluation settings for the evaluatable item. |
Alternative paths |
Step 4: The administrator removes a previously defined evaluation step. Goto step 5 |
Postconditions |
An evaluation workflow has been defined for the evaluatable item. |
Business rules |
 |
Notes |
See also screen mockups 1, 2 & 3 |
Author and date |
Mark Breuker |
Use case name |
Obtain evaluation for evaluatable item |
Version |
1.0 |
Goal |
The student wants to obtain a formative or summative rating of an evaluatable item. |
Actors |
Student |
Preconditions |
|
Triggers |
The student has completed work on the evaluatable item. |
Basic course of events |
1.     The student submits the evaluatable item; |
Alternative paths |
 |
Postconditions |
|
Business rules |
 |
Notes |
If the evaluation in unsatisfactory to the student and the student is allowed to resubmit the item then the basic course of events is repeated. |
Author and date |
Mark Breuker |