Feature Wiki

Information about planned and released features

Tabs

Peer Feedback: Additional Submission Step after Feedback Deadline

Page Overview

[Hide]

Tödt, Alexandra [atoedt] Currently I fee no way forward with this without getting crushed by excessive complexity. 

1 Initial Problem

Peer Feedback scenarios using the exercise are very popular among lecturers in various lecture formats. In many cases the peer feedback even is a mandatory course requirement. Some lecturers, however, are missing a "final" step in the peer feedback process. After students have given and received feedback, an additional worhking phase starts in which the have the chance of revising their originally submitted work in connection with the feedback they have gotten. At the end of that phase they, and only such students who participated in the entire process, are required to finally hand in their (revised) work.

The exercise currently does not offer such a functionality. Creating a ssecond exercise unit does not meet the requirements, as there is no connection to the first one and any student could participate in it reagrdless of their involvement in the first one. Secondly, the peer feedback process is a rather complex in terms of self-organisation since it features severla phases and dealines - adding an additional unconnected step makes this much worse.

2 Conceptual Summary

It should be possible tio activate a second "final" submission deadline in the peerfeedback settings, which meets the follwoing requirements:

  • the final submission deadline MUST be after the peer feedback deadline (if one has been set)
  • (optionally?) only such students who meet the peer feedback requirements (e.g. number of required feedbacks) are allowed to submit

The final / second submission should be activated on the Tab "Peer Feeback" in the settings of an execise unit.

There is one conceptual decision that needs to be made: This feature might be separated from the peer feedback entirely and put on the setting screen of every exercise unit, isnce such a period after having received feedback might also come in handy if the feedback will be given by a tutor. Learniners would then hand in their solution, the tutor would provide feedbck via mail, file, ... and then those learners who have handed a solution in in the "first round" will get the chance to hand in the final version.

In that case, a minimal plausibility check should be made when the fettings form of the exercise unit is saved to prevent users from setting up a peer feedback deadline that liey beyond the deadline for the final version. If an administrator saved a "final / second hand in deadline" that collided with the peer feedback deadline am infobox should be displayed that this setup might be problematic.

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

  • [Exercise] -> [Edit Unit]
  • [Exercise] -> [Edit Unit] -> [Peer Feedback]

3.2 User Interface Details

{ For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour. }

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{ If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this. }

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

8 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

9 Discussion

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

  • {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.

Last edited: 20. Oct 2022, 12:11, Tödt, Alexandra [atoedt]