Assign exercise to a person (Two man rule part 1)

1 Initial Problem

Correcting Open Book exams needs to be done by two correctors indepently. This is currently not possible.

In order to make this possible, it is necessary that fees from course members can be assigned to persons. This makes it possible for either another lecturer or student staff to coordinate their work.

In addition, it becomes easier to see who is and was responsible for the correction. As a task, employees are reminded of their correction, which additionally simplifies communication between the responsible persons.

2 Conceptual Summary

• Participants are to be assigned to correctors. Correctors need an overview of their assigned submissions. 
• Correctors need to negotiate a joint mark for a submission. --> Approval and negotiation of corrections of an excercise (Two man rule part 2)
• The person shall be part of a new local role 'examiner'

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• Exercise / Submissions and Grades / Assignement View

• Dropdown Selection
  • Assign to a person

• Table and Filter
  • Assigned to

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

• Author of the Request: Stake, Sebastian [sstake] Tödt, Alexandra [atoedt]
• Maintainer: Killing, Alexander [alex]
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

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

• ILIAS.nrw
• Technische Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe

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}.