With the exception of the initial authoring of an assignment description, the submission workflow is an exchange between the submitter and reviewer. From the varieties of assignment object and user interaction arise four main workflow stages, with perspectives varying by user:
(A) Submitter's Perspective
(B) Reviewer's Perspective
(1) Description not yet open for submissions
Invisible or at the very least non-actionable; ball in author's court
Description available for further editing, potentially collaboratively with any co-instructors
(2) Description open for submissions
Highlighted as a task due; submission can be authored, worked on in stages, and finally submitted.
Further description editing stopped (or at least reduced so as not to be disruptive to submitters); ball in submitter's court
(3) Submission Pending Review
Submission timestamp and content displayed, mainly as confirmation of what the reviewer received and when; ball in reviewer's court
An "inbox" of submissions that need to be reviewed and then returned - potentially returned to stage 2 for further submission
(4) Submission Returned with Feedback
Feedback/Grade can be reviewed
Feedback/Grade(s) can be reviewed
Workflow use cases
Far more complicated workflows can be derived by mixing in more complex arrangements of reviewers and submitters, but such cases can still be understood as more elaborate arrangements of these same basic stages.
Assignments for Individuals
The simplest and most typical assignment is for each site participant to complete and submit as an individual.
Simple assignments
A simple assignment is one which has one submission object (as opposed to multiple components), though it may go through multiple versions.
With one reviewer
With multiple reviewers
This is the simplest case, which the chart above lays out.
Multiple reviews of a single submission may happen either in sequence or in parallel, and the reviewers are identified either by a manual process (e.g. one reviewer identifies the next, or one "coordinating" reviewer selects who should conduct the review) or a predefined business rule.
One reviewer's instructor notes should also be passed along to any further instructors.
Compound assignments
A compound assignment has multiple submission components, each of which carries its own assessment or other opportunities for feedback (e.g. a first draft summatively assessed with a "plus" or a "minus," and then the final paper given a grade).
With one reviewer
With multiple reviewers
Submissions for each component of the assignment go through the submission workflow as though they were for distinct assignments.
As above, this may happen either in sequence or in parallel, and in the former case either by a manual selection or predefined business rule
Group Assignments
A group assignment calls for distinct submissions from each group, and often involves two kinds of assessment: one for the group product, and one for group participation, however that's measured.
Group assignments necessarily involve an asymmetry in the submission-feedback workflow: an individual group member is always the one that submits the group product, but the assessment (or the returned submission with feedback) always goes to the entire group (although some provision is often made for assessing also an individual's contribution to the group product).
