A workflow-based solution to support the assessment of collaborative activities in e-learning

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to focus on assessing individuals’ problems in learning groups/teams and should lead to the assessment of the group/team itself as a learning entity.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, an extension of the IMS-Learning Design (IMS-LD) meta-model is proposed in order to support the assessment of collaborative activities in e-learning. Besides, the software architecture which consists of a set of components forming a web wizard to create, track and assess the collaborative assessment processes is described as to support that extension of the IMS-LD meta-model.FindingsWith the proposed solution we can: make assessment fairer using individual and collective assessment indicators to assign final scores to learners; make an assessment step by step for better individual and collective monitoring activities; and divide the assessment into lighter phases for the correctors. Consequently, the evaluator will have more detailed information about his/her students and the quality of judgment will be better. This could also be useful for the evaluator in order to plan further examinations.Research limitations/implicationsFurther experimentations are necessary to test the effectiveness of the proposed system in order to analyze its performances under a massive usage. In addition, the authors plan to use a survey to collect learners’ opinions to know the effectiveness of the proposal in terms of fairness in the assessment of collaborative activities in an online community.Originality/valueThis paper addresses important issues in the educational area, especially assessment of collaborative activities. In fact, to reduce subjectivity and increase fairness in assessing learners in collaborative work, for example, using the peer assessment, in order to try reducing subjectivity and fairly assessing learners. However, while assessing group work, the same mark is attributed for all group members and authors have concluded that it is not the right approach to make a fair and more objective assessment.