Requirements UNIFR / UNIGE

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 3 Requirement 4
Requirement 5

Requirement 1 (Study phase): Developing peer-evaluation activities –> see scenario 1UNIFR

  • peer evaluation is valuable for a deeper understanding of contents and develops other competences such as “regard critique”, analysis.
  • the collaboration in peer evaluation aims at playing alternatively two roles: evaluator and author of a work to be evaluated
  • peer evaluation is difficult to organise (evaluation grid, attribution of evaluators to evaluated works, distribution of works to be evaluated, activity schedule, etc.)
Existing practices and problem statement
  • when a student presents his work, for example a synthesis over a thematic, he distributes a copy of his work (paper based or through a platform) to “his” evaluators
  • then the evaluation is done
  • the results of the different evaluators must be compiled and distributed
  • a session  must be organised for a global feedback over the evaluation process
Proposed solutions
  • The Moodle2 platform proposes the workshop function.
  • The workshop shows a timeline organised in 4 steps: installation, work distribution, evaluation, notation of evaluation
  • The workshop distributes the works to the evaluators (rule: n works for 1 evaluator and/or n evaluators for 1 work)
  • The evaluation is made on the basis of an evaluation grid (prepared before) which is automatically associated to
Expected benefits
  • large simplification of a peer evaluation process organization
  • to focus on the pedagogical aspects of the activity
  • to engage more the students into a course
Risks – what needs to be considered

Requirement 2 (Post-study phase):”how to make students and teachers able to keep in touch?” –> see scenario 2 UNIFR

  •  (found through e-identity project): Q14 + stakeholders interviews
  • Students need to get in touch with teachers to validate a work, to certify a competence.
  • Teachers need to find traineeship opportunities for their current students. This is easier by keeping in touch with their old students and knowing in what companies they work.
  • Teachers also need to access works done by past students in order to suggest, to new students, examples of good works and further work to be done
Existing practices and problem statement
  • emails: from time to time, past students send emails to say what they do now or questions they have
  • past works : teachers have print copies of works and/or words and pdf files of them.
  • when a question occurs, it is needed to look for a work or an email in many different files and folders
Proposed solutions
  • when leaving university : automatic collection in a “directory”
  • course lists with associated profs and assistants email addresses
  • lists of works-groups with associated colleagues
  • the directory is created as soon as a student enters university and interacts with other people
  • when the student leaves, the directory is collected and managed in an open service of the Alumni organization.
Expected benefits
  • to improve the human network
  • to take part of making professional insertion easier
Risks – what needs to be considered
  • privacy aspects (comment: very generic)
  • what other risk? (more specific)

Requirement 3 (Study phase): “Collect and share resources”

  • The bachelor students of the PLE pilot class in UniGE expressed the need
  • to make students able to open and share an online working space
  • collect, share and select resources
Existing practices and problem statement
  • Informal exchange of resources/bookmarks with email, facebook…
  • Usage of dropbox with a shared folder to collect and share resources in a document
Proposed solutions
  • Moodle space where students would have the teacher role
  • Buddy press
  • Diigo
  • Delicious and Zotero online groups
  • Social platform with spaces/groups and resources collection/sharing tools
Expected benefits
  • efficiency of proposed tools for the collaborative task
  • improving the competence of collaboration organization
Risks – what needs to be considered overflow of data and groups

Requirement 4 (Study phase): “Collect and share administrative and local information”

  • expressed by PhD students
  • When a PhD student starts his/her PhD he/she would need to collect administrative, local information, tips and tricks… it is a mix of available online resources that are difficult to locate and informal knowledge.
Existing practices and problem statement Informal discussions at the coffee machine
Proposed solutions Collaborative platform with integrated bookmarks, advanced Question/Answer, FAQ system to share the information, organize and structure it and query it.
Expected benefits
  • Better/faster integration of PhD students in the institution
  • Less time wasted for administrative tasks
Risks – what needs to be considered

Requirement 5 (Study phase): “BA/MA project report”


  • Need expressed by teachers
  • Collaborative elaboration of final bachelor/master project between student(s) and teacher
  • Annotation of the bachelor/master project report
Existing practices and problem statement
  • Exchange paper copy of the report with written annotations.
  • Exchange of a word document with comments/annotations
Proposed solutions
  • Google docs
  • Collaborative platform to elaborate reports/documents with versioning,  annotation, notification and export features (c.f. http://www.pouleouoeuf.org/)
Expected benefits
  • Improve the quality of the report and the project
  • Provide a better feedback to student during the project
Risks – what needs to be considered

Zum Anfang

Recent Posts