LTI 1.3 Submissions Review Service

LTI 1.3 Submissions Review Service

For the LTI 1.3 Submissions Review workflow, is the following use case is supported?

A teacher assigns an assignment. A student submits the assignment. A secondary teacher (who did not submit the assignment) launches into the student submission. 

Does the specification support a teacher user who did not assign the assignment launching into the student submission for review? 

Appreciate the time!

Viktor Haag's picture

Submission Review by users other than primary instructor: yes

Yes, it does potentially. The Submission Review basically has three parts:

  • a way to identify the Resource to the Tool so it knows what activity or resource is being referred to

  • a way to identify the original user that did the activity (the for_user)

  • a way to identify the launching user that is reviewing the activity's results; the Tool should use the list of roles for that launching user to determine what kind of UX it should show to the launching user

For example:

  • if the launching user is the same as the for_user, the Tool might interpret this as "oh, Dale wants to review their own activity work"

  • if the launching user is the LTI Context's has the instructor role, the Tool might interpret that as "oh, the course instructor wants to mark Dale's activity work, or review exactly why the Tool gave Dale the score that it did"

The only guide that the Tool has to interpret the disposition of the launching user in Submission Review is the roles list, but by the same token, there's no concrete interpretation about what the various roles mean in the context of the Submission Review message that is proscribed. Like, there's nothing in the spec that says "only primary instructor roles are allowed to send a Submission Review for a result that is for a for_user other than themselves".

So, yes, your use case is covered, but there's no solid definition in the spec for how your use case would be covered.

Future plans to support

Thanks so much for the reply! That is how I inturpretted it as well but I wanted to double check that I was on the right track. Do you happen to know if there are future plans to outline this within the spec or the best practices?