What this category's data looks like
Materials for district and county teaching research activities and classroom observation and evaluation usually include three types: teaching research activity notices, classroom observation records, and classroom evaluation minutes. Notices are issued by the organizing party before the activity and contain the activity name, time, location, participating schools, and subject; classroom observation records are filled in on site by the observer and contain the instructor, class, topic, observation dimensions, and timestamp; classroom evaluation minutes are compiled by the host or recorder and contain key points of remarks, conclusions, and a signature field. Materials are archived by activity batch, and each batch contains one notice, multiple classroom observation records, and one set of minutes. The update rhythm is: issue the notice before the activity, fill in records during the activity, and supplement the minutes after the activity. When entering the anomaly tracing and manual review workflow, the notice serves as the baseline source to verify the activity name and date, the classroom observation records serve as the process source to verify the instructor and session, and the classroom evaluation minutes serve as the conclusion source to verify signatures and receipts. After cross-comparing the fields of the three, an anomaly list and review conclusions are formed.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. The "anomaly list and review conclusions" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow status. After the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching research activity notice | The activity name, date, and participating schools fields must be consistent with the classroom observation records and classroom evaluation minutes; missing receipts or signatures are regarded as pending review | Compare the date and activity name of the notice and classroom observation records item by item, check whether receipts are complete, and write discrepancies into the anomaly list |
| Classroom observation record | The instructor, class, topic, and session must be correspondable in the notice and minutes; if the name or quantity in the same record does not match, it is an anomaly | Search the notice and minutes by instructor and session, check names and quantities, and reference variables in subsequent nodes to pass the comparison results |
| Classroom evaluation minutes | The conclusion section must have a signature, and the version must be synchronized with the classroom observation records; missing signatures or unsynchronized versions are listed as anomalies | Check the signature field and version number, verify whether the minutes conclusions cover all classroom observation records, and use nodeId to locate the source node |
| Anomaly list and review conclusions | Each anomaly must be supported by the original record, and only after the reviewer signs can it be handed to the responsible person for handling | Extract one anomaly, trace it back to the original text of the notice, classroom observation record, or minutes, confirm the supporting materials, and then add the signature |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same instructor's name is written differently in the notice and the classroom observation record, and the dates also do not match. Cause: The two materials were filled in by different personnel, and field alignment and date verification were not done before archiving.
- Phenomenon: The classroom evaluation minutes have been updated to a new version, but the classroom observation records still reference the old conclusions. Cause: The versions are not synchronized, and there is a lack of a unified version number and update receipt mechanism.
- Phenomenon: The anomaly list lists missing signature items, but the review conclusions have no reviewer signature. Cause: The review step did not continue execution according to the branch, and signatures and receipts did not flow with the process.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Try running each option one by one, check the branch directions and interaction status in the run records, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and run a trial once referencing variables and nodeId in subsequent nodes.
Business test: Create one anomaly record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, and confirm that the anomaly is supported by the original record and signed by the reviewer.
- In the user selection node, check the options and branch connections one by one; after triggering once, view the node status and branch directions in the run records.
- Extract one anomaly record, trace it back to the original text of the teaching research activity notice, classroom observation record, or classroom evaluation minutes, check the name, quantity, date, and signature, and then complete the review conclusion.