An online examination and approval method, device and system for electronic experiment reports

Abstract

The present application relates to a kind of electronic experimental report online examination and approval method and device, system, it is by being divided into basic board and open board to experimental report, and wherein basic board uses the input mode of not being able to copy / paste, so that report filler can only enter corresponding content by word by word, prevent student cheating, simultaneously, by setting common comment library, and according to each module in each experimental report matching corresponding common comment, so that examiner need not again a large number of repetitive input same or similar common comment content, not only reduce the workload of examiner, also improve online examination and approval efficiency.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of teaching management technology, and in particular to a method, device, and system for online approval of electronic experiment reports. Background Technology

[0002] The paperless trend is sweeping across all industries, and it is gradually becoming prevalent in the education sector. For contemporary university campus management, paperless lab reports clearly demonstrate unique advantages; therefore, the information-based management of university experimental teaching is an inevitable trend. For example, schools can use electronic questionnaires to promptly obtain student attendance rates, feedback, and various statistical data.

[0003] Experimental teaching is a powerful means of cultivating students' hands-on abilities and developing their scientific literacy. During experiments, students not only develop practical skills but also enhance their creativity and enrich their imagination. Experimental teaching is an important method for students to receive systematic training in experimental skills; it is a crucial way to help students understand theoretical knowledge; and it is an important means of cultivating students' practical skills. Experiment reports are an indispensable part of experimental teaching, serving as a medium and vehicle for recording students' experimental processes. Students can strengthen their understanding and mastery of theoretical knowledge by writing experiment reports, and teachers can understand students' level of mastery of theoretical knowledge through these reports. Therefore, experiment reports are also an important means of teacher-student communication. Furthermore, the management of experiment reports reflects the management level of practical teaching.

[0004] However, most student lab reports are currently still in paper form, severely hindering the development of experimental teaching. Firstly, the results of many course experiments cannot be fully or accurately represented in paper reports, and students spend a significant amount of time filling them out, leading to serious plagiarism. Secondly, the approval and analysis of paper reports require considerable time and effort from teachers, often resulting in a backlog of assignments. Thirdly, the lengthy process of filling out, submitting, approving, and distributing paper reports causes delays in teacher-student interaction and feedback, impacting the closed-loop learning effect in experimental teaching. Fourthly, storing paper reports not only consumes a lot of space but is also prone to loss or damage, difficult to retrieve, and inconvenient for grade statistics. Finally, paper reports result in significant paper consumption, which is inconsistent with the environmentally friendly development requirements of modern society. Improving students' ability to express themselves in lab reports, increasing the efficiency of teachers' approval processes, and promptly identifying and correcting problems in lab reports are challenges faced by many teachers.

[0005] In the wave of paperless and electronic information technology, the digitization of lab reports has been proposed. For example, Chinese invention patent application CN110969412A discloses an electronic lab report generation, intelligent approval, storage, and download system. This system includes student, teacher, and project leader subsystems, each comprising multiple modules. These modules interact with each other to achieve automatic generation, intelligent grading, storage, and downloading of electronic lab reports. Electronic lab reports can be edited on both PCs and mobile devices. Students can fill out lab reports and check grading status anytime on their mobile devices, saving time. Grading can also be done on mobile devices, without time constraints, saving teachers time and improving work efficiency. This invention solves the problem of delayed information exchange between teachers and students, and offers flexible role settings. Teachers can act as lab instructors or project leaders, and either can check the completion and submission status and approval status of lab reports at any time. Simultaneously, it achieves paperless and green lab reports, meeting the requirements of sustainable development in modern society.

[0006] The system offers two approval functions for electronic lab reports: manual and automatic. Automatic approval is more suitable for non-medical or non-biological experiments with standard answers and uniformly standardized results; it is not applicable to medical or biological lab reports. Manual approval refers to the teacher's subjective review of the lab report after it is entered into the system. This includes marking, writing comments, and assigning scores. Marking includes drawing symbols, setting labels, and other markers. The teacher also evaluates calculation problems and the creative thinking demonstrated in the student's report. Therefore, in the manual online approval process, the comments still require teachers to manually input them word by word. Compared to approving paper lab reports, the only difference is that one is handwritten and the other is electronic input; there is no fundamental difference. The teacher's workload is not substantially reduced, and the corresponding work efficiency is not improved.

[0007] In view of this, there is an urgent need for an online approval method that can reduce the workload of teachers when approving electronic lab reports online and improve work efficiency. Summary of the Invention

[0008] The purpose of this invention is to provide an online approval method, apparatus, and system for electronic lab reports, which partially solves or alleviates the above-mentioned shortcomings in the prior art, reduces the workload of teachers when approving electronic lab reports online, and improves the efficiency of online approval.

[0009] To solve the aforementioned technical problems, the present invention specifically adopts the following technical solution:

[0010] A first aspect of the present invention is to provide an online approval method for electronic laboratory reports, comprising the steps of:

[0011] In response to the first user's instruction to fill in an experiment report, the first user interface displays the report template specified by the first user. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes an experiment objective module, an experiment principle module, an experiment instrument and equipment module, and an experiment procedure module. The open section includes a review question module and an experiment conclusion and discussion module. Each module in the basic section and the open section adopts a first input mode that does not allow copying / pasting.

[0012] In response to the first user's second operation of inputting content in any module, detect whether the second operation is copy or paste; if so, prompt that copying or pasting is currently not allowed.

[0013] A third operation, in response to the first user's request, generates an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template.

[0014] In response to the fourth operation submitted by the first user, the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client is received;

[0015] In response to the fifth operation of the second user indicating approval, an electronic experiment report is displayed on the second user interface, and an interactive interface is embedded in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options;

[0016] In response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any pending approval module, the corresponding common comments list is displayed in the interactive interface, and the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list are automatically added to the corresponding input area.

[0017] In some embodiments, the step of displaying a list of commonly used comments in the interactive interface specifically includes the following steps:

[0018] Identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user;

[0019] Based on the type of the module to be approved, at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved is matched in a pre-built common comment library;

[0020] A list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved is generated based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and displayed in the interactive interface.

[0021] In some embodiments, the online approval method for electronic experiment reports further includes the steps of: calculating the duplication rate of each module to be approved in the open module; determining whether the duplication rate of any module to be approved falls within a preset threshold range; if it is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, returning the corresponding electronic experiment report to the first user and marking it as to be rewritten; if it falls within the preset threshold range, marking the corresponding electronic experiment report as to be modified; if it is less than the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, marking the corresponding electronic experiment report as to be approved.

[0022] In some embodiments, the step of displaying the electronic experiment report on the second user interface specifically includes the following steps: identifying whether the electronic experiment report currently to be approved by the second user is marked as pending modification; if it is marked as pending modification, clearing the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending modules whose duplication rate in the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range; and automatically adding the default comment "suspected high duplication rate" to the corresponding input area. In some embodiments, the online approval method for electronic experiment reports further includes the steps of: determining whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within a preset submission period; if the submission period is exceeded, marking the electronic experiment report as overdue; and deducting a preset overdue deduction from the total score of the electronic experiment report after the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment report. In some embodiments, the online approval method for electronic lab reports further includes the steps of: in response to a sixth operation by a second user indicating that grades are to be exported, generating grade sheets for each class based on the grades of the electronic lab reports approved by the second user, and exporting grade sheets for all classes; the grade sheets list lab grades according to student ID and each lab course; and / or,

[0023] In some embodiments, the online approval method for electronic lab reports further includes the step of: responding to a seventh operation by a second user to export electronic lab reports, grouping the electronic lab reports approved by the second user by class, and further grouping each class group by experimental course, and exporting all electronic lab reports; wherein, the electronic lab reports in each experimental course group are named by student ID.

[0024] A second aspect of the present invention is to provide an online approval device for electronic laboratory reports, comprising:

[0025] The first response module is used to respond to the first user's instruction to fill in the experiment report and to display the report template specified by the first user on the first user interface. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes an experiment objective module, an experiment principle module, an experiment instrument and equipment module, and an experiment procedure module. The open section includes a review question module and an experiment conclusion and discussion module. Each module in the basic section and the open section adopts a default input mode that does not allow copying / pasting.

[0026] The second response module is used to respond to the first user's indication to generate a second operation of an electronic experiment report, generating an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template; and to respond to the first user's indication to submit a third operation, receiving the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client;

[0027] The third response module, in response to the fourth operation of the second user indicating approval, displays the electronic experiment report on the second user interface and embeds an interactive interface in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options;

[0028] The fourth response module, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any pending approval module, displays the corresponding common comments list in the interactive interface, and automatically adds the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list to the corresponding input area.

[0029] In some embodiments, the fourth response module specifically includes:

[0030] The first identification module unit is used to identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user.

[0031] The comment matching unit is used to match at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved in a pre-built common comment library according to the type of the module to be approved.

[0032] An interactive unit is configured to generate a list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and to display it in the interactive interface.

[0033] In some embodiments, the online approval device for electronic lab reports further includes a plagiarism detection module, used to calculate the plagiarism rate of each module to be approved in the open module, and determine whether the plagiarism rate of any module to be approved falls within a preset threshold range; if it is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is automatically returned to the first user and marked as to be rewritten; if it falls within the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is marked as to be modified; if it is less than the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is marked as to be approved.

[0034] In some embodiments, the fourth response module further includes: a second identification unit, configured to identify whether the electronic experiment report currently to be approved by the second user is marked as pending modification; correspondingly, the interaction unit is further configured to, when the second identification unit identifies that the electronic experiment report is marked as pending modification, clear the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending approval modules whose duplication rate in the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range, and automatically add the default comment "suspected high duplication rate" to the corresponding input area.

[0035] In some embodiments, the online approval device for electronic experimental reports further includes

[0036] The timeout judgment module is used to determine whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within the preset submission deadline. If the submission deadline is exceeded, the electronic experiment report is marked as a timeout submission.

[0037] The performance statistics module is used to deduct a preset timeout deduction from the total score of the electronic experiment reports marked as submitted late after the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment report.

[0038] A third aspect of the present invention is to provide an online commenting system for electronic experimental reports, comprising:

[0039] At least one first user terminal is provided for a first user to load a report template online, fill in and generate an electronic experimental report, and then submit it online. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes: an experimental objective module, an experimental principle module, an experimental instrument and equipment module, and an experimental procedure module. The open section includes: a discussion question module and an experimental conclusion and discussion module. Each module in both the basic and open sections uses a default input mode that does not allow copying or pasting.

[0040] At least one second user terminal is provided for the second user to approve online at least one electronic experiment report submitted online by the first user;

[0041] The aforementioned online electronic experiment report approval device is used to communicate with the first user terminal and the second user terminal, and to receive and store at least one electronic experiment report submitted by the first user; and in response to an approval request sent by the second user terminal, to send the electronic experiment report specified by the second user terminal to the corresponding second user terminal for approval.

[0042] In some embodiments, the online electronic lab report approval device specifically includes: a first response module, used to respond to a first user's instruction to fill in a lab report, displaying a report template specified by the first user on a first user interface; the report template includes: a basic module and an open module, wherein the basic module includes: an experiment objective module, an experiment principle module, an experiment instrument and equipment module, and an experiment procedure module; the open module includes: a review question module and an experiment conclusion and discussion module; wherein each module in the basic module and the open module adopts a default input mode that cannot be copied / pasted; a second response module, used to respond to a first user's instruction to generate a second electronic lab report, based on the input of the first user in each module of the report template. The system comprises: a content generation electronic experiment report; a third operation in response to the first user's submission, receiving the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through a first client; a third response module, in response to the second user's approval, displaying the electronic experiment report on a second user interface and embedding an interactive interface in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments and a common comments function option; and a fourth response module, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any module to be approved, displaying a list of corresponding common comments in the interactive interface and automatically adding the common comments specified by the second user in the list of common comments to the corresponding input area. In some embodiments, the fourth response module specifically includes: a first identification module unit, configured to identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user; a comment matching unit, configured to match at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved in a pre-built commonly used comment library according to the type of the module to be approved; and an interaction unit, configured to generate a list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved based on the matched at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and display it in the interactive interface.

[0043] In some embodiments, the online approval system for electronic lab reports further includes: at least one third client for managing the user information of the first user and the user information of the second user, as well as the operation rights management of the first user and the second user; and managing all electronic lab reports; wherein the user information includes: account, password and identity information.

[0044] Beneficial effects: By pre-setting a library of commonly used comments, the system can automatically match the corresponding commonly used comments in the library according to the specific module to which the approver wants to add comments. This eliminates the need for approvers to manually input the same or similar commonly used comments, greatly reducing their workload and improving the efficiency of online approval to a certain extent.

[0045] This invention sets the input mode of the open module to a non-copy / paste input mode, so that the report filler can only enter the corresponding content word by word, thereby leaving a corresponding impression on them during the report filling process, and thus achieving the purpose of familiarizing themselves with the experiment and learning.

[0046] This invention automatically checks for duplicates in each module of the open platform, thereby eliminating the need for manual deduplication, greatly reducing the workload of approvers and improving approval efficiency. Furthermore, by setting up deduplication checks, it forms an anti-cheating mechanism targeting the two platforms separately, together with the aforementioned first input mode that prohibits copying and pasting.

[0047] This invention provides a one-click results export function, allowing users to select the export unit according to their actual needs. This enables the automatic export of corresponding experimental results with a single click, eliminating the need for manual statistics and data entry, thus greatly reducing workload and improving work efficiency.

[0048] This invention features a one-click download function, allowing users to select the download unit according to their actual needs. The corresponding experimental reports can then be automatically downloaded and categorized, eliminating the need for manual downloading and categorization of each report, thus greatly improving convenience. Attached Figure Description

[0049] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. In all the drawings, similar elements or parts are generally identified by similar reference numerals. The elements or parts in the drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention, and those skilled in the art can obtain other drawings based on these drawings without any creative effort.

[0050] Figure 1AA flowchart illustrating an online approval method for electronic experiment reports, as an exemplary embodiment of the present invention;

[0051] Figure 1B A flowchart illustrating an online approval method for electronic experiment reports, as another exemplary embodiment of the present invention;

[0052] Figure 2 A functional block diagram of an online electronic experimental report approval device, as an exemplary embodiment of the present invention;

[0053] Figure 3A and Figure 3B These are the commonly used comments options in the interactive interfaces of the two modules, Experiment Discussion and Experiment Results, displayed on the second user terminal. Detailed Implementation

[0054] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of the present invention. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0055] In this document, suffixes such as "module," "part," or "unit" used to denote elements are used only for the purpose of illustrative purposes and have no specific meaning in themselves. Therefore, "module," "part," or "unit" may be used interchangeably.

[0056] In this document, the terms "upper," "lower," "inner," "outer," "front," "rear," "one end," and "the other end," etc., indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings. They are used only for the convenience of describing the present invention and for simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation. Therefore, they should not be construed as limitations on the present invention. Furthermore, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0057] In this document, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "installed," "equipped with," "connected," etc., should be interpreted broadly. For example, "connection" can be a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; it can be a mechanical connection, a direct connection, or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium; it can be a connection within two components. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention based on the specific circumstances.

[0058] In this document, “and / or” includes any and all combinations of one or more of the listed related items. “Multiple” in this document means two or more, i.e., it includes two, three, four, five, etc.

[0059] Example 1: See Figure 1A The above is a flowchart of an online approval method for electronic experiment reports, which is an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. Specifically, the online approval method of this embodiment includes the following steps:

[0060] S101, in response to the first user's instruction to fill in the first experiment report, the report template specified by the first user is displayed on the first user interface.

[0061] In some embodiments, the above report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes an experimental objective module, an experimental principle module, an experimental instrument and equipment module, and an experimental procedure module. The open section includes a discussion question module and an experimental conclusion and discussion module. Each module in the basic section adopts a first input mode that cannot be copied / pasted.

[0062] In this embodiment, the fundamental purpose of each module in the basic section is to familiarize students with the purpose, principles, instruments, equipment, and procedures of this experimental course, thereby greatly enhancing their learning objectives. However, once digitized, the copy / paste function inherent in electronic systems may lead students to directly copy and paste the modules without carefully reading and studying them. This contradicts the fundamental goal of setting up the experimental course. Therefore, in this embodiment, the input mode of each module in the basic section is forcibly bound to a non-copy / paste mode. This ensures that even if students find the answers online, in classmates' reports, or through other means, they still need to manually enter them word by word. This passive learning deepens their understanding and achieves the fundamental learning objective.

[0063] In various online form-filling systems, to ensure normal system operation and reduce computational load, and because the input areas are typically copyable / pastable, real-time saving or timed automatic saving (e.g., saving automatically at specified intervals) is generally not used. Therefore, a save button is usually placed near the corresponding input area or at the bottom of the page. However, since each module in the basic section of this embodiment uses a non-copyable / pastable first input mode, if an unexpected interruption occurs, such as a power outage or system crash leading to an unexpected exit and preventing manual saving, students will need to re-enter all data. Therefore, to avoid this repetitive work, in addition to setting corresponding save options for each module, a timed save function is also provided. Once the first user enters content in any module, the timed save function is triggered, and a preset retrieval function allows the first user to retrieve the entered content.

[0064] S103, in response to the first user's indication of a second operation involving input of content in any module.

[0065] If the second operation is copy or paste, it will prompt that copying or pasting is not allowed and then check the type of the second operation again until it is found that it is not copy or paste. Then, step S105 is executed.

[0066] S105, obtain the content entered by the first user and enter it into the corresponding module, then execute step S107.

[0067] S107, in response to the first user's representation, a third operation to generate an electronic experiment report is performed, which generates an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template.

[0068] In some embodiments, when the first user, such as a student, completes the content of all sections and clicks the corresponding "Generate Experiment Report" function option on the user interface, the system will trigger the first user's terminal to automatically generate an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user. Preferably, a preview mode can also be provided, that is, the generated electronic experiment report is displayed on the user interface for the first user to preview and check, but if any problems are found, they can be returned to make modifications.

[0069] S109, in response to the fourth operation submitted by the first user, receive the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client.

[0070] In some embodiments, when the first user clicks the submit function option on the user interface, the system will receive an electronic experiment report sent by the first user through its first client, such as a computer or smart mobile terminal.

[0071] S201, in response to the fifth operation of the second user indicating approval, displays the electronic experiment report on the second user interface and embeds an interactive interface for the second user to input comments in each module of the electronic experiment report.

[0072] In some embodiments, each second user is associated with multiple first users (specifically, the teacher can automatically add associated student accounts, or automatically add them to the associated list after receiving an association request from the academic department). Therefore, when a second user selects any electronic lab report of any first user in the user interface for approval, the electronic lab report of that first user is obtained.

[0073] In some embodiments, the interface includes an input area for a second user to input comments, and frequently used comments function options, see [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 3A and Figure 3B .

[0074] S203, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any module to be approved, the corresponding common comments list is displayed in the interactive interface, and the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list are automatically added to the corresponding input area.

[0075] In some embodiments, the step of displaying the corresponding list of commonly used comments in the interactive interface specifically includes the following steps:

[0076] Identify the type of the pending module that the second user is currently trying to approve;

[0077] Based on the type of the module to be approved, at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved is matched in the pre-built common comment library;

[0078] A list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved is generated based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and displayed in the interactive interface.

[0079] In some embodiments, a library of commonly used comments is pre-built, which can be automatically edited by teachers or administrators, for example, by adding new commonly used comments, or by modifying or deleting commonly used comments. Preferably, the library of commonly used comments includes sub-libraries corresponding to each module, so that when a second user selects the function option to add commonly used comments, the library matches the set of commonly used comments that the second user has pre-added for that module in its corresponding sub-library according to the type of the specific module corresponding to the function option.

[0080] Preferably, a unique code can be set for each module in advance, so that the corresponding sub-library can be matched according to the code, and then the commonly used comments set for the module set in advance by the second user can be matched according to the second user account information.

[0081] By setting up a comment library, each approver can add frequently used comments for each module. This allows the system to automatically match the relevant frequently used comments based on the specific module being approved and the approver's account information during subsequent approval processes, greatly reducing the workload of approvers and improving the efficiency of the approval process.

[0082] Of course, in other embodiments, it may not be necessary to set a common comments function option for each module. The user only needs to select the comment input area for the corresponding module, and the system will automatically match the corresponding sub-library from the common comments library based on the module, and display the corresponding list of common comments. Although each student's questions may be different for each module, in most cases, the same or similar questions exist. Therefore, the set of common comments in the character library corresponding to each module will not be very large, and correspondingly, the data volume of the common comments library will not be very large. This provides sufficient computing power for the system to automatically match the corresponding common comments list for each module.

[0083] However, for new users or novice teachers, their corresponding sub-libraries may lack frequently used comments, or contain very few. Therefore, when they need to input comments, the frequently used comments list may not contain the one the user wants (for example, the user does not select any of the comments in the list within a preset time). In this case, the system will automatically match frequently used comments from other users' frequently used comment libraries and recommend them to that user, allowing novice teachers to use them directly without manual input. Of course, to ensure user personalization, users can further modify the recommended frequently used comments.

[0084] On the other hand, for some test reports, a second user might have added modules that weren't previously available. Naturally, this second user wouldn't have a corresponding set of frequently used comments for that module. In this case, the system can search the frequently used comments library using the name of the newly added module as a keyword to see if other second users have the same module and its set of frequently used comments. If found, the searched set of frequently used comments will be recommended to that second user. For modules in the basic modules, even if they are newly added, the names used and the functions or purposes set for those modules are generally the same; therefore, the module name can be used as a basis for searching.

[0085] Furthermore, in some other embodiments, the method further includes the steps of: determining whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within a preset submission deadline; if the submission deadline is exceeded, marking the electronic experiment report as overdue; and deducting a preset overdue deduction from the total score of the electronic experiment report after the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment report.

[0086] In some embodiments, a submission deadline and corresponding overtime penalty points can be preset for each lab report. This allows the system to automatically determine whether the electronic lab report submitted by the student has been submitted within the specified time based on the submission deadline. If the report is not submitted within the specified time, the system will automatically deduct the corresponding overtime penalty points from the lab report grade after the approver completes the approval process. This eliminates the need for manual verification and penalty points by the approver, greatly reducing workload.

[0087] Furthermore, the online approval method in this embodiment also includes the following steps:

[0088] S205, in response to the sixth operation of the second user indicating that the grades are exported, generates grade sheets for each class based on the grades of the electronic lab reports approved by the second user, and exports grade sheets for all classes.

[0089] In some embodiments, the exported transcript lists the test scores for each class according to student ID and each test course.

[0090] In some embodiments, after the approver completes the approval, the system automatically calculates the grade based on the scores obtained for each module in the lab report (of course, scores will be deducted from the initial score for submissions submitted after the time limit). Correspondingly, the system can also statistically analyze lab report grades, specifically grouped by class (e.g., lab report grades for each class), lab course (e.g., lab report grades for all students in each lab course, and students from one or more classes may be in the same lab course), lab group (including students from the same class or different classes), and student ID (i.e., grades for the same student in different lab courses), etc., to facilitate subsequent data analysis and export operations. Therefore, once grades need to be exported, the corresponding "one-click export" function option can be triggered to export the grade sheets for the corresponding group. For example, one-click export of all lab report grades for all classes.

[0091] Furthermore, the online approval method in this embodiment also includes the following steps:

[0092] S207, in response to the seventh operation of the second user indicating that the electronic experiment reports are exported, the electronic experiment reports approved by the second user are grouped by class, and each class group is further grouped by experiment course, and all electronic experiment reports are exported.

[0093] In some embodiments, the electronic lab reports in each lab course group are named with the student ID number.

[0094] Furthermore, the online approval method in this embodiment also includes the step of: when a third user, such as a supervisor or teacher, wants to query a student's lab reports, they select the student's account in the user interface and trigger the download function option, automatically downloading all of the student's lab reports. Of course, before automatic downloading, a prompt box can also pop up to allow the third user to automatically select the required lab reports.

[0095] In some embodiments, students, teachers, and system administrators can also download completed but unapproved lab reports, as well as approved lab reports. Upon download, the student's name, student ID, lab report score, comments, and other information are automatically generated in the relevant locations on the electronic lab report.

[0096] Furthermore, when the download function is triggered, the user is prompted to select a specific download group, including: downloading lab reports by class, by course, by group, or by individual student. If the user selects to export lab reports by class, the system automatically retrieves all lab reports from all students in that class, compiles them into a single compressed file, and downloads it to the user's local machine. This compressed file is packaged separately according to the lab courses, and each lab report within each course is named after the student's ID number.

[0097] Example 2: See Figure 1B The flowchart below illustrates an online approval method for electronic experimental reports, as described in another exemplary embodiment of the present invention. Specifically, the method includes the steps outlined in Embodiment 1 above, except that the method in this embodiment further includes the following steps:

[0098] S301, calculate the duplication rate of each module awaiting approval in the open section.

[0099] Since each module in the open section does not have a perfect standard answer, meaning it essentially requires student originality, plagiarism detection is necessary to prevent cheating. Specifically, a plagiarism detection model can be pre-built using machine learning; the specific training methods are existing technologies and will not be elaborated upon here.

[0100] S303, determine whether the duplication rate of any module to be approved is within the preset threshold range; if it is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, execute step S305a; if it is within the preset threshold range, execute step S305b; if it is less than the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, execute step S305c.

[0101] S305a returns the corresponding electronic experiment report to the first user and marks it as pending rewriting.

[0102] S305b marks the corresponding electronic lab report as pending modification.

[0103] S305c marks the corresponding electronic experiment report as pending approval.

[0104] In some embodiments, the step of displaying the electronic experiment report on the second user interface described above specifically includes the following steps:

[0105] S401, identify whether the electronic experiment report to be approved by the second user is marked as pending modification; if it is marked as pending modification, clear the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending approval modules whose duplication rate is within the preset threshold range in the electronic experiment report; and automatically add the default comment "suspected duplication rate too high" to the corresponding input area.

[0106] In this embodiment, before the second user approves, the content of the development section of each electronic experiment report is checked for duplicates and marked. This allows the second user to know in advance which electronic experiment reports require subjective human review and which need to be rewritten before approval, based on the markings of each electronic experiment report. In other words, all electronic experiment reports awaiting approval are initially screened, so that the approver does not need to approve invalid experiment reports (e.g., experiment reports directly marked as rewritten), thereby reducing the approver's workload.

[0107] Example 3: See Figure 2 The diagram below shows the functional modules of an online electronic experiment report approval device according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. Specifically, it includes:

[0108] The first response module is used to respond to the first user's request to fill in the experiment report and to display the report template specified by the first user on the first user interface. The report template includes a basic module and an open module. The basic module includes an experiment objective module, an experiment principle module, an experiment instrument and equipment module, and an experiment procedure module. The open module includes a discussion question module and an experiment conclusion and discussion module. Each module in the basic module adopts a default input mode that does not allow copying / pasting.

[0109] The second response module is used to generate a second operation of an electronic experiment report in response to the expression of the first user, and to generate an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template;

[0110] In response to the third operation submitted by the first user, the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client is received;

[0111] The third response module, in response to the fourth operation of the second user indicating approval, displays the electronic experiment report on the second user interface and embeds an interactive interface in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options;

[0112] The fourth response module, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any pending approval module, displays the corresponding common comments list in the interactive interface, and automatically adds the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list to the corresponding input area.

[0113] In some embodiments, the fourth response module specifically includes: a first identification unit, configured to identify the type of the module to be approved currently to be approved by the second user; a comment matching unit, configured to match at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved in a pre-built commonly used comment library according to the type of the module to be approved currently to be approved; and an interaction unit, configured to generate a list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved based on the matched at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and display it in the interactive interface.

[0114] In some embodiments, the fourth response module further includes: a second identification unit, configured to identify whether the electronic experiment report currently to be approved by the second user is marked as pending modification; correspondingly, the interaction unit is further configured to, when the second identification unit identifies that the electronic experiment report is marked as pending modification, clear the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending approval modules whose duplication rate in the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range, and automatically add the default comment "suspected high duplication rate" to the corresponding input area.

[0115] In some embodiments, the online approval device for electronic lab reports further includes a plagiarism detection module, used to calculate the plagiarism rate of each module to be approved in the open module, and determine whether the plagiarism rate of any module to be approved falls within a preset threshold range; if it is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is automatically returned to the first user and marked as to be rewritten; if it falls within the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is marked as to be modified; if it is less than the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic lab report is marked as to be approved.

[0116] In some embodiments, the above-mentioned online approval device for electronic experiment reports further includes: a timeout judgment module, used to determine whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within a preset submission period, and if the submission period is exceeded, the electronic experiment report is marked as a timeout submission; and a score statistics module, used to deduct a preset timeout deduction from the total score of the electronic experiment reports marked as timeout submissions after the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment reports.

[0117] In some embodiments, the above-mentioned grade statistics module is also used to perform statistics on the experimental report grades of all students, and when the user triggers the function option of one-click export of grades, it generates a grade sheet for each class by class and exports the grade sheets of all classes; the grade sheet lists the experimental grades according to the student ID and each experimental course.

[0118] In some embodiments, the grade statistics module generates and downloads student grades in Excel format; furthermore, the grade statistics module can also automatically calculate the total score of the lab report, the class average score, the class ranking and other statistical results, and can also quickly identify students in each class who have not submitted lab reports.

[0119] In some embodiments, the above-mentioned online approval device for electronic lab reports further includes a lab report download module, which is used to group all electronic lab reports by class when the user triggers the one-click download function option, and further group each class group by lab course, and export all electronic lab reports; wherein, the electronic lab reports in each lab course group are named by student ID.

[0120] In some embodiments, the experiment report download module generates and downloads the reports filled in by students in PDF format. Of course, it can also generate and download a single experiment report, or generate and package all the experiment reports at once according to the experiment course. When generating electronic experiment reports, the module automatically fills in the student's name, student ID, experiment report score, comments, and other information.

[0121] Example 4: The present invention also provides an online approval system for electronic experiment reports, which specifically includes: at least one first user terminal, used by the first user to load a report template online, fill in and generate an electronic experiment report, and then submit it online; wherein, the report template is the same as the report template in the above embodiments, and will not be described again here; preferably, the first user terminal can be the first user's (such as a student's) smart mobile terminal, or a smart device such as a computer;

[0122] At least one second user terminal is provided for online approval of electronic experiment reports submitted online by at least one first user. Preferably, the second user terminal can be a smart mobile terminal of the second user (such as a teacher) or a smart device such as a computer. The online approval device for electronic experiment reports is provided for data communication with the first user terminal and the second user terminal, and for receiving and storing electronic experiment reports submitted by at least one first user. In response to an approval request sent by the second user terminal, the device sends the electronic experiment report specified by the second user to the corresponding second user terminal for approval.

[0123] The online approval device for electronic lab reports described above adopts the online approval device in Embodiment 3, and its working principle and functional modules are the same, so they will not be repeated here. Furthermore, the online approval system for electronic lab reports also includes: at least one third client, used to manage the user information of the first user and the second user, as well as the operation rights management of the first user and the second user; and to manage all electronic lab reports; wherein the user information includes: account, password, and identity information.

[0124] It should be noted that, in this document, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes that element. Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms, and of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a preferred implementation. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk) and includes several instructions to cause a computer terminal (which may be a mobile phone, computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute the methods described in the various embodiments of the present invention.

[0125] The embodiments of the present invention have been described above with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the present invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described above. The specific embodiments described above are merely illustrative and not restrictive. Those skilled in the art can make many other forms under the guidance of the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the claims. All of these forms are within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for online approval of electronic experiment reports, characterized in that, Including the following steps: In response to the first user's instruction to fill in the experiment report, the report template specified by the first user is displayed on the first user interface; The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes: an experimental objective module, an experimental principle module, an experimental instrument and equipment module, and an experimental procedure module. The open section includes: a discussion question module and an experimental conclusion and discussion module. Each module in both the basic and open sections uses a first input mode that does not allow copying / pasting. In response to the first user's indication of a second operation to input content in any module, the system detects whether the second operation is copy or paste; if so, it prompts that copying or pasting is currently not allowed. In response to the first user's indication of a third operation to generate an electronic experiment report, the system generates an electronic experiment report based on the content input by the first user in each module of the report template. In response to the first user's indication of a fourth operation to submit, the system receives the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client. In response to the fifth operation of the second user indicating approval, an electronic experiment report is displayed on the second user interface, and an interactive interface is embedded in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options; In response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any module to be approved, the corresponding common comments list is displayed on the interactive interface, and the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list are automatically added to the corresponding input area; The step of displaying the corresponding list of commonly used comments in the interactive interface specifically includes the following steps: Identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user; Based on the type of the module to be approved, at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved is matched in a pre-built common comment library; A list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved is generated based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and displayed in the interactive interface.

2. The online approval method for electronic experiment reports according to claim 1, characterized in that, It also includes the following steps: Calculate the duplication rate of each module awaiting approval in the open section; Determine whether the duplication rate of any of the modules to be approved falls within a preset threshold range; If the value is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic experiment report will be returned to the first user and marked as to be rewritten. If the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range, it is marked as pending modification; if it falls below the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, it is marked as pending approval.

3. The online approval method for electronic experiment reports according to claim 2, characterized in that, The step of displaying the electronic experiment report on the second user interface specifically includes the step of: identifying whether the electronic experiment report that the second user is currently approving is marked as pending modification; If marked as modified, the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending modules whose plagiarism rate in the electronic experimental report falls within the preset threshold range will be cleared. and The system automatically adds a default comment, "Suspected high repetition rate," to the corresponding input area.

4. The online approval method for electronic experiment reports according to claim 3, characterized in that, The method also includes the following steps: determining whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within the preset submission deadline; if the submission deadline is exceeded, the electronic experiment report is marked as overdue; and when the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment report, a preset overdue deduction is deducted from the total score of the electronic experiment report. And / or, It also includes the following steps: in response to the sixth operation of the second user indicating that the grades are exported, the grades of the electronic lab reports approved by the second user are used to generate a grade sheet for each class, and the grade sheets for all classes are exported; the grade sheets list the lab grades according to the student ID and each lab course. And / or, It also includes the following steps: in response to the seventh operation of the second user indicating that the electronic experiment reports are exported, the electronic experiment reports approved by the second user are grouped by class, and each class group is further grouped by experiment course, and all electronic experiment reports are exported; wherein, the electronic experiment reports in each experiment course group are named by student ID.

5. An online approval device for electronic experimental reports, characterized in that, include: The first response module is used to respond to the first user's instruction to fill in the experiment report and to display the report template specified by the first user on the first user interface. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes the following modules: Experiment Objective, Experiment Principle, Experiment Instruments and Equipment, and Experiment Procedure. The open section includes the following modules: Discussion Questions and Experiment Conclusions and Discussion. Each module in both the basic and open sections uses a default input mode that does not allow copying or pasting. The second response module is used to respond to the first user's indication to generate a second operation of an electronic experiment report, generating an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template; and to respond to the first user's indication to submit a third operation, receiving the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client; The third response module, in response to the fourth operation of the second user indicating approval, displays the electronic experiment report on the second user interface and embeds an interactive interface in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options; The fourth response module, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any pending approval module, displays the corresponding common comments list in the interactive interface, and automatically adds the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list to the corresponding input area; Specifically, the fourth response module includes: The first identification module unit is used to identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user. The comment matching unit is used to match at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved in a pre-built common comment library according to the type of the module to be approved. An interactive unit is configured to generate a list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and to display it in the interactive interface.

6. The online approval device for electronic experimental reports according to claim 5, characterized in that, Also includes: The plagiarism detection module is used to calculate the plagiarism rate of each module to be approved in the open module and determine whether the plagiarism rate of any module to be approved is within a preset threshold range. If the value is greater than or equal to the maximum threshold of the preset threshold range, the corresponding electronic experiment report will be automatically returned to the first user and marked as to be rewritten. If the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range, it is marked as pending modification; if it falls below the minimum threshold of the preset threshold range, it is marked as pending approval.

7. The online approval device for electronic experimental reports according to claim 6, characterized in that, The fourth response module also includes: The second identification unit is used to identify whether the electronic experiment report currently to be approved by the second user is marked as pending modification; correspondingly, the interaction unit is also used to, when the second identification unit identifies that the electronic experiment report is marked as pending modification, clear the list of commonly used comments corresponding to at least one of the pending modules whose duplication rate in the electronic experiment report falls within the preset threshold range, and automatically add the default comment "suspected duplication rate too high" to the corresponding input area.

8. The online approval device for electronic experimental reports according to claim 7, characterized in that, Also includes: The timeout judgment module is used to determine whether the submission time of each electronic experiment report is within the preset submission deadline. If the submission deadline is exceeded, the electronic experiment report is marked as a timeout submission. The performance statistics module is used to deduct a preset timeout deduction from the total score of the electronic experiment reports marked as submitted late after the second user completes the approval of the electronic experiment report.

9. An online approval system for electronic laboratory reports, characterized in that, include: At least one first user terminal is provided for a first user to load a report template online, fill in and generate an electronic experimental report, and then submit it online. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes: an experimental objective module, an experimental principle module, an experimental instrument and equipment module, and an experimental procedure module. The open section includes: a discussion question module and an experimental conclusion and discussion module. Each module in both the basic and open sections uses a default input mode that does not allow copying or pasting. At least one second user terminal is provided for the second user to approve online at least one electronic experiment report submitted online by the first user; An online electronic experiment report approval device is used to communicate with a first user terminal and a second user terminal, and to receive and store at least one electronic experiment report submitted by the first user; and in response to an approval request sent by the second user terminal, to send the electronic experiment report specified by the second user terminal to the corresponding second user terminal for approval. The online approval device for electronic experimental reports specifically includes: The first response module is used to respond to the first user's instruction to fill in the experiment report and to display the report template specified by the first user on the first user interface. The report template includes a basic section and an open section. The basic section includes an experiment objective module, an experiment principle module, an experiment instrument and equipment module, and an experiment procedure module. The open section includes a review question module and an experiment conclusion and discussion module. Each module in the basic section and the open section adopts a default input mode that does not allow copying / pasting. The second response module is used to generate a second operation of an electronic experiment report in response to the expression of the first user, and to generate an electronic experiment report based on the content entered by the first user in each module of the report template; In response to the third operation submitted by the first user, the electronic experiment report sent by the first user through the first client is received; The third response module, in response to the fourth operation of the second user indicating approval, displays the electronic experiment report on the second user interface and embeds an interactive interface in each module of the electronic experiment report; the interactive interface includes an input area for the second user to input comments, as well as commonly used comment function options; The fourth response module, in response to the second user triggering the common comments function option corresponding to any pending approval module, displays the corresponding common comments list in the interactive interface, and automatically adds the common comments specified by the second user in the common comments list to the corresponding input area; Specifically, the fourth response module includes: The first identification module unit is used to identify the type of the module to be approved by the second user. The comment matching unit is used to match at least one common comment associated with the module to be approved in a pre-built common comment library according to the type of the module to be approved. An interactive unit is configured to generate a list of commonly used comments for the module to be approved based on at least one commonly used comment associated with the module to be approved, and to display it in the interactive interface.

10. The online approval system for electronic experimental reports according to claim 9, characterized in that, Also includes: At least one third client is used to manage the user information of the first user and the user information of the second user, as well as the operation rights management of the first user and the second user; And manage all electronic lab reports; wherein, the user information includes: account, password and identity information.

Images