spidersaint / course-builder

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/course-builder
0 stars 0 forks source link

Feature Request: New Activity/Assessment Question Type - "Fill in the Blanks" #3

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Current activity and assessment types appear to be variants of multiple choice. 
 This is restrictive, repetitive and boring if overused.  I suggest adding 
other question types for use in both activities and assessments.

The "Fill in the Blanks" question type would allow a section of formatted text 
to be displayed with inline text fields for students to type answers into.  
These might be words to complete a phrase, sentence, or paragraph; or numbers 
to complete a worked problem or equation.  Regular expression checking would 
allow the student's answer to be matched against one (or more) "correct" 
answer(s) provided by the assessor.  In an advanced version of this question 
type, incorrectly answered questions would optionally provide students with 
personalised feedback on why they might have answered incorrectly; for example, 
a student who incorrectly expands a quadratic equation and makes a common error 
might have that error identified by the automatic marking and provided with 
specific feedback on exactly what they did incorrectly, and how to do the 
operation correctly.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by leonard....@gmail.com on 12 Sep 2012 at 1:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
This will work well for small classes, but how does it scale to large classes? 
It raises the question of mining the "fill in the blanks" responses for 
commonly used words, offering type-ahead, spell-check or other features to help 
instructors/assessors to make sense of many varied responses

Original comment by yandell....@gmail.com on 29 Nov 2012 at 8:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thanks for filing.  Course Builder now supports short answer (regular 
expression and case insensitive string match) and Peer Review.

Original comment by r...@google.com on 30 Jan 2015 at 11:24