New MC Question Type ‘Answer Combination’

If you need any help in filling out this wiki page, please visit our ILIAS Community FAQ. And please complete the metadata information in the right column after having created the page.

1 Initial Problem

The existing question type ‘Multiple Choice (Multiple Answers)’ suffers from several problematic aspects like the following:

• To achieve consistent scoring, the use of negative points for wrong answers is necessary, but negative points are didactically questionable.
• Finding the right combination of positive/negative points for the answer options is very error-prone.
• Setting the positive/negative points correctly is tricky and also cumbersome.
• For certain combinations it is impossible to set the points of correct/incorrect answer options in a way that they will correctly add up to an integer number of points for the question.

Nevertheless the question type is quite popular with many lecturers, especially in certain subject areas..

This feature request aims to provide these users with an MC question type that has fewer of the problems associated with the existing form of the MC question.

This feature request contains aspects of an older and much more complex feature request: https://docu.ilias.de/goto_docu_wiki_wpage_668_1357.html 

2 Conceptual Summary

The proposed new MC question type ‘answer combination’ is a simplified form of the existing MC question, where only the correct combination of checked/unchecked answer options scores points for the whole question, rather than every single answer option scoring points. This type of MC question is also used on other examination platforms.

In addition, the 'Half-Point Scoring' option, familiar from the MC-type 'Kprim Answers', can be activated to allow half the points of the question to be scored if one of the answer options is not selected correctly.

In terms of didactics, it does not make sense to have all answer options be correct or incorrect. Therefore, at least one answer option must be selected as the "correct" one and at least one must be "incorrect".

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• … { Please list titles of all views (screens) of ILIAS that should be modified, newly introduced or removed. }

3.2 User Interface Details

{ For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour. }

The participant view of the ‘answer combination’ question type will look like the existing ‘Multiple Choice’ (Multiple Answers) question.

For admins, the question-editing view will look like a mix between the existing Multiple Choice (Multiple Answers) and Multiple Choice (Kprim) question types:

• one required numeric field to enter the number of points the question is worth
• an option to activate “Half-Point Scoring” (checkbox)
• text boxes to enter answer options
• checkboxes to mark the correct choices
• action buttons to add and remove answer options

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{ If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this. }

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

• Author of the Request: Weber, Jens [jens.weber] / Thiel, Anja [athiel]
• Maintainer: {Please add your name before applying for an initial workshop or a Jour Fixe meeting.}
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

• Universität Bern

9 Discussion

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Privacy

Information in privacy.md of component: no change required

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.