One Competence per Question & Raw Points

1 Summary

The Complexity of the assignment of competences to questions should be reduced. This means:

Suggested Solution

2 Problem Statement

1. In ILIAS tests an individual question (items) can be assigned to “pay into” more than one competence. Without evidence for multidimensional measurement, competence-specific scores derived from shared items are very difficult to justify from a validity point of of view. Additionally this comes with some complexity to the code.

   

   

2. Assignment Properties "Evaluation of Competence Points by Question Result" and "Evaluation of Competence Points by Solution Compare" is to be abandonned since it is deemed untestable and very difficult to understand. 

   

   

   

3 Concept

4 User Interface Modifications

4.1 List of Affected Views

4.2 User Interface Details

Option 1: Test > Questions > Question/Competence Assignment: A datatable is supposed to be introduced in the sub-tab "Questions/Competence Assignment" with the columns "Question", "Competence", "Actions". The Action is "Assign Competence" for questions without assigned competence and "Remove Competence" for questions with an assigned competence. 

Option 2 (add a points column + a filter): Test > Questions > Question/Competence Assignment: A datatable is supposed to be introduced in the sub-tab "Questions/Competence Assignment" with the columns "Question", "Competence", "max-points", "Actions". The Action is "Assign Competence" for questions without assigned competence and "Remove Competence" for questions with an assigned competence. There is either a filter above that allows to only filter for competences OR the column competence can be ordered alphabetically. Please see simple mockups below.

Test > Settings > Competence Thresholds: Raw Ponts are assigned to competence Levels.

4.3 New User Interface Concepts

just Kitchensink

4.4 Technical Aspects

{ Necessary technical information have to be provided here, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Non-Functional Implications

5.1 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. }

5.2 Privacy

no impact

5.3 Accessibility Implications

just Kitchensink

6 Process Information

6.1 Involved Authorities

If this request is related to multiple components, please list both authorities for all related components.

6.2 Contact

Person to be contacted in case of questions about the feature or for funding offers:  {Please add related profile link of this person}

6.3 Funding

Funding status and funding parties are listed in the block 'Status of Feature' in the right column of this page.

If you are interested to give funding for this feature, please get into contact with the person mentioned above as 'Contact'.

7 Discussion

8 Implementation

Feature has been implemented by {Please add related profile link of this person}

8.1 Description and Screenshots

{ Description of the final implementation and the changed behaviour in the related components. Please add screenshots to visualise the changes if possible. }

8.2 Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

8.3 Privacy

Information in privacy.md of component: updated at {date} by {user} | no change required

8.4 Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.