-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Answer Classes Points specification. #404
Comments
Actually, we do not need different keys, just allow the value space of the
VoLLKorn needs to do the sensible thing though. We could also think about multiplicative updates, e.g. |
One of the phenomenon I notice here is that answer traits and classes differ in the treatment of feedback.
|
Just as a comment on this, I think it would be smartest to remain commutative, so either + or * for answer traits. |
That is of course right, and probably also associative :-) |
it would remain commutative and associative anyway - |
the best thing about this is that we do not have to change the sTeX |
No. If you have an answer class that gives 3 points and two traits that add 0.5 and one that multiplies with 0.5, you have different results depending on the order you add the traits. (3 + 0.5 + 0.5) * 0.5 = 2 It would only remain commutative as long as you have only + or only *, which was my point. |
Ah, you're right, and that makes me realize there is a bigger issue that needs discussing: I implicitly assumed that the algorithm would start with the total points of the (sub)problem and answer classes subtract from that (or divide, or multiply), such that the final points are the result of successively modifying the total number of points - i.e. answer classes that do have |
Yes, you are right there. I guess we will have to see how things work out with the KRMT exam, whether the subtractive approach (works OK). I would think the subtractive approach is natural, since it starts with the max-points specified in the |
I mean, that would fit my grading style pretty well, but others may approach it differently. They are to some extent equivalent, I guess, but in my mind, the subtractive approach is shorter and more intuitive when thinkint of answerclasses as "mistake types", e.g.: We would either way have answer classes like:
Florian would probably write a gnote like "1 point for the free variable, 1 point for the bound one". Which now could be written either as:
(and in both cases, we would of course have ones for "free variables missing" and "bound variables missing" and...) |
If I remember right we had this discussion a year ago. I think this is just a matter of terminology. We decided to use the term 'Answer Classes' for what is called here as a 'Answer Trait' and use the term 'Feedback Class' what is called 'Answer Class' here. |
No, the distinction between "answer class" and "answer trait" is entirely orthogonal to that between "answer class" and "feedback class". In the latter terminology, both answer classes and answer traits are answer classes, and as before, a feedback class is some set of answer classes (and traits). |
I am currently working on answer classes for the KRMT exam. This gives me the opportunity to refine the discussion we had before; in particular the question of whether answer classes are exclusive or can be combined.
From my KRMT experience, we have two kinds of specifications we want there:
As a consequence I think we need two differentformalizations.
A typical answer class is the answer
ABD
for a "DFS in a tree" question, a typical answer trait is something likeforgotten a semicolon
.In sTeX we could just use the
[pts=]
key to indicate an answer class and introduce a new key[update=]
key for answer traits the values of this are update specifications, e.g.-.5
or+1
.These keys would have to be mutually exclusive (maybe better have differen macros after all?) and VoLLKorn needs to do the appropriate thing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: