-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
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
Assessment - force selection of new questions from bank #1980
Assessment - force selection of new questions from bank #1980
Comments
We had this once I think but we had to revert it, you can still make out the shadow in the code that's there. The trouble was that one tends to run out of questions. |
I actually had to do this (avoid recycling questions until they've all been shown) on a project fairly recently, looking back at the code I made it work by adding if (this._questionBanks) return; Just above this line Assuming you're launching the course from an LMS you'll also need to enable |
FYI the requirement for the above project was that there were two questions in each bank (and several banks). On your first attempt it would randomly grab one from each bank to present to the user. On the next attempt it would grab the other one. After that it would simply start the process again (i.e. begin recycling questions). Hope this helps. |
Thanks both. Loving the Adapt community already :) |
Hi - first post here, semi-literate consultant rather than technologist here!
Current behaviour for assessments with a bank of questions appears to be:
For higher-stakes assessment, we have a requirement to avoid the same question appearing in more than one try for any one learner (obviously limited by the size of the question bank).
The analogy is: rather than put the question back in the bank once it's been attempted, remove it from the bank so it can't appear in this learner's next attempts.
we have programmers who can work on this (we're waiting for end-client budget) but wanted to check whether any one else is interested in contributing to the specification, or is working on this already?
Thanks,
Tim @ Think
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: