|
8
by mattgiuca
doc: Added directory "notes", with all the design and research I've done so |
1 |
IVLE Design - Misc |
2 |
================== |
|
3 |
||
|
13
by mattgiuca
notes/misc.txt: Added notes from today's meeting. (Steven Bird) |
4 |
Author: Steven Bird, Matt Giuca |
5 |
Date: 4/12-7/12/2007 |
|
|
8
by mattgiuca
doc: Added directory "notes", with all the design and research I've done so |
6 |
|
7 |
Tutorial page |
|
8 |
------------- |
|
9 |
||
10 |
Tutorials need to be able to include and submit not just Python code, but any |
|
11 |
arbitrary HTML form (such as option buttons to answer multiple choice |
|
12 |
questions, or non-EditArea text fields). |
|
|
13
by mattgiuca
notes/misc.txt: Added notes from today's meeting. (Steven Bird) |
13 |
|
14 |
Specification |
|
15 |
------------- |
|
16 |
||
17 |
* includes marking scheme |
|
18 |
||
19 |
Submission |
|
20 |
---------- |
|
21 |
||
22 |
* student: commits against a tag specific to a project |
|
23 |
* we do an svn rm of whatever is there; then an svn copy |
|
24 |
* we do a checkout of this tag on the submission deadline |
|
25 |
* this creates a working copy that the individual student and the |
|
26 |
staff members can see |
|
27 |
* student can navigate to their submission to verify it |
|
28 |
||
29 |
Verification |
|
30 |
------------ |
|
31 |
||
32 |
* to permit automated verification of an interactive submission, need |
|
33 |
to design the project specification so that we can make assumptions |
|
34 |
about field names, so we can test the submission using a GET request |
|
35 |
* response could be HTML; easy to capture |
|
36 |
* response could be a redirect to an image (won't follow img tags) |
|
37 |
* unresolved issue re printing |
|
38 |
* public tests that everyone can see; additional tests only seen by assessors |
|
39 |
||
40 |
Workflow for assessor |
|
41 |
--------------------- |
|
42 |
||
43 |
* sees a page of links, each for some test case |
|
44 |
* sees peer reviews of this submission to help find issues |
|
45 |
* sees peer reviews by this student which are assessed |
|
46 |
* marking scheme and comment boxes, and mark boxes available |
|
47 |
||
48 |
Peer review |
|
49 |
----------- |
|
50 |
||
51 |
* just another marking scheme (less detailed, more comment field-based) |
|
52 |
* possibility of peer review in a multi-stage project; first stage can |
|
53 |
be assessed and fully exposed to peer reviewer, later stages can use |
|
54 |
anyone's implementation of the earlier stages |
|
55 |
||
56 |
Tutorial exercises |
|
57 |
------------------ |
|
58 |
||
59 |
* permit comment thread on each exercise |
|
60 |
* other students permitted to score comments for usefulness |
|
61 |
||
62 |
Relationship between verification and checking tutorial exercises: |
|
63 |
||
64 |
* want to categorize mistakes and give hints |