The ability to select a new version of 3rd-party problem

[Duane Nykamp]

I've received a request for a Try Another Version button for a Doenet activity embedded in a PreTeXt document viewed in Runestone.

I'm thinking that such a button would be something that should be added at the PreTeXt level rather than at the embedded activity level (e.g., Doenet). Is that a feature that PreTeXt would want to support more generally than just for WeBWorK problems?

From the Doenet side, we have the ability for the containing app to specify which random variant is selected, so I don't think it would be technically challenging. I imagine the same is true for other problem types, like STACK.

Duane

[Andrew Scholer]

I'm not sure what you mean by "added at the PreTeXt level".

Do you mean have markup in the source to communicate "allow generating new problems" to the interactive? Or do you mean PreTeXt tries to generate the actual button to cause that to happen?

Many interactives won't support "new version". Ones that do will likely have a different API for triggering a regeneration. Given that complexity, and the fact that interactives probably have their own UI already and any controls for the interactive should blend in with that UI, I don't think PreTeXt should be trying to build UI components for interactives.

Some markup that an author can use to pass on information that the interactive uses to set itself up makes more sense. Then it is just a matter of if that markup is some PreTeXt attribute/element or some blob of JS that is placed in a <script> tag in the PTX.

Andrew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/f84423bf-61bc-4abc-9e45-58a15134895an%40googlegroups.com.

[Rob Beezer]

Andrew has given you a very good answer.

On top of that (or more precisely), Doenet is not implemented as an #exercise,
but as an #interactive. So "asking for a new version" would not make much sense
generally.

As mentioned in a more general posat, there is a spectrum of integration for
homework systems. Runestone and WW are at one end and Doenet is at the other
end. STACK is somewhere in the middle.

Rob

[Duane Nykamp]

That's a good question.

The abstraction I have in my head is that Doenet is a problem type that can be embedded in different systems, such as LMSs. The situation with the PreTeXt and Runestone is more confusing, so let me first just talk abstractly in terms of an LMS. Then maybe you can help be figure out how that translates into the PreTeXt and Runestone embedding. I'm hoping this isn't particular to Doenet.

When Doenet is embedded in an LMS, it relies on the LMS to tell it when to get a new attempt and what random variant to select. It doesn't expose any UI for choosing a new attempt or changing the random variant, as those decisions seem to belong in the domain of the LMS. (If a variant isn't provided, it happily chooses a random variant.) I would imagine that details around which variant to be used would be an instructor decision (such as whether all students get the same variant, how many attempts allowed).

I guess my question is whether this separation of concerns is maintained for a PreTeXt textbook. From your response, it sounds like it is not. I agree that it could get complex with many different types of interactives (though I don't think this a function of an interactive per se, but instead of a problem/exercise, which is what Doenet aspires to become). I'm wondering it is worth having some type of abstraction around this concept if it is a feature users want.

Duane

[Duane Nykamp]

Rob and my responses crossed. But yes, that's what I meant with "Doenet aspires to become an problem/exercise". I agree that it would make sense for #exercise not #interactive.

[Andrew Scholer]

PreTeXt is an authoring system, not an LMS.

As an author using some interactive (broadly, not necessarily <interactive>) that supports either static (seeded/fixed) or dynamic (randomized) instances, I would like to be able to specify which to use. If I am using the interactive in some example, I want to make sure it uses known data. If I am using it in an exercise/activity I probably want it randomized.

There are already some conventions for doing that. Many exercise types support `randomize="yes"`. The modern fill in the blank exercises support a <setup> that can be used to set an @seed or even provide a setup script to use. 


There is no such thing as an assignment or grade until you mix in an LMS. (Including Runestone here as it can either be used as a standalone LMS or as a tool that other LMS's talk to.)

Then it starts to make sense to worry about instructor intent. Do I want to assign this problem as a one shot? As a "best attempt"? Is it a group activity and and everyone in a group needs to see the same instance?

That seems like territory to explore using something like the SPLICE protocol. And much more germaine to Runestone than PreTeXt. It would have the dynamic context for how a particular exercise is being used in a given assignment.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/3e62a202-d040-4ab1-ac86-2cbf6397caaan%40googlegroups.com.

[Chrissy Safranski]

My interest is that I think these Doenet interactives are good for readers' learning and practice.  I *think* I'm saying that in an author role, not instructor, but I'm having a hard time separating the two right now to be honest. :-)  

If the author of the book has written/included an interactive with variants, then it would be good to let readers encounter those different variants.  I guess I see showing variants as more of an author decision than an instructor decision. How to use the result in an exercise or assignment grade seems to me to be more in the purview of the instructor or LMS.  

I think that means it would be Doenet's role to provide such a button if indicated, because that's the specific interactive being authored with the intent to show variants or not?

Chrissy

[Duane Nykamp]

I'm not sure what level of customization is possible (or planned to be possible) for the instructor. It makes sense that the author should be able to code, either in PreTeXt or a 3rd party system, whether or not (random) variants are available. Can an instructor using the book through an LMS currently override this choice, or is that something that is planned to be eventually supported?

If such an override is planned, it does make sense to explore implementing that through the SPLICE protocol, and then 3rd party tools can decide whether or not to implement such controls. I see how that is more in the Runestone domain than PreTeXt.

I'm a bit hesitant to build a New Version button into Doenet, as it feels like its the wrong place for that button. But, don't see another solution for the textbook viewed outside Runestone, at least while Doenet remain an #interactive.

Duane

[Andrew Scholer]

No, there currently are no provisions for an instructor overriding how exercise or interactives are presented. Absent being served via the Runestone platform, a PreTeXt book has no idea who a reader is (and whether they are an instructor/student) or what has been assigned for them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/ef63901c-b6d3-4de6-ad06-4bd60335f5dcn%40googlegroups.com.