[Contrib: Evaluation System] Compulsory question settings

Jim Eng jimeng at umich.edu
Sat Aug 14 12:02:36 PDT 2010


Sorry for the delay getting back to you.  

We do not make questions compulsory at Michigan (at least not now).  It is not problem for us if there's a way to make a question compulsory, as long as that does not have the effect of making some questions compulsory that are intended to be optional.  So we agree that it should be possible to make the decision whether to require an answer to a particular question when placing a particular question in a particular evaluation (or template).  

Let me say it another way.  It's OK if there's a way to set default values for particular questions, particular types of questions, particular types of surveys, etc., as long as what finally controls is the value for "compulsory" in the EvalTemplateItem that relates a particular question to a particular survey.     

I think that puts us in agreement with Ellen *AND* Stephen.  

Jim




On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Sean DeMonner wrote:

> We are discussing this issue internally at U-M and hope to be able to report out soon. Stay tuned.
> 
> SMD.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Ellen Yu Borkowski wrote:
> 
>> Stephen
>> 
>> My apologies - I was out for part of this week and was at a conference last week.
>> 
>> I do not see a need for a global option for setting compulsory questions (text or not).  That doesn't make any sense to me and how the workflow is defined at Maryland.  At the moment, it is implemented at the level of when you create an item you can mark whether it is compulsory or not, that is the level I would want to see this at.  I do not see the need for it to be at the eval level either - again because of our own workflow here at Maryland.
>> 
>> So, I believe I am agreeing with your suggestion that the setting be at the template/evaluation question level.
>> 
>> Ellen
>> 
>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Marquard wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> What will it take to get feedback on this, particularly from UMD and UM? Do we need to schedule a teleconference?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Stephen
>>> 
>>>>>> "Stephen Marquard" <stephen.marquard at uct.ac.za> 7/27/2010 3:28 PM >>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to hear from UM, UMD and Cambridge and anyone else about this - is there any use case for retaining global and evaluation-level settings for compulsory questions?
>>> 
>>> This seems a good opportunity to make Evals clearer and simpler to use by reducing the number of complex options.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Stephen
>>> 
>>>>>> "Stephen Marquard" <stephen.marquard at uct.ac.za> 7/23/2010 11:06 AM >>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Over time the options for compulsory questions have got more complex and confusing. For example, the "allow to leave questions unanswered" (rating scale questions) is really being asked the wrong way around (it should be "make all questions compulsory"). With the addition of compulsory text questions as well, we now potentially have:
>>> 
>>> 2 global options 
>>> 2 eval-specific options
>>> setting for each evaluation question
>>> 
>>> This leads both to a confusing UI and significant complexity in QA testing and code.
>>> 
>>> I'd like to know if it's possible for everyone's use-cases to be satisfied by ONLY having the setting for each template/evaluation question (no global options, no eval-level options).
>>> 
>>> If you create and assign your own evaluations centrally (i.e. site owners don't have control or templates or eval questions), then this would mean a once-off change in practices or code (depending on if these are imported for example) to set the compulsory flag where appropriate.
>>> 
>>> If you let site owners / faculty create their own templates and evaluations, then this would mean educating users about when NOT to make a question compulsory (e.g. in most cases, the text ones).
>>> 
>>> Would this work for you?
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Stephen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN 
>>> 
>>> This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evaluation mailing list
>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org 
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation 
>>> 
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN 
>>> 
>>> This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evaluation mailing list
>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org 
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation 
>>> 
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN 
>>> 
>>> This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evaluation mailing list
>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
>>> 
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>> 
>> ---
>> Ellen Yu Borkowski
>> Director, Academic Support
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Maryland
>> College Park, MD  20742-2411
>> 301.405.2922 (o)
>> 301.830.0196 (c)
>> 301.405.0720 (f)
>> Email: eyb at umd.edu
>> http://www.oit.umd.edu/as/staff/Ellen.html
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> evaluation mailing list
>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
>> 
>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> SMD.
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> Sean DeMonner, IT Senior Project Manager, CTools Implementation Group
> Digital Media Commons @ The Duderstadt Center, U-M      (734) 615-9765
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> evaluation mailing list
> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
> 
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/evaluation/attachments/20100814/46053f3b/attachment.html 


More information about the evaluation mailing list