Difference between revisions of "GoodProblems"
m (added tag) |
|||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
''Issues'': This includes aspects of the problem that are most usefully considered as it is written as well as those which are evaluated after it is written. |
''Issues'': This includes aspects of the problem that are most usefully considered as it is written as well as those which are evaluated after it is written. |
||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:PREP 2011]] |
Latest revision as of 12:11, 16 June 2021
Prep Main Page > Web Conference 2 > Good Problems
Heuristics
- Problems have a clear sense of what they are trying to do (e.g., develop skills, develop understanding, evaluate student understanding, etc.)
- Problems follow Best Practices
- Problems have "nice enough" numbers
- The problems are clean and clear (and well-written)
- It is clear from the problem what answer is expected of the student
- The concepts that are being communicated and evaluated are clear
- They have hints and solutions: support for students who are stuck or who lack other support structures
- The written solutions inform the manner in which the problem is framed
- They are stable and well tested
- The problem has a clear learning objective, e.g., as a COMMENT()
- The problem is written to promote students' accomplishment of the learning objective
- Problems are accessible to screen readers and other accessibility tools
- The problems provide a good idea of what is being asked when a hardcopy is generated (drop down messages, colors on graphs, graph scaling, and table size)
Related Ideas
- Add some sort of ranking system in the NPL
- NPL branching: should/could there be a curated version of the NPL that would try to eliminate duplication? What standards could we use? (This list of heuristics, or a rubric score?)
Heuristics, Reorganized
Category | Considerations |
---|---|
WeBWorK Coding |
|
Technical Issues |
|
Learning |
|
Rubric
Category | Considerations | Included? |
---|---|---|
WeBWorK Coding |
1. Problems follow Best Practices |
|
2. They are consistent over possible randomizations, and well tested |
||
3. Problems are accessible to screen readers and other accessibility tools |
||
4. The problems provide a good idea of what is being asked when a hardcopy is generated (drop down messages, colors on graphs, graph scaling, and table size) |
||
Technical Issues |
1. Problems have "nice enough" numbers |
|
2. The problems are clear and well-written, and it is clear from the problem what answer is expected of the student |
||
3. They have hints and solutions: support for students who are stuck or who lack other support structures |
||
Learning |
1. Problems have a clear sense of what they are trying to do (e.g., develop skills, develop understanding, evaluate student understanding, etc.) |
|
2. The problem has a clear learning objective, e.g., as a COMMENT() |
||
3. The problem is written to promote students' accomplishment of the learning objective |
||
4. The written solutions inform the manner in which the problem is framed |
Issues: This includes aspects of the problem that are most usefully considered as it is written as well as those which are evaluated after it is written.