** Using WeBWorK **

Hi Mike,

thanks, I will look into it. It seems to be a complex combination of CSS, JavaScript, Perl, and Webwork. I will do my best to find the bug but it looks daunting!

Meanwhile, I noticed here

https://johnny.github.io/jquery-sortable/

that there is a version of jquery-sortable (which I assume the draggableProofs macros rely on) that uses a little triangle as a marker for where the tile is going to be dropped. It also has a "dragged" CSS property that allows the macro author to give the tile a different style (for example, slightly transparent) while it is being dragged. The version that is in WebWork does not seem to have these features.

Would this simply be a matter of switching to a newer version of jquery? Or could it break lots of other things. Just curious. The little triangle would be very nice to have, because it is often a bit finicky to get the tile to drop in the intended location.

-- Peter

Thank you Peter,

This is great Peter. Thanks very much.

The way we incorporate new code into WeBWorK is to create a pull request to github.com/openwebwork (in this case github.com/openwebwork/pg since you are modifying the pg directory code) from your own github.com site.

This process makes the WeBWorK changes public, letting people know who gets credit for the changes, and also allowing time for a review before committing the new code to the existing repository (repos).

The pull request should be to the "develop" branch and there are directions starting here:
https://github.com/openwebwork/webwork2/wiki/Coding-and-Workflow
and proceeding to further directions on the github wiki.

(You should also submit a pull request to the webwork2 directory, develop branch, to include the jquery.nestable.js file in webwork2/htdocs/js

Would you like to submit your own pull request to have your draggable proof code incorporated into PG? If you would rather not read about the pull request process right now I can submit the pull request for you.

Once the pull request is reviewed and pulled into the develop branch anyone using the updated develop branch will be able to use your new draggable macro file. Eventually (probably in May) the develop branch will become the new master branch and anyone with an updated WeBWorK system will be able to use it.

Meantime those in a hurry, or those without access to the command line of their WeBWorK site, can use your new feature immediately as you describe above. Use FileManager to upload files.

Again, thanks very much for creating this new macro file and sharing it. We need more active developers in the WeBWorK community!

-- Mike

I've been following this thread because we have some colleagues who might like this for an introduction to proofs class. We had a question:

Can you only arrange tiles horizontally, or can they be arranged in both rows and columns. One of our colleagues likes to do two-column proofs in the context of formal first-order symbolic logic.

Could one have one set of tiles with different logical assertions, and a companion set providing the justification? I suppose we could put the two together in a single tile but it might be interesting to add the second dimension.

Hello,

We have tried loading the most recent macro of draggableProof.pl

(posted Tuesday 23rd, 11:49pm)

But unfortunately we are having problems with the execution of our draggable proof problem.

Previously our draggable proof problem "worked", but only with the known problems of duplicating word blocks before Peter submitted his new macro for draggableProof.

While our problem sets for draggable with the new macro shows the rounded rectangles of the word blocks mentioned in the improved macro, unfortunately, the word blocks are now fixed and can not be dragged.

When we submit for an answer to test for a response we get the following error message:

• Argument "choose" isn't numeric in array slice at line 279 of [TMPL]/macros/draggableProof.pl

But Line 279 in our draggableProof macro shows this line of code:

$ans->{student_ans} = "(see preview)";

So we have obviously done something wrong in either the problem or in loading the macro.

I was hoping that perhaps some one could post a working version of a draggable proof problem on the OPL with which we could adapt our problem sets?

I have loaded the problem example if you think you find our glitch.

Thanks for any feedback,

Tim

#############################

# DESCRIPTION Interpretation of the Confidence Interval

# Translate descriptions of critical points and function

# into correct notation.

# WeBWorK problem written by TimPayer <tsp1@humboldt.edu>

# ENDDESCRIPTION

## DBsubject(Calculus-single variable)

## DBchapter(Differentiation)

## DBsection(Conceptual understanding of derivatives)

## Institution(Humboldt State University)

## Author(Tim Payer)

## KEYWORDS(derivative, translate, notation)

DOCUMENT();

loadMacros(

"PGstandard.pl",

"PGunion.pl",

"MathObjects.pl",

"parserPopUp.pl",

"unionTables.pl",

"niceTables.pl",

"PGML.pl",

"PGcourse.pl",

"draggableProof.pl",

);

TEXT(beginproblem());

#install_problem_grader(~~&std_problem_grader);

$showPartialCorrectAnswers = 1;

#Context("Numeric");

Context()->texStrings;

$popup1 = PopUp(

["choose", "A", "B", "C"

],"C");

$popup2 = PopUp(

["choose", "D", "E", "F", "G"

],"F");

$popup3 = PopUp(

["choose", "H", "I", "J", "K", "L"

],"H");

$CorrectProof = DraggableProof([

"95% confidence means that",

"95% of all guinea pig brain cells",

"sampled will form",

"confidence intervals that",

"contain ",

"the true mean count of ",

"the dendritic branch segments emanating from the brain cell."

],

[

"there is a 95% chance that",

"the sample mean count of the",

"will exist within",

"we have calculated."

],

SourceLabel => "Choose phrases from here...",

TargetLabel => "...to create the correct interpretation of confidence here.",

);

BEGIN_PGML

*Drawn from the Lecture Notes: Week 6 Day 1, Quiz 5 Prep.*

*11.3)* A dendritic tree is a branched structure that emanates from the body of a nerve cell. In a study of brain development, researchers examined brain tissue from seven adult guinea pigs. The investigators randomly selected nerve cells from a certain region of the brain and counted the number of dendritic branch segments emanating from each selected cell. A total of 36 cells were selected, and the resulting counts are given in the table below.

[@

DataTable(

[

[["38 25 35 48 17 26 $BR 47 24 38 38 49 41 $BR 35 44

45

31

32

59 $BR 42

35

33

53

24

26 $BR 28

35

26

29

26

26 $BR 38

25

28

46

39

53 ", ], ],

],

caption => ' The number of dendritic branches for 36 nerve cells. ',

midrules => 1,

align => '|p{1.3in}|',

);

@]***

Using [``\bar x = 35.67``], and [``sd = 9.99``] gives us [``SE_{\overline x} = \frac{9.99}{\sqrt{36}}=1.67``]

 

Then we obtain the confidence interval of [``35.67 \pm (2.042)(1.67)``]

 

or: [``32.3 < \mu < 39.1``]

 

*11.3a)* Choose the letter that best describes why the preceding analysis might be criticized. (Hint: Are the observations independent?) [___]{$popup1}

*A.)* The data is not large enough to ensure that we have a normal distribution.

*B.)* Seven rodents and 36 brain cells cannot form an even grouping of data. At least one rodent is over represented in the sample.

*C.)* The count of branch segments emanating from a nerve cell will vary over the rodents life. A single snap shot of a count of cells will not give a reliable comparison unless the specific age of the rodent is considered.

 

 

*11.3b)* Create 2 histograms of the sample data with R. Does the shape of these histograms support the criticism made in part a?

 

[@

DataTable(

[

[["Web Page Access: ", headerrow => 1], "Or the URL link: "],

[[" \\(\\rightarrow\\) users.humboldt.edu/tpayer $BR

\\(\\rightarrow\\) Stat_109 $BR

\\(\\rightarrow\\) Data Files $BR

\\(\\rightarrow\\) HW11.csv" ], htmlLink( "http://users.humboldt.edu/tpayer/Stat_109/Data%20Files/HW11.csv","HW11_Nerves_data_set" ) ],

],

caption => ' Access the HW11.csv MS Excel file at either location:',

midrules => 1,

align => '|p{2in}|p{2in}|',

);

@]***

 

Still need some help loading the data into R-Studio?

 

Try checking out the pdf file called "Loading_CSV_Files_in_R_Studio.pdf".

This document uses the HW 10 data set as an example.

Look in the folder:

*users.humboldt.edu/tpayer* [`\rightarrow`]

[`\rightarrow`] Stat 109 [`\rightarrow`] Loading_CSV_Files_in_R_Studio.pdf

[@

DataTable(

[

[["Create two histogram plots $BR with different bin widths." ], " Hints for R code: " ],

[["1.) The default display. $BR $BR

2.) The histogram bin span set to 1.5." ], " $BBOLD > attach(HW11) $BR > hist(Nerves) $BR > bins = seq(16.5, 61.5, by = 1.5 $BR > hist(Nerves, breaks = bins) $EBOLD" ],

],

caption => "Compare the distributions of two $BR histograms drawn from the same data set. ",

midrules => 1,

align => '|p{2.5in}|p{2.5in}|',

);

@]***

 

 

* Based on the comparison of your two histograms, select one of the four statements below that best explains the criticism made in part a above: [___]{$popup2}

*D.)* The data set does not pass normality, it is skewed left.

*E.)* The data set does not pass normality it is skewed right.

*F.)* The distribution shows 2 or perhaps 3 modes which may reflect the hierarchical structure in the data. That is, the different modes may represent different age classes of kinds of guinea pigs.

*G.)* There is always variation in a random selection of data. With such a small data set it is not unusual to see what looks like a blending of 2 or 3 modes within one normal distribution.

 

 

*11.3c)* Interpret the meaning of the confidence interval in the context of this problem. If we have 95% confidence then 95% of what must be true? Choose the one correct interpretation within the following list below: [___]{$popup3}

*H.)* 95% confidence means that 95% of all guinea pig brain cells sampled will form confidence intervals that bracket the true mean count of dendritic branch segments emanating from a guinea pig's brain cell.

*I.)* 95% confidence means that 95% of all guinea pigs will have a mean number of dendritic branch segments emanating from each selected brain cell that falls within the confidence interval that we have calculated.

*J.)* 95% confidence means that 95% of all dendritic branch segments emanating from each selected guinea pig brain cell will exist within the confidence interval that we have calculated.

*K.)* 95% confidence means that 95% of all sample means of the count of dendritic branch segments emanating from each selected guinea pig brain cell will exist within the confidence interval that we have calculated.

*L.)* 95% confidence means that 95% of all guinea pig brain cells sampled will form confidence intervals that bracket the sample mean count of dendritic branch segments emanating from a guinea pig's brain cell.

END_PGML

BEGIN_TEXT

$BBOLD 11.3c) $EBOLD Interpret the meaning of the confidence interval in the context of this problem. If we have 95% confidence then 95% of what must be true? $BR

$BR

Click and drag \{ $CorrectProof->numNeeded\} sentence framents from the left column to form a correct interpretation of the meaning of 95% confidence in the right column.

$PAR

\{ $CorrectProof->Print \}

END_TEXT

Context()->normalStrings;

# Answer Evaluation

ANS($CorrectProof->cmp);

BEGIN_PGML_SOLUTION

The correct answers are:

1. [@ $popup1->correct_ans("g'(12) = 0") @]*.

2. [@ $popup2->correct_ans("g'(14) < 0") @]*.

3. [@ $popup3->correct_ans("g'(15) = 0") @]*.

END_PGML_SOLUTION

ENDDOCUMENT();