Re: Difficulty levels

[sergey@total-knowledge.com]

So basically you suggest having 2 DLs - Community and Author's, it has to
be 2 different attributes. Also we should have 2 types of voting(regular
and DL related)
I can see Authors set DLs for UMOs in their Course(they shouldn't
participate in DL-vote)
I can certainly understand Teachers who set DLs for UMOs in the Course
they teach(they participate in DL-vote, I'm sure they would prefer to just
reassign misplaced UMO to the appropriate DL within a Course).
Let's say a recreational Student desides to participate in DL-vote.

First of all it's hard to imagine why would they do it, it's not a popular
movie that everybody watched recently. Usually students don't care much
about course structure, if they don't like it, they vote by not buying it.
Second of all, recreational Student has to be somehow familiar with all
available DLs in the Course, their titles and meanings, among with DL-type
of voting concept.
Third, we must collect fairly large amount of votes to downgrade/upgrade
UMO to another level. Some punk can mark every UMO in the Course as "too
advanced" or some geek may think it's just "too easy". We don't want DL
rating to be affected by this kind of people(btw, they are the ones who
usually vote, others tend to move right away to something that better fits
their needs).
Imho, Teachers are the only ones who interested in managing DLs, maybe we
can only count their vote for DL?

Anyways, I disagree with the whole concept of voting for DL. My opinion is
-  let's do it and see how it works in real life.


> Once again, there are two unrelated issues in one here:
>
> 1. An UMO difficulty level  (DL) in the Repository, which is set by
> community voting  (probably by  authors and students  - this is to be
> discussed)
> 2. This same UMO DL in the course or among courses by the same Author,
> set by the Author.
>
> This is why I incline to have two part DL mark: n-m, say n - stands for
> the Repository DL, and m stands for the DL set by the Author.
>
> n,m are integers, starting from 0.
>
> We probably need to foresee a situation when somebody discovers a
> problem, which is easier to solve then one of DL =0. Any suggestions
> about that?
>


Let's leave it as DL=0. Maybe it's easier for him to solve it because he
dealt with same kind of problems many times already.


> Regarding any additional functionality (like work flow) that can be
> derived from DL, I would leave it for next UU versions.
>
>
> Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder
> total-knowledge.com
> culturedialogue.org
>
>