You could do this:
1. Put each question set in its own subsection.
2. Make all those subsections of the same grading type.
3. Drop all but one of the subsections. (For instance, if you have 3 
question sets, set the grading scheme to drop 2 of them.)

That way whichever one the student has the highest score on will count, and 
the other two won't.

It's not exactly what you asked for, but it's the closest thing I can think 
of right now that isn't really bizarre.

If you want the bizarre option: write each problem so that it randomly 
creates its text and answers using a Python script, then set randomization 
to "On Reset". That way when students reset the problem, they'll get a 
completely different problem. This is probably not the best option, 
especially if you want to make your data analysis easier later on.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10:35:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Thank you Colin. Is there any way around to do the same thing by allowing 
> user to generate a different set of question if student desires he can not 
> solve the same set of question?
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:05:14 AM UTC+5:45, Colin Fredericks wrote:
>> Short answer: No. 
>> Long answer: The edX platform is, by and large, unaware of the learner's 
>> grades. There are a few very specific ways in which one can get around that 
>> (via subsection prerequisites, entrance exams, or use of the Conditional 
>> block), but there is no general way to determine a student's grade and 
>> change what they see based on it. Sorry I don't have better news for you.
>> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:20:05 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>>> With the help of libraries and randomized content block, it is possible 
>>> to generate different question sets for different students. 
>>> What I want to implement is show different question set for a single 
>>> student if doesnot get the passing grade. Is there such possibilities in 
>>> latest ginkgo release ? 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"General Open edX discussion" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to