So let's say I want to match the following terms:
Match the form of government to the country:
Spain -- Constitutional monarchy
Sweden -- Constitutional monarchy
Italy -- Parliamentary democracy
France -- Parliamentary democracy
(This is an off-the-top-of-my-head example, so that I do not disclose my questions and answers.)
In the instructions for Matching, it reads that "Multiple rows can have the same answer." How is that done? In this case, it seems that I would simply list each one: will it display as separate to students? It would be very confusing if Constitutional monarchy displayed two or three times, or Parliamentary displayed thirty-seven times. Can you help me here?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Hi @jlocke . I do not frequently use this type of question, but have you seen this document which describes matching questions? Toward the bottom of the document it has an image of what the question looks like from the student perspective. I thought that if you have not seen this, it might clarify things a bit.
I have already seen it. It is not helpful. I already know how to put together a basic matching section. It seems that this might be an oversight to be fixed?
It actually works just fine. Did you try to set up the question? You tell Canvas what the correct answers are and the student gets a drop down menu to choose from. You can add additional wrong answers, like Dictatorship, and that gets added to the drop down menu.
I haven't used that question anywhere, I just made it up for this question in the Community. So I guess you would be the first to give me grief. Probably not the last when people read the rest of this post.
I do get moans from my students when I say I'm a Cubs fan. But I have a story to get out of it. The Cub fans are happy that I'm a Cubs fan and the Cardinal fans are happy with the reason I tell them I'm a Cubs fan.
Background: we're about half-way between Chicago and St. Louis, in Central Illinois, so there's a good mix of both Cub and Cardinal fans in my classes. My decision to be a Cubs fan was solidified when I was young. The preacher's kid was a year older than me and he told me that he was a Cardinals fan because it was the "state team." While the cardinal is the Illinois state bird, technically Busch stadium is across the river in Missouri, so it hardly qualifies as the Illinois state team. As I was young and immature, I hadn't yet learned that the world was filled with individuals who had different opinions and views on things. At that point, I wasn't able to separate one Cardinal fan from all the rest of them, thinking that when one spoke, he spoke for them all. What I took out of that conversation was that Cardinal fans were ignorant and I didn't want to be ignorant, so I became a Cubs fan.
Here's the story I tell my students -- and anyone else who gives me grief about being a Cubs fan. It is also true.
I tell them that I'm a Cubs fan because when I was growing up, channel 3 (WCIA, Champaign, IL) would play the Cub games on Sunday afternoon and so I would watch them.
I leave out the part about the Cardinal games were on the St. Louis station and we couldn't get them over broadcast TV. The only games I could watch were the Cub games. The rivalry around here is that Cardinal fans are for the Cardinals and whoever is playing the Cubs. The same sentiment of Cardinal hating goes for Cub fans. But since the Cubs were the only thing available at the time and since I wasn't able to think for myself yet, I did what Harry Caray said when he said to root for the Cubbies [he usually didn't sing "home team"]. I became a Cubs fan. If my timeline is not sequential it's because I've tried to block most of my childhood out.
I then continue with the story and say, that as I got older, I had trouble sleeping.
So now I'm a Cubs fan because I can turn the Cub's game on, fall asleep right away, wake up three hours later, and not have missed anything.
The 2016 Cubs gave me a great introduction to my 2017 InstructureCon presentation Accomplish the Impossible.
On the other hand, they ruined my statistics Prezi on probability where I was talking about the chance of something that is impossible. Very rarely do I use memes, but I had made an exception for those.
@James Thank You for sharing that story. I have a similar one about why I'm an A's fan and not a Giants fan. When I very young, my parents took me to both the Oakland Coliseum and Candlestick Park. I started to go with friends before we were old enough to drive, and there was no easy public transportation to the 'Stick. Hence I was rooting for the A's in the Bay Bridge series in '89.
That same year, the Giants played the Cubs for the National League Pennant. Each city's newspapers swapped sports columnists during the series, and I remember reading a column by a Chicago writer in the San Francisco Chronicle. He wrote of seeing a father taking his son to a Cubs game, both with Cubs gear, and jokingly saying that the father might be accused of inflicting emotional harm by encouraging his son to root for that team. Ouch! (Even if in jest).
I too know what it's like to be raised by a father to root for perennial losers, as my strongest sports affection is for the Golden Bears of my alma mater. He too is an Old Blue and took me many times to Memorial Stadium for games when I was a kid. Cal's football team last played in the Rose Bowl before I was born, and I have a lifelong home of seeing them play someone besides UCLA in Pasadena.
It's great to have a reason behind the demo questions and answers we put up on the screen when doing demonstrations during training. While I use "real" content (from my history classes) during training, I also like to have fun with material from other areas.
I use the Bay Bridge Series as the inspiration for one of my problems. Great license has been taken of course, but it's about a world series going on and something happens and they are unable to finish the series. Based off historical data (I have each game of each world series and probabilities of the home team winning if they are leading or trailing the series and what the series score is -- example 3-1 or 2-2) I have them find some probabilities and expected values.
The "something" that happens isn't an earthquake; I use the cross-town rivalry of Cubs vs White Sox and Chicago isn't known for earthquakes. But it might be something like the players going on strike. Maybe I should use a fire as that has historical precedence for Chicago. Another part is about a network executive who signed the broadcast contract with the money based on how many games are ultimately played. Interest is low and he's afraid he won't have a job when it's over if it goes all 7 games, so he's trying to anticipate how much it's going to cost the network.
I just made one as the original poster and one other describes. If you duplicate and answer exactly, it only shows up once in the student drop down even though it is the correct answer for 2.
Very good question, and none of the answers actually address the question. I had the same problem, and used the left hand side to set up 2 categories (3 x Strengths, 3x Weaknesses) to match to attributes to be selected on the right hand side. The automatic grading engine graded the matches as correct only if they were in the same sequence as I'd put it.
So Jason's question still stands: Can you set up matching in such a way that matches n responses to m categories, where n > m? One possibility might be an Excel-style input, where attributes that match a category could be inputted on the right hand side in a single field by separating them with a pre-agreed-upon delimiter (e.g., ";" or "|") so they are recognized as multiple possible matching answers.
Here an example where the student got all the matches right, but inputted them in a sequence that was different from mine. The grading engine gave him 0/2 points, and I had to manually correct that to 2/2 points.
@James ' example is a good idea. But switching left and right is not always possible. In @jlocke 's example, one could put the constitution types on the left and the countries on the right, but with the drawback that the last answer is pre-determined based on elimination. In my example, students have been given a longer list of factors to choose from than the number of possible matches, so turning it around is not great. In the system, repeating answers on the right hand side are just strings, and there is no check whether any of them are equal to any other.
You seem to be asking a different question than Jason. If you re-read his question, it was asking what would happen if multiple rows had the same answer. His works just fine with the nation on the left and the type of government on the right. That is the way that duplication in matching is designed to work.
It is not designed to work where you duplicate the left side but not the right side.
As to your argument that matching won't work if you switch the sides, you could put your distractors on the left side if you make the choices on the right side: strength, weakness, and neither. You could even add a fourth item and make the choices: strength, weakness, neither strength nor weakness, and both strength and weakness.
Your drawback that the last answer is predetermined is only because you chose to ask for three strengths and three weaknesses. If you didn't specify that there were three of each of them, it wouldn't be an issue.
There are other ways besides matching to ask your question. None of them are going to be exactly what you want, but matching isn't exactly what you want either. Sometimes you have to decide what is most important to you or you create a feature idea in an effort to get it developed the way you want it. Canvas isn't doing any more developing on Legacy Quizzes though and have announce its end of life. I did a look for ideas that were open for voting and the closest I could find to yours is https://community.canvaslms.com/ideas/16026-new-quizzing-multiple-correct-answers-for-matching-quest.... That appears substantially different from what you're wanting (it would let someone pick strength or weakness), so I would create a new idea rather than commenting on that one. Make sure that you specify that you want each response to be unique. However, they might also say this can be accomplished with existing functionality by reversing your left and right sides and archive the idea. It's hard to predict how things will go sometimes.
Here are a couple of ways that you could ask your question.
You could split it into two questions and use two multiple-answers questions. The first could ask about strengths and the second could ask about weaknesses. You could make each question worth half the points as the original question.
You could use a multiple drop down question type. In the text, you ask "Which of these are strengths?" followed by 3 drop downs listing your choices and then "Which of these are weaknesses?" followed by 3 drop downs listing your choices.
If you list all of your choices with each multiple drop down, then it doesn't fix the issue that I think you mean when you write "repeating answers on the right hand side are just strings, and there is no check whether any of them are equal to any other." I think you mean that if someone knew that cost was a strength, they could put cost for all three strengths and get it correct.
One work around includes shortening the list. Maybe you ask half as many questions (2 strengths and 1 weakness) and each drop down contains a strength, a weakness, and a distractor without repetition.