Overview

This project aims to enhance the Open edX Common Problem Editor to support the creation of multi-question, fully-featured problems within a single problem block. It will introduce improved authoring tools for educators while maintaining a user-friendly WYSIWYG interface.

Problem

The current editor limits instructional design by not supporting the creation of multi-question problems, which are essential for evaluating learners’ full understanding in many subject areas.

Use Cases

• As a course author, I need to be able to combine multiple related questions into a single, graded problem to accurately assess learners understanding of complex concepts.

• As a learner, I need to progress through logically connected questions within a single problem to maintain context and receive meaningful assessment.

• As a course author, I need to maintain a modular, extensible problem editor that supports richer authoring capabilities while preserving usability and performance.

Supporting Market Data

Feedback from authors indicates that multi-question problems were easier to create in the legacy markdown-based editor.

While the overwhelming majority of problems authored on the problem are discrete, standalone problems, there are various domains and subjects that in particular benefit from multi-question problems grouped by a single submission button, feedback, etc.

Although we do not have precise data at this time, it is estimated that less than 2% of all edX content currently falls into this multi-question category. However, for the educators and courses that do rely on this structure, the impact is significant

Proposed Solution

The solution focuses on enhancing the Open edX problem editor to support the creation of complex, multi-question problems within a single problem block. Key improvements include:

• Multi-question authoring: The editor will allow authors to add multiple related questions under one problem, with each question supporting its own type and grading settings. The interface will visually group Questions and Answers for clarity and allow additional questions to be appended smoothly.

• Improved layout and structure: The problem type will be displayed prominently above each question, helping authors keep track of structure and intent. Explanations will be moved to an optional secondary field to reduce clutter.

• Faster option input: Authors will be able to duplicate answer options or enter them in batches, significantly reducing the time needed to build problems with multiple choices.

• Option formatting tools: New tools will be introduced to format answer options consistently, improving readability and accessibility.

• General authoring efficiencies: Additional improvements will streamline common workflows, making it easier for educators to create rich, interactive content without needing to switch to advanced editing modes.

Open

Figma link

Competitive Research

More detail and screenshots in this Figma moodboard

• Moodle: While it allows the creation of quizzes composed of multiple questions, each question must be authored individually in a fragmented and unintuitive interface. The lack of a cohesive workflow makes it difficult for educators to build complex assessments efficiently.

• Canvas: Provides a slightly better authoring flow by allowing multiple questions to be created within a single quiz interface. Global quiz settings are configured first, and questions are added sequentially on the same page. As new questions are created, previous ones collapse to maintain focus—an interaction pattern similar to what we aim to introduce in Open edX. However, Canvas also struggles with a cluttered interface and inconsistent design patterns, which often result in a frustrating user experience.

In both platforms, the overall UI/UX for problem authoring is suboptimal. Their interfaces tend to be overwhelming, especially for new users. This highlights an opportunity for Open edX to differentiate itself by providing a modern, streamlined, and educator-friendly problem editor that supports multi-question authoring without sacrificing usability.

Implementation Plan

The project will follow a phased approach, starting with research and design, and moving toward development and iteration:

• Stage 1 – Initial Research and Proposal Development (Funded by Schema - This proposal)

  • Conduct initial research and define the scope of the problem.

  • Draft the product proposal and feature breakdown.

  • Create low-fidelity mockups illustrating the proposed multi-question editor experience.

• Stage 2 – Design Validation and Feedback Loop (Pending Funding)

  • Develop high-fidelity mockups based on initial concepts.

  • Conduct usability testing sessions with at least three course authors.

  • Perform an accessibility review of the proposed designs, identifying any barriers for screen readers, keyboard navigation, or visual contrast.

  • Implement accessibility improvements as part of the final design package.

  • Refine UI/UX based on user and accessibility feedback.

• Stage 3 – Development Kickoff and Iteration 1 (Pending Funding)

  • Assemble a development team and define development requirements using user stories and high-fidelity prototypes.

  • Provide ongoing product and design support throughout the first implementation cycle.

• Stage 4 – Delivery Validation and Iteration 2 (Pending Funding)

  • Test and validate the delivered feature in real authoring scenarios.

  • Address any critical usability issues or bugs and implement improvements in a second iteration.

Each phase builds on the previous one, ensuring a thoughtful, user-informed rollout of this key enhancement to the problem editor.

Plan for Long-term Ownership / Maintainership

The upgraded editor will be maintained by the team currently responsible for the Authoring MFE, with Schema proposing documentation updates, QA pipelines, and release testing support to ensure continuity.

Open Questions for Rollout / Releases

• What is the best way to migrate or co-exist with legacy content without disruption?

• How will this affect grading logic and analytics/reporting tools downstream?

• Which team is currently maintaining the Authoring MFE? - Ensure the ownership plan is understood and ratified by this group.