docs: in-context analytics

[ArturGaspar]

Adds documentation for the in-context analytics feature.

openedx/tutor-contrib-aspects#1076 updates the installation instructions correspondingly.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @ArturGaspar!

This repository is currently maintained by @bmtcril.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[bmtcril]

Thanks for getting this in! I've added Chelsea for review whenever you're ready to move this out of draft.

[farhaanbukhsh]

I think i just have a nit, else this looks good.

[farhaanbukhsh]

@ArturGaspar did we miss adding ASPECTS_ENABLE_STUDIO_IN_CONTEXT_METRICS?

[farhaanbukhsh]

on side note have a look at this thread, we should also update Installation instruction adding which images to rebuild and same should be mentioned in How to upgrade section. cc: @bmtcril

[ArturGaspar]

@bmtcril @crathbun428 This is ready for review.

[bmtcril]

Just a couple of comments from me to clarify that the metrics are only available in Teak and above.

[crathbun428]

Thank you for sending my way:

A few updates I’d like to make to the following sections, so that these chart descriptions are more accurate and hopefully more helpful for course delivery teams to figure out how to interpret/what to do with the information that is presented.

Subsection Engagement
The first chart shows the number of learners who attempted at least one problem in each graded subsection throughout the course and the average subsection score for those learners.

Problem Engagement
The second chart shows the number of learners who attempted each problem in the course and the percentage of learners who got each problem correct on their first attempt at the problem. A high percentage correct on the first attempt indicates that learners are finding the problem manageable (even easy if the percentage is very high), while a low percentage correct on the first attempt indicates that the problem may be very difficult or potentially unclear to learners.

Graded Subsection Performance
The first chart shows the number of respondents in each score range for the graded subsection as well as the average subsection score for all learners who attempted at least one problem in the subsection.

Initial Responses Table
The second table shows a breakdown of how learners responded to the problem on their first attempt. The idea is to give course delivery teams a peak into learners’ thought process when they approach the problem for the first time.

Video
The Unique vs. Repeat Views chart shows the number of unique and repeat views for a single video in the course across the duration of the video. Timestamp ranges with a large number of repeat views should be reviewed as this might be an indicator that this particular section of video is unclear to learners.
@ArturGaspar cc: @bmtcril

[ArturGaspar]

@crathbun428 I have now updated the descriptions.

[crathbun428]

Looks good to me - thank you!

[bmtcril]

@farhaanbukhsh do you want to re-review or is this good to go?

[farhaanbukhsh]

👍

• ✅ I tested this: read through the docs
• ❌ I read through the code
• ❌ I checked for accessibility issues
• ✅ Includes documentation

[farhaanbukhsh]

@farhaanbukhsh do you want to re-review or is this good to go?

Done @bmtcril, we are good to go here.