Post on 06-May-2015
description
QTI 2.1
2
Overview
Approaches to implementation- an update Korean QTI 2.1 tools:
Daulsoft teaching mate Hangul word processor Learning standard validator
QTI for Math profiling IMS implementation survey Strategy for QTI Math profile:
Basic – Medium – Large QTI + Math extensions Expand QTI 2.1 with Math > profile down for UK Merge or diverge from UPMC Math profile?
3
Assessment system infrastructure
4
Use case 1: subject centre
Division: Subject centre bank and
authoring Institutional learning
system 3d party service delivery
Tight interoperability points internal, loose interoperability points external
Resources spread to those who care most
Strong reliance on QTI
5
Use case 2: regional federation
Division: Each institution owns their
own VLE and tests Federation owns
everything else Easy integration Adequate authoring
tools a challenge Does not rely much on
QTI
6
Use case 3: national resource centre
Division: Centre owns the item
bank and contents Institution everything else
(other things being equal) Complex many-to-one
coordination points Adequate authoring
tools a challenge Heavy reliance on QTI
7
Use case 4: Assessment content publishers
Division National centre contracts
content and tool vendor, holds item bank
Content vendor authors content, holds copyright
Tool vendor sells test tools
Institution does rest Relatively many
external interoperability points
Relies heavily on QTI if sustainability is a criterion
8
Use case 5: Institutional distributed learning environment
Division: Institution creates and
ownes all content Authoring service vendor
provides a range of tools and a storage facility
Test service provider provides test composition and delivery
Small number of external interoperability points
Medium reliance on QTI
9
QTI assessment system infrastructure
Therefore, for greatest interoperability: Inverse relation between the complexity of the data
exchanged, and the variation in applications that process that data
Hand responsibility for component to party with greatest interest
For profiling this means Subjects set requirements for rich profile (assuming
compromise or centralised infrastructure) Else: lowest common technical denominator profile
10
The role QTI plays in the infrastructure
QTI as exchange format across the system + Consistent semantics - Difficult profile coordination problem between systems and
over time QTI as intermediary format between systems
+ Supports legacy systems now - Semantic roadblocks (unacceptable degradation between
authoring and use) For profiling, this means:
Intermediary format suits lowest common technical denominator profile
Exchange format suits rich subject profiles
11
The economics of interoperability
The expensive part:
12
Balancing demand with capability
13
The combinatorial interoperability problem
Symmetrical, many-to-many interoperability; 8 systems, 56 connections that need to work
14
The combinatorial interoperability problem ctd.
Asymmetrical, many-to-many interoperability; 8 source systems, 2 consuming systems, 16 connections that need to work
This how JPG, BIND, the web etc. work
15
Consequences for assessment
To align QTI capabilities with demand, and ensure interoperability:
Many authoring tools Many test composition tools Generic L/CMSs for item banks A couple of assessment delivery engines
16
Tool architecture
Engines can be included in multiple ways: Library / engine (e.g. qti engine) Plug-in (e.g. Playr Moodle plug-in) Web service Widget
17
Thank you!
Wilbert Kraan w.g.kraan@ovod.net