• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Qti Profiling

Qti Profiling



Report on activities around QTI profiling by Wilbert Kraan.

Report on activities around QTI profiling by Wilbert Kraan.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Qti Profiling Qti Profiling Presentation Transcript

    • QTI 2.1
    • 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?
    • Assessment system infrastructure
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • The economics of interoperability
      • The expensive part:
    • Balancing demand with capability
    • The combinatorial interoperability problem
      • Symmetrical, many-to-many interoperability; 8 systems, 56 connections that need to work
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Thank you!
      • Wilbert Kraan
        • [email_address]