Qti Profiling

756 views
672 views

Published on

Report on activities around QTI profiling by Wilbert Kraan.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
756
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Qti Profiling

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

×