Qti Profiling

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