QTI: A Failed E-Learning Standard?

QTI: A Failed E-Learning Standard?

Michael Piotrowski (ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-789-9.ch004
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


The creation of good tests is time-consuming and expensive. Tests should therefore be reusable to ensure sustainability and to preserve investments and intellectual assets. This requires a standard, platform-neutral, vendor-independent interchange file format for tests. IMS Question and Test Interoperability (QTI) aims to be this standard. Almost a decade after the publication of the first version of QTI, even the interchange of simple multiple-choice tests between different systems remains problematic. In this chapter, the author present a critical analysis of QTI. His conclusion is that QTI has failed to provide interoperability of questions and tests due to serious problems in its design.
Chapter Preview


Assessment has always played an important role in education. Most, if not all, types of formal education use some sort of assessment, typically including a final exam to earn a grade, a degree, a license, or some other form of qualification.

Today, assessment is no longer restricted to grading at the end of a course (summative assessment), but it has been recognized that assessment is also useful for continuous monitoring and guiding of the learning progress (formative assessment), without being necessarily used for grading purposes (Boud, 2000).

Formative assessment, including self-assessment, can play a vital role in motivating students since it provides them with a way to judge their own competency level and allows them to track their progress. It also enables students to identify areas where more work is required, and to thereby remain motivated to improve further. Of course, this requires that students receive feedback as quickly as possible (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004).

Formative assessment also provides timely feedback for instructors, both with respect to the effectiveness of the course and the performance of the students; it thus helps to identify points that might need clarification.

For both groups, instructors and students, frequent testing is preferable. Case and Swanson (2002) argue that infrequent testing makes each exam a “major event,” with students investing much effort into preparation—they may even stop attending class to prepare for the exam. They also note that, with infrequent tests, students may be unable to determine whether they are studying the right material and with sufficient depth. Case and Swanson therefore conclude:

Though it may be more time consuming for faculty, frequent testing reduces the importance of each individual exam and helps students to better gauge their progress. (Case and Swanson, 2002, p. 116)

Assessment is always a time-consuming activity for instructors, especially if large numbers of students are to be assessed or, if assessment is frequent. This has motivated the development of technical devices to support assessment, starting with relatively simple mechanical devices in the 1920s and evolving to today’s computer-aided assessment (CAA) or e-assessment.

E-assessment is one of the fundamental elements of e-learning: Piotrowski (2009, p. 41) defines six activities that characterize e-learning platforms: Creation, organization, delivery, communication, collaboration, and assessment. Furthermore, of these six activities, assessment is the only one that is specifically educational; the other five activities are generic and not specific to e-learning.

The most frequently used form of e-assessment are multiple-choice tests. Multiple-choice tests have a number of practical advantages; in particular, scoring can be automated. This makes them especially attractive in e-learning settings, as it allows to make assessment available “anyplace, anytime.”

Creating high-quality multiple-choice tests, however, is challenging, especially if they are to assess higher-order cognitive levels, such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the traditional taxonomy of Bloom (1956). Or, as Astin (1991) puts it:

While multiple-choice tests are indeed inexpensive to score, they are extremely expensive to construct: item writing is a highly refined and time-consuming art, especially if one expects to develop good items that are relatively unambiguous. (Astin, 1991, p. 148)

Ensuring the reusability, longevity, and platform independence of tests can mitigate the high costs of creation and can help preserve investments and intellectual assets when hardware and software change, thus ensuring sustainability. This requires a standard, platform-neutral, vendor-independent interchange file format for multiple-choice tests.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Delivery Platform: A system (or part of a system) primarily designed for making tests available to candidates and which allows candidates to take the tests.

XML: Extensible Markup Language, a meta-language for defining markup languages. For example, XHTML or DocBook are widely used markup languages defined in terms of XML. Since XML allows to create formal specifications and provides tools for validating documents with respect to their conformance to the specification, it is commonly used for the description of interchange formats.

IMS Content Packaging Specification (IMS CP): A standardized set of structures for packaging content (in particular e-learning content) for exchange between systems.

Authoring System: A system (or part of a system) primarily designed for creating electronic tests.

Interchange Format: In the narrow sense, a standardized, platform-neutral, vendor-independent file format designed for the interchange of data between different systems. In a wider sense, any format that fulfils this role, including de-facto standards.

Computer-Aided Assessment, E-Assessment: Assessment that relies on information technology for the whole assessment activity, from the presentation of tasks, over the recording and evaluation of responses, to the reporting of results.

IMS Question and Test Interoperability (IMS QTI): A set of specifications for the description of electronic tests, intended as an interchange format with the goal of providing interoperability between different test authoring and delivery systems.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: