Design and Development of IMS QTI Compliant Lightweight Assessment Delivery System

  • Vladimir TombergEmail author
  • Pjotr Savitski
  • Pavel Djundik
  • Vsevolods Berzinsh
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 653)


While testing students is a popular pedagogical evaluation approach in both formal and informal learning, there still is a lack of usable, interoperable and open source tools that could have enough motivating affordances for instructors. Another issue with the testing tools is a poor support of the question and test interoperability standards. Such standards exist for already seventeen years, however, the tools which support these standards are either big-scale proprietary products or are not easy to learn and use.

One of the reasons, why exchange of standardized tests and questions still is not a common place in the everyday pedagogical practice, especially outside of universities, is an absence of the high quality lightweight, open source tools.

The current paper sheds some light on the development issues of the interoperable assessment tools by using available open source libraries as the base components for the system core. We target pedagogical scenarios for testing in the informal learning, outside of universities. The study can be useful for designers and developers, who want to start development of standard-compliant software for e-assessment.


Formative assessment Assessment delivery system Development IMS QTI 


  1. 1.
    IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS Question & Test Interoperability Specification. (215) ADGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khaskheli, A.: Intelligent agents and e-learning (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AL-Smadi, M., Guetl, C.: Service-oriented flexible and interoperable assessment: towards a standardised e-assessment system. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life Long Learn. 21(4), 289–307 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piotrowski, M.: QTI—a failed e-learning standard? In: Handbook of Research on E-Learning Standards and Interoperability, pp. 59–82 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gorissen, P.: Quickscan QTI: usability study of QTI for De Digitale Universiteit., Utrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gorissen, P.: Quickscan QTI – 2006: Usability study of QTI for De Digitale Universiteit., Utrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez-Barbone, V., Llamas-Nistal, M.: eAssessment: trends in content reuse and standardization. In: Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 11–16 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tomberg, V., Laanpere, M., Ley, T., Normak, P.: Enhancing teacher control in a blog-based personal learning environment. IRRODL 14, 109–133 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carroll, J.: Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Scenario-based design, pp. 1032–1050 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thew, S., Sutcliffe, A., Procter, R., de Bruijn, O., McNaught, J., Venters, C.C., Buchan, I.: Requirements engineering for e-science: experiences in epidemiology. IEEE Softw. 26, 80–87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moogk, D.R.: Minimum viable product and the importance of experimentation in technology startups. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2, 23 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharples, M., Taylor, J., Vavoula, G.: Towards a theory of mobile learning. In: Proceedings of mLearning, vol. 1, pp. 1–9 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Learnosity: QTI Conversion [DRAFT] - Learnosity Documentation.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir Tomberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pjotr Savitski
    • 1
  • Pavel Djundik
    • 2
  • Vsevolods Berzinsh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Digital TechnologiesTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied SciencesTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations