[QTI] Re: QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

[Hamilton, Kenneth]

hello List

I too am shocked by the decision of IMS to withdraw the QTI 2.1 draft.
While my company has not committed to implementing QTI 2.1, I have been
strongly advocating its adoption as the basis for our internal model for
assessments.  Its model of item response reporting is a gem of clarity,
and its emphasis that QTI is a behaviorial model and that the XML format
is merely how it is communicated from system to system is (was?!) a
breath of fresh air.

In addition, the following quote from Rob Abel is particularly
upsetting:

------------------------
Until that time the only version of QTI that is fully endorsed by IMS
GLC is v1.2.1, that is supported under the Common Cartridge Alliance:
http://www.imsglobal.org/cc/alliance.html . While QTI version 2.0 has
been voted on as a final specification by the IMS members, it's
deficiencies are well known and IMS does not recommend implementation of
it.
------------------------

They are recommending against the implemetation of QTI 2.0?  In years of
reading through reams of IMS documentation, I believe that QTI 2.0 and
2.1 are by far the most well-written and useful specifications of the
lot.  The retrenchment back to the inferior QTI 1.2.1 raises suspicions
that the entrenched interests of the Common Cartridge Alliance are
working more toward protecting legacy data than promoting true
interoperability.

As it stands, I still believe that that QTI 2.* is the best open model
of how do design of assessment software, but in terms of arguing for it
as a business opportunity, I feel like my legs have been kicked out from
under me.

Ken Hamilton
Follett Digital Resources