Graham,

Can we make a clear distinction between
(1) "objective tests" and
(2) (a) "teacher provided answer tests" vs
    (b) "student provided answer tests"?

The traditional MCQ is an example of (1) and (2a).  ie, the student
selects a teacher provided answer, and this response is processed
objectively.

In mathematics, computer algebra systems (CAS) can be used to
process responses, and mark "objective tests" in which a student's
answer is manipulated symbolically. These are examples of (1) and
(2b).   Basically, the idea is the response of the student is
automatically subtracted from that of the teacher and the CAS
symbolically manipulates the resulting expression, i.e. it
simplifies the result.  If this simplification results in zero,
the CAS has established the algebraic equivalence of the student's
and teacher's responses.  Note, in such a set up the student has
to provide an answer and is not able to simply select one or more
responses from a teacher-provided list.  Mathematics is fortunate,
and perhaps also unique, in having readily available research
tools which perform such manipulations.  Other manipulations are
possible, testing properties of a student's answer, other than
algebraic equivalence with the "correct" answer.

Indeed, questions can be asked with have non-unique correct
answers, which can be used as the starting point for discussion
and enquiry.  I could say more on this point, if people are
interested.

Over the last five years there have been a number of systems which
take this approach, including AiM
(http://maths.york.ac.uk/moodle/aiminfo/), CABLE
(http://www.cable.bham.ac.uk/), and Wallis
(http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~manolis/research/wallis/), for
example.  No doubt others exist.

A lot of work needs to be done in this area, but we are moving
away from the traditional "objective test", without losing the
objectivity. There are real subtleties with this, both technical
and pedagogic, which I am struggling to grasp....

Is this what you meant by "other than delivering OTs"?

Chris Sangwin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maths, Stats & OR Network, part of the Higher Education Academy
School of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT
+44 121 414 6197
---------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Graham Lewis wrote:

> I have to agree. One area I would like to discuss are opportunities to use the Internet for assessment other than for the delivery of Objective Tests.
>
> There have been spurts of activity on this list from time to time in reponse to posted questions and I have always had replies when I have asked something.
>
> So short answer; yes count me in.
>
> Graham Lewis
> Centre for Academic Practice
> University of Warwick
> University House
> Kirby Corner Road
> Coventry CV4 8UW
> UK
>
> Tel.: (+44) (0) 24 765 72737
> Mobile: 07733450022
> Fax.: (+44) (0) 24 765 727326
>
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/about/staff/lewis/
> http://innovations.warwick.ac.uk/innovations/
> http://cap.warwick.ac.uk/tdf
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 09/28/04 08:49am >>>
> Hi All
>
> I have read this list periodically for some time now and the main content
> appears to be pointless reminders / invites to conferences and other
> such "domestic" trivia.  Very nice and comfortable for the conference
> attending few, but of little value to the rest of us.
>
> I feel that the purpose of this list may be better utilised as a serious
> discussion forum (and pressure group?) to bring about informed change in
> education and assessment research and practice.  This topic of computer
> assisted assessment is huge, and is sufficiently innovative, complex and
> challenging for anyone - I am only too aware of the work pressures we are
> all under, but is anyone interested?
>
> Our colleagues subscribing to the Web Assisted Assessment group appear to
> suffer from the same forum inactivity and constipation, and I wonder at the
> subject distinction between this and their list anyway.  Surely, as both
> involve computers and potentially the use of networks / internet as a
> delivery medium, we would all do better to pool our thoughts and efforts?
>
> If there is anyone with similar views to mine reading this, please
> respond.  As a way of kicking off a discussion, I will attempt to put
> together a brief paper on a controvertial, related topic and post it up for
> discussion and destruction - or how about another list of conference dates?
>
> Come on everyone - I dare you!
>