IMS GLC Public Forums and Resources - Accessible Portable Item Protocol

Portable Custom Interactions

mmckell — 2013-05-09T20:56:46 -05.00

The QTI/APIP APMG has approved and released the Portable Custom Interactions best practice document which outlines a method for authors to define an almost unlimited variety of custom interaction types or technology enhanced items, while still keeping the item portable between different systems. Document and details are available here:
http://www.imsglobal.org/assessment/interactions.html

LOM - Schematron namespaces

WyattVanderstucken — 2012-11-20T14:39:29 -05.00

Greetings All,

I believe I've found a bug in the latest APIP schemas (October 09, 2012) with the manifest and resource LOM Schematron rules...

The LOM schemas target two namespaces...

(NOTE: I've added some spaces due to display issues w/ this forum)

targetNamespace="http : / /ltsc.ieee.org/xsd/apipv1p0/LOM/manifest"

targetNamespace="http : / /ltsc.ieee.org/xsd/apipv1p0/LOM/resource"

However the Schematron rules in both schemas are targeting a different namespace:

The net result is that the Schematron rules specified in the schemas don't target the elements/attributes defined in the schemas. I suspect that this is not the intent. If I update the sch:ns/@uri in the schemas to reflect the respective targetNamespaces, then I get Schematron validation errors where I expect.

All that being said, it's entirely possible that I'm missing something. If that is the case please clarify, otherwise I hope that this can be corrected in the next APIP iteration...

Thanks and Regards,

Wyatt VanderStucken
ETS

Validator - APIP Section

WyattVanderstucken — 2012-11-20T14:01:51 -05.00

Hi Mark,

I've (finally) had a chance to circle around and test this... I can verify that this issue has been resolved. Thanks so much for your help...

Regards,
Wyatt

Validator - APIP Section

WyattVanderstucken — 2012-11-09T15:52:54 -05.00

Wyatt,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The validator did not contain the full corrected set of schemas. The validator is now updated and working properly. Thanks,
Mark

Validator - APIP Section

WyattVanderstucken — 2012-11-08T13:33:00 -05.00

Greetings All,

I've noticed that the APIP Validator is giving errors for a value of "APIP Section" in /manifest/metadata/schema...

imsmanifest.xml - Line 6 - Column 34 : cvc-enumeration-valid: Value 'APIP Section' is not facet-valid with respect to enumeration '[APIP Package, APIP Test Bank, APIP Item Bank, APIP Object Bank, APIP Test, APIP Item]'. It must be a value from the enumeration.

imsmanifest.xml - Line 6 - Column 34 : cvc-type.3.1.3: The value 'APIP Section' of element 'schema' is not valid.

But the latest APIP schema (2012-10-09) shows this as a legitimate value...

APIP Section"/>

Is it possible to get the APIP Validator to use the latest schema so that section packages can be validated?

Thanks in advance for you help.

Wyatt VanderStucken
ETS

Validator - Package Directory Structure?

WyattVanderstucken — 2012-11-07T23:17:02 -05.00

Greetings All,

I have been using the APIP Validator to validate the APIP package we generate. I am receiving errors similar to:

imsmanifest.xml : #1005: The resource "Item/XX123456.xml" does not exist.

We have used a particular directory structure for some of our previous QTI exports with another of the PARCC vendors. We have used relative URLs for @hrefs within the imsmanifest.xml file. This had been explicitly requested by our assessment development staff, I can see the value of this from a human readability perspective - but does add some minor complexity to data-processing.

My question is - does this mean that the APIP 1.0 Specification explicitly prohibits using a directory structure within packages, or is this simply a limitation of the Validator? (If the latter, I'd advocate this improvement to the tool )

Thanks is advance for any clarification/insights you can offer...

Wyatt VanderStucken
ETS

APIP Frequently Asked Questions

mmckell — 2012-11-01T19:38:26 -05.00

The IMS APIP End Users Group has put together a list of frequently asked questions:
http://www.imsglobal.org/apip/apipfaqs.html

If you have additional questions, be sure to post them here so we can respond and also update the FAQ.

Smarter Balanced Releases Sample Assessment Items and Performance Tasks

mmckell — 2012-10-10T08:46:17 -05.00

From: Smarter Balanced
Date: October 9, 2012, 6:23:02 PM EDT
To: Smarter Balanced
Subject: Smarter Balanced Releases Sample Assessment Items and Performance Tasks
Reply-To: Smarter Balanced

Dear Colleagues and Partners,

Smarter Balanced is pleased to announce the release of a set of sample assessment items and performance tasks in English language arts/literacy and mathematics.

The sample items and tasks provide an advance look at the types of questions students will encounter when the assessments are implemented in the 2014-15 school year. Developed in collaboration with educators and content experts, the sample items and tasks are meant to help teachers, administrators, and policymakers better understand the Common Core State Standards and prepare for the implementation of the Smarter Balanced assessments.

I encourage you to share the announcement and the link to the sample items and tasks with your constituents and through social media.

To read the full announcement, visit: http://www.smarterbalanced.org...d-performance-tasks/.
To access the sample items and tasks, visit: http://www.smarterbalanced.org...d-performance-tasks/.
To share through social media, consider posting the following:
Twitter: @SmarterBalanced releases #CommonCore sample items and tasks in #ELL and #Math: http://bit.ly/Vr6d7k #ccss

Please note that the sample items and tasks are displayed using a simulated test platform that does not include accessibility and accommodations tools that will be available when the assessments are administered to students.

Smarter Balanced welcomes feedback on the sample items and tasks. To submit questions or comments, visit: http://www.smarterbalanced.org...stions-and-feedback/.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Joe Willhoft, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
253-301-4021 (o)
253-381-1954 (c)
www.smarterbalanced.org

Results Reporting

colinsmythe — 2011-07-14T15:24:58 -05.00

Hi All,

The current Public Draft of APIP does not address the issue of results reporting i.e. the real-time reporting of the score from an Item or a Test (clearly the score for a Test is derived from some analysis of the scores from the composite Items). APIP does address the real-time loading of an Item. Results reporting of a test/item is an important next step.

The reporting back of results can be supported by using a profile of the QTI v2.1 Results Reporting (QTI-RR): a much overlooked part of the QTI specification. QTI-RR defines an XSD for reporting of results for assessmentTests and assessmentItems.

IMS also has the Basic LTI specification that defines how a tool e.g. an assessment system, can be launched. It also describes how the same tool can report back an outcome.

So by combining BLTI and QTI-RR we can now add results reporting to APIP.

Colin S.

Support for Learning Standards Annotations

colinsmythe — 2011-07-04T16:52:10 -05.00

Hi All,

As part of the IMS work on Common Cartridge work we have been developing a new metadata specification on learning standards. This specification allows learning content to be annotated with the corresponding learning standards identifiers assigned to it by any number of organizations e.g. school district, states, etc. An LMS, assessment tool, etc. an then use these identifiers to inform an author, etc. of the learning standards coverage for the learning content (assuming the tool either has online access to, or a local copy of the learning standards and the identifiers).

This work makes use of the IMS Content Packaging specification and uses the Curriculum Standards Metadata (CSM) to annotate each and every resource as required. A resource can have annotations of learning standards for several sources i.e. to denote the content achieve the learning outcomes for different districts, states, etc.

For APIP this means that we can apply CSM to Items, Section and Tests. So, the question we need to ask is how important is this as a use-case for the K-12, Community College and HE sectors.

Finally, if the CSM uses an identifier that points to an RDF-based learning standards description then we may not need to annotate Sections or Tests as this coverage can be derived by analysing the coverage of the annotated Items.

So, please let us know your opinions on how important it is for APIP to supported leaning standards annotation.

Colin S.

Thorough Profile of QTIv2.1 'assessmentItem' for APIP

colinsmythe — 2011-06-28T12:22:22 -05.00

Hi All,

At the IMS Quarterly meeting on 8th-11th August (to be hosted by Microsoft at Redmond, WA, USA) the APIP Project Group will undertake a detailed profiling of the QTIv2.1 'assessmentItem' structure (and related structures) to ensure that APIP can support a rich set of advanced Items.

In the APIP Public Draft release we undertook a very conservative profiling process and removed many features which could be used in rich types of Items e.g. templates and feedback.

I'd like to hear from the community what they consider the key functionality for K-12 items and tests with respect to developments over the next five years.

Colin S.

Support for Tests

colinsmythe — 2011-06-23T12:41:37 -05.00

Hi All,

The current Public Draft of APIP supports the exchange of Items as defined in terms of a QTI Item.

We recently reached agreement to support Sections as away to group Items that use common content such as a reading passage.

We have now agreed to support Tests as these are simple to support once Sections have been added. However, I do not think we will support nested Sections ie. support will be limited to one or more Sections in a Test.

This means that APIP Final Release will now support the full set of use-cases identified in the original documentation.

Colin S.

Support for Sections

colinsmythe — 2011-06-06T13:43:08 -05.00

Hi All,

The current Public Draft of APIP supports the exchange of Items as defined in terms of a QTI Item.

A new use-case has now been added to this work that requires the exchange of a group of Items that refer to a common question context. For example, a short text passage is presented after which there are a number of questions that require the candidate to refer to and/or analyse that text.

Within QTI this is handled by using a Section to enclose the set of Items. The common question information is then presented as Section-level content. From an APIP perspective, this Section-level context will also require alternative accessibility-specific information to be defined for this content.

Note, this is NOT the same as requiring the exchange of Tests. Tests enclose one or more Sections (Sections can also contain Sections).

Colin S.

New IMS APIP Project Group

colinsmythe — 2011-05-24T10:40:03 -05.00

Hi All,

The original APIP project funded by Minnesota state as been completed. The final technical specification outputs were published on the 4th April, 2011 (see other topics on this forum).

IMS has now started a Project Group to undertake the work to turn this into a formal Final Release specification. The Co-chairs of this project Group are currently:

* Tom Hoffman, Measured Progress;
* Wayne Ostler, Pearson Assessment;
* Gary Driscoll, ETS.

Colin S.

Synthesis of responses to U.S. DoEd Assessment Standards RFI

RobAbel — 2011-05-02T14:15:13 -05.00

Hi APIP friends!

The U.S. Department of Education released their synthesis of the extensive set of responses received to a Request for Information (RFI) they published on December 20, 2010 (I remember the exact date because I was on vacation at the time!).

All-in-all I feel it was very well done, although missing a few details I though might have been useful. But, it is very useful, I think, to the Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) consortia as it lays out a high level prioritization of standards and the candidate standards to focus on.

In IMS we can fell very proud that QTI, LTI, and APIP were prominently named - and we look forward to supporting RTTA on standards.

Read or download the document here:

http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/sum...dards-public-responses

Best regards,
Rob Abel

APIP v1p0 Public Draft Release

LisaM — 2011-04-06T13:33:37 -05.00

Download the APIP v1p0 Public Draft Release at:

http://www.imsglobal.org/apip/...icDraftv1_20110404.zip

Note, this has been updated on 6 April 2011

APIPv1.0 Public Draft Release

colinsmythe — 2011-04-05T16:43:03 -05.00

Hi All,

We are about to release (in the next few hours) the APIPv1.0 Public Draft v1.0 doc set.
This completes the initial phase of the development of APIP technical specification work.

Colin S.

Content and User Profile Tagging Map

TomHoffmann — 2011-03-24T09:09:25 -05.00

Helps tie together the content and user profile

RTTA working papers sponsored by Gates Foundation released

RobAbel — 2011-02-21T07:58:46 -05.00

Hi Everyone-

Received word late last week that the papers funded by the Gates Foundation via Arabella Advisors: Advancing Consortium Assessment Reform (ACAR), have now been publicly released on the following web site:

http://www.apipstandard.org/archive/archive.html

Three of the thirteen papers discuss APIP - one by myself, one by Michael Russell, and one by Martha Thurlow.

Best,
Rob Abel