IMS withdrew the QTI 2.1 spec, despite some existing implementation and information going back to 2006 that is was imminently ready for use. The official IMS wording seems to be toned down a bit, but there is also a clip from early wording on Rowin Young’s blog. Other early opinions ended up on list servers like this. I’ve fired up a Google alert on this issue and will be tracking it. Meantime, one of my co-workers at Questionmark and a key contributor to QTI 1.x, John Kleeman, has penned, Why QTI Really Matters.
Check it out and watch for updates here. I expect a few more QTI experts and pundits from other specification bodies to have some observations soon. However, an unnamed organization with a litigious nature may be unwittingly suppressing discussion.
About Tom King
Tom King has a master's degree in Instructional Design and 15 years experience developing and managing elearning materials. Tom has been active with many elearning technology specification groups, including ADL SCORM, AICC, IEEE LTSC, and others. He served as AICC Communications Chairman and workgroup leader for the PENS specification. Tom was instrumental in early implementations of LMS specifications for LAN and web-based systems as an early AICC advocate and founder of Solis, maker of Pathware (acquired by Macromedia and later transferred to IBM as LearningSpace 4). Tom continues to collaborate with colleagues from a variety of companies offering enterprise-class elearning solutions.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged
elearning,
learning,
LMS-LCMS,
technology. Bookmark the
permalink.
Tom,
Your link to John’s blog post is mangled. Should be:
http://blog.questionmark.com/why-qti-really-matters
Chuck
Thanks! Fixed now.
Thanks Tom for sharing this! We had a IMS QTI 2.1 project going at work and were rather upset about this when we received the announcement from IMS a few weeks ago.