WWW/Internet - Portal do Software Público Brasileiro

ISBN: 978-972-8939-25-0 © 2010 IADISthe expressions and perhaps even conduct an experiment to determine the following: to what extent theanimation affects the length of the test in minutes, and to what extent it affects the results obtained. We haveused a number of works by the group of the author of the methodology to build our prototype, and theseworks reveal the importance of this issue.Figure 2. Sequence of three standard pictures with arrows indicating the movements in the central picture on the left, andthe solution with the “play” button to activate the animation on the right.4. OUR SOLUTION4.1 The Conceptual ModelWe strived to make our conceptual model as generic as possible, so as to allow new future developments orchanges. Additionally, we based it on an arguably complete model. The prototype represents our idea of apossible solution, revealing the functional potential of the four tests described above and allowing them to bepartially done (just to show what the possibilities would be like). Within the system, there are two kinds offinal user, namely examiner and student. Such user profiles are associated to their own units of work andstudy. Therefore, when examiners wish to schedule a test and select students to take it, they will be able toaccess only the profiles of students registered in the school where they work. In addition to students andexaminers, the system comprises the registration of schools, tasks and answers. In other words, all theseentities are represented in the database. The conceptual model of the system includes the storage of theanswers to the tests’ tasks and questions. As different students take different tests and feed their answersinto the system’s database, it will be possible to implement consultations which, in turn, will produce theexpected answers – based on the data and on statistical manipulation (which is technically easy). Moreover,we have taken into account the fact that sets of alternative data, i.e. sets of ordered sequences of items foreach question, must be available for all tests. Indeed, if the same students need to retake the same tests, theywill not receive the exact same data again. This way, we have managed to avoid the carry-over effect or testretestlearning by controlling the set up and configuration of alternatives of all tests.4.2 The Model of Architecture (Client-server)In our model, students can work asynchronously regardless of the computer platform or school network towhich they belong. However, there are a few tasks that examiners have to do prior to each test in order toensure that. In fact, in the real world, students usually take these tests asynchronously and independentlyanyway, since the time they take to complete each task will vary by a fraction of a second depending on thestudent. Indeed, even the same student will perform differently at different moments, going more quickly ashis/her learning set improves, and going more slowly as he/she grows tired. In the solution proposed by ourprototype, once a given examiner has enabled a number of students to take a certain test, this examiner maygather these students in a lab and have them take it at the same time. Nevertheless, the moment all studentshave heard the system guidelines, they can log in and start taking their test independently from their peers.Despite that, all students must take the test under the same conditions, which in turn will depend on thescientific specifications particular to each test. In this case, synchrony, i.e. having all students begin a testsimultaneously, may have its advantages, particularly as regards the follow-up by the examiner. However, it352