Talking about software testing is not easy. It’s not natural! Testing is a “meta” activity. It’s not just a task, but a task that generates new tasks (by. Software Testing Methodologies Course Page R07 Regulation - Dept. of CSE & IT Aditya Engineering College. ![]() Summary: Graders typically work in private with no opportunity to ask even the simplest questions about a student’s submitted work. Interactive Grading is a technique that requires the student to participate in the grading of their work. The aim of this post is to share my experiences with interactive grading, with some tips for others who want to try it. I start with an overview and then provide three detailed examples, with suggestions for the conduct of the session. ![]() Let me stress one point: care must be exercised to keep the student comfortable and engaged, and not let the session degenerate into another lecture. In terms of results, most students told me that interactive grading was a good use of their time and that it helped them improve their performance. Several asked me to add more of it to my courses. A few viewed at as more indoctrination. In terms of impact on student grades, they showed marginal improvement. Interactive grading is not a new idea. I think most instructors have done this for some students at some times. Certainly, I have. Moving Die Rheometer 5 Instruments. Moving Die Rheometers are the standard testing method for characterisation of rubber curing in quality control as well as research. So when professor Keith Gallagher described it to me as an important part of his teaching, I didn’t initially understand its significance. I decided to try it myself after several of Keith’s students talked favorably about their classes with him. It wasn’t until I tried it that I realized what I had been missing. That start came 1. Since then, I’ve used interactive grading in the online (professional- development) BBST classes, hybrid (online + face- to- face) university software testing classes, and a face- to- face university software metrics course. I’ve used it for exams, essays, and assignments (take- home complex tasks). Overall, it’s been a positive change. These notes describe my personal experiences and reflections as an instructor. I emphasize this by writing in the very- obvious first person. Your experiences might be different. What is Interactive Grading? When I teach, I assign tasks and students submit their work to me for grading. Usually I review student work in private and give them feedback after I have completed my review. When I do interactive grading. I meet with the student before I review the work. I read the work for the first time while I meet with the student. I ask the student questions, often open- ended questions that help me understand what the student was trying to say or achieve. Students often demonstrate that they understood the material better than their submitted work suggests. If they misunderstood part of the task, we can get to the bottom of the misunderstanding and they can try to demonstrate, during this meeting, their ability to do the task that was actually assigned. I often coach the student, offering suggestions to improve the student’s strategy or demonstrating how to do parts of the task. I typically show the student a grading rubric early in the meeting and assign the grade at the end of the meeting. When I explicitly build interactive grading into my class: It becomes part of the normal process, rather than an exception for a student who needs special attention. This changes the nature and tone of the discussions. Every student knows well in advance what work will be interactively graded and that every student’s work will be handled the same way. This changes how they prepare for the meetings and how they interpret the meetings. I can plan later parts of the course around the fact that the students have already had this experience. This changes my course design. Costs and Benefits of Interactive Grading. Here is a summary of my conclusions. I’ll support this summary later in this report, with more detailed descriptions of what we did and what happened. Costs. Interactive grading feels like it takes more time: It takes time to prepare a grading structure that the students can understand (and therefore that I can use effectively when we have the meeting)Scheduling can take a lot of time. The meetings sometimes run long. It feels as though it takes longer to have the meeting than it would take to grade the work normally. When I’ve checked my grading times for exams and assignments that I do in the traditional way, I think I actually spend the same amount of time (or more). I also do the same level of preparation. Note: I do a lot of pre- grading preparation. The contrast might be greater for a less formal grader.)As far as I can tell, the actual difference for me is not time, it is that interactive grading meetings are more stressful for me than grading in a quiet, comfortable home office. That makes it feel longer. Benefits for the Students. During interactive grading, I can ask questions like,What were you thinking? What do you think this word in the question means? If I gave you a different explanation of what this word means, how would that affect your answer to the question? Give me an example of what you are describing? Can you give me a real- life example of what you are describing? For example, suppose we were working with Open. Office. How would this come up in that project? Can you explain this with a diagram? Show me on my whiteboard. How would you answer this if I changed the question’s wording this way? How would someone actually do that? Why would anyone want to do that task that way? Isn’t there a simpler way to do the same thing? I will raise the grade for a student who does a good job with these questions. I might say to the student,“If I was only grading the written answer, you would get a ‘D’. But with your explanation, I am giving you a ‘B’. We need to talk about how you can present what you know better, so that you can get a ‘B’ again on the next exam, when I grade your written answers without an interactive supplement.”If a student performs poorly on an exam (or an assignment, or an essay), the problem might be weak competence or weak performance. A student who doesn’t know the material has no competence. A student who knows the material but gives a poor answer on an exam despite that is showing poor performance. For example, you won’t get a good answer from a knowledgeable student who writes poorly or in a disorganized way or who misunderstands the question. These focusing questions: give the student who knows the material a chance to give a much better explanation or a much better defense of their answer. Let’s consider competence problems. Students might lack the knowledge or the skills they are supposed to be learning for several reasons: Some students simply don’t take the time or make the effort to do good work. Interactive grading probably won’t do much for them, beyond helping some of them understand the standards better. Some students memorize words that they don’t really understand. The interactive grading discussion helps (some of) them understand a bit better the differences between memorized words and understanding something well enough to explain it in their own words and to explain how to do it or use it or why it’s important. It gives them a path to a different type of answer when they ask themselves while studying, “Do I know this well enough?”Some students lack basic student- skills (how to study, how to look things up online, how to use the library, etc.) I can demonstrate these activities during the discussion, having the student do them with me. Students don’t become experts overnight with these, but as I’ll discuss below, I think this sometimes leads to noticeable improvements. Some of the tasks that I assign to students can be done in a professional way. I choose tasks that I can demonstrate at a professional level of skill. In the give- and- take of interactive grading, I can say, “Let me show you how a professional would do that.” There is a risk of hijacking the discussion, turning it into yet- another- lecture. But judiciously used, this is a very personalized type of coaching of complex skills. Now consider performance problems. The student understands the material but provides an exam answer or submits an assigned paper that doesn’t adequately reflect what they know, at their level of sophistication. A student with an “A” level of knowledge might look like a “C” student. A student with a “C” level of knowledge might look like a “D” or “F” student. These students are often puzzled by their poor grades. The interactive grading format makes it possible for me to show a student example after example after example of things they are doing (incomprehensible sentences, uninterpretable diagrams, confusing structure, confusing formatting, etc.) and how these make it hard on the reader. QA Framework: Specification Guidelines. W3. C Recommendation 1. August 2. 00. 5This version: http: //www. TR/2. 00. 5/REC- qaframe- spec- 2. Latest version: http: //www. TR/qaframe- spec/Previous version: http: //www. TR/2. 00. 5/PR- qaframe- spec- 2. Editors: Karl Dubost, W3. CLynne Rosenthal, NISTDominique Hazaël- Massieux, W3. CLofton Henderson, CGM Open. Contributors: See Acknowledgments. Please refer to the errata. See also translations. Copyright ©2. 00. W3. C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3. C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract. The goal of this document is to help W3. C editors write better specifications, by making a specification easier to interpret without ambiguity and clearer as to what is required in order to conform. It focuses on how to define and specify conformance. It also addresses how a specification might allow variation among conforming implementations. The document presents guidelines or requirements, supplemented with good practices, examples and techniques. Status of This Document. This section describes the status of this document at the time. Other documents may supersede this document. A. list of current W3. C publications and the latest revision of this. W3. C technical reports index at. TR/. This document is a W3. C. Recommendation. It has been reviewed by W3. C Members and other interested. Director. It is a stable document and. W3. C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw. This. enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web. This document has been produced by the QA Working Group, as part of the QA Activity. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Translations of this document may be available. If you have any comments on this document, send them to www- qa@w. An errata. list for this edition is available. This document only had minor editorial corrections since it was published as a Proposed Recommendation. Evidence of interoperation between at least two implementations of this specification are documented in the Implementation Report. The Working Group's Patent disclosure page, in conformance with the W3. C Patent. Policy of 5 February 2. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification should disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3. C Patent Policy. Table of contents. List of Requirements: List of Good Practices: Appendix. Introduction. 1. 1 Scope. This document is a guide for editors of W3. C specifications. It provides guidelines for improving conformance- related characteristics. In that respect, this document differs from other W3. C process and publication- related documents. It addresses the most basic and critical topics with respect to conformance, including how to convey what is required for an implementation in order to conform and how to allow variation among conforming implementations. The term specification is used as defined in ISO Guide 2- 4 [ISO- GUIDE] as meaning a document that prescribes requirements to be fulfilled by a product, process or service. Specifications can be defined in one document or as a coherent set of several documents (see Umbrella specifications in Variability in Specifications [VIS] for more discussion), and can import requirements of other specifications with normative references. In addition to conformance, there are several other topics that should be addressed when writing a specification, such as accessibility, internationalization, security, and device independence. These topics are not directly in the scope of this document, but are evoked in section 3. Specification authors and editors are encouraged to consider these topics and coordinate their efforts in these areas with the relevant W3. C Working Groups. Goals and Motivation. The goal is to enable Working Groups to produce specifications that are precise, easier to interpret without ambiguity or confusion, and clearer as to what is required in order to conform. Good specifications lead to better and more interoperable implementations and foster the development of test suites and tools. Everyone benefits from having well- written specifications. Editors may have less rework and thus, fewer issues raised during the development of the specification, and fewer errata once it is finished. Implementers can implement sooner and have a better chance to conform to the specification. Test developers are able to derive unambiguous test assertions. End users benefit from having interoperable solutions. W3. C gains by having recommendations produced with higher quality and reduced maintenance. Why Specification Guidelines? It is not an easy task to write accurate, clear, complete, unbiased specifications. It requires planning, organization, and foresight about the technology, how it will be implemented and used, and how technical decisions affect conformance. This document provides a collection of requirements, good practices, examples, and techniques that lead the reader through the decisions necessary to write precise requirements and establish, define, and specify conformance for specifications. Editors and authors are busy, under pressure to get the specification published, and already have a reading list of W3. C documents. A good place to start is W3. C Editor's Home Page [EDITOR]. This document can be used as a checklist of things to consider, a how- to guide with examples and techniques that can be adapted, and a reference for understanding conformance concepts and terminology. Audience of This Document. The primary audience of this document is editors; however, it is applicable to a broader audience including: Those who review specifications during their development,Implementers of specifications,Builders of test materials, including conformance test suites and tools. This document makes no distinction between the terms editors and authors and refers to them collectively as editors. About This Document. This document is a practical guide to writing a specification, presenting editors with topics to consider. The normative content is contained in a collection of a small number of Requirements, and somewhat more Good Practices. As explained in this specification's conformance clause, the Requirements are necessary for claiming conformance to Specification Guidelines, and the Good Practices are recommendations that will further benefit the quality of a specification. The overall objective of these requirements and good practices is to facilitate the creation of a complete conformance clause in every specification. A conformance clause template [CONF- TEMPLATE] is provided to assist editors satisfy the requirements of this document and end up with a conformance clause. Note that for some technical reports (e. The QA Handbook [QA- HANDBOOK], Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One [WEB- ARCH]) where conformance is not an issue (e. The topics presented herein are inclusive (self- contained) and provide information needed to understand and successfully apply the Requirement or Good Practice, although related information and advanced topics may be referenced. If in a hurry just read the first guidelines section, Specifying conformance — this may be all you need to read in order to reach the expected outcome of adhering to this document, i. It serves as a roadmap to other parts of this document, which help achieve specifying conformance. Structure of This Document. This document is organized into a series of guidelines such as Specifying Conformance and Managing Variability. Each of these guidelines present and explain Requirements and Good Practices. Techniques and Examples accompany each Requirement and Good Practice. The techniques illustrate basic (and nonexhaustive) questions or methods to help realize the Requirement/Good Practice and produce specification text. The examples are explanations or extractions from existing W3. C specifications that specifically illustrate the point made in the Requirement/Good Practice. The conformance clause of this document describes the conformance requirements for claiming conformance to this Specification Guidelines. A specification editor who wishes to write a specification conformant to Specification Guidelines must ensure it satisfies the conformance requirements in the conformance section of this document. Other QA Framework Documents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |