Assessment of teaching and learning by mixed diagnostic testing

Anna Yankovskaya 1 2 3 * , Ilya Levin 4, Irina Fuks 1
More Detail
1 Computer Science Department, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
2 Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, Tomsk, Russia
3 Computer Systems Department, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, Tomsk, Russia
4 Department of Math, Science and Technology Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 2, Issue 2A, pp. 86-93.
OPEN ACCESS   1388 Views   809 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The paper deals with assessment of educational process. Specifically, monitoring and testing of students' knowledge, of professional and personal skills/abilities are in the focus of the study. A new assessment approach called Mixed Diagnostic Testing (MDT) is discussed in the paper. The approach combines two known testing concepts: unconditional testing and conditional testing. In the unconditional testing, each next question of the test sequence is independent of previous test results; in contrast with it the conditional testing includes a sequence of questions strongly connected with the previous test results. The proposed approach provides designing of an individual learning "trajectory" for each student. According to our hypothesis, such a trajectory is especially important since it allows personalizing the learning process, thus increasing its efficiency. The paper provides theoretical analysis of the MDT approach, as well as of its implementation in a certain academic course “Information technologies”. For preparing (constructing) of mixed diagnostic tests, experts' knowledge of specific subjects should be utilized. It is shown, that the use of MDT effectively supports and facilitates development of curriculum. The MDT reduces both time and cost expenses for organization and management of the educational process. Since the MDT may actually replace a teacher in the teacher's function as a consultant, the proposed approach is especially promising in the blended learning.


Yankovskaya, A., Levin, I., & Fuks, I. (2014). Assessment of teaching and learning by mixed diagnostic testing. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2A), 86-93.


  • Ausburn, L.J. (2004). Course Design Elements Most Valued by Adult Learners in Blended Online Education Environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International, 41(4), 327-337.
  • Bliuc, A.-M., Goodyear, P., and Ellis, R.A. (2007). Research Focus and Methodological Choices in Studies into Students' Experiences of Blended Learning in Higher Education. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231-244.
  • Brusilovsky, P., Knapp, J., and Gamper, J. (2006). Supporting Teachers as Content Authors in Intelligent Educational Systems. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 2(3/4), 191-215.
  • Graham, C. (2006). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, Future Directions. In C. J. Bonk, & C. Graham (Ed.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  • Levin I., Kojukhov A. (2013) Personalization of Learning Environments in a Postindustrial Class. Social Media in Higher Education: Teaching in Web 2.0. Editors: M.Patrut and B. Patrut , IGI Global, USA. 105-123.
  • Levin, I., Kolberg, E., & Reich, Y. (2004). Robot control teaching with a state machine-based design method. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(2), 234-243.
  • Levin, I., Levit, V. (1998). Controlware for Learning with Mobile Robots. Computer Science Education, 8 (3), 181-196.
  • Singera, F.M., Stoicescu, D. (2011). Using Blended Learning as a Tool to Strengthen Teaching Competences. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1527-1531.
  • Varshavsky, V., Marakhovsky, V., Levin, I., & Kravchenko, N. (2003). Summing Amplifier as a Multi-Valued Logical Element for Fuzzy Control. WSEAS Transactions on Circuit and Systems, (3), 625-631.
  • Uskov V., Uskov A., (2010). Welcome Address: Computers and Advanced Technology in Education – Perspectives for 2010-2015. Proceedings of the 13th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE 2010).
  • Yankovskaya, A. (1996). Design of Optimal Mixed Diagnostic Test With Reference to the Problems of Evolutionary Computation. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Evolutionary Computation and Its Applications, 292-297.
  • Yankovskaya, A., Yevtushenko, N. (1997). Finite State Machine (FSM) – Based Knowledge Representation in a Computer Tutoring System (pp. 67-74). In New Media and Telematic Technologies for Education in Eastern European Countries, Ed. by P. Kommers & etc. Twenty University Press Enshede.
  • Yankovskaya, A.E. (2011). Mixed Diagnostic Tests are a New Paradigm of Construction of Intelligent Learning and Training Systems. Proceedings of the New quality of education in the new conditions, 1, 195-203 (in Russian).
  • Yankovskaya, A.E., Semenov, M.E. (2009). Construction of the Mixed Tests of the Quality System of Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Modern IT& (e-) Training), Astrakhan, Russia, 125-129 (in Russian).
  • Yankovskaya, A.E., Semenov, M.E. (2010). Foundation of the Construction of Mixed Diagnostic Tests in Systems for Quality Control of Education. Proceedings of the 13th IASTED International Conference Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE 2010), 142-145.
  • Yankovskaya, A.E., Semenov, M.E. (2011). Intelligent System for Knowledge Estimation on the Base of Mixed Diagnostic Tests and Elements of Fuzzy Logic. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Technology for Education (TE 2011), 108-113.
  • Yankovskaya, A.E., Semenov, M.E. (2013). Application Mixed Diagnostic Tests in Blended Education and Training. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference Web-based Education (WBE 2013), 935-939.
  • Yankovskaya, A.E., Fuks, I.L., Dementyev, Y.N. (2013). Mixed Diagnostic Tests in Construction Technology of the Training and Testing Systems. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, 3(5), 169-174.