<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Adaptive Technology for Students' Knowledge Assessment as a Prerequisite for Effective Education Process Management</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Vitaliy Snytyuk</string-name>
          <email>snytyuk@gmail.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Oleh Suprun</string-name>
          <email>oleh.o.suprun@gmail.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Intellectual and Information Systems Department</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>24 Vandy Vasilevskoy Str., Kyiv</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UA">Ukraine</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Despite the rapid development of intellectual systems and their implementation in education process, the knowledge assessment technologies are almost the same as decades ago. This paper presents an intellectual system approach to the student's knowledge evaluation process, based on adaptive mechanisms development. It is an individual directed systems and it allows one to correct the questions complexity levels in real time, depending on the average students score and to reduce the examiner's influence to the evaluation process. Besides, the proposed system allows one to consider not only the testing result itself, but also different criteria, like time, used by a student to answer the question. According to this is idea, the assessment can demonstrate not only student's pure knowledge, but also his skills and ability to use obtained knowledge in different situations. The experimental results that show the system's effectiveness are presented.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Intellectual Systems</kwd>
        <kwd>Distance Education</kwd>
        <kwd>Knowledge Evaluation</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Over the past decades, intellectual systems usage and process automation in general
can be found in the most diverse areas of human activity, and the education sector is
no exception. Intellectual systems are used as a tool for creating mew courses, to plan
students and teachers effective work, to evaluate various electronic sources and
information resources, and to automate the assessment of students' knowledge [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Standardisation of the student assessment results has become especially relevant
within the Bologna Process, designed to create and spread the common education
standards in different countries. But, at the same time, such systems use the testing as
a way of primary evaluation of the trainee's knowledge, which does not always allow
to evaluate his skills fully.</p>
      <p>Comprehensive knowledge assessment is very important lately, because, due to the
rapid science development and the widespread use of computer and information
technology, the number of requirements for a specialist is steadily increasing. These
requirements are far from being concrete and unambiguous, and the assessment of such
specialists is made, taking into account various skill scores. For example, during the
interviews in IT companies, students are often asked questions that do not require a
specific answer, but which can show the way, the applicant thinks, like, "how many
tennis balls fit into a school bus." Obviously, it is impossible to evaluate the answer
for such a question using the classical testing system, but it is not possible to conduct
a detailed conversation with each student during the exam.</p>
      <p>
        Furthermore, distance education and self-education are gaining in popularity very
fast and perfectly complement the classical education system in schools and
universities, making it possible to acquire necessary knowledge, for example, for working
people with the lack of free time, or residents of other countries. Assessing these
student's knowledge is another problem, since the teacher's participation is minimized, or
he is not present at all, and the trainee's skills can be assessed only according with his
specific answers. It is also necessary to take into account the numerous courses
conducted by large companies for their own employees [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. It is much more profitable for
a company to retrain a qualified specialist, than to search for a new one, spending
money and wasting time, not to mention the risk associated with attracting a new
employee with uncertain skills level.
      </p>
      <p>
        Considering the speed of technological development, when a certain standard or
methodology can be developed and become obsolete within several decades, or even
years, it's impossible to verify the evaluation system correctness on a large number of
students, the system should immediately react to the current student’s level, their
knowledge and external requirements [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Thus, there is a need to develop an intellectual system, that would be able to
consider not only the correctness of a given by a student answer, but also take into
account different criteria of his answer [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Moreover, very important is the ability of
such system to adapt itself, adjust the complexity of the questions in order to give the
most objective assessment not only to the student's knowledge as such, but also the
ability to apply this knowledge in practice and to use it in various situations.
      </p>
      <p>The article presents the basis of such system, shows its ability to change the
questions complexity and to take into account various criteria, for example, the time, used
by the student for answering each question.
2</p>
      <p>The Method for Adaptive Correction of Questions</p>
      <p>
        Complexity Scale
The necessity to objectively evaluate the complexity of the questions, used to assess
students' knowledge, is obvious while creating the new education course, that can be
unknown not only for students, but also for tutors [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. According to the classical
methodology, the complexity scale is set by an expert or examiner, that always has an
element of subjectivity and requires a thoroughly revision using statistical data after
repeated use of such a complexity scale [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. However, considering the modern world
realities, the results must be obtained very quickly, and the price of the mistake during
the evaluation can be too high [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. Not to mention the impossibility to collect a
sufficient amount of statistical data, considering a large number of narrowly focused
courses, primarily adapted to individual specialists training who must be ready to start
their work immediately after graduation.
      </p>
      <p>Adequate consideration of the questions complexity is also important during the
study of classical fundamentals, for example, mathematics or physics. It is impossible
to verify the student's knowledge for the entire course, it would take almost more time
than learning itself, so the questions selection during assessment should be optimal.</p>
      <p>Solving these problems is the main goal of creating an adaptive knowledge
evaluation system. Being inherently individually directed, it will allow to assess the
knowledge of each student more accurate, while being free of the flaws such as
subjectivity or predisposition. For example, it makes no sense to ask simple questions the
student who gives excellent answers, and on the contrary – it is illogical to give
complex tasks to the student who has shown his abilities to be below average. But first the
proper scale of questions complexity, based on the students knowledge and their
abilities, must be created.</p>
      <p>The adaptive complexity correction system is based on the following simple
principle – if the student gave the wrong answer to the question, this question should be
considered to be more complicated, and the right answer reduces the question
complexity. Of course, while implementing this system, many nuances must be taken into
account, for example, the overall score or other indicator of the student's progress and
knowledge, the statistics of answers to a particular question, and others.</p>
      <p>Let the set Q  {qi }, i  1, m be the set of questions, used for trainee’s knowledge
evaluation, m the overall number of questions in the set. Then p(qi ) (0,1] is the
complexity of each question.</p>
      <p>According to the classic methods, that don’t use intellectual or any other
knowledge evaluation systems, the complexity of each question is determined by the
tutor or examiner. Let the pi0 , i  1, m be the predetermined questions complexity,
according to which the tasks assignment and, later, the estimation is made. According
to the adaptive assessment system main idea, this value is not a constant, but depends
on students' answers in real time.</p>
      <p>At the same time, the system should not contradict the following principles:
1. The correct answer to the question reduces its complexity, and on the contrary – if
the answer is incorrect, the question is considered to be more difficult.
2. The corrected question complexity can not go beyond the previously established
scopes, that is, it must always belong to the interval (0,1] .
3. The more students pass the test, the less influence each individual answer has on
the question complexity.
4. 4. The question complexity should be adjusted depending on the total score of the
student giving the answer. If a student, that has a comparatively high total score,
gives the incorrect answer, the question complexity should increase by a bigger
value than if the incorrect answer is given by the trainee with lower total score.
And on the contrary – the correct answer of the student with a lower overall score
reduces the complexity of the question by a bigger value than the correct answer of
the student with a high overall score.</p>
      <p>According to these principles, after passing the test by each trainee, the complexity
of each question should be recalculated according to the following formula:
pij  pij1  fi ( pi0 , m, d j1,Z ),i  1, m, j  1, n,
where n – the overall number of trainees, who pass the test, m – number of
questions used to assess knowledge, pij – the corrected question complexity, pij1 – the
question complexity, used during the previous trainee’s testing, fi – the function,
used to correct each question complexity, according to the mentioned principles: pi0
– the predetermined questions complexity, amount of students m , d j1 – the overall
score of previous, ( j 1) -th trainee, who answered the question, Z – coefficient, that
depends on the deviation of the given answer from the correct one.</p>
      <p>According to the formula above, the questions complexity is recalculated in real
time, after passing the test by each student that provides the ability of the system to
work effectively without having a large amount of statistical data.</p>
      <p>By assuming the presence of a large number of trainees, a conclusion can be made,
that the value of the complexity level converges to a constant value.</p>
      <p>At the same time, such adaptive system assumes the availability of initial data that
are set by the examiner or expert, in particular, a preliminary complexity scale pi0 .
The situation when the initial questions complexity is not known must be considered.
For example, when starting a new course, or if the examiner strives to objectify the
assessing knowledge process. In this case, the students overall scores distribution,
based on their previous education successes, or one of the additional heuristics can be
used, and depending on this, the initial questions complexity can be distributed.</p>
      <p>Obviously, students who passed the test first, can get a significant bias evaluation
due to randomness factors. Thus it makes sense to recalculate their scores, using the
previously acquired information about their correct answers, and applying a new
questions complexity scale, obtained after passing the test by a certain number of
students.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Multi-Criteria Knowledge Assessment System</title>
      <p>Considering the modern world realities and the information society features in
particular, specialists in many branches, especially those related to computer and computing
technology, interacting with other people and working on large projects, are more
often facing problems that require an integrated approach and the ability to apply
skills from various branches of science. The knowledge availability is no less valued
than the ability to apply them in practice in various situations. The requirements for
such specialists can not always be clearly formalized [9], therefore, it is impossible or
very difficult to assess their knowledge and level of their preparation by using the
classical systems.</p>
      <p>In practice, companies and employers solve the problem of adequate assessment by
means of numerous interviews, during which not only the student's dry knowledge is
analyzed, as it is done in universities, but also his capacity for logical thinking in
general, the ability to find a non-obvious way out of complex problems and his ability to
analyze some steps forward. It is obvious that it is often impossible to use such
methods in universities or for any other education process, due of the limited amount time
and resources, and the large number of trainees. Similarly, the use of widespread
testing will can not guarantee the desired results.</p>
      <p>Solving this problem is possible, using the integrated or multi-criteria knowledge
assessment system. It is based on the following principle – to assess the student's
knowledge not only for each specific answer to the question, but also to consider his
answers in general, and at the same time, to evaluate each answer from several points
of view. For example, a student who failed to give a correct final answer to the
assigned task, but who demonstrated the correct solving algorithm, will get a greater
score than the one who gave the correct intermediate answer, but was guided by this
erroneous opinion.</p>
      <p>One of such criteria, in addition to the answer itself, can be the time used by the
trainee to find the answer. In many situations, time is the decisive factor, and an
incorrect or untimely decision can have serious consequences like material damage,
financial losses, or even environmental or technological disasters. First of all, it
applies to workers of rescue structures, power stations and other strategically important
facilities. But, recently, the speed of decision-making is important for many office
workers dealing with computing technique [10]. The best example of this is the attack
of the virus “Petya”, when some large companies managed to repel a virus attack due
to, first of all, the attention of one or two employees who noticed an abnormally rapid
files distribution from a single source and blocked this source, which ultimately saved
the company from huge financial losses. And, although the simulation of such a
situation during the testing is quite difficult and expensive, it is quite possible to assess the
speed of decision making or answering the question.</p>
      <p>Designing such a system, the following factors should be considered:
 The answer to the question received from the trainee is correct, incorrect or
partially correct;
 The answer was given within the prescribed time interval, with an excess, or it was
not given at all;
 Answers received after the time expiration are considered to be incorrect, or taken
with the application of appropriate penalties.</p>
      <p>Considering the simplest version of the assessment system, taking into account the
time spent on the answer, the following formula holds:
m
 pk   (k )  (t k  T k )
r  k 1</p>
      <p>,
where r – the overall testing result, the test consists of m questions, pk – the
complexity of k -th question, k  1, m ,  (k) and  (tk ) – coefficients, that depend on the
answer correctness and time, used by trainee to give it, T k , i  1, m – the maximal
time, determined by the examiner to answer each question.</p>
      <p>To simplify the model, assume that  (k) can take only 2 values – either the answer
is correct or incorrect:</p>
      <p>1, if the answer for the k-question is correct;
 (k)  </p>
      <p>0, otherwise.</p>
      <p>According to the classical testing system, the answer given after the expiration of time
is considered incorrect:</p>
      <p>1, if t k  T k ;
 (t k  T k )  </p>
      <p>0, otherwise.</p>
      <p>In this case, it is impossible to fully appreciate the student's knowledge, taking into
account several criteria, for example, the time. Often the answer, which was given
with time excess, but is correct, is worth considering. To do this, it is necessary to use
a penalty function that reduces the amount of points received if the time limit is
exceeded:
m
 pk   (k)  (1  k  (t k  T k ))
r  k 1</p>
      <p>,
must satisfy the following condition: 0  k 
where k  k ( pk ) – coefficient that determines the amount of penalty for an
untimely but correct answer. Obviously, the penalty should depend on the question
complexity – if the trainee answered with a delay to a simple question, then the penalty value
should be bigger comparing to penalty when the time is exceeded with a complex
question. For example, such penalty value can be used: k k (1 pk ) where k –
predetermined normalization coefficient. For the penalty coefficient correctness, it
1
1 pk
.</p>
      <p>Moreover, often it is important to consider, how far the time threshold was
exceeded. Obviously, the more time the trainee has spent, the less points he will receive for
the correct answer. For example, it can be done as follows:  (t k  T k )  Tkk . As can
t
be seen, with a large time limit excess, the student gets less points for the correct
answer.</p>
      <p>Thus the original formula takes the following form:
where
m
 pk   (k )  (1   k (t k ))  (t k )
r  k 1</p>
      <p>,</p>
      <p>,
1, if t k  Tk ;

 k (t k )   Tk
 t k , otherwise
.</p>
      <p>This formula makes it possible to evaluate the trainee's knowledge, taking into
account not only the correctness of the answer, but also the time used to find it, even if
the initial time limits were exceeded.</p>
      <p>The formula for question complexity level also must be modified, taking into
account several parameters:</p>
      <p>pij  pij1  fi ( pi0 , m, d j1, Z ,Ti ), j  1, m, i  1, n,
where m – the questions number, n – trainees number. In this formula also the time
limit, which was set to answer the question, is used. If the answer is received in time,
this parameter can be ignored, otherwise, if the answer is correct, but received with a
delay, two options are possible:
 The question complexity should be reduced – if the correctness of the answer is
more important than the time excess
 The question complexity should be increased – if time limit is more important than
the correct answer.</p>
      <p>Implementations of this approach results in more accurate control of the trainee's
knowledge, and, more importantly, it gives opportunity to evaluate his ability to use
the acquired knowledge.</p>
      <p>Example of Adaptive Assessment Technology Application
To test the method for questions complexity correcting in real time, an experiment
was conducted with one group of 25 students. The test consisted of 100 questions.
Before the test, the examiner had set the initial complexity of all questions to be
equal 0,5 . The experiment results are shown in the figure below.</p>
      <p>One of the main results of using the adaptive system is reducing the time, spent for
assessment, which allows to increase the time of studying.</p>
      <p>The proposed methodologies testing was made during assessment of six groups, it
is presented below. According to the classic assessment system, the students had to
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
classic average value last value</p>
      <p>The top line corresponds to testing, using the classic knowledge assessment
method, the average score was 0, 623 .</p>
      <p>The middle and bottom lines correspond to testing, using the proposed adaptive
system with the initial questions complexity 0,5 . The complexity was changed
according to the rules described above. After the testing was completed, the results of
all the students of the group were recounted. Two variants were considered: with the
final complexity (total score was 0, 492 ) and average complexity ( 0,507 ) during the
testing time.</p>
      <p>The questions complexity adaptation in real time on the example of three questions
is shown in the figure below.
answer all 50 questions. The optimized method, based on the adaptive ascending
scheme [11], reduced the number of questions to 14-16 for each student. The time
taken to pass the test for each of the 6 groups is shown in the table.</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Group ID</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Trainee’s</title>
        <p>number</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Classic assessment method, min.</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>Optimized method, min.</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-5">
        <title>Relative</title>
        <p>deviation, %</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-6">
        <title>Absolute deviation, point</title>
        <p>The average relative deviation of the estimates obtained using different schemes
was 5, 67% , or the score deviation 0,17% , according to the five-point rating scale.</p>
        <p>These results indicate a significant saving of time spent on testing, with a relatively
small results deviation.</p>
        <p>In the second experiment, a multi-criteria evaluation system was used. Within 50
questions proposed, 20 had a time limit, and the time criteria were predominant in
comparison with the correctness criteria. The average estimation time ( A2 ) increased
slightly. The adaptive system applying allowed to reduce the time ( B2 ) to 28 minutes
in average, 16-18 questions were asked each student. The increase in the questions
number by the system is due to a slight increase in the number of errors made by
students.</p>
        <p>As can be seen from the tests results, the proposed systems allows to significantly
improve the knowledge assessing process.
5</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Recently, more and more research are dedicated to intelligent systems application in
the education process. Almost all of them are aimed at optimizing the learning
process as such, helping to determine the set of necessary disciplines or to plan the use of
time correctly, but they almost do not improve the systems of students' knowledge
assessing. Only few of them are aimed at an adequate comparison of the results
obtained during students testing, but they do not affect the testing process itself, leaving
the questions selection and determining their complexity task for teachers and
examiners. Moreover, classical testing system as such does not allow to comprehensively
assess the students skills level, demonstrating only their knowledge, but not the ability
to use them in a difficult situation, which is very important in the modern world.</p>
      <p>The presented adaptive assessment system allows to objectify the knowledge
assessment process by correcting the questions complexity of in real time, depending on
the knowledge of specific student and students in general. At the same time, results
are formalized, which allows to compare the results of different groups.</p>
      <p>Applying the multi-criteria technique makes possible to assess not only the
student’s knowledge as such, but also the ability to use them, to take into account the
various aspects of trainee's answers, which is necessary for a comprehensive
evaluation of the training results. This system allows to analyze the student's knowledge
fully, to indicate possible omissions in the training for their subsequent elimination.</p>
      <p>Furthermore, the presented models can be used not only for knowledge assessment,
but also as an element of self-educational programs. For example, a similar principle
at the primitive level is implemented in mobile dictionary applications: the program
offers the user a set of words to test his knowledge, if multiple correct answers are
given, the word is removed from the control sample, or is offered again if an error is
made.</p>
      <p>It must be noted that applying such a system requires the implementation of a large
amount of verification procedures, but, at the same time, it remains simple and can be
easily upgraded according to specific requirements. Its use can reduce evaluation
time, which is very important when working with a large number of trainees, or with
distance education, and subsequent results analysis will help to improve the education
process.
9. Popereshnyak S., Suprun O.: Tools and methods for intersubjective relationships
in cyberspace forecasting. In: XIIth IEEE International Scientific and Technical
Conference CSIT-2017, pp. 244-247, Lviv, Ukraine (2017).
10. Wick D.: Free and open-source software applications for mathematics and
education. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first annual international conference on
technology in collegiate mathematics, pp. 300–304, New Orleans (2009).
11. Snytyuk V., Yurchenko K.: Elements of adaptive type knowledge-oriented
training systems. Kherson National Technical University 2 (38), 180-186 (2010).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hiltz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Murray</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education</article-title>
          .
          <source>Communications of the ACM</source>
          <volume>48</volume>
          (
          <issue>10</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>64</lpage>
          (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Encheva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sharil</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Application of association rules in education</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Intelligent Control and Automation, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 344</source>
          , Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
          <fpage>834</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>838</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Taylor</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Decision Management Systems: A Practical Guide to Using Business Rules</article-title>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Predictive</given-names>
            <surname>Analytics</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Boston MA: Pearson Education (
          <year>2012</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gharajedaghi</surname>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ackoff</surname>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Toward Systemic Education of System Scientists</article-title>
          .
          <source>Systems Research</source>
          <volume>2</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>21</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>27</lpage>
          (
          <year>1985</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Snytyuk</surname>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gnatyenko</surname>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Optimization of the assessment process in conditions of uncertainty based on the structuring of the subject area and the axiom of unbiasedness</article-title>
          .
          <source>Artificial Intelligence</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>217</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>222</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <article-title>(in Russian)</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Diamond</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide</article-title>
          . John Wiley &amp; Sons (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Encheva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sharil</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Uncertainties in knowledge assessment</article-title>
          .
          <source>WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education</source>
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>895</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>900</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mreła</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sokołov</surname>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Rankings of Students Based on Experts' Assessment of Levels of Verification of Learning Outcomes by Test Items</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 13th International Conference on ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Applications</source>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>