在线考试系统中文翻译
BJCP考试指南_中文版
BJCP 考试指南本指南内容为BJCP关于啤酒考试的细节要求。
蜂蜜酒和苹果酒不在本指南范围之内。
本指南内提到的所有考试均为啤酒考试。
1. 定义 (1)2. 起点 (2)3. 现有的、非学徒BJCP裁判 (2)4. 网上入门考试 (3)5. 品酒考试 (4)6. 挂靠BJCP裁判 (5)7. 活跃的BJCP学徒裁判 (5)8. 笔试 (5)9. 常见问题 (6)1.定义BJCP裁判入门考试（网上考试）：在线机考，内容涉及啤酒风格、酿造原料、啤酒特征、酿造工艺以及BJCP体系。
这是参加现场品酒考试之前的线上资格认证考试。
BJCP 啤酒品酒考试（现场考试）：考试内容为用评分表对6种考试用啤酒进行评价。
参加此项考试即意味着成为BJCP会员，并同时生成一个BJCP会员号。
BJCP裁判写作能力考试（笔试）：传统考试中写作部分考试的改进版本，进阶为国家级及更高等级的裁判需要进行此项考试。
BJCP传统啤酒考试（传统考试）：此项考试在2012年4月1日之前应用，考试内容包括写作部分和品酒部分，两项得分按照70/30的权重进行计算得出综合考试分数。
临时裁判：通过了网上考试，但是没有参加品酒考试，即为临时裁判。
临时裁判不是BJCP会员，没有BJCP会员号。
临时裁判不是BJCP的裁判等级。
学徒裁判：参加了品酒考试，但是并没有通过，即为学徒裁判。
学徒裁判是裁判等级之一，拥有会员身份及会员号，但不具备完全会员权利。
有效身份：BJCP裁判需要至少每两年参加一次BJCP赛事（详情参见BJCP会员指南）。
身份与等级有所不同，一名BJCP会员同时拥有一个等级和一个身份。
挂靠身份：当一个学徒裁判在两年之内仍达不到成为正式会员的要求，无论活跃程度如何，即为挂靠身份。
参见第6节：挂靠裁判详情。
完全会员：通过最初的品酒考试的有效BJCP裁判，只要拥有认可裁判等级或更高等级，即为完全会员。
2. 起点如果你从未参加过BJCP啤酒裁判考试，参见第4节：网上机考入门考试。
考试 英语翻译 中英文对照
英语翻译2013-6-5Unit1In1812napoleon bonaparte,emperor of the french led his grand army into russia.1812的法国皇帝拿破仑波拿巴，率领大军入侵俄罗斯。
He was prepared for the fierce resistance of the russian people defending their homeland.他准备好俄罗斯人民会为保卫祖国而奋勇抵抗。
He was prepared for the long march across russian soil to moscow the capital city.他准备好在俄罗斯广袤的国土上要经过长途跋涉才能进军首都莫斯科。
But he was not prepared for the devastaing enemy that met him in moscow the raw bitter,bleak russian winter.但他没有料到在莫斯科他会遭遇劲敌—俄罗斯阴冷凄苦的寒冬。
In1941,adolf hitler,leader of nazi germany,launched an attach against the soviet union,as russiaa then was called.1941年，纳粹德国元首阿道夫·希特勒进攻当时被称作苏联的俄罗斯。
Hitler's military might was unequaled.希特勒的军事实力堪称无敌。
His war machine had mowed down resistance in most of europe.他的战争机器扫除了欧洲绝大部分地区的抵抗。
Hitler expected a short campaign but,like napoleon before him,was taught a painful lesson.希特勒希望速战速决，但是，就像在他之前的拿破仑一样，他得到的是痛苦的教训。
大学英语网上作业和在线考试系统的研究
大学英语网上作业和在线考试系统的研究摘要利用最新的web技术开发包开发系统，用改进的传统遗传算法进行组卷优化，并采用基于词典的最大逆向匹配技术与语义相似度相结合的记分方式来实现简单主观题自动批阅，有效地改善学生学习英语的环境，也尽可能地减轻教师的负担。
关键词网上作业；在线考试；ajax；遗传算法；自动批阅中图分类号：tp315 文献标识码：b 文章编号：1671-489x（2013）06-0052-03英语是人们相互了解学习的“桥梁”工具之一，也是当下有知识的年轻一代应该掌握的基本技能之一。
大学英语作为在校大学生必开的一门公共课程，承担着让大学生熟练地掌握与运用英语的重担。
但目前的课堂教学，具有教学时间长、任务重、实践性强、短时间难以提高等特点，因而必须采取有效的措施改善学生学习英语的环境，进一步促进学生熟练地掌握和运用英语的能力。
大学英语网上作业和在线考试系统将是行之有效的改进措施之一。
1 系统采用的技术平台本系统采用最新的web技术开发包 ajax。
它能让开发的web应用程序直接通过客户端的ajax引擎向服务器传送需要更新的数据信息并返回，然后利用客户端的javascript处理返回的数据，避免了“闪屏”现象的发生。
同时，区别于传统web信息独占式请求发送方式，ajax采用信息异步请求发送方式，并且有一些操作就是在客户端上处理的，因而服务器处理响应所需的时间大大减少[1]。
两种信息发送方式如图1、图2所示。
2 系统主要功能2.1 学习功能系统添加了听力、完形填空、阅读理解、翻译、作文等题型，让学生在课外的时间通过对各题型的学习，进一步理解和巩固所学知识；并提供客观题的正确答案与解题思路以及主观题的参考答案供学生学习，以便及时发现问题，纠正错误。
2.2 网上作业功能在本系统中，教师可以通过此功能模块对学生布置大量的客观题以及翻译等简单类型的主观题作业，并设置好客观题的正确答案和客观题的关键词语，实现学生完成作业后点击提交，由系统实现学生作业的较准确的自动批阅，并记录学生成绩。
FMEA-4 中文翻译版
失效模式与后果分析（F M EA）参考手册第四版第一版 1993年2月出版，第二月1995年2月出版，第三版本2001年7月出，第四版2008年7月出版1993,1995,2001,2008版权由戴姆勒克莱斯特、福特和通用汽车公司所有I SBN:978-1-60534-136-1第四版前言FEMA第四版是克莱斯特、福特和通用公司的作为帮助供应商做设计和过程开发的参考手册。
本手册没有规定要求，意在阐明与FMEAs的开发技术问题。
本手册与 SAE1739结合使用。
第四版FMEA参考手册的更改概要第四版参考手册中描述了DFMEA和PFMEA方法，包括与系统、子系统、界面和部件层相关的设计和制造过程和安装操作中的过程。
总的更改●第四版的格式意在更容易阅读。
○包含了索引○使用竖线作提示指出关键段落。
●附加的例子和解释的提供是为了提高手册的效用，为手册的开发过程提供一个更近的纽带。
●管理支持、兴趣以及FMEA过程和结果的评审加强的需要。
●确定和加强在DFMEA和PFMEA之间联接的理解，以及确定与其他工具的联接●改善了严重度、发生率、探测度级别表以便在真实分析和使用时更有意义。
●介绍了现在工业中使用的可选择法。
○附加了样表和FMEA特殊案例应用的附录○标准表上的焦点已被工业中现在应用中所述的几种用法代替●建议RPN不要作为评价风险的基本方法使用。
包括附加方法在内的改善需要已经作了了修改， RPN极限法的使用已经作为惯例阐述是不建议使用的方法。
第一章 讲述了FMEA的总的指南，管理支持的需要和定义了开发和维护FMEAs的过程，以及持续改善的需要。
第二章 描述了FMEA方法的总的应用，即DFMEA和PFMEA之间的共同点。
这包括FMEAs中的计划、策划、措施计划、管理支持需要以及职责。
第三章 聚焦于DFMEA（设计失效模式后果和分析），建立分析的范围，方块图的使用，DFMEAs的不同类型，小组的形成，分析、措施计划、跟进及RPN的选择的基本程序，以及与PFMEA的联接和验证计划。
【计算机专业文献翻译】对程序课程的一个可靠的考试系统的评估
Evaluation of an Authentic Examination System (AES)for Programming CoursesTorbj?rn Jonsson, Pouria Loghmani and Simin Nadjm-TehraniDepartment of Computer and Information ScienceLink?ping University, Sweden{torjo,poulo,simin}@ida.liu.seAbstractThis paper describes our experience with an authentic examination system for programming courses. We briefly describe the architecture of the system, and present results of evaluating the system in real examination situations. Some of the factors studied in detail are the on-line interactions between the students and examiners, the response times and their effects on the pressure experienced by student, the acceptance of the method among the students, and whether the examination form is gender-neutral. IntroductionAs experienced teachers in programming courses we have noticed the drawbacks in the traditional examination form used in programming courses. The students learn to program via laboratory exercises, but the final evaluation of their abilities and the grading of the examination are in a form that uses paper and pen instead of computers. Considering that the student will never use this mode for producing a program through the professional life, we consider this to be not a suitable method.At the Department of Computer Science at Link?ping University 12 fundamental programming courses for approximately 1000 students in different educational programs are taught annually. This paper deals with a new pedagogical view in these programming courses, which can be applied to any programming language, type of student and educational program. The idea is based on extensive studies around different examination forms, where individual grading, efficient and useful feedback and the authenticity of the examination form are used as basic criteria for the choice of examination method. We believe that the choice of method together with the added efficiency in the assessment process improves the quality of our study programmes. In particular, we believe that it will change the examination process from a summative to a normative assessment occasion [1].For a number of years we have experimented with testing the students via computer-aided examinations in some pilot courses - an authentic examination form for this type of course. However, this examination form has not become more widespread due to insufficient support for thecomputer environment necessary for this kind of examination. During the past year a new authentic examination system (AES) has been developed, where all the students and the examining teachers are connected to the same system. The process, including communication and grading, is supported by this environment. In this paper we describe the examination system and our initial evaluations of this system in a number of relatively large examination sessions. The courses in question covered programming in Ada and were taken by first and second year students.During the past year we have evaluated the AES. The instruments used for the evaluation consisted of questionnaires filled by 231 students over a period of 3 months and 4examinations.The paper is organised as follows. In section 1 we describe why the type of examination we propose is the most appropriate for programming courses and compare to some related systems. Section 2 includes a brief technical description of the examination systems, including its architectural design. In section 3 we describe how the computer system, that manages the examination process on-line, has to be augmented by rules set up in each particular course. Section 4 covers our evaluation methods and is followed by evaluation results in section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.1 Examination formsEvery examination method has specific characteristics that make it more or less appropriate to a particular course setting. H?kan Oswaldsson studied the range of possible examination forms for a typical programming course prior to the development of the current examination system in our department [5]. While several modes of examination can be considered as effective means for enhanced learning (e.g. home assignments, oral examinations following a design assignment, etc), there are not many examination types that combine the need for a summative assessment, with adequate feedback to induce learning. Combined with the large number of students that we are currently teaching, design of an ideal examination setting is a truly challenging task.The work by Dawson-Howe is an early attempt to bring computer support into the process of programming assignment evaluation and administration [2]. The need for automated examination systems has become more pertinent during the late 90's with the advent of distance and life long learning. For example, at the Open University in UK there have been attempts to exchange student assignments , and their (subsequent) correction and asses sment by examiners via MS Word documents [8]. However, the available reports (e.g. the work by Price and Petre) concentrate on the ease of administration for course assignment and grading, rather than the pedagogical feedback in an on-line authentic examination. In recent years several authors report on automatic assessment systems, mostly concentrating on presentation of the technical aspects of the system and the results of the students in terms of grading [4, 5, 7, 8]. While we share the aspiration of these research teams and conduct similar studies, our focus has been on the formal evaluation of how the students perceived the examination environment. In addition we have studied how they were affected by factors specific to authentic examinations, how the system performance and the examiners' on-line behaviour affects the perceived load on the student, and other such aspects.Student accountsTeacher accountsExamsExamination ProcessingMessagingStatisticsThe AES design is divided into multiple tiers: the Client tier, the Middle tier (consisting of one or more sub-tiers), and the Backend tier (see figure 2.1). Partitioning the design into tiers allows us to choose the appropriate technology for a given situation. Multiple technologies can even be used to provide the same service in different situations. Forexample, HTML pages, JSP pages, and stand-alone applications can all be used in the client tier.Enterprise Beans MessageDrivenBeansClient Tier Middle Tier Backend Tier2 Technical description of the AESAES has been developed using the J2EE platform. This represents a single standard for implementing and deploying complex enterprise applications. Having been designed through an open process, J2EE meets a wide range of enterprise application requirements, including distribution-specific mechanisms such as messaging system, scalability and modularity.The clients are based on the Model-View-Controller (MVC) application architecture, which separates three distinct forms of functionality within the application: The Model represents the structure of the data in the application, as well as application-specific operation on data.The View accesses data from the model and specifies how that data should be presented. Views in the AES consist of stand-alone applications that provide view functionality.The Controller translates user actions on the model and selects the appropriate view based on user preferences.The AES is designed as a set of loosely coupled modules, which are tightly coupled internally. Grouping functionality into modules provides integration between classes that cooperate, yet decouples classes that refer to each other occasionally. Modular design supports the design goal that software will be reusable. Each module has an interface that defines the module's functional requirements and provides a place where later components may be integrated. The AES includes modules for:Figure 2.1: The AES design.Each of the three tiers plays a specific role in the design.The Client tier is responsible for presenting data to the user, interacting with the user, and communicating with the other tiers of the system. In this case the Client tier is the only part of the system visible to the user. The AES Client tier consists mainly of a stand-alone application that communicates with the other tiers through well-defined interfaces. A message-oriented approach based on JMS (Java Messaging System) has been chosen to take care of the communication between the Client tier and the Middle tier.The Middle tier is responsible for any processing involving Enterprise JavaBeans. Enterprise JavaBeans are software components that extend servers to perform application specific functionality. The interface between these components and their containers is defined in the Enterprise JavaBeans specification. The containers provide services to the Enterprise JavaBeans instances they contain, such as controlling transactions, managing security, thread or other resource pooling, and handling persistence, among other high-level system tasks.The Backend tier is the system information infrastructure. This tier includes one or more relational database management systems and potentially other information assets thatcould be useful, e.g. the central university course results administration system (LADOK). The EIS tier also enforces security and offers scalability. The Backend tier provides a layer of software that maps existing data andapplication resources into the design of AES in an implementation-neutral way.The system is separated into five different functional layers, each with its own responsibilities and its own API. These layers are physically split across the three different tiers. The persistence layer, for example, provides the mechanisms necessary to permanently save object state.It provides basic CRUD (create, read, update, delete) services and also deals with the object-to-relational mapping issues. This leads to a more flexible and maintainable system, e.g. layers can be changed with no effect on other layers, as long as the API remains constant.3 Examination set-upThe examination system is only one part of the examination process. The second part is the set-up (the rules) we have for the students. We have tried a few set-ups over a number of years (using a prototype for the system for 5-6 years).3.1 The first set-upThe first version allowed the students to write the programs using a computer instead of writing on paper. We found this method to be an improvement because we did not have to read "illegible" texts and the submitted solutions could be tested afterwards. Grades were based on the number of correctly solved exercises.A problem with this set -up was that all the grading still had to be done after the exam was finished. Most of the students waited to send in the solutions until the last minute of the exam.3.2 The second set-upOur intention was to have an examination where the students should have a response from the examiner(s) within a few minutes and where grades were given to the students when they left the exam. We also intended to provide the student with the possibility of getting a response for each exercise within a few minutes, so they could correct a nearly correct solution.The second set-up (which we use today) is based on both number of correctly solved exercises and the amount of time taken to solve them. A number of deadlines are given. If the student wants a high grade he/she has to solve a number of exercises within a pre-specified time limit.The current examination process follows a few steps:1. The student sends an examination request for an exercise to the examiner(s).2. The examiners can return one of the following results.Passed - the solution is correct.Incomplete - the solution has errors, and must be corrected. It's possible to make a new attempt later.·Fail - the solution is incorrect and the student is not allowed to continue to work on this exercise.3. Every examination attempt and the result will contribute to the final exam grade, and the student is informed of his/her current grade. If the student submits a new examination request on an additional exercise he/she can reach a higher grade.This examination process is built into our current AES, but the rules (time limits etc.) can be changed for separate courses. This makes the system flexible.Time limits and gradingIn the courses this system was tested there were three exercises in each exam and the requirements for different grades were:For the grade 5 (excellent) the student must complete:o 3 exercises correct in 3 hours oro 2 exercises correct in 2 hoursFor the grade 4 (very good) the student must complete:o 2 exercises correct in 3 hours oro 1 exercise correct in 1.5 hoursFor the grade 3 (passed) the student must complete:o 1 exercise correct in 4 hoursThe above set-up together with the AES support gives us the opportunity to grade the students during the exam. Students who have solved an exercise are informed of the grade they have reached. If they are satisfied with that grade they can leave the exam (many students leave after one to two hours when they have grade 4 or 5).Student q uestionsIn an ordinary computer-aided exam, a number of questions are submitted by the students , where the answer can either be classified as personal or as interesting for all students. The examiner can decide if he/she will send the answer to the whole group of students or just to a specific student. The number of questions seems to be relatively constant during the exam (approximately 2-5 questions per 5 minutes). Most questions are sent in during the beginning of the exam, which can be explained by the fact that the students ask about specific things pertaining to the exercises and that there are more students in the beginning of the exam.Submission/approval attemptsIn an ordinary computer-aided exam we have a large number of examination requests from the students. As we can see in figure 3.1 we have a relatively high frequency in the period from 30 minutes to 3 hours. After that, most of the students leave (they can't get a higher grade than 3 after that time).Around the deadlines we can see that the examination attempts appear more often, but not significantly more often. Still, the increase of examination requests leads to more work for the examiners. This can result in an increase in the response time (waiting time for the student).4 Evaluation methodsThe development of the current system started in summer 2001 and continued through winter 2001/2002. When we began testing this system we wanted as a test example a course with a large number of students. One of our introductory courses in programming has around 270 students each year, so that was our first choice. Approximately 180 of these students are Industrial Management Engineering students and the rest are Technical Biology students. Our statistics are based on their first examination in this course, which took place in March 2002.We also used a retake exam in this course to do a new study with a new set of questions. This evaluation was done in May 2002.In these two studies, students filled in questionnaires directly after the exam. The finalquestionnaire had two parts. The first part was mainly questions where answers are in free text format. The second part included questions with scaled answers (grade on to five, disagree - agree, worse - better). The first part was used in three evaluations. The more extensive questionnaire with two parts was used only for the last evaluation (i.e. for the two last exams). The appendix shows the final questionnaire.Both types of questionnaires were anonymous and the questionnaires were filled in after the grading was done for the exams. The students had already received their grades when they filled in the questionnaires. We believe that this provides a measure of objectivity on the student side.We also used the log files from the AES for the exams to get statistical trends about grades, gender, response times for questions respectively approval attempts among others (see section 5).5 Evaluation resultsUnfortunately almost all students had no previous experience with paper based programming examinations, so the replies could not be used for comparisons with that examination form. However, we used the response to study other questions in detail (specially the part related to the time/stress factor).First, how often the students sent in a request (questions or approval attempts), and how long the time for a response was? Secondly, how well was the examination system accepted by the students? A third question was a comparison by grades between the genders.The response rate of the questionnaires was quite good. We had four exams during the evaluation period with the following response rates:Exam 1: 76 answers of 112 students (67.8 %) Exam 2: 87 answers of 105 students (82.8 %) Exam 3: 50 answers of 66 students (75.7 %) Exam 4: 18 answers of 22 students (81.8 %)The first three questionnaires were done at the first examination occasion for the students and the fourth one was done in a retake examination where all the students were students with no grade from an earlier exam.5.1 Events during an examinationThe number of events, questions and examination requests , spread over an examination session of 4 hours can be an interesting metric to look at. The major negative factor that was indicated in the questionnaires was the feeling of time pressure or stress. 17% of the free text answers had some connection to this factor. From a technical point of view we were also interested in finding that the capacity of the system was adequate. Therefore we have summarised the number of interactions taking place in every exam.Figure 5.1: Student events (questions and examination requests) during an exam.In figure 5.1 we can see that the number of questions is higher in the beginning of an examination, but we have question events over the whole examination time.The number of examination requests is relative to time. There were a few requests in the first half an hour and that the first two hours are busy for the examiners. The request rate is quite high when we reach the time limits for the grades (especially the 4 hour limit). From a technical point of view the system performance under the above loads has been adequate. To study the student experience of stress due to waiting time we havecalculated the average waiting for the answer to a question and an approval of an examination request respectively. W e have also looked at the extreme values.It turns out that for a question the shortest answering time was 30 seconds and the longest 6 minutes. The corresponding figures for approval attempts were 1 minute and 10 minutes respectively. The first type of interaction took 2 minutes and 42 seconds, and the second type 3 minutes and 31 seconds on average for one particular exam.The student responses , from the questionnaires, on this amount of time is that it is acceptable to wait a minute ortwo for an answer on a question and that a few minutes waiting for a result on an examination request is all right.Based on this view we conclude that waiting time is not a contributing factor to the stress experienced by the students.5.2 Acceptance by studentsThe student responses indicated an overwhelming support for this examination form.94.5% of the students who returned the questionnaire preferred this examination form toa traditional paper and pencil exam.Many free text answers referred to the examination form being close to a realistic scenario and were positive about the possibility to compile and test (a total number of 94 such comments).In the exam where quantitative questions about the examination form were added to the questionnaire, 16 of 17 students answered that this form was closer to a realistic situation compared to other examination forms. The majority of students considered themselves to be anonymous with respect to examiners during the exam.5.3 Grade comparisons (male-female)We have made a comparison of grades in the first examination between the male end female groups of the students in a course. The numbers we use are normalised so we can compare the figures directly.As shown in figure 5.2, the grades for the female students are on average lower than the grades for the male students . We were interested in this metric to find out whether the Figure 5.2: Grades related to gender of students.examination form is gender-neutral. As it turns out we cannot draw this conclusion. However, one possible explanation is that most of the students who have programmed prior to taking the course are male.Another aspect of the differences in grades could be that we have two different groups of students in this course where the group with a large proportion of female students (Technical Biology) reads the course during their first year and the other group is reading the course during theirsecond year. The students in the second year are likely to have better study habits and are more experienced and have more theoretical knowledge.A third aspect is that the group with a higher ratio of female students only has this programming course as obligatory in the whole educational programme. The other group of students has more courses in programming afterwards and are possibly more motivated to study and reach higher grades in this course.This question is an obvious point for further study.6 Conclusions and ongoing workThis paper has summarized an early experience with an authentic examination system for programming courses. The current formal evaluations of the examination system and the examination setting has provided us with a number of insights on the effectiveness of the system as a tool for learning and for assessment. While the initial evaluations are positive and point towards the success of this examination method for majority of the students, the input from the students opens up new directions for research, and new ideas on how to improve the environment.Future directions of work are the integration of a new automatic correction system into our on-line and off-line student evaluations, and the exposing of the environment to larger number of students, specially those that already have paper and pencil exam exp eriences.References[1]J. Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open University Press, 1999.[2]K.M. Dawson-Howe. Automatic Submission and Administration of Programming Assignments. SIGCSE Bulletin, 27(4), December 1995.[3]J. English, Experience with a computer -Assisted Formal Programming Examination, Proceedings of ITiCSE 2002, p51-54.[4]C. Higgins, P. Symeonidis, and A. Tsintsifas, The Marking System for CourseMaster, Proceedings of ITiCSE 2002, p46-50.[5]L. Malmi, A. Korhonen, and R. Saikkonen, Experiences in Automatic Assessment on Mass Courses and Issues for Designing Virtual Courses, Proceedings of ITiCSE 2002, p 55-59.[6]H. Oswaldsson, Development of an examination system. Masters Thesis LiTH-IDA-Ex-00/73, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Link?ping University, September 2000.[7]A. Pardo, A Multi-Agent Platform for Automatic Assignment Management, Proceedings of ITiCSE 2002, p60 -p64.[8]B. Price and M. Petre, Teaching Programming through Paperless Assignments: an empirical evaluation of instructor feedback. Technical report, Open University, January 2001.Appendix: Example questionnairePrevious exam typesHave you ever taken a written exam in a programming course before?Is this the first time you have taken a computer-based exam?Would you prefer a regular written exam instead?Classify comparison to traditional paper exams: Worse Equal BetterPossibility to ask questions during the exam Possibility to redo a question during the exam Possibility to learn something during the exam Anonymity of exam correction Testing critical thinking, not just memorisation Possibility to test and evaluate your own programs Disturbances during the examI can show my best side in theoretical questions I can show my best side in practial questions The examination form is not gender-biasedThe exam time in relation to the number of problems Stress level before the examStress level during the examStress level after the examUnsure as to if you have correctly answered a problem or notUnsure about what grade you have receivedThe exam environment is similar to a real situation The exam generally reflects the course contentAbout computer-based exam: Disagree - Agree (grade 1-5)The exam form made it easy to ask questions during the examI received answers to my questions quicklyThe result from my solution submission was returned quicklyI could see immediately whether or not I had passed the examI learned something about the subject during the courseI felt my anonymity was ensuredTesting my program helped me in solving the exam questionsThe responses I received after asking a question and/or submitting a solution helped me understand the problem betterThe exam rules: Disagree - Agree (grade 1-5)I felt relaxed before the exam I felt relaxed during the exam I felt relaxed after the exam It was helpful to be allowed to correct rejected solutions during the examIt was helpful to get my test result back immediately The cutoff for a 3 (1 correct solution, 4 h) is acceptableThe cutoff for a 4 (1 correct solution, 1.5h / 2 correct solutions, 3 h) is acceptableThe cutoff for a 5 (2 correct solutions, 2h / 3 correct solutions, 3 h) is acceptableIt was helpful to have access to the course literature during the examThe interface: Hard - Easy (grade 1-5)What was it like to communicate using the interface? How did you like the presentation of grades etc.? What was it like to ask a question?What was it like to submit a solution?Stability (classify within the following intervals):How many times did you need help in understanding how the system works? >9 4-9 0-3How many times did a system-interaction window accidently get lost? >9 4-9 0-3How many times did the system crash? >2 1-2 0Miscellaneous (Free text answers)Is there any information you think is missing from the exam system? Please explain. Other comments对程序课程的一个可靠的考试系统的评估Torbjörn Jonsson, Pouria Loghmani and Simin Nadjm-TehraniDepartment of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping University, Sweden{torjo,poulo,simin}@ida.liu.se摘要：本文是我们对程序课程的一个可靠的考试系统的经验描述。
在线学习考试系统操作说明书1
目录目录 (1)在线学习考试系统使用说明书 (2)1、用户登录 (2)1.1、系统登录 (2)1.2、系统最新提示信息 (3)2、个人信息管理 (3)2.1、个人资料修改 (3)2.2、学习进度查询 (4)2.3、考试历史查询 (4)2.4、系统消息提醒 (5)3、在线交流平台 (6)3.1、信息公告浏览 (6)3.2、在线调查中心 (7)3.3、在线答疑中心 (7)4、在线学习中心 (8)4.1、学习任务中心 (8)4.2、电子教材中心 (9)4.3、电子课件中心 (10)5、在线考试中心 (10)5.1、正规考试中心 (10)5.2、模拟考试中心 (11)在线学习考试系统使用说明书1、用户登录1.1、系统登录在IE浏览器的地址栏中输入本系统所在的服务器地址，确定后将出现系统登录界面。
1、输入“帐号”和“密码”点击“登录”按钮即可进入系统的主界面：点击“登陆”按钮即可进入系统主界面，界面如下图所示：最新考试试卷最新学习任务最新电子书籍最新电子课件公告信息中心在线调查中心功能菜单说明：左侧为系统的功能菜单栏，右侧是功能菜单具体的操作区域。
1.2、系统最新提示信息进入后考生应首先关注系统消息提示，点击界面上方系统信息提示栏，获取相应的考试消息和学习任务安排，如下图所示：2、个人信息管理2.1、个人资料修改点击左边的个人信息管理栏目下的“个人资料修改”，在其右侧显示了个人资料修改相应的操作，其操作界面如下：2.2、学习进度查询点击左边的个人信息管理栏目下的“学习进度查询”，在其右侧显示了学习任务进度表，可查看相应的学习进度情况，其操作界面如下：2.3、考试历史查询点击左边的个人信息管理栏目下的“考试历史查询”，在其右侧显示了考试历史查询相应的操作，其操作界面如下：考生可以通过此栏目查询自己的历史考试情况，包括考试名称、考试开始时间、结束时间、考试得分和考试状态。
点击考试名称可以查看具体考卷，如点击“2009年4月考试”可查看此试卷，如下图所示：2.4、系统消息提醒点击左边的个人信息管理栏目下的“系统消息提醒”，在其右侧显示了系统消息提醒相应的操作，其操作界面如下：1、查询系统提醒信息：系统提醒信息可根据“信息标题”或“信息来源”进行关键字的模糊查询，点击“查询”按钮，在下面的“系统信息提醒列表”里将会显示符合查询条件的提醒信息。
在线学习考试系统
一、概述考试学习系统是以在线学习、在线考试为核心，帮助提高管理、降低成本、提升价值、增强机构的核心竞争能力。
以下为本系统的流程图。
二、系统模块及功能介绍1、在线注册功能考生可以自由申请使用此系统帐号及其它信息。
申请完帐号后，申请不可能立即使用本系统，需要管理员审核通过才可以使用本系统。
2、修改个人信息此模块主要功能是为了方便用户对自己信息进行维护。
包括用户姓名、性别、手机号码、用户密码等功能。
3、学习进度查询此模块主要用于查询当前学员用户在线学习任务完成进度情况信息。
4、练习历史记录此模块主要用于查询当前用户在线练习的历史记录，其中包括作业名称，得分，作业的开始时间和结束时间等等相关信息。
注：当用户的查看考卷权限开放或设置允许查看考卷后，用户不仅可以查看得分还可以考试作业试卷批改的详细信息。
5、考试历史记录此模块主要用于查询当前用户在线考试的历史记录，其中包括考试名称，得分，考试的开始时间和结束时间等等相关信息。
注：当用户的查看考卷权限开放后，用户不仅可以查看得分还可以考试试卷详细信息。
6、学习任务此模块主要功能是系统管理员或老师级别的管理员给考生或学员级别的人员下达强行的学习计划任务，考生或学员必须要指定的时间范围内学满指定的时长即可完成学习任务。
系统提供严格的学习时间计时器，严格记录学员最后一次学习的IP地址和学习时间等参数，方便管理员查询。
系统支持电子课件和电子书籍的浏览计时。
支持全屏显示。
注：系统计时器在10-20分钟之间随时停止计时，弹出提示框提醒学员更新学习时间，以表示学习没有离开学习现场。
7、电子教材此模块主要功能是起一个自由学习，自主学习，辅助学习理念。
考生或学员可以通过电子教材中心自由学习和查看相关学习资料。
系统提供对电子教材详细的分类定义功能8、电子课件此模块主要功能是对电子课件信息进行自由学习，电子课件主要包括一些视频文件，flash动画文件和PPT，PPS等格式的文档。
9、在线练习此模块主要功能是为了方便一些老师或管理可以给相应的学生或用户布置作业，学生或用户可以通过此模块对布置的作业信息进行填写。
distributtion中文翻译
distributtion中文翻译"distribution"是一个英文单词，可以翻译成中文为"分发"、"分布"、"分配"等。
以下是一些用法和中英文对照例句：1. The distribution of food to the affected areas is being coordinated by the Red Cross. （红十字会正在协调向受灾地区分发食品。
）2. The company has a well-established distribution network across the country. （该公司在全国范围内建立了一个完善的分销网络。
）3. The distribution of wealth in the country is highly unequal. （该国的财富分配非常不平等。
）4. The distribution of the exam results will be announced on Friday. （考试成绩的分发将在星期五公布。
）5. The distribution of leaflets is a common marketing strategy for promoting a new product. （传发传单是推广新产品的常见营销策略。
）6. The distribution of power in the political system is a topic of debate. （政治体系中权力的分配是一个争论的话题。
）7. The distribution of resources in the ecosystem affects the survival of different species. （生态系统中资源的分布影响着不同物种的生存。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
西班牙全国大学入学考试中在线语言考试的实
PAULEX UNIVERSITAS项目
作者：安娜吉梅诺 - 桑斯*＆何塞马卡里奥德斯奎拉CAMILLE研究小组，应用语言学系，瓦伦西亚理工大学，卡米诺维拉14，46022 摘要
本文详细介绍了PAULEX UNIVERSITAS项目，一个在线系统，用来设计、发表和评估西班牙大学入学考试中的一个必要部分即国外语言考试。
外语考试对想要接受高等教育的所有学生都是强制性的。
学生们可以选择下面语言之一考试：英语，法语，德语，意大利语或葡萄牙语。
每年，大约有27000名学生同时在巴伦西亚自治区（包括3个省：阿利坎特，卡斯特利翁和瓦伦西亚）参加考试，并且25000多名学生选择英语考试。
本文参照当前西班牙形势政策的变化，介绍此次大学入学考试的背景，包括来自平台阐述，以及关于系统管理工具，数据安全性和用户交互问题的讨论。
论文通过呈现200多名学生在瓦伦西亚进行试验得出的一些结果，并通过处理有关PAULEX在线考试区域平台的实施所遇到的一些问题，进而得出结论。
1 介绍
2008年12月西班牙教育部颁布了一项新的法律来规范国家大学入学考试。
这项新的法律规定：基于阅读理解题和写作的传统英语考试，现在应该包括对听力理解和口语技能的测试。
这恰巧与提交给西班牙科学和创新部的一个项目建议书目标一致，就是要设计一个网络平台正式发表高考外语考试。
以CAMILLE研发组在瓦伦西亚理工大学开展的前期研究即INGENIO创作工具和传送环境（吉梅诺2008A和2008B ）为起点，小组成员着手设计了一个完整的网上平台，包括设计外语考试，网上发表，评估所有考试，提供考试成绩给当地学校。
该三年期项目从2007年9月运行至2010年底。
2 PAULEX UNIVERSITAS
该PAULEX在线考试传送平台是由一个位于大学核心信息和通信系统单元内
的中央服务器（CS ）控制，以此管理员完成对系统的访问。
如有必要更换CS，第二个服务器会不断从CS复制所有信息并自动制作备份副本，来继续进行这项工作，或修复任何组件。
如果该平台最终能实现管理和发表西班牙大学入学考试中的外语考试，那么它还可以管理和运行其他外部Web服务器。
在西班牙，每一个自治社区或地方实行独自的大学入学考试。
在这儿就是说瓦伦西亚自治区的各地方教育部和当地公立学校合作负责这些考试。
PAULEX平台基本上可以分为两个主要部分：数据库和程序代码。
该数据库是通过网络上最高效的开源数据库管理系统之一—Postgre SQL开发的。
程序代码是专门为使用PHP ， HTML ， XML和JavaScript语言的网络设计的。
保存在服务器上的多媒体档案室也是PAULEX数据库的一部分，除了学生通过语音记录系统完成考试的口语部分后创建音频文件外，还允许管理员建立图像、音频和视频。
图1说明了用户如何访问该平台，并采用特定角色（管理员，出题人，学生和评估员/阅卷员）。
每个用户有特定的图形用户界面，通过它们与CS通信。
实时的互联网连接和一个特定的插件重现音频和视频并记录学生的话语是系统最佳的要求。
3 第一个试点实验
该项目被认为是设计和测试在巴伦西亚自治区官方大学入学考试中计算机辅助外语考试实施的可行性。
新批准的规定有史以来第一次确立，从2012年6月听力理解和口语技能也将被列入考试。
由于新立法中包括的处理补考的信息非常简短和笼统，卡米尔研发集团在三个巴伦西亚省份（阿利坎特，卡斯特利翁和瓦伦西亚）针对教中学英语高年级的老师设计和分布了一项调查问卷。
其主要目
标是结合一手经验，调查他们认为网络环境中哪种练习类型能更好地满足所有四项语言技能的评估。
问卷的结果和当前考试形式结合起来产生了一个新的考试，它集成了所有四种技能（阅读，写作，听力和口语）。
然后这项试验考试是由在2010年6月要参加高考的200多名学生在一个模拟的真实环境中进行。
完成考试后，学生被要求填写一份意见问卷，旨在收集如下信息：关于他们的计算机知识掌握程度，日常电脑使用情况，是否愿意使用PAULEX网上平台参加考试，以及对录制他们的言语在文件中便于随后评估的回应。
结果总之是非常令人满意的。
在线考试的学生认为该平台对于用户是很有好的，特别是在编辑自己的答案，看视频文件和对着麦克风录制自己的语音响应视频录制问题等方面。
研究人员在主题方面为引发学生的学习兴趣和整个考试对当前社会问题的关注方面做了特别的努力。
在听力部分，学生观看了一些影片，包括内容和问题。
要求他们观看视频内容，听问题，然后写下开放式的答案或选择题打勾。
被证明口语部分是用于研究的最有趣的部分。
考试是一些流行的社交网络和在线聊天平台的标志组成的特别有吸引力的图像。
要求他们分析图像并对着连接网络的麦克风谈论自己的个人喜好和经历。
虽然给予他们四分钟的插槽来记录他们的答案，但也没有多少人占用了整段时间。
有趣的是，很明显在测试中当学生第一时间接触这部分的考试时，他们害羞，保持沉默。
直到他们的一个合作伙伴事先说，他们才开始说话。
他们用麦克风低声说话从而使系统可以记录自己的答案，但避免伙伴听到。
网上平台要求学生完成练习，如果对答复满意，他们可以验证每个答案和做任何修改。
一经核查，结果就会转移到CS，并提供给考试阅卷人为他们评估成绩，考试的这部分（开放性输入练习和录音）不是由系统自动进行评估。
4 结论
总括而言，PAULEX平台已经作为一个强大的工具，以使巴伦西亚地区西班牙大学入学考试的管理员通过互联网传送外语考试。
经过几年的研究，这次考试的计算机化已经认为是面临新的西班牙教育立法引起的变化最可实现的替代品
所带来的挑战之一。
第一个试点实验由于在实际测试系统中的中学教师和学生热捧它的实施从而极受欢迎。
最初的试点表明，作为西班牙大学入学考试的一部分，实行电脑辅助英语考试，不仅是可行的，而且还值得推荐。
非常高比例的学生认为，完成网上考试时她们觉得没有额外的压力。
虽然老师和学生已被告知不要把在初步试验中取得的分数等同于面对实际情况的考试所得，结果仍非常令人满意。
虽然个性化的任务需要开放性的输入练习，如写作和口语的任务，但大部分的练习已经能进行自动评估。
致谢
对西班牙科学和创新部对PAULEX项目的授予和资助表示衷心感谢
（HUM2007-66479-C02-01/FILO）。