Assessment formats
Use adaptive follow-up where one answer is not enough.
Reasonline Assess can follow submitted student work, power a standalone assessment, or create a progressive sequence in which each question responds to the evidence already available.
The right format depends on what the instructor is trying to learn from the interaction. A short explanation may be enough for one assignment. Another assessment may need the student to defend a design choice, respond to a changed condition, compare alternatives, or transfer reasoning into a new context.
The format should serve the capability — not the technology.
Artifact follow-up
Ground questions in work the student already completed — a paper, spreadsheet, design, or code submission.
Case or scenario assessment
The next question can respond to a changed constraint rather than advancing through a fixed quiz.
Oral-style examination
Supported audio or video lets students explain reasoning in a more oral form.
Written adaptive assessment
A written response becomes the beginning of the assessment, not the end of it.
Presentation or design defense
Ask why a choice was made, what was rejected, and what the student would revise now.
Portfolio or capstone dialogue
Explore integration, application, and transfer across a larger body of work.
Planned — today's dialogue is scoped to one assessment at a time.
One assessment can move across different levels of reasoning.
A market-entry assessment, for example, might begin by asking the student to explain the recommendation and identify the evidence supporting it. A later question might challenge an assumption. Another might introduce a changed market condition. Another might ask the student to compare alternatives or revise the original recommendation.
Explain → Evidence → Challenge → Transfer → Compare → Revise
The finished artifact remains evidence. The dialogue adds another line of evidence around the reasoning.
Illustrative example
A marketing case, five rounds
A constructed example, not a captured student session — it shows the shape of a longer George dialogue, not literal product output.
Round 1 — Explain
Explain the audience segment you selected and identify the strongest evidence in the case supporting that choice.
Round 2 — Evidence
Your recommendation depends on price sensitivity. What evidence suggests that price sensitivity is stronger than convenience or brand loyalty?
Round 3 — Transfer
Assume the company cannot lower price. How would your recommendation change?
Round 4 — Compare
Compare your revised approach with one alternative you rejected. What tradeoff are you accepting?
Round 5 — Revise
Looking back at your original submission, identify one claim you would now revise and explain why.
Choose the format that tells you something useful.
You do not need adaptive dialogue simply because it is available. Use it when another question would genuinely improve your understanding of what the student can demonstrate. The right question is not: Which Reasonline format should I use? It is: What evidence am I missing — and what kind of interaction could reasonably help provide it?