Self-evaluation of assessment programs: A cross-case analysis
AbstractThe goal of this article is to contribute to the validation of a self-evaluation method, which can be used by schools to evaluate the quality of their Competence Assessment Program (CAP). The outcomes of the self-evaluations of two schools are systematically compared: a novice school with little experience in competence-based education and assessment, and an innovative school with extensive experience. The self-evaluation was based on 12 quality criteria for CAPs, including both validity and reliability, and criteria stressing the importance of the formative function of assessment, such as meaningfulness and educational consequences. In each school, teachers, management and examination board participated. Results show that the two schools use different approaches to assure assessment quality. The innovative school seems to be more aware of its own strengths and weaknesses, to have a more positive attitude towards teachers, students, and educational innovations, and to explicitly involve stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students, and the work field) in their assessments. This school also had a more explicit vision of the goal of competence-based education and could design its assessments in accordance with these goals.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.
Volume (Year): 34 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
Assessment Validity Case study Self-evaluation;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gulikers, Judith T.M. & Baartman, Liesbeth K.J. & Biemans, Harm J.A., 2010. "Facilitating evaluations of innovative, competence-based assessments: Creating understanding and involving multiple stakeholders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 120-127, May.
- Johnson, Robert L. & Fisher, Steve & Willeke, Marjorie J. & McDaniel, Fred, 2003. "Portfolio assessment in a collaborative program evaluation: the reliability and validity of a family literacy portfolio," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 367-377, November.
- Sanne Akkerman & Wilfried Admiraal & Mieke Brekelmans & Heinze Oost, 2008. "Auditing Quality of Research in Social Sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 257-274, April.
- Roth, Wolff-Michael, 1998. "Situated cognition and assessment of competence in science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 155-169, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.