IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v52y2015icp1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice

Author

Listed:
  • Bergsmann, Evelyn
  • Schultes, Marie-Therese
  • Winter, Petra
  • Schober, Barbara
  • Spiel, Christiane

Abstract

Competence-based teaching in higher education institutions and its evaluation have become a prevalent topic especially in the European Union. However, evaluation instruments are often limited, for example to single student competencies or specific elements of the teaching process. The present paper provides a more comprehensive evaluation concept that contributes to sustainable improvement of competence-based teaching in higher education institutions. The evaluation concept considers competence research developments as well as the participatory evaluation approach. The evaluation concept consists of three stages. The first stage evaluates whether the competencies students are supposed to acquire within the curriculum (ideal situation) are well defined. The second stage evaluates the teaching process and the competencies students have actually acquired (real situation). The third stage evaluates concrete aspects of the teaching process. Additionally, an implementation strategy is introduced to support the transfer from the theoretical evaluation concept to practice. The evaluation concept and its implementation strategy are designed for internal evaluations in higher education and primarily address higher education institutions that have already developed and conducted a competence-based curriculum.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergsmann, Evelyn & Schultes, Marie-Therese & Winter, Petra & Schober, Barbara & Spiel, Christiane, 2015. "Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-9.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000270
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kooli, Chokri, 2019. "Governing and managing higher education institutions: The quality audit contributions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Tajammal Hussain & Jacob Eskildsen & Rick Edgeman & Muhammad Ismail & Alaa Mohamd Shoukry & Showkat Gani, 2019. "Imperatives of Sustainable University Excellence: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Lidia Alexa & Veronica Maier & Anca Șerban & Razvan Craciunescu, 2020. "Engineers Changing the World: Education for Sustainability in Romanian Technical Universities—An Empirical Web-Based Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Honggang Liu & Wenxiu Chu & Fan Fang & Tariq Elyas, 2021. "Examining the Professional Quality of Experienced EFL Teachers for Their Sustainable Career Trajectories in Rural Areas in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Guangming Li, 2022. "How Many Students and Items Are Optimal for Teaching Level Evaluation of College Teachers? Evidence from Generalizability Theory and Lagrange Multiplier," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Pilar Laguna-Sánchez & Jesús Palomo & Concepción de la Fuente-Cabrero & Mónica de Castro-Pardo, 2020. "A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Helen Lee Curtis & Lucas Catalani Gabriel & Marlyne Sahakian & Sandro Cattacin, 2021. "Practice-Based Program Evaluation in Higher Education for Sustainability: A Student Participatory Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    2. Teasdale, Rebecca M., 2022. "Representing the values of program participants: Endogenous evaluative criteria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    4. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    5. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    6. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    7. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    8. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    9. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    10. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    11. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    12. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.