Facilitating evaluations of innovative, competence-based assessments: Creating understanding and involving multiple stakeholders
Schools are held more responsible for evaluating, quality assuring and improving their student assessments. Teachers' lack of understanding of new, competence-based assessments as well as the lack of key stakeholders' involvement, hamper effective and efficient self-evaluations by teachers of innovative, competence-based assessments (CBAs). While evaluating two CBAs in Agricultural Vocational Education and Training institutions, two interventions in the evaluation process aimed to tackle these problems were examined: (1) starting with explicating the CBA in the teacher team using a concrete explication format and (2) qualitatively involving key stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students and employers) in the evaluation of the CBA through mixed-group interviews. Quantitative and qualitative analysis, as well as stakeholders' perceptions are used to find indications for the added value of these interventions for evaluation and further improvement of the CBAs. Results show that external facilitation is needed to make both interventions work. However, under this condition, explicating the CBA led to more complete, concrete and shared understandings of the actual CBA among teachers and mixed-groups interviews resulted in more concrete and elaborate evaluations of the CBAs' quality and more ideas for improvement. Both interventions can facilitate building up elaborate, more valid and concrete arguments for CBA quality in self-evaluations, certainly in the case of evaluating innovative assessments. Lessons learned will provide guidelines for incorporating the interventions into other evaluations of innovative programs.
If 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Gomez, Pedro & Gonzalez, Maria Jose & Gil, Francisco & Lupianez, Jose Luis & Moreno, Maria Francisca & Rico, Luis & Romero, Isabel, 2007. "Assessing the relevance of higher education courses," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 149-160, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:120-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.