IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v33y2010i2p120-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facilitating evaluations of innovative, competence-based assessments: Creating understanding and involving multiple stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Gulikers, Judith T.M.
  • Baartman, Liesbeth K.J.
  • Biemans, Harm J.A.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:120-127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00060-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Pieter J. Beers & Henny P. A. Boshuizen & Paul A. Kirschner & Wim H. Gijselaers, 2006. "Common Ground, Complex Problems and Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 529-556, November.
    2. Harm Tillema, 2003. "Auditing assessment practices in organisations: establishing quality criteria for appraising competencies," International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 359-370.
    3. 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.
    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. Baartman, Liesbeth K.J. & Prins, Frans J. & Kirschner, Paul A. & van der Vleuten, Cees P.M., 2011. "Self-evaluation of assessment programs: A cross-case analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 206-216, August.

    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. Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua, 2020. "Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 485-499, October.
    2. Adams, Renée B. & Akyol, Ali C. & Verwijmeren, Patrick, 2018. "Director skill sets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 641-662.
    3. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    4. Melvin F. Shakun, 2009. "Connectedness Problem Solving and Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 89-117, March.
    5. Patricia Alexander & Johan Loggerenberg & Hugo Lotriet & Jackie Phahlamohlaka, 2010. "The Use of the Repertory Grid for Collaboration and Reflection in a Research Context," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 479-504, September.
    6. Hartnett, Elizabeth J. & Daniel, Elizabeth M. & Holti, Richard, 2012. "Client and consultant engagement in public sector IS projects," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 307-317.
    7. Mitter, Hermine & Kirchner, Mathias & Schmid, Erwin & Schönhart, Martin, 2013. "Knowledge integration of stakeholders into bio-physical process modelling for regional vulnerability assessment," Discussion Papers DP-54-2013, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    8. Cecilia Rossignoli & Francesca Ricciardi & Sabrina Bonomi, 2018. "Organizing for Commons-Enabling Decision-Making Under Conflicting Institutional Logics in Social Entrepreneurship," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 417-443, June.
    9. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.
    10. Tavana, Madjid & Di Caprio, Debora, 2016. "Modeling synergies in multi-criteria supplier selection and order allocation: An application to commodity tradingAuthor-Name: Sodenkamp, Mariya A," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 859-874.
    11. Melvin F. Shakun, 2013. "The Connectedness Decision Paradigm: Group Decision, Negotiation and Leadership in World Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 599-615, July.
    12. Céline Bérard, 2010. "Complexité et décision participative : le cas du système de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00519036, HAL.
    13. Beers, Pieter J. & Turner, James A. & Rijswijk, Kelly & Williams, Tracy & Barnard, Tim & Beechener, Sam, 2019. "Learning or evaluating? Towards a negotiation-of-meaning approach to learning in transition governance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 229-239.
    14. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.

    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:33:y:2010:i:2:p:120-127. 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.