Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Competence and portfolios - OpenOffice

OpenOffice: Simon Grant's presentation at the NORDLET open forum in Umeå, 2009-09-18

  • Loggen Sie sich ein, um Kommentare anzuzeigen.

Competence and portfolios - OpenOffice

  1. 1. Competence & portfolios: how can we relate them? Simon Grant JISC Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS) NORDLET 2009-09-18
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>“This presentation traces the connections between competence and portfolio across learning, development, assessment and presentation, and suggests some consequences for interoperable and portable representation of skills, competences and frameworks of them.”
  3. 3. Needs a workable concept of competence, which comes first. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Starting points <ul><li>We are talking about learning, education and training
  5. 5. Different areas are often distinguished: </li><ul><li>learning and teaching
  6. 6. assessment or evaluation
  7. 7. evidence assembly and presentation towards next stage
  8. 8. personal and professional development </li></ul><li>The different aspects of what is learned: </li><ul><li>explicit, verbalisable knowledge
  9. 9. basic capabilities of the individual across contexts
  10. 10. competence – contextual, above knowledge and capability </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Explicit, verbalisable knowledge <ul><li>“Do you know...” e.g. </li><ul><li>do you know about the world; people; society
  12. 12. can you say how to do things (explicit “know-how”)
  13. 13. can you describe causes and effects in the world </li></ul><li>Easily testable </li><ul><li>quizzes, multiple choice tests
  14. 14. a traditional aspect of examinations </li></ul><li>Knowledge can be about competence </li><ul><li>but that knowledge is not the same as being competent </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Basic capability of the individual <ul><li>“Can you do it? Show me here and now!” </li><ul><li>lift this weight
  16. 16. thread this needle
  17. 17. read this text
  18. 18. solve this puzzle
  19. 19. make this machine do something... </li></ul><li>Testable on demand, anywhere given equipment
  20. 20. Traditional practical tests, face-to-face evaluation
  21. 21. BUT explicit knowledge and basic capability still do not account for on-the-job effectiveness
  22. 22. What is missing to make up competent performance? </li></ul>
  23. 23. Competence involves choices <ul><li>Competence depends on combination of parts </li><ul><li>explicit knowledge about what needs to be done and how
  24. 24. range of basic capabilities for action
  25. 25. on-the-spot choice of adequate actions in real contexts </li></ul><li>Competence = knowledge + capability + good choices
  26. 26. The “good choices” part could be something like </li><ul><li>the disposition to make adequate choices in real situations so that the outcomes meet some agreed quality criteria </li></ul><li>Certain sorts of choices relate to ethics </li><ul><li>when they affect other people in certain ways
  27. 27. (but that is another presentation) </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. E.g.: football skills <ul><li>Knowledge, e.g. </li><ul><li>Do you know the rules of the game?
  29. 29. Do you know how to recognise good space to move into? </li></ul><li>Basic capabilities, e.g. </li><ul><li>Can you kick a ball accurately to a chosen place?
  30. 30. Can you keep up a suitable activity rate for 90 minutes?
  31. 31. Can you dribble a ball at a certain speed? </li></ul><li>Choice of adequate actions in real contexts, e.g. </li><ul><li>Do you keep the ball or pass it at appropriate times in a match?
  32. 32. Do you choose well between shooting at goal or playing on?
  33. 33. Do you make good choices of where to move to in good time?
  34. 34. Do you tackle opponents fairly? </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. E.g.: diplomatic communication <ul><li>Knowledge, e.g. </li><ul><li>Do you know the required words / phrases of that language?
  36. 36. Do you know about interpersonal communication and diplomacy (e.g. listening, tactfulness)? </li></ul><li>Basic capabilities, e.g. </li><ul><li>Can you pronounce the words understandably?
  37. 37. Can you string them together meaningfully? </li></ul><li>Choice of adequate actions in real contexts, e.g. </li><ul><li>Do you choose words that are effective?
  38. 38. Do you choose well between speaking and listening?
  39. 39. Do you balance tact with clarity effectively?
  40. 40. Do your actions result in successful conclusions? </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Relating back to the areas of … <ul><li>Learning and teaching
  42. 42. Assessment or evaluation
  43. 43. Evidence assembly and presentation towards next stage
  44. 44. Personal and professional development </li></ul>
  45. 45. Learning and teaching <ul><li>Learn fact, theory through self-study or being taught
  46. 46. Learn basic capabilities through training </li><ul><li>in lab, on the job, on training ground, on simulator </li></ul><li>But how do you learn choice part of competence? </li><ul><li>must be on the job
  47. 47. needs feedback
  48. 48. ideally self-directed </li></ul><li>Invites tool to </li><ul><li>keep track of choices made and their consequences
  49. 49. gather evidence for assessment and feedback
  50. 50. help communicate about feedback </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Assessment or evaluation <ul><li>Assess explicit knowledge by test, exam, etc.
  52. 52. Assess basic capability by practical test, e.g. </li><ul><li>medical “OSCE” (objective structured clinical exam)
  53. 53. driving tests
  54. 54. (timed) problem solving for cognitive skills </li></ul><li>But how is the choice part of competence evaluated? </li><ul><li>An expert can watch you doing a real job
  55. 55. You can make records while performing a job </li></ul><li>Tool needed to: </li><ul><li>keep track of expert assessments; or
  56. 56. organise the evidence you record for assessment </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Evidencing and presentation <ul><li>Evidence for knowledge can be from test results </li><ul><li>where the tests can be traditional examinations </li></ul><li>Also for basic capability </li><ul><li>except the tests may be practical tests </li></ul><li>CV backed up with certificates can present these
  58. 58. But how to evidence and present that choice part? </li><ul><li>testimonials and witness statements, certainly
  59. 59. but also give give audience the same kind of evidence that was assembled for assessment </li><ul><li>because they might use some of that extra richness </li></ul></ul><li>Again, needs similar tools </li></ul>
  60. 60. Development <ul><li>(Personal, professional or vocational)
  61. 61. We could take this as essentially about increasing effectiveness / competence in real life situations </li><ul><li>all parts of competence, including the good choices </li></ul><li>Thus, closely connected to the tools which can support learning, assessment and presentation of competence as a whole (including the choice part)
  62. 62. You can call these tools anything you like, but over the last few years we have tended to refer to them as electronic portfolios </li></ul>
  63. 63. <ul><li>Portfolios can aid formative and summative assessment
  64. 64. A tool to gather, organise and link evidence </li><ul><li>may also help with feedback and other communication
  65. 65. usually presented like any other assignment
  66. 66. could also use blog, wiki, website, etc. as an e-portfolio </li></ul><li>A tool to help manage the assessment process </li><ul><li>designed to help assessors
  67. 67. secure submission; “signing off” by assessors
  68. 68. may also help moderation
  69. 69. commonly used for vocational assessment </li></ul><li>Portfolio tools can be seen as a key part of a wider competence architecture </li></ul>Portfolios to assess competence
  70. 70. Competence architecture <ul><li>We need to be able to refer to relevant competence information across any tool or system
  71. 71. Definitions </li><ul><li>need to be public
  72. 72. should have a URI </li></ul><li>Framework structure </li><ul><li>expressing designed relationships between definitions </li></ul><li>Relationships with usage </li><ul><li>which actually give meaning </li></ul><li>Cross-references with other frameworks </li><ul><li>for practical usefulness </li></ul></ul>
  73. 73. Definitions <ul><li>Need to be public and impersonal </li><ul><li>should have URI for any automatic use </li></ul><li>Ideally defined outside – referred to from – portfolios </li><ul><li>though sometimes people want to define their own </li></ul><li>UK National Occupational Standards are good examples </li><ul><li>They do not fit very well into IEEE RCD or HR-XML 2.*
  74. 74. Much better as XHTML+RDFa, </li><ul><li>human readable fully formatted text
  75. 75. RDF easily extracted for machine processing </li></ul><li>Could actually be in any format (including RCD or HR-XML)
  76. 76. Need to persuade bodies to put them on Web with URIs </li></ul></ul>
  77. 77. Framework structure <ul><li>Definitions usually occur in structured sets
  78. 78. There are broader and narrower terms
  79. 79. Multiple broader terms possible
  80. 80. How about using W3C's SKOS? </li><ul><li>skos:broader for relating to a fuller knowledge, skill, competence </li><ul><li>kicking ball accurately skos:broader football skills </li></ul><li>skos:narrower for relating to some part </li><ul><li>diplomatic competence skos:narrower knowledge of French </li></ul></ul><li>Refine to any useful level </li></ul>
  81. 81. Relationships with usage <ul><li>Requirements for them in jobs
  82. 82. Personal aspirations to acquire them
  83. 83. Personal claims to have acquired them
  84. 84. Courses that have them as intended outcomes
  85. 85. Evidence that a person has them, including </li><ul><li>assessments (and results) relating to them
  86. 86. qualifications, certificates that formalise assessment results </li></ul><li>In each case, systems should be able to refer to the definition URI, and not have to rely on text labels </li><ul><li>Then processing can be automatic where possible </li></ul></ul>
  87. 87. Cross-references <ul><li>Bodies are going to define their own competencies </li><ul><li>Be realistic ... yes they are!
  88. 88. This would lead to a Babel of meaninglessness, unless... </li></ul><li>...they cross-refer to other definitions
  89. 89. Software needs to process these cross-references </li><ul><li>So how about again using SKOS? </li><ul><li>skos:exactMatch – trust other's equivalences
  90. 90. skos:closeMatch – not sure about other's equivalences
  91. 91. skos:narrowMatch – ours covers more than theirs
  92. 92. skos:broadMatch – ours covers some but not all of theirs </li></ul></ul><li>Would be vital model / method / tool </li><ul><li>extending range of cross-linked definitions </li></ul></ul>
  93. 93. Conclusions <ul><li>Competence = knowledge + capability + good choices </li><ul><li>Choice between things you notice, things you can do </li></ul><li>Portfolio-like tools good for dealing with that extra part </li><ul><li>for learning, assessment, presentation, development
  94. 94. as well as representing more traditional evidence </li></ul><li>Thus portfolios and competence are closely linked
  95. 95. Wider competence architecture includes </li><ul><li>definitions – use any format, but make sure they have URIs
  96. 96. framework structures – could use SKOS
  97. 97. ability to relate to portfolio information etc. via URI
  98. 98. cross-references between definitions to extend range of URIs </li></ul></ul>
  99. 99. Thanks... <ul><li>Thanks for your attention
  100. 100. I look forward to creative discussion
  101. 101. Find me on the web </li></ul>
  102. 102. END of main slides <ul><li>A few supplementary ones follow... </li></ul>
  103. 103. Learner competence? <ul><li>How much sense does this make in schools?
  104. 104. EQF recognises “study situations”, but what exactly is competence in those situations?
  105. 105. Knowledge: of meanings in languages of instruction </li><ul><li>what else? </li></ul><li>Basic capabilities – yes – </li><ul><li>all those key skills that people teach and write about
  106. 106. anything else? </li></ul><li>Is learning competence about e.g. choosing to pay attention to the teacher rather than a disruptive pupil?
  107. 107. Later, is it e.g. about managing one's own time? </li></ul>
  108. 108. EQF definitions <ul><li>Knowledge : the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of work or study ... knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual
  109. 109. Skill : the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems ... skills are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) or practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments)
  110. 110. Competence : the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development ... described in terms of responsibility and autonomy </li></ul>
  111. 111. My involvement – from 1997 <ul><li>Employability skills in LUSID (& related e.g. RAPID) </li><ul><li>Janet Strivens, Adam Marshall, University of Liverpool </li></ul><li>Portfolio approach, now increasingly common
  112. 112. Requirements in practice include </li><ul><li>Noting desired competences; plans to work towards them
  113. 113. Cross-linking competences and experiences etc. </li><ul><li>these experiences may or may not serve as evidence </li></ul><li>Claiming competence
  114. 114. Noting evidence of a claim </li><ul><li>qualifications or other achievements
  115. 115. learning outcomes for completed course
  116. 116. test or assessment results </li></ul></ul></ul>
  117. 117. To claim a competency... <ul><li>I write a claim, or (not so good) make implicit claim </li><ul><li>There is no inherent predefined structure to these claims
  118. 118. Just a piece of text </li></ul><li>I assemble evidence for the claim </li><ul><li>Evidence is for the claim, not for the competency definition
  119. 119. The evidence can in principle be of any kind
  120. 120. Those who want to see the evidence (e.g. employers) may specify the kind of evidence they want to see </li></ul><li>I present the claim, with appropriate evidence, to interested people </li></ul>
  121. 121. So what might be transported? <ul><li>The claim </li><ul><li>The less clearly defined the competency definition, the more work the claim has to do to in clarification </li></ul><li>Including a reference to the competency claimed </li><ul><li>Should be same as that referred to in requirement (job etc.)
  122. 122. Ideally, common and recognised URI </li><ul><li>but are there common URIs? </li></ul></ul><li>The relevant and appropriate evidence
  123. 123. All this fits comfortably into the LEAP2 approach </li><ul><li>LEAP2A for agreed Atom-based format
  124. 124. other LEAP2 formats possible, e.g. XHTML+RDFa </li></ul></ul>