高等教育中的胜任力与胜任力,简单而复杂:高校教师与评估人员实施胜任力教育的理论与实践问题

Andrew G D Holmes, Marc Polman Tuin, Sophie Turner
{"title":"高等教育中的胜任力与胜任力,简单而复杂:高校教师与评估人员实施胜任力教育的理论与实践问题","authors":"Andrew G D Holmes, Marc Polman Tuin, Sophie Turner","doi":"10.22521/edupij.2021.103.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background / purpose – British, European and American universities are increasingly adopting competency-based learning, yet, there are different and conflicting definitions of competence, competency, and competency-based learning. Consequently, multiple interpretations and understandings are held by educators in respect of what these terms mean, when applied to their own teaching and assessment practices. Therefore, unless informed and considered discussion has taken place amongst staff about their individual understandings and interpretations, any development of new, competency-based assessment processes and procedures, is necessarily problematic. The main purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion, so that teaching staff can arrive at a common understanding and interpretation of what competency-based education is, so that they may develop appropriate, authentic and equitable assessment processes. Materials / methods – The methodology used was a systematic review of literature on competence, competency-based learning and the assessment of competency-based learning. Conclusion – This paper provides an overview of the main issues and tensions involved in clearly defining competency within higher education programmes and assessing competence, along with two clear recommendations for practice. The recommendations have significance for all higher education teaching staff involved in programmes of competency-based learning.","PeriodicalId":30989,"journal":{"name":"Educational Process International Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competence and competency in higher education, simple terms yet with complex meanings: Theoretical and practical issues for university teachers and assessors implementing Competency-Based Education (CBE)\",\"authors\":\"Andrew G D Holmes, Marc Polman Tuin, Sophie Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.22521/edupij.2021.103.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background / purpose – British, European and American universities are increasingly adopting competency-based learning, yet, there are different and conflicting definitions of competence, competency, and competency-based learning. Consequently, multiple interpretations and understandings are held by educators in respect of what these terms mean, when applied to their own teaching and assessment practices. Therefore, unless informed and considered discussion has taken place amongst staff about their individual understandings and interpretations, any development of new, competency-based assessment processes and procedures, is necessarily problematic. The main purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion, so that teaching staff can arrive at a common understanding and interpretation of what competency-based education is, so that they may develop appropriate, authentic and equitable assessment processes. Materials / methods – The methodology used was a systematic review of literature on competence, competency-based learning and the assessment of competency-based learning. Conclusion – This paper provides an overview of the main issues and tensions involved in clearly defining competency within higher education programmes and assessing competence, along with two clear recommendations for practice. The recommendations have significance for all higher education teaching staff involved in programmes of competency-based learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Process International Journal\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Process International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2021.103.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Process International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2021.103.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景/目的——英国、欧洲和美国的大学越来越多地采用基于能力的学习,然而,对能力、胜任力和基于能力的学习的定义不同且相互冲突。因此,在应用于自己的教学和评估实践时,教育工作者对这些术语的含义有多种解释和理解。因此,除非工作人员就其个人的理解和解释进行知情和经过深思熟虑的讨论,否则制订任何新的、以能力为基础的评估过程和程序必然是有问题的。本文的主要目的是激发反思和讨论,以便教学人员能够对什么是能力为本的教育达成共同的理解和解释,以便他们可以制定适当的、真实的和公平的评估过程。材料/方法-所使用的方法是对能力、基于能力的学习和基于能力的学习评估的文献进行系统的回顾。结论-本文概述了在高等教育计划中明确定义能力和评估能力所涉及的主要问题和紧张关系,以及两个明确的实践建议。这些建议对参与以能力为基础的学习方案的所有高等教育教学人员都具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Competence and competency in higher education, simple terms yet with complex meanings: Theoretical and practical issues for university teachers and assessors implementing Competency-Based Education (CBE)
Background / purpose – British, European and American universities are increasingly adopting competency-based learning, yet, there are different and conflicting definitions of competence, competency, and competency-based learning. Consequently, multiple interpretations and understandings are held by educators in respect of what these terms mean, when applied to their own teaching and assessment practices. Therefore, unless informed and considered discussion has taken place amongst staff about their individual understandings and interpretations, any development of new, competency-based assessment processes and procedures, is necessarily problematic. The main purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion, so that teaching staff can arrive at a common understanding and interpretation of what competency-based education is, so that they may develop appropriate, authentic and equitable assessment processes. Materials / methods – The methodology used was a systematic review of literature on competence, competency-based learning and the assessment of competency-based learning. Conclusion – This paper provides an overview of the main issues and tensions involved in clearly defining competency within higher education programmes and assessing competence, along with two clear recommendations for practice. The recommendations have significance for all higher education teaching staff involved in programmes of competency-based learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Process International Journal
Educational Process International Journal Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
How Does Students’ Knowledge About Information-Seeking Improve Their Behavior in Solving Information Problems? Greek Preschool Teachers’ Professional Features and Their Knowledge and Views of the Official Standards of Early Writing Teaching Digital Leadership and Sustainable School Improvement—A Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Future Research Expectations for Training Mentors: Insights from a Preservice Language Teacher Education Program The Use of Works of Musical Art in Preschool Education: A Slovak Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1