Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Competence structures and portfolio tools

804 views

Published on

presentation at Telford on 2010-10-21

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Competence structures and portfolio tools

  1. 1. Competence structures for portfolio tools Simon Grant JISC Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS) Telford 2010-10-21
  2. 2. Portfolios evidence competence  (and skill, etc. etc. let's not worry at this stage about the terminology)  Portfolio (and related) tools often assist learners to evidence their attainment in areas of competence  Several reasons  self-tracking of attainment; action planning  formative or summative assessment  presentation to others  Many different areas of ability  Each area has a different set of skills etc.  Some of these are arranged hierarchically
  3. 3. There are large overlaps  There is much common ground among the ways  different tools work  different areas of ability are treated
  4. 4. Common interest in reuse  There is a common interest in being able to  reuse the same tool in different ability areas  deal with the same ability area using different tools  To do this, we need to decouple tools and ability areas
  5. 5. Communicating structures  To create structures in one place, then use them in another  they should be defined in a common format  so that the structures can be  output  communicated  input  automatically by relevant tools.
  6. 6. Exposing the structures  When a suitable format is agreed  structures and their parts can be given URIs  handled by web servers to deliver  human readable information for people  machine processable information for other systems  to be used as links e.g. in portfolios  so that definitions don't need to be duplicated  so that automatic matching can be done
  7. 7. Aims of today's meeting  Share how current tools handle such structures  Clarify the points in common  Try to find some agreement on common model  Agree requirements for interoperability  Suggest next steps for progress  Consider what needs to be done with Leap2A  Introduce JISC plans to support this work
  8. 8. Issues arisen in discussion  searching for other comparable competencies  who is it for?  can we say that a result is the result of an assessment process intended to assess a particular competency?  how do we integrate with Leap2A?  what really belongs to assessment, not to the definitions?  how do we integrate with claims?  hive off domain specific stuff into Leap2A  need to document use cases  pedagogical stuff
  9. 9. Possible features of single definitions  title  description  URI / identifier  DC terms  assessment method  assessment criterion  verification required or can be self-assessed  prerequisites  co-requisites  similarity relationships  rating (comment on quality of skill)  weighting  context and equipment  type (knowledge/behaviour, skill, etc) in terms of a stated category scheme  status  evidenced by  level (in terms of a stated scheme)
  10. 10. Possible features of structures  title  description  URI / identifier  DC terms  order  composition relationships  3rd party mapping  mandatory  identity with external definition
  11. 11. Defining bodies e.g.  Sector Skills Councils  universities  awarding bodies  professional bodies  employers  industry associations

×