Competence and portfolios - OpenOffice

846 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
846
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Many people have tried out different ways of analysing competence and competency. Knowledge, skills, attitudes is one, but the definition of attitudes is not very helpful. The European e-Competence Framework uses the following definitions: • Competence is defined as “a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge, skills and attitudes for achieving observable results”. Consequently, the related e-Competence descriptions embed and integrate knowledge, skills and attitudes. • Skill is defined as “ability to carry out managerial or technical tasks”. Managerial and technical skills are the components of competences and specify some core abilities which form a competence. • Attitude means in this context the “cognitive and relational capacity” (e.g. analysis capacity, synthesis capacity, flexibility, pragmatism...). If skills and knowledge are the components, attitudes are the glue, which keeps them together. • Knowledge represents the “set of know-what” (e.g. programming languages, design tools...) and can be described by operational descriptions.
  • And perhaps you can sense how the choice questions can easily range between choices with no ethical implications and ones with clear ethical implications.
  • Or maybe add bribery at the bottom. Again we can imagine choices ranging between non-ethical to deeply ethical.
  • 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>

    ×