Explaining the inter-relationship between learning activities, the evaluation process and the acquisition of competences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.16.2.9909Keywords:
higher education, competences, teaching-learning process, activities, assessment process, feedbackAbstract
The European university system defines degrees according to a series of general and specific competences that should be acquired by students. These established competences should be reflected in the degree subjects – as it is necessary to align each competency with activities performed by students. At the same time, the evaluation criteria of each activity should reflect the level of acquisition of each competence. Both the qualification that is granted as well as the feedback that the student receives should be related to the competences, i.e. to show the student’s progression. In this article, we present a working procedure to align the degree competences with the course competences, its activities, the evaluation criteria, and the learning outcomes. The main contribution of this paper lies in its analysis of the relationship established between the different elements, namely those which specify and clarify the competences required for both teachers and students in a degree course on Logic.
Downloads
References
Avargil, S.; Herscovitz, O.; Dori, Y. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in contextbased learning: Teachers challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology 21, (207-225).
Burgos, D. (2006). The structure and behavior of virtual communities engaged in informal learning about elearning standards. Madrid: Universidad Europea de Madrid.
Chen, H.; Wigand, R.; Nilan, M. (1999). Optimal experience of web activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 15 (5), (585- 608).
Díaz, F. (2002). Didáctica y currículo: un enfoque constructivista. Ediciones de la Universidad de Castella-La Mancha.
Fainholc, B. (2008). De cómo las TICs podrían colaborar en la innovación sociotecnológico-educativa en la formación superior y universitaria presencial. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 11 (1), (53-79).
González, J.; Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning educational structures in Europe. [en línea] Disponible en: http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/ Publications/Tuning phase1 full document.pdf. [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Goodrich, H. (2000). Using Rubrics To Promote Thinking and Learning. Journal of Educational Leadership, 57 (5), (13-18).
Halttunen, K.; Sormunen, E. (2000). Learning information retrieval through an educational game: Is gaming sufficient for learning? Education for Information, 18, (289-311).
Huertas, A.; Humet, J. M.; López, L.; Mor, E. (2011). The SELL Project: a Learning Tool for E-learning Mathematical logic. In Blackburn, P. et al. (ed.). Third International Congress on Tools for Teaching Mathematical logic (TICTTL 2011), LNAI 6680, 123-130. Springer, Heidelberg.
Iram, S.; Al-Jumeily, D.; Lunn, J. (2011). An Integrated Web-Based e-Assessment Tool. Developments in E-systems Engineering (DeSE), (271–275). doi:10.1109/ DeSE.2011.111
JISC. (2007). Effective Practice with e-Assessment: An overview of technologies, policies and practice in further and higher education. [en línea] Disponible en: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/elearning/effpraceassess.pdf [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Lytras, M.; Sicília, M. A. (2005). On the representation of change according to different ontologies of learning. International Journal of Learning and Change, 1 (1), 66-79.
López-Pastor, V. M. (2010). El papel de la evaluación formativa en la evaluación por competencias: aportaciones de la Red de Evaluación formativa y Compartida en Docencia Universitaria. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 9 (1), (159-175).
Marín, V.; Cabero, J.; Barroso, J. (2012). La rúbrica de evaluación en el proceso de formación del docente universitario. La propuesta del proyecto DIPRO 2.0. Revista Educar, 48 (2), 347-364.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (3). [en línea] Disponible en: http://PAREonline.net/ getvn.asp?v=7&n=3. [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Mostrom, A.; Blumberg, P. (2012). Does learning-centred teaching promote grade improvement?. Journal of Innovative Higher Education, 37, (1-9).
Navarro, J.; Ortells, M.; Martí, P. (2011). Las “rúbricas de evaluación” como instrumento de mejora educativa. XI Jornada sobre Aprendizaje Cooperativo y IV Jornada sobre Innovación en la Docencia. [en línea] Disponible en: http://spieu. uji.es/JACMain/11/EVAL/6.pdf [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Nicol, D. (2006). Increasing success in first year courses: Assessment re-design, self-regulation and learning technologies. 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Sydney.
Richey, R.; Fields, D.; Foxon, M. (2011). Instructional design competencies: The standards. Clearninghouse on Information and Society.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Tyler, R. W.; Gagne, R. M.; Scriven, M. (eds.). Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, (39-83). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Scriven, M. (1974). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3, (1-4).
Sharpe, R.; Benfield, G.; Roberts, G. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. A Report to the Higher Education Academy. [en línea] Disponible en: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ assets/documents/teachingandresearch/sharpe_benfield_roberts_francis.pdf [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Tierney, R.; Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9, (2). [en línea] Disponible en http://PAREonline.net/ getvn.asp?v=9&n=2 [consulta 2013, 24 de marzo].
Torres, J.; Perera, V. (2010). La rúbrica como instrumento pedagógico para la tutorización y evaluación de los aprendizajes en el foro online en educación superior. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 36, (141-149).
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The articles that are published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The authors grant the exploitation rights of the work accepted for publication to RIED, guarantee to the journal the right to be the first publication of research understaken and permit the journal to distribute the work published under the license indicated in point 2.
2. The articles are published in the electronic edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
3. Conditions for self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate electronically the OnlineFirst version (assessed version and accepted for publication) of its articles before publication, always with reference to its publication by RIED, favoring its circulation and dissemination earlier and with this a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.