There is going to be an NCEME 2010 Pre-Conference Workshop on “ASSESSING COMPETENCE IN TEACHER EDUCATION” on August 4, 2010 (8:30-4:30) at the CSB Hotel Manila. The conference workshop will be facilitated by Dr. Anders Jönsson who currently holds a position as an Assistant Professor at Kristianstad University College, Sweden. For particulars, follow this link: NCEME2010 WS Precon or visit the Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation Association website for the complete conference workshop program/schedule.
The focus of this conference will be on an assessment methodology, “interactive examination”, believed to have a great impact on student learning.
Those interested in this area of assessment methodology may find the following article from Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 17-27, helpful: Dynamic Assessment and the “Interactive Examination” by Anders Jönsson, Nikos Mattheos, Gunilla Svingby and Rolf Attström. Here’s the:
To assess own actions and define individual learning needs is fundamental for professional development. The development of self-assessment skills requires practice and feedback during the course of studies. The “Interactive Examination” is a methodology aiming to assist students developing their self-assessment skills. The present study describes the methodology and presents the results from a multicentre evaluation study at the Faculty of Odontology (OD) and School of Teacher Education (LUT) at Malmö University, Sweden. During the examination, students assessed their own competence and their self-assessments were matched to the judgment of their instructors (OD) or to their examination results (LUT). Students then received a personal task, which they had to respond to in written text. After submitting their response, the students received a document representing the way an “expert” in the field chose to deal with the same task. They then had to prepare a “comparison document”, where they identified differences between their own and the “expert” answer. Results showed that students appreciated the examination in both institutions. There was a somewhat different pattern of self-assessment in the two centres, and the qualitative analysis of students’ comparison documents also revealed some interesting institutional differences.