STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT MANDATORY ASSESSMENT TRAINING ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

HOW THE PARTS FIT TOGETHER WSESS: learning outcomes MARKING SCHEME: assessment criteria TEST PROJECT: assessment vehicle ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

WHAT ARE THE WORLDSKILLS EUROPE STANDARDS? WorldSkills Europe connects and harmonizes Members’ VET systems through these standards. The standards are organized around work roles or occupations cover technical, specialist, and generic skills cover knowledge, understanding, tasks, and competences are expressed in learning outcomes that relate to level descriptors ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

FROM STANDARDS TO ASSESSMENT This matrix in the Technical Description focuses attention on how to sample and assess each section of the WSESS ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT METHODS: MOVING FORWARD Common assumptions about assessment: because it is easier to check, “objective” assessment may be valued more than “subjective” assessment. This means that measurement has been valued more than judgement. But valid and sufficient assessment of vocational performance needs measurement and judgement. ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN COMPETENCE AND EXCELLENCE? Competence: the ability to: Excellence: the ability to: Perform routine tasks as trained Perform routine and exceptional tasks Respond satisfactorily where the demands and context are clear Respond satisfactorily or better where the demands and context are ambiguous Perform satisfactorily under control and supervision Respond satisfactorily or better without control or supervision Perform satisfactorily in predictable circumstances Respond satisfactorily or better in unpredictable circumstances In a competition: performance of this nature should achieve at least 10% In a competition: performance of this nature may achieve up to 90% ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

“SUBJECTIVE” ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY “JUDGEMENT” Why the change? Subjective assessment was thought about as “personal opinion”, so variable and hard to challenge had ineffective safeguards was vulnerable to bias, alliances, defensive, tactical, and inexpert marking ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

FUTURE CHOICES OF ASSESSMENT METHODS measurement: as “objective” assessment, used well and referenced to industry judgement: replacing “subjective” assessment to assess quality 4 point scale for scoring: referenced to industry: 0: not acceptable to industry 1: acceptable to industry 2: acceptable plus some high quality features 3: excellent explicit benchmarks mandatory (in words, aids, photographs, video clips etc.) 3 assessors; one score difference and focused discussion allowed ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT SOME FINDINGS FROM WSC2015 ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

Average mark by assessment method We’re looking for a lower average and larger spread % ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

Average marks by assessment method % ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

Average mark by assessment method We’re looking for a lower average and larger spread % ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

Average marks by assessment method % ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT THANK YOU! ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT