1. STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT
MANDATORY ASSESSMENT TRAINING
ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. “SUBJECTIVE” ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY “JUDGEMENT”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

8. 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

9. ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT
SOME FINDINGS FROM WSC2015
ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

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

11. Average marks by assessment method%
ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

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

13. Average marks by assessment method%
ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT

14. ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT
THANK YOU!
ES2016_MAT_PPT_ASSESSMENT