A Comparative Analysis of Three Basic Designs for Competency Validation.

Autor/in	Johnson, Charles E.
Titel	A Comparative Analysis of Three Basic Designs for Competency Validation.
Quelle	(1977), (21 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Tabellen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Tagungsbericht; Certification; Competency Based Education; Educational Objectives; Evaluation Methods; Job Skills; Models; Program Development; Program Validation; Research Reports; Task Analysis; Vocational Education + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Abschlusszeugnis; Zertifizierung; Education; Competence; Competency; Competency-based education; Unterricht; Kompetenzorientierte Methode; Educational objective; Bildungsziel; Erziehungsziel; Produktive Fertigkeit; Analogiemodell; Programmplanung; Research report; Forschungsbericht; Aufgabenanalyse; Ausbildung; Berufsbildung
Abstract	Three approaches to validating competencies of vocational education programs in technical and professional schools are examined. Competencies are defined as behavior-oriented and relatively simple, observable behaviors which can be identified and measured by the frequency of occurrence. The three models, which have elements in common, are expert consensus, product assessment, and logical analysis. Using the expert consensus model, competencies are classified into groups having common elements and are validated by submitting questionnaires to specialists who determine which competencies are important to effective job performance. In the product assessment model, the frequency of specific, clearly observable behaviors is noted on checklists through the systematic observation of on-the-job workers. In the logical analysis model, competencies are assumed to be complex constructs rather than objective behaviors. Analysis, inference, and judgment are the techniques used, and conclusions are reasonable assumptions presented as a report or working paper. It is concluded that each of the models is useful, depending on the nature of the competencies to be validated. (MH)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01