A Useful Role for Competence Statements in Post-Compulsory Teacher Education?
Saved in:
| Title: | A Useful Role for Competence Statements in Post-Compulsory Teacher Education? |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burchell, Helen |
| Source: | Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Dec 1995 20(3):251-259. |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 9 |
| Publication Date: | 1995 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Opinion Papers Journal Articles |
| Descriptors: | College Faculty, Competency Based Teacher Education, Educational Trends, Faculty Evaluation, Foreign Countries, Higher Education, Professional Continuing Education, Teacher Certification, Teacher Competencies, Teacher Education, Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Qualifications |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| ISSN: | 0260-2938 |
| Abstract: | In the context of the movement in the United Kingdom toward competency-based certification for teachers, it is argued that the qualification of postsecondary teachers be based on an interactive model of competence, and that teacher trainers be involved in development of competency statements that reflect occupational roles without prescribing them in terms that are too precise. (Author/MSE) |
| Entry Date: | 1996 |
| Accession Number: | EJ518215 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN9512240213;EVA01DEC.95;1996Jan18.11:12;v2.3</anid> <title id="AN9512240213-1">A USEFUL ROLE FOR COMPETENCE STATEMENTS IN POST-COMPULSORY TEACHER EDUCATION? </title> <p>ABSTRACT This article argues for an interactive model of competence (Hodkinson, 1992) as a basis for the development and use of competence statements in the context of an initial qualification for lecturers in post-compulsory education and training (PCET). It does this by contrasting competences framed in relatively general terms as used by the author in such a context with those standards established by the Training and Development Lead Body which are increasingly influencing such programmes. It concludes that tutors in such programmes should seek to explore the potential for developing competence statements which, while relating to the occupational role, do not attempt to prescribe its features in precise terms, but rather give space for a dialogue between tutor and learners as to how it is best to interpret the many facets of the lecturer role. </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-2"> Introduction </hd> <p>The concept of competence has received so much detailed analysis in recent years that it may seem questionable that there is anything new to say. In the case of competence-based education and training for teachers and lecturers, there have been descriptions of how such approaches have been introduced to replace existing forms of education and training (e.g. Last, 1990; Stark &amp; McAleavy, 1992), and critiques of such developments (e.g. Chown, 1992; Whitty &amp; Wilmott, 1991). More generally, since the recent development in the UK of a range of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) which have a competence-based assessment model, there have been discussions of differing models of competence and explicit critiques (from philosophical, psychological, social-psychological and sociological perspectives) of this model (e.g. Norris, 1991; Hodkinson, 1992; Jones &amp; Moore, 1993). The NVQ approach to the design of these qualifications is to specify them in terms of a series of statements of competence which need to be clearly demonstrated before the qualification is awarded. For each occupation and its related NVQ these competences are laid down as National Standards, developed by a 'lead body' which represents employers in the given occupational area. </p> <p>Those involved in programmes of initial education and/or training for relatively new lecturers in further education, while taking account of such debates, need to develop a rationale for their programmes and strategies for teaching, learning or assessing derived from this. The purpose of this article is to examine whether it is appropriate to develop such a rationale based on a competence-orientated approach where competences are framed in relatively general terms. It will seek to do this by contrasting competences of this kind that the author has developed and used in a programme of initial professional qualification for teaching in the post-compulsory sector with a parallel set of standards established by the Training and Development Lead Body (TDLB). The particular area focused on and for which the competences were designed is that of the role of the lecturer in assessing learners. </p> <p>That the NVQ system is having an influence in initial qualifications for the post-compulsory education and training (PCET) sector is clear in that the TDLB standards have affected programmes such as the City and Guilds 7306 award [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]. In the context of such developments programmes leading to initial qualification for the PCET sector have needed to address the competence issue and to consider how learning outcomes may be shown to relate clearly to occupational roles. This need has arisen partly from external factors such as the learners themselves increasingly working with the NVQ model, the existence of national standards, and organisational matters such as the need to communicate more clearly with mentors in the workplace. In my own professional context it also arises from a concern to establish a rationale for assessment in which the concept of dialogue and negotiation between learner and tutor/mentor is central; as Heron (1981) suggests, "authoritarian control and assessment of students breeds intellectual and vocational conformity in students" (p. 58). It will be argued that a clearer statement of learning outcomes, in the form of generally stated competences, offers a useful basis for these processes of dialogue and negotiation. In this respect the argument advanced has a great deal in common with that put forward by Hodkinson (1992) who, advancing an interactive model of competence, suggests: </p> <p>By such a change in our conception of competence we can retain its power, which is to bring performance to the centre of vocational learning, without the reductionism and absurdities of the current NCVQ system. (p. 37) </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-3"> Concepts of Competence </hd> <p>It will be argued that two concepts of competence reflected in the literature--a behaviourist concept and a concept of generic competence--are both of relatively little value in the teaching/learning context of an initial teaching qualification. Instead, an interactive model of competence (Hodkinson, 1992) will be seen to be of greater value. </p> <p>Norris (1991) distinguishes between behaviourist notions of competence and generic competences. The former 'rests on a description of behaviour (sometimes called performance) and the situation(s) in which it is to take place (sometimes referred to as range statements) in a form that is capable of demonstration and observation' (p. 332). This model is clearly linked to the NVQ framework (Ramsay, 1993). The concept of generic competence refers to the general abilities associated with expert performers, an approach which rests upon the concept of "soft skill competencies" (Spencer, 1983). The behaviourist model has been the subject of much criticism (e.g., Norris, 1991; Ramsay, 1993) and the generic competence model is not without difficulties. In the case of the latter Ramsay (1993) indicates the problem in identifying these key competences from how expert practitioners describe their approaches to their roles; i.e. we may not be able to articulate what we do when we do something well. In the case of both these models it is arguable that their major focus is upon what people in a given role do and therefore, by implication, on assessing whether those who are learning the role can do the same things, i.e. in the context of assessment putting the focus on summative assessment. By contrast, the interactive competence model advanced by Hodkinson (1992)--basing his discussion on the work of Harvard (in press)--rests on the assumption that "the search for the definitive elements of competence to fit an occupational role becomes little more useful than the hunt for the holy grail, because there will be no absolute and objectively defined role in the first place" (p. 32). </p> <p>The key features of this interactive model are seen as performance, schema (defined as "a mental representation of a set of related categories" by Hodkinson, 1992, p. 33) and intellectual processes: </p> <p>Whereas, in the behaviouristic NCVQ model of competence, performance is all important, here it is only one of three closely related components . . . Part of competence is the way we perceive ourselves, the role and its situation. To change the performance significantly entails a change in schema. The development of both of these involves complex intellectual processes, some of which are not clearly understood. Between these three components, there are continual dialectical interactions. . . . Competence itself is seen as dynamic, with differing and constantly changing meanings and interpretations. (Hodkinson, 1992, p. 34) </p> <p>Importantly, Harvard's model is seen as focusing attention on the teaching/learning process and on how statements of competence can be helpful to the learner, in particular because they "facilitate dialogue between performers, and between learner and mentor, and they can provide a map to locate achievements and learning needs" (Hodkinson, 1992, p. 36). </p> <p>Tbe issue addressed in this article is the extent to which it is justifiable and useful to develop competences framed in a more general way than those implied in the behaviourist notion of competence, but which nevertheless are task/role focused in a way that the generic competences are not. It will be argued that the interactive model has a great deal to offer as illustrated in the framing of competences and their use in exploring the assessment function of the PCET lecturer role. In part the argument will rest on a critique of the behaviourist notion of competence as reflected in the application of the NVQ model to the development of competences appropriate for the PCET sector via the TDLB standards. </p> <p>In the aspect of the PCET lecturer's role concerned with her/his assessment of learners there are several sets of TDLB standards; the elements concerned with assessing candidate performance are framed as follows (TDLB, 1992): </p> <p>D321 Identify opportunities for the collection of evidence of competent performance. </p> <p>D322 Collect and judge performance evidence against criteria. </p> <p>D323 Collect and judge knowledge evidence to support the inference of competent performance. </p> <p>D324 Make assessment decision and provide feedback. </p> <p>The performance criteria for the first of these are: </p> <p>(a) The opportunities identified are relevant to the element(s) to be assessed; </p> <p>(b) best use is made of naturally occurring evidence and related questioning before alternatives are considered; </p> <p>(c) advice is sought when alternative evidence is proposed; </p> <p>(d) opportunities are selected to minimise disruption to normal activity; </p> <p>(e) opportunities are selected to ensure access to fair and reliable assessment; </p> <p>(f) a resulting assessment plan is discussed and agreed with candidates and others who may be affected. </p> <p>This is to involve use of natural performance, oral testing and written testing as sources of evidence, and assessment in the normal work situation as well as within a training programme. The performance evidence required to establish competence in this element is supplemented by knowledge of matters such as methods of assessment, fairness and reliability of assessment. </p> <p>The development of more generally framed competence statements covering the same aspect of the lecturer's role might look as follows: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) Identifies principles for design of schemes of assessment and assessment procedures. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) Selects and uses assessment procedures appropriate to the context in which they are to be used. </p> <p>Framed in terms of assessment criteria (still within the more general frame of reference) they might look as follows: </p> <p>(a) Designs a scheme of assessment appropriate for a particular programme. </p> <p>(b) Recognises implications for planning for assessment of individual differences in terms of gender, ethnicity, culture, disability. </p> <p>(c) Selects/designs assessment procedures to assess defined learning outcomes. </p> <p>(d) Presents assessment tasks and activities in such a way that learners are clear about what is expected of them and how they should proceed. </p> <p>(e) Assesses learners' performance on tasks in a systematic way, using a marking scheme as appropriate. </p> <p>These competences are more generally framed in that they do not imply a specific set of procedures to be followed, as it will be argued TDLB standards do, but rather are based on a more general description of the assessment dimension of the role of the lecturer. Their full advantage, however, lies not solely in how they are framed but in how they are used. In the following section the advantages of this approach are set out in some detail. </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-4"> Advantages of Generally Framed Competences </hd> <p>One way of attempting to establish the advantage of more generally framed competences is to offer a critique of the NVQ behaviourist model of competence as reflected in the TDLB standards. This critique has been well developed by a number of writers (Norris, 1991; Ramsay, 1993) and what will be indicated here is a brief summary of the major points of criticism. Ramsay (1993), in analysing competences in the management area, states these as: </p> <p>. . . the approach has no epistemological foundation; has been constructed using a dubious research methodology; is incapable of dealing with cognition, change and uncertainty; embraces a desire for brevity of expression that tends to produce trivial content and necessarily involves a high degree of language ambiguity that prevents reliable assessment and hence use as Standards. (p. 6) </p> <p>As Ramsay points out, the first criticism, which states that the competence-based approach is not concerned with how skills are developed and knowledge acquired, may not be a legitimate objection in that the NVQ system has made no claims on this score. The second point concerning the way in which the standards have been developed has relevance in that the kind of elements and performance criteria offered in the TDLB standards arguably do not reflect the complexity of the process of assessing. Ramsay draws on Polanyi's notion of personal knowledge to suggest that much of the knowledge and many of the skills we may draw upon in management (or in this context in assessing learners) are likely to be stored at a subconscious level or involve subsidiary awareness. In many assessment situations experienced assessors will be weighing up a whole range of contextual factors and their knowledge of the person being assessed in arriving at an assessment; it is difficult to conceive of this as being adequately described by a series of steps couched in terms of performance criteria. </p> <p>The third criticism suggests that once a set of standards specifies competences too precisely it makes it difficult to conceive of change being made easily. For example, the TDLB standards present a distinction between performance and knowledge evidence (in D322 and D323), implying that this is not a matter for question or debate. However, there is a debate on this issue (e.g. Black &amp; Wolf, 1990) which, if it led to a reconceptualisation of the interrelationship between knowledge and performance, might require a recasting of these elements and performance criteria. The question is, how easy it would be to do this with standards that have already been well publicised as have those of the TDLB? Looked at from a managerial standpoint, such precision and consistency of standards may seem to have significant advantages in that it offers the prospect of a high degree of prediction and control of teaching/instructing practice. However, the model of management which this suggests is in many respects limited; it requires the performance of the individual to 'fit in' with existing definitions of 'good practice' rather than allowing for the possibility of change in institutional practice. Winter (1992) makes a similar criticism of the Management Charter Initiative competences (another NVQ-based set of standards applicable to qualifications in management): </p> <p>For an organisation to change, current practices must be challenged, and for individuals to 'develop' they must feel that it is acceptable to challenge current practices and [hence] current organisational 'requirements'. . . . This, then, is a very limited model of management and a limited model of change and development, in which the only thing which can change is 'performance' within a static set of parameters. (p. 105) </p> <p>The fourth criticism concerning ambiguity of language in competences and performance criteria, and the danger of trivialising as greater precision is sought is reflected in research on criterion-referenced assessment generally; Black &amp; Dockrell (1984) have commented on the difficulty of specifying the domain, i.e. the exact meaning of the intended learning outcome incorporating information about appropriate methods of and criteria for assessment. In the case of the TDLB performance criteria cited above each is open to varying interpretation and is subject to the judgement of the assessor. For example, performance criterion (e)--opportunities are selected to ensure access to fair and reliable assessment--requires judgement of what in any given instance may count as 'fair' or 'reliable'. Despite this inherent ambiguity, the way in which this system is presented emphasises the standardisation of the assessment process. Unlike in the interactive model of competence referred to below, where ambiguity is acknowledged, the assumption on which the NVQ system is based is that it is possible to arrive at one agreed interpretation of each performance criterion (otherwise the concept of a national standard is flawed). </p> <p>Turning to the advantages of the more generally framed competences for the assessment function in the lecturer's role, these derive mainly from the possibilities for negotiation and discussion which the framing of these competences allows for. Thus participants have more opportunity and responsibility to interpret the competences and assessment criteria in ways that are appropriate to the specific nature of their teaching contexts and in ways that reflect their own values and preferred methods in teaching. Opportunities can be provided for learners, tutors and mentors to engage in dialogue, acknowledging the real possibilities of debate over aspects of the role of the lecturer, debate that is sharpened by the existence of more clearly focused assessment criteria than may have been the case in traditional schemes, but not so precisely delineated that a limited model of lecturing is advanced. Arguably, these debates about the nature of the lecturing role (and its assessment function in particular) provide participants with some real choice in the way they carry it out--a central feature of any view of the teacher/lecturer as reflective practitioner. As Hodkinson (1992) argues, within an interactive model of competence: </p> <p>To serve such purposes, the elements need to be appropriate, that is to comprise a sensible disaggregation of the role. They also need to be effective, that is, useful as a tool for learning rather than assessment. Provided they fulfil both these requirements, it does not matter if a different set of elements are equally plausible. Indeed, part of their effectiveness in use would depend on the developing ability of the learner to critically appraise the elements themselves in relation to his/her own role and situation, and to understand that they are oversimplifying and artificially fragmenting the role. (p. 36) </p> <p>The more generally framed competences and assessment criteria outlined above, and the way in which they are used, may be seen to exemplify these points. For example, assessment criterion (a)--'designs a scheme of assessment appropriate for a particular programme'--can prompt discussion of matters such as what is meant by a 'scheme' of assessment, for what proportion of a given programme it is appropriate to plan for assessment, how far and in what detail it is appropriate to plan for the use of specific assessment procedures, whether there are situations in which it may be inappropriate to design a scheme of assessment, how to evaluate a scheme of assessment already provided in the lecturer's institution and so on. Arguably, it is appropriate in that lecturers will find they may be expected to develop schemes of assessment for the courses they teach, or they may be provided with a departmental scheme; and it is effective in so far as the discussion of its interpretation and its relevance to practice will serve as an aid to learning more about assessment issues. </p> <p>The generally framed competences outlined above therefore do not attempt to define 'good practice' in precise terms; they are not concerned with viewing the outcomes of the teaching/learning process as 'product specifications'. There are parallels here with the critique of the objectives approach to curriculum development, as indicated by Norris (1991). Instead these competences are intended to identify aspects of the assessment process that the lecturer needs to consider and general principles that underlie these. More generally framed competences, therefore, tend to emphasise the importance of a sound theoretical understanding in that participants need to understand key issues in such a way that they can 'apply' the relevant concepts to particular situations. Thus, in the case of the examples above, the participant needs to understand the basic principles and values in assessment practice and find ways to apply them in her/his own teaching, rather than learning how to follow appropriate practices without sufficient opportunity to work these out from a sound theoretical base. This has links with the distinction between 'deep' and 'surface' approaches to learning researched by Entwistle (1992) and as related to the higher education context by Arkins et al. (1993). Amongst other things, learners who use 'deep' approaches to learning will seek to 'interact vigorously and critically with the content', 'relate ideas to previous knowledge and experience' and 'examine the logic of the argument'; the approach of learners using 'surface' approaches will be more likely to be charactised by 'intention simply to reproduce parts of the content', 'accepting ideas and information passively', 'memorising facts and procedures routinely' and 'failing to distinguish guiding principles or patterns' (Atkins et al. 1993, p. 55). This is not to suggest that the use of more generally framed competences will of itself produce the characteristics of 'deep' learning in learners, but rather that this will be more likely to be encouraged by the use of this more interactive model of competence. A key issue here is that of how the lecturer develops a concept of 'good practice' when he/she has relatively little experience to draw on. Here the use of critical peer and tutor review has a significant role to play. In the interactive model of competence Hodkinson (1992) points out how central is the teaching/learning process in the development of intelligent practice, and in particular the role of the tutor as facilitator or mentor. </p> <p>One further way in which more generally framed competences may be particularly helpful is in the flexibility they provide for interpretations appropriate to the level of professional development of the individual participant. The NVQ assessment model is premised on the notion of 'pass' or 'fail' in respect of each of the performance criteria, but in any learning situation it is highly likely that there will be some participants who will be able to show evidence relevant to a given performance criterion fairly easily and others for whom the process is necessarily going to be much slower. In the case of the former there is surely a danger if too much emphasis is placed on the need to achieve at only the minimum level implied by the interpretation of the performance criterion in question; in teaching as in other occupations there is always the possibility of further development in any aspect of the role. In educational terms the approach should certainly be to encourage the participant to the highest level of achievement of which he or she is capable. The dampening effect of working with a mastery or minimum competency approach has been demonstrated in the Scottish further education modular programme where its limitations were identified, particularly for more able learners (Black et al., 1988). Eraut (1989) has suggested a similar concern in his discussion of the features that differentiate between stages in the development of a professional role, stages that range from novice through competent to expert; he argues that we need to be clear which stage is appropriate for our standard setting and, one might add also, which is appropriate as a target for a given participant. Being freed from a need for only one interpretation of a given competence allows learners to use it to set their own learning goals. Henfield &amp; Waldron (1988) have illustrated a similar process in their account of the use of competency statements in facilitating individualised learning in nurse education programmes. This process of negotiation does not imply the redundancy of tutors and mentors in the assessment process, however. I would argue that in addition to their facilitating function they will be the ultimate arbiters of minimum standards of competence. These minimum standards as interpretations of the statements of competence would need to be articulated as clearly as possible, in terms of the principles and values which are seen as non-negotiable. Where judgements about any lecturer's competence involved close consideration of such minimum standards, it would, of course, be necessary to involve others in making the final judgement: a process of moderation paralleled in the verifier roles established in the NVQ system. </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-5"> Conclusion </hd> <p>Those involved in tutoring on programmes of initial qualification for lecturers in PCET need to be concerned with the way in which the current debate on competence impacts on our practice. I have argued in this article that the use of more behaviourist NVQ standards for assessing the competence of new lecturers in PCET is flawed and that the development of more generally framed competences and their use within an interactive model of competence has greater relevance in the context of programmes of initial qualification for lecturers in PCET. It would seem important therefore for us to consider carefully the ways in which such an approach can enhance the teaching/learning process--by considering ways in which competence statements are framed, their appropriateness and their effectiveness in providing a real discussion of the lecturer's role. </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-6"> NOTE </hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>] From September 1993 City and Guilds 7306 qualification became available as a TDLB-based competence award. </p> <hd id="AN9512240213-7"> REFERENCES </hd> <p>ATKINS, M. J., BEATTIE, J. &amp; DOCKRELL, W. J. (1993) Assessment Issues in Higher Education (Sheffield, Department of Employment). </p> <p>BLACK, H. &amp; DOCKRELL, W. B. (1984) Criterion-referenced Assessment in the Classroom (Edinburgh, Scottish Council for Research in Education). </p> <p>BLACK, H., HALL, J. &amp; YATES, J. (1988) Assessing Modules: staff perceptions of assessment for the National Certificate (Edinburgh, Scottish Council for Research in Education). </p> <p>BLACK, H. &amp; WOLF, A. (1990) Knowledge and Competence: current issues in training and education (Sheffield, Department of Employment). </p> <p>CHOWN, A. (1992) TDLB standards in further education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 16(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>), pp. 52-59. </p> <p>ENTWISTLE, N. (1992) The Impact of Teaching on Learning Outcomes in Higher Education (Sheffield, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Staff Development Unit). </p> <p>ERAUT, M. (1989) Initial teacher training and the NVQ model, in: BURKE, J. (Ed.) Competency-based Education and Training (Lewes, Falmer Press). </p> <p>HARVARD, G. (in press) An integrated model of how students learn how to teach and its implications for teacher mentors, in: HARVARD, G. &amp; HODKINSON, P. (Eds) Action and Reflection in Teacher Education (Norwood, NJ, Ablex). </p> <p>HENFIELD, J. &amp; WALDRON, R. (1988) The use of competency statements to facilitate individualised learning, Nurse Education Today, 8, pp. 205-211. </p> <p>HERON, J. (1981) Assessment revisited, in: BOUD, D. (Ed.) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning (London, Kogan Page). </p> <p>HODKINSON, P. (1992) Alternative models of competence in vocational education and training, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 16(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>), pp. 30-39. </p> <p>JONES, L. &amp; MOORE, R. (1993) Education, competence and the control of expertise, British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 14(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>), pp. 385-397. </p> <p>LAST, J. (1990) Developing a competency-based course for teacher training, NASD Journal, 23, pp. 30-37. </p> <p>NORRIS, N. (1991) The trouble with competence, Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>), pp. 331-341. </p> <p>RAMSAY, J. (1993) The hybrid course: competences and behaviourism in higher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 17(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>), pp. 70-89. </p> <p>SPENCER, L. (1983) Soft-skill Competencies (Edinburgh, Scottish Council for Research in Education). </p> <p>STARK, S. &amp; MCALEAVY, G. (1992) Initiating a competence-based teacher training programme in further education: staff perspectives, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 16(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>) pp. 80-89. </p> <p>TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT LEAD BODY (1992) National Standards for Training and Development (Sheffield, Employment Department). </p> <p>WHITTY, G. &amp; WILLMOTT, E. (1991) Competence-based teacher education: approaches and issues, Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>), pp. 309-317. </p> <p>WINTER, R. (1992) 'Quality management' or 'the educative workplace'; alternative versions of competence-based education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 16(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>), pp. 100-115. </p> <aug> <p>By HELEN BURCHELL, Principal Lecturer, School of Humanities and Education, University of Hertfordshire, Watford Campus, Wall Hall, Watford, Herts WD2 8AT, UK </p> <p></p> <p>HELEN BURCHELL is Principal Lecturer in the Division of Education, University of Hertfordshire. She has many years' experience in tutoring INSET programmes for teachers and lecturers, and has been involved in the development and implementation of a competence-focused scheme for post-compulsory teacher education. Her current research interests include the role of the tutor/facilitator in continuing professional development, including the implications for such a role of competence-based education and training. She also acts as a consultant to developments in this field. Correspondence: Division of Education, School of Humanities and Education, University of Hertfordshire. Watford Campus, Wall Hall, Aldenham, Watford, Herts WD2 8AT, Tel: 01707 285662 </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref7"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ518215 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Report PubTypeId: report PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: A Useful Role for Competence Statements in Post-Compulsory Teacher Education? – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burchell%2C+Helen%22">Burchell, Helen</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Dec 1995 20(3):251-259. – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 9 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1995 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Reports - Evaluative<br />Opinion Papers<br />Journal Articles – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competency+Based+Teacher+Education%22">Competency Based Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Evaluation%22">Faculty Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Continuing+Education%22">Professional Continuing Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Certification%22">Teacher Certification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink> – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0260-2938 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: In the context of the movement in the United Kingdom toward competency-based certification for teachers, it is argued that the qualification of postsecondary teachers be based on an interactive model of competence, and that teacher trainers be involved in development of competency statements that reflect occupational roles without prescribing them in terms that are too precise. (Author/MSE) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1996 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ518215 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ518215 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 9 StartPage: 251 Subjects: – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Competency Based Teacher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Trends Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Professional Continuing Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Certification Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: A Useful Role for Competence Statements in Post-Compulsory Teacher Education? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burchell, Helen IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 1995 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0260-2938 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 20 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
