By: Richard Millwood

Richard Millwood — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:15:36 +0000

I enjoyed a read through these pages – thanks. I was surprised that assessment was an ‘impersonal actionpattern’ – the viva is rarely so and I saw no obvious place for the personal reference or the testimonial? I also think that assessment is usually linked to curriculum/syllabus and you may wish to talk more about intended learning outcomes and assessment criteria (and frameworks of same). Good luck!

By: Gillian

Gillian — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:39:34 +0000

Hi Simon. This looks promising. We’ve spoken before about the inability of people in one sector to agree on competences and how this gets even worse across international borders where it can take days even to realise there is a fundamental difference of understanding never mind have the argument. I ‘think’ I follow the technological response and the “SKOS closematch” could become a really important tool for employers, job-seekers, assessors, etc. That, for me, promises the user-centric tool, a slant that can so easily become lost in development. (Did you see Michael Feldstein’s recent post on usability approaches in Sakai and Bodington? http://mfeldstein.com/permissions-and-usabilit/)

In my ideal world, employers, job-seekers, assessors, students and others should not need to know URIs exist and most of them can also probably survive perfectly well without detailed knowledge of single, centralised competence frameworks. Computer-mediated natural language descriptions should be sufficient for real-world use given that anything so vital it would today be tested at the time of need, can still be tested in the future.

Good luck – and let me know if you need a tester.

Comments on: Representing defining and using ability competency and similar concepts

By: Richard Millwood

By: Gillian