TY - JOUR
T1 - Developing performance standards for teacher assessment by policy capturing
AU - van der Schaaf, Marieke F.
AU - Stokking, Karel M.
AU - Verloop, Nico
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-PROO 490–23–081).
PY - 2003
Y1 - 2003
N2 - There is a need for assessment of teachers' competencies fostered by a growing attention given to accountability and quality improvement. Important questions are how good the demonstrated competencies of teachers should be for a satisfying assessment and how the different competencies should be weighted. Using a policy capturing method, in two rounds, nine stakeholders developed performance standards (or cut-off scores) for teacher assessment on eight criteria (or content standards) that resulted from an earlier study. Between the rounds, the panellists held a structured group discussion. Policy capturing proved to be a clear and useful method generating consistent judgements that can be described according to both a compensatory model and a conjunctive model. From the first to the second round, the consistency increased. However, while the panellists agreed to a substantial degree on the performance standards, they disagreed on the weights to be assigned to the criteria.
AB - There is a need for assessment of teachers' competencies fostered by a growing attention given to accountability and quality improvement. Important questions are how good the demonstrated competencies of teachers should be for a satisfying assessment and how the different competencies should be weighted. Using a policy capturing method, in two rounds, nine stakeholders developed performance standards (or cut-off scores) for teacher assessment on eight criteria (or content standards) that resulted from an earlier study. Between the rounds, the panellists held a structured group discussion. Policy capturing proved to be a clear and useful method generating consistent judgements that can be described according to both a compensatory model and a conjunctive model. From the first to the second round, the consistency increased. However, while the panellists agreed to a substantial degree on the performance standards, they disagreed on the weights to be assigned to the criteria.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1642562326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/0260293032000066227a
DO - 10.1080/0260293032000066227a
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:1642562326
SN - 0260-2938
VL - 28
SP - 395
EP - 410
JO - Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
JF - Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
IS - 4
ER -