Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
intended. As a result, different software systems
may effectively provide the same service, in
whole or in part, to the end-user. This way, parts
of assessments, like the rubrics or the competence
profiles, can be exchanged between developers.
They all can edit, store and re-use them. In a
computer-interpretable (machine-readable) form,
this assessment information might be delivered to
a candidate by a computer. The key issue here is
to create and manage information in such a way
that opportunities for exchange and re-use, either
within or between institutions, are maximized
(Miller, 2000). To reach such an ambitious goal
a specification for exchangeability and interop-
erability of assessments is required. Generally
speaking, a specification prescribes, in a complete,
precise, and verifiable manner, the requirements,
design, behaviour, or characteristics of a system
(Beshears, 2003). One of the main benefits of a
specification is that it offers a shared (controlled)
vocabulary in which core concepts and ideas about
a specific topic area can be expressed. Using
open specifications means that the specification
has many more people who look critically to
another's work, resulting in a more stable, and
ultimately more satisfactory result. Obviously,
APL stands to profit immensely from the use
of open specifications. A few specifications are
available. Technologies can be used to improve
the efficiency of APL at two levels: task level and
process level. Software tools can help the user to
perform tasks easier and quicker. For example,
as described, management of cross-referenced
evidences in a paper-based portfolio is difficult. A
portfolio editor with a repository will make it easy
to manage them. Process level support means that
computerized mechanisms coordinate actions and
exchange artefacts. Because of the well-structured
process of APL support at process level seems
easy. The difficulties are at task level and some
problems can not be solved by technologies. In
the following, we will successively describe the
obstacles and hurdles to the task level in which
competence profiles, self-assessment instruments,
portfolio templates, interview protocols, rubrics
and scoring forms and APL certificates play an
important role. A good understanding of these in-
struments is necessary in order to understand what
could and should be re-usable in the development
of APL procedures. Hereby, we give the existing
developments on interoperability improvement.
Competence Profiles
A competence profile provides an overview of
competences and skills in relation to a job pro-
file. It describes the most relevant and important
competences and skills an employee needs in
order to adequately perform job related tasks and
activities. In order to assess the candidate's prior
learning, the evidences for prior learning needs to
be compared to competence standards represented
by competence profiles. The development of these
competence profiles is a complex task. However,
when fulfilled, the next step is to create an interface
in which the competence profile is placed and can
be used for the self-assessment. Figure 1 depicts
a screenshot of an interface used by a web-tool to
identify e-competences. Such an instrument can for
example be used as input for development plans,
as a communication tool about and clarification
of visions and interpretations regarding required
competences and the opportunities and threats
(Stalmeier, 2006)
One of the premises is that APL only can
become successful if it is firmly grounded in a
competence-based approach to learning. The
advantage of a competence-based approach is that
it allows describing the learning outcomes gath-
ered through different learning settings (formal
education, non-formal and informal learning).
Van der Klink and Boon (2003) signalled that the
competence-based approach is widely applied in
various types of education as well as in companies'
human resource management policies. Though
the rise of competence-based approaches is evi-
dently this does not imply that all approaches are
based on a similar concept of competences. Van
Search WWH ::
Custom Search