How are Professional Programs from Diverse Disciplines Approaching the Development and Assessment of Competence at a Mid-Sized Canadian University?

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J. Rich, D. Klinger, S. Young, C. Donnelly
{"title":"How are Professional Programs from Diverse Disciplines Approaching the Development and Assessment of Competence at a Mid-Sized Canadian University?","authors":"J. Rich, D. Klinger, S. Young, C. Donnelly","doi":"10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.2.8597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Time-honoured university policies, such as the credit-hour and academic freedom, present challenges for professional education programs tasked with operationalizing entry-to-practice competence frameworks for professional accreditation. A single embedded case study was used to explore how professional programs from one mid-sized Canadian university are approaching and perhaps problematizing the development and assessment of competence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with educational leaders (faculty and staff, n=21) from a sample of nine programs. Following a grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis, the constant comparative method was used to inductively discern similarities and differences across programs, and to begin building theory about approaches to operationalization. While limited in scope given the use of a single university, our findings highlight: (a) diversity in approaches to operationalization across programs, (b) common attributes which can be used to classify the manner in which these programs operationalize competence, and (c) challenges with supporting faculty to buy in to competency-informed pedagogy and assessment. Given these findings, it is recommended that professional accrediting bodies and education programs spend time to consider the role university-based programs play in determining competence for entry-to-practice, as well their intents for implementing a competence framework, to ensure sufficiency in the approaches being used.","PeriodicalId":44267,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","volume":"231 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.2.8597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Time-honoured university policies, such as the credit-hour and academic freedom, present challenges for professional education programs tasked with operationalizing entry-to-practice competence frameworks for professional accreditation. A single embedded case study was used to explore how professional programs from one mid-sized Canadian university are approaching and perhaps problematizing the development and assessment of competence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with educational leaders (faculty and staff, n=21) from a sample of nine programs. Following a grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis, the constant comparative method was used to inductively discern similarities and differences across programs, and to begin building theory about approaches to operationalization. While limited in scope given the use of a single university, our findings highlight: (a) diversity in approaches to operationalization across programs, (b) common attributes which can be used to classify the manner in which these programs operationalize competence, and (c) challenges with supporting faculty to buy in to competency-informed pedagogy and assessment. Given these findings, it is recommended that professional accrediting bodies and education programs spend time to consider the role university-based programs play in determining competence for entry-to-practice, as well their intents for implementing a competence framework, to ensure sufficiency in the approaches being used.
在中型加拿大大学,来自不同学科的专业课程是如何发展和评估能力的?
历史悠久的大学政策,如学时制和学术自由,对专业教育项目提出了挑战,这些项目的任务是将专业认证的入门能力框架付诸实施。一个单一的嵌入式案例研究被用来探讨加拿大一所中等规模大学的专业课程是如何接近并可能出现问题的能力发展和评估。对来自9个项目样本的教育领导者(教职员工,n=21)进行了半结构化访谈。在定性分析的基础理论方法之后,持续比较方法被用来归纳地辨别项目之间的异同,并开始建立关于操作化方法的理论。虽然考虑到单一大学的使用范围有限,但我们的研究结果强调了:(a)跨项目操作化方法的多样性,(b)可用于对这些项目操作化能力的方式进行分类的共同属性,以及(c)支持教师接受能力信息教学法和评估的挑战。鉴于这些发现,建议专业认证机构和教育项目花时间考虑大学课程在确定进入实践的能力方面所起的作用,以及他们实施能力框架的意图,以确保所使用方法的充分性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信