1 / 21

N eeds & expectations about an International Learning Assessment in Higher Education

N eeds & expectations about an International Learning Assessment in Higher Education. Washington DC, July 11-12, 2013. Dra. Patricia Rosas Chávez, UDG MC Luz María Nieto Caraveo, UASLP. Contents. Reasons to participate & interest on cross-national learning assessment. 1. 2. 2.

haley
Download Presentation

N eeds & expectations about an International Learning Assessment in Higher Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Needs & expectations about an International Learning Assessment in Higher Education Washington DC, July 11-12, 2013 Dra. Patricia Rosas Chávez, UDG MC Luz María Nieto Caraveo, UASLP

  2. Contents • Reasons to participate & interest on cross-national learning assessment 1 2 2 • Implementation 3 3 • Did our expectations were met? • Challenges of a future ILA 4 4

  3. Reasons to participate & interest on cross-national learning assessment • Main mechanisms to evaluate the quality of Mexican HE: • CENEVAL • Disciplinary field tests • Generic skills • CIEES & COPAES • PIFI • Mechanisms of evaluationfocusedon inputs & processesmainly. While LOA has beengaininggroundinternationally.

  4. Reasons to participate & interest on cross-national learning assessment • AHELO opened an opportunity window to emphasize new assessment approaches for higher education system. • A possibility to know more about the impact of typical indicators such as qualifications of faculty, infrastructure, curriculum updating, tutoring, departmental tests, among many others.

  5. Reasons to participate & interest on cross-national learning assessment • In a country characterized by its regional, cultural & socio economical diversity, its greater demand for higher education, and its many educative subsystems, we wanted to know if • It is possible to compare LO among educative subsystems at a national level and with other international HEIs?

  6. Implementation

  7. 14 participatingHEIs Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí (UASLP) Universidad de Guadalajara (UDG) Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán (UADY) Tecnológico de Monterrey Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Irapuato (ITESI) Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua (UACH) Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila (UAC) Universidad Autónoma de Colima (UCOL) Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (UAZ) Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas (UNICACH) Universidad Politécnica de Aguascalientes (UPA) Universidad Tecnológica de la Mixteca (UTM) Universidad Veracruzana (UV)

  8. Implementation • Mexico joined the international consensus to evaluate GS, Economics & Engineering strands. • There is interest in evaluating specific domains which: – have an international vocation – have the greater enrollment and demand – coming from emergent fields – have recognition of quality, or those that attend specific social problems.

  9. Implementation • In assessingspecificfielddomaincapacities, wemust be careful of notevaluatingall of them, butonlythosethatwerecommon and comparable amongcountries.

  10. Did our expectations were met? Thegood • We knew that this were a feasibility study and that it could result in a viable or non viable AHELO. • The conceptual idea of AHELO was innovative and suggested many challenges about which we have been reflecting and learning. • The 1st face of the project resulted the best one since there were enough time for discussing, reaching consensus, and adjusting instruments (GS).

  11. Did our expectations were met? Thebad • Duetothebudget gap, the 2nd fase of theprojecthappened in a rush. • In GS therewere no time forpilot. Theresults of a pilotcould be used in theinternationalworkshoptocalibratescorers. • IntegratingMCQswasvaluable, buttherewas no time todiscussamongcountriesthisinstrumentthatneitherwasintegratedtothe conceptual framework. Besides, thereportfromtheConsorsiumaddedthe scores fromCRTs and MCQs as iftheywerecomingfromthesame constructo.

  12. Did our expectations were met? Thebad • Comparisonscouldnot be givenproperlysincetherewere no thesame RR amongHEIs. • The contextual dimensionwasnotexhaustive. • Because of costs, valueaddedstudyhadto be abandoned. • Theevidenceaboutthevalidity of theinstrumentmaynot be contundent as expected.

  13. Did our expectations were met? Theugly • ThewaytheConsortiumreportedtheresults.

  14. Challenges for a future ILA • Thefirstthingtohave in mindisthatexpectations of governments and nationswillvary in function of theeconomic, social and cultural context. • Thefinancial crisis isanimportantconstraint in designingpublicpoliciesfor HE, temptinggovernmentsto use thistype of evaluations as a waytoallocatebudgets.

  15. Challenges for a future ILA • Havingevaluationfor rankings orallocatingbudgetsputsin riskmanyHEIsthatcould be in cleardisadventagefortheirowncontext. • Thereforeitisneededtofindanequilibriumamongtransparency, accountability, budgetconstraint and thoselearningsthatHEIscouldobtainbycomparingthemshelveswithothersin ordertoimprovetheirquality.

  16. Challenges of a future ILA • Itisclearthateveryonewishestolearnfromthebestpracticesbutproperparametersmust be found. • An ILA isnotthe panacea tosolvetheproblems of the HE, northeonlywaytoimproveitsquality, butitisusefultobenchmarkwhatothers has beendoingtogetgoodresults.

  17. Challenges of a future ILA Whatan ILA would do betterthanisolatednationsmay be: • Reachconsensusaboutcommongenericcapacitiesneededforthis global era. • Helptoimproveassessingnationalinstrumentsbyconsideringthis global perspective.

  18. Challenges of a future ILA Whatan ILA would do betterthanisolatednationsmay be: • Provideinsightstomakemore appropriated ranking systemsaccordingtothedifferentHEIsprofiles. • Contributingtochangethe culture of highstakesassessingto a lowstakes, reducingpressureforallocatingbudget in function of rankings, and creating a new culture of learningforitsown sake.

  19. Challenges of a future ILA • Ifthereisagreementaboutthatstudents in a global era share some atributes thathelpthemtosurvive, themainchallengeconsist in identifyingthoseattributes and reachaninternationalconsensusaboutwhat and howtoassess GS as well as domainskills. • So far, we are workingwiththe data and weknowforsurethatfurther data must be collected in ordertointerpretproperlywhatwefound at a nationallevel. Butverylittlewegotfromaninternationalperspective.

  20. Concludingremarks • Thefeasibilitystudywasvaluablesinceitallowedustoknowthegood, thebad, and theugly. Bytakingcare of theseaspects, anyfuturemainstudyshould be betterforsure. • Mexicowantstocontinueitsinternationalparticipationbut in a lowstakeahelo. • If a mainstudyweretaken place, furtherinvolvement of participants in definning conceptual frameworks & instruments, isneeded.

  21. Thank you! http://ahelo.uaslp.mx Proyecto coordinador en México por la UASLP, UDG y UADY con financiamiento y apoyo de la Secretaría de Educación Pública, Subsecretaría de Educación Superior, Dirección General de Educación Superior Universitaria (PADES 2009, 2010, 2011 y 2012 de la UASLP, UADY y UDG).

More Related