World Wide Web

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 255–269 | Cite as

Web-based self- and peer-assessment of teachers’ digital competencies

  • Hans Põldoja
  • Terje Väljataga
  • Mart Laanpere
  • Kairit Tammets
Article

Abstract

Although there exist several alternative frameworks and standards for describing the digital competencies expected from teachers, there is a lack of Web-based assessment tools that allow authentic, reliable and valid assessment of these competencies. This paper addresses the design challenges related to a software solution for self- and peer-assessment of teachers’ digital competencies. The empirical part of the paper describes the participatory design process and results from the first user testing of a Web-based self- and peer-assessment tool DigiMina, which supports teachers in building and sharing a personal competency profile. In DigiMina, the competencies are assessed by a teacher herself or by her peers using the performance indicators that are based on the competency model NETS for Teachers created by the International Society of Technology in Education.

Keywords

educational technology digital competencies self-assessment peer-assessment conceptual design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, R.E.: Stellar Cases of Technology-Supported Innovations. In: Kozma, R.B. (ed.) Technology, Innovation, and Educational Change: A Global Perspective, pp. 195–215. ISTE, Eugene (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bawden, D.: Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. J. Doc. 57(2), 218–259 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M.: Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. J. e Learn. Knowl. Soc. 4, 183–193 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, J.M.: Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D.: About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cumming, J.J., Maxwell, G.: Contextualising authentic assessment. Assess. Educ. Princ. Pol. Pract. 6, 177–194 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Pablos Pons, J.: Repositori institucional: higher education and the knowledge society. information and digital competencies. RUSC. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento 7, 6–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ECDL Foundation: http://www.ecdl.org/ (2012). Accessed 29 February 2012
  10. 10.
    European Schoolnet: Assessment Schemes for Teachers’ ICT competence. http://www-old.eun.org/insight-pdf/special_reports/PIC_Report_Assessment%20schemes_insightn.pdf (2005). Accessed 29 February 2012
  11. 11.
    Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J.M., Steeples, C., Tickner, S.: Competences for online teaching: a special report. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 49(1), 65–72 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, P.A.: A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 52, 67–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hinostroza, J.E., Labbé, C., López, L., Iost, H.: Traditional and Emerging IT Applications for Learning. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G. (eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, vol. 20, pp. 81–96. Springer, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hogenbirk, P., de Rijcke, F. (eds.): Teachers: It clicks Professional development for good ICT practice. The Inspectorate of Education, Utrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    HR-XML Consortium: HR-XML 3.2 Standards Release. http://ns.hr-xml.org/schemas/org_hr-xml/3_2/Documentation/indexes/index.php (2011). Accessed 29 February 2012
  16. 16.
    IMSGLC: IMS Question and Test Interoperability Implementation Guide. http://www.imsglobal.org/question/qtiv2p1pd2/imsqti_implv2p1pd2.html (2006). Accessed 29 February 2012
  17. 17.
    IMSGLC: IMS Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational Objective Specification. http://www.imsglobal.org/competencies/ (2002). Accessed 29 February 2012
  18. 18.
    ISTE: NETS for Teachers 2008, http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx (2008). Accessed 29 February 2012
  19. 19.
    Jovanovic, J., Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., Milikic, N.: IntelLEO Competences Ontology http://www.intelleo.eu/ontologies/competences/spec/ (2011). Accessed 29 February 2012
  20. 20.
    Leinonen, T., Toikkanen, T., Silvfast, K.: Software as hypothesis: research-based design methodology. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, pp. 61–70. Indiana University, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, Q., Lau, R.W.H., Shih, T.K., Li, F.W.B.: Technology supports for distributed and collaborative learning over the internet. ACM Trans. Internet Tech. 8(2), 1–24 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lombardi, M.M.: Making the Grade: The Role of Assessment in Authentic Learning. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, G.E.: The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad. Med. 65, S63–S67 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pečiuliauskienė, P., Barkauskaitė, M.: Would-be teachers’ competence in applying ICT: exposition and preconditions for development. Informat Educ 6(2), 397–410 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Põldoja, H., Väljataga, T., Tammets, K., Laanpere, M.: Web-Based Self- and Peer-Assessment of Teachers’ Educational Technology Competencies. In: Leung, H., Popescu, E., Cao, Y., Lau, R., Nejdl, W. (eds.) ICWL 2011, LNCS, vol. 7048, pp. 122–131. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sampson, D., Fytros, D.: Competence models in technology-enhanced competence-based learning. In: Adelsberger, H.H., Kinshuk, Pawlowski, J.M., Sampson, D. (eds.) International Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, pp. 155–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tiger Leap Foundation: Educational Technology Competency Model. http://www.tiigrihype.ee/?dl=373 (2011). Accessed 29 February 2012
  28. 28.
    Tomberg, V., Laanpere, M.: Implementing Distributed Architecture of Online Assessment Tools Based on IMS QTI ver.2. In: Lazarinis, F., Green, S., Pearson, E. (eds.) Handbook of Research on E-Learning Standards and Interoperability: Frameworks and Issues, pp. 41–58. IGI Global (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    UNESCO: ICT Competency Standards for Teachers: Implementation Guidelines. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156209e.pdf (2008). Accessed 29 February 2012
  30. 30.
    Wass, V., Van der Vleuten, C., Shatzer, J., Jones, R.: Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet 357, 945–949 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Põldoja
    • 1
  • Terje Väljataga
    • 1
  • Mart Laanpere
    • 1
  • Kairit Tammets
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations