{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-63773fc5d8276f33","slug":"2010-02-08-competence-requirements-supporting-learning-outcome-measurement","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2010-02-08","last_modified_date":"2010-02-08","title":"Competence requirements supporting learning-outcome measurement","summary":"Clarifies the practical meaning of competence requirements supporting learning-outcome measurement and the evidence required to support a reliable assurance conclusion.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"International assessment and indicator development","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The policy and evidence context for learning-outcome measurement has been materially shaped by the international assessment and indicator development. For the assurance question, the requirement should be read as an assurance obligation: the provider must be able to explain the control, show its operation and account for material exceptions.","The historical reference basis is the international assessment and indicator development. Its relevance to the stated expectation should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. In relation to competence requirements supporting learning-outcome measurement, any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone.","The quality significance of the assurance question follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. For the control, assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["The analysis of learning-outcome measurement should make its decision rule explicit. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. Completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence. Comparable evidence should be assessed against criteria settled before the result is known.","The governing expectation for the control should be capable of consistent application. For the assurance question, evidence is sufficient when it is current, attributable, representative of the relevant scope and capable of being reconciled with other available records. Criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["Risk assessment of learning-outcome measurement should give particular attention to tasks that do not assess the stated outcome, uncontrolled changes to assessment, and weak assurance of authorship or performance. A provider should also consider inconsistent judgement between markers or locations and reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome."],"bullets":["Review differential and anomalous results.","Calibrate assessors.","Control changes, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.","Retain evidence sufficient for review.","Define the decision each assessment must support."]},{"heading":"Basis for a reliable conclusion","paragraphs":["Readily available material should not define the enquiry if it cannot answer the relevant decision question. For learning-outcome measurement, the most relevant material is likely to include approval and change-control records, authorship and identity controls proportionate to risk, appeal and correction records, and assessment maps to learning outcomes.","A proportionate method is available for the stated expectation. A competent review of the stated expectation should set a baseline and success measure before intervention, define the review period, compare the result with the intended outcome and examine adverse or unequal effects. In relation to competence requirements supporting learning-outcome measurement, continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained. Averages should be tested against adverse cases that may indicate unequal effect or incomplete operation.","Interpretation of the stated expectation should produce a test that another competent reviewer can apply to comparable evidence."]},{"heading":"Maintaining effective oversight","paragraphs":["Interpretation of learning-outcome measurement should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. In reviewing the control, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. A decision concerning the control should recognise that an isolated example cannot establish consistent operation, and an isolated failure should be evaluated for materiality, recurrence and systemic effect.","A traceable record enables responsibility to be established and errors to be corrected fairly. For the stated expectation, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. A material amendment should record its reason and effective date, preserving the information basis of earlier decisions.","Accountability for the issue under review should follow decision-making authority. Delegation of delivery does not remove the need for a named authority to oversee material learner impact.","The measure of progress on the assurance question is not the amount of policy or documentation produced."]}],"word_count":679,"content_hash":"sha256-ca0f9a951057e3b7b017df4f5b676f3e9afd5c7990c046dd0c4a6224fa561c86","seo_keywords":["competence requirements supporting learning-outcome measurement","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}