Administrator Preparation Programs: Problems in Evaluating Competence.

Autor/in	Kelley, Edgar A.
Titel	Administrator Preparation Programs: Problems in Evaluating Competence.
Quelle	(1975), (17 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Tabellen
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Tagungsbericht; Administrator Education; Administrator Evaluation; Competency Based Education; Educational Administration; Educational Assessment; Educational Objectives; Educational Philosophy; Evaluation Criteria; Evaluation Methods; Higher Education; Program Development + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Education; Competence; Competency; Competency-based education; Unterricht; Kompetenzorientierte Methode; Bildungsverwaltung; Schuladministration; Schulverwaltung; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Educational objective; Bildungsziel; Erziehungsziel; Bildungsphilosophie; Erziehungsphilosophie; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Programmplanung
Abstract	Judgments about competence are always relative, tentative, and situation-specific. An effective competency-based program for preparation of school administrators must base judgments about competency development on the same sources that will judge on-the-job administrative competency. The four most common instructional orientations to administrator preparation--traditional, academic, phenomenological, and performance-based--share an implicit assumption that competence can be judged by limited criteria and audiences. Regardless of philosophical orientation, the most common judge of administrator preparation is a single professor. This audience has little or no importance in judging the competence of the practitioner. Most existing programs that have been labeled performance-based education (PBE) or competency-based education (CBE) are examples of PBE. CBE may be best defined as a way of thinking about program planning. PBE is, by contrast, an instructional approach. To realize the promise of CBE demands the use of assessment criteria that involve judgments by multiple audiences. (Author/JG)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01