Comproved, a holistic assessment tool for comparative assessment (VLOV156)

In recent years, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel has used internal quality assurance and evaluation policy (testing, assessment) to increase the quality of both summative and formative evaluation. The emphasis was mainly on the quality criterion 'reliability'. For the assessment of complex pieces of work and actions, emphasis was therefore placed on the use of criteria and rubrics. A disadvantage of this approach is that programmes sometimes develop long lists of assessment criteria, which are difficult to handle. In addition, assessors sometimes interpret the descriptions of the criteria and rubrics differently than they were originally intended by the authors (Bloxham, den-Outer, Hudson, & Price, 2016).
Through this technique, assessors evaluate the (complex) piece of work or action as a whole, rather than broken down into a number of criteria. Multiple assessors and multiple assessments ensure the necessary reliability. The emphasis in this way of evaluation is more on the quality criterion 'validity' of an evaluation instrument: "Am I measuring what I want to measure", i.e. has the student achieved the proposed competences or not? It is a more natural form of evaluation, and also seems to give more satisfaction in the activity of assessment. It honours the assessor, who is an expert in his or her field, and knows when a certain piece of work, or a certain action is satisfactory or not.

Keywords:Holistic Assesment Tool, Comparative Assessment

Disciplines:Other pedagogical and educational sciences not elsewhere classified