|
|||||
.2010 - Volumen 3, Número 1 (e).
|
|||||
Design n and Operation of an Evaluation System for the Teaching Performancewith Formative Aims: The Experience of the |
|||||
Gloria Contreras P. | |||||
.Abstract | |||||
The present article describes and analyzes the process of design and implementation of the System for the Teaching Performance for the professional courses of the Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaiso, Chile. The main objective of this system is to contribute to the quality improvement of the formation by means of an integral system of information recollection on the university teaching to facilitate the feedback and subsequently favor the improvement. The design began in the year 2007 with a diagnosis that counted with the participation of authorities, teachers and students. From this diagnosis four strong ideas arose to constitute the pillars of future system of evaluation. The systems would be on that: (1) essentially would serve as support for the university teachers to improve the formative processes of their students; (2) it would tie the teaching evaluation, the development of teaching competences and the learning results of the students; (3) it would clearly specify a notion of quality of teaching through the definition of its dimensions; and (4) it would offer different sources and instruments to the teachers so that they could gather an ample panorama with respect to their teaching. The gradual implementation of the system shows that the evaluation of teaching with formative aims is possible only in the measurement that the involved actors participate actively in her and perceive her as a process of permanent reflection. |
|||||
.Key words | |||||
Teaching, Formative Evaluation, quality, reflection. |
|||||
.Full Text | |||||
Full Text HTML | |||||
Full Text PDF a | |||||
.Reference | |||||
Contreras, G. (2010). Diseño y Operación de un Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño Docente con Fines Formativos: la Experiencia de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 3 (1e), pp. 179-191. |
|||||