BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Miralles Cristóbal (Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain)), Perello-Marin M. Rosario (Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain)), Canós-Darós Lourdes (Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain)), Vidal-Carreras Pilar I. (Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain))
Peer Paired Ranking: Assessing and Training 21st Century Graduates
Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Łódzka, 2017, z. 67, nr 1214, s. 119-124, bibliogr. 20 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Szkolenia, Ranking, Współpraca
Training, Ranking, Cooperation
streszcz., summ.
In the context of European Higher Education, universities are highly adopting innovative curricula focused on students acquisition of skills and competences needed for the further career development of the 21st century graduates [1][2]. Particularly, Universitat Politécnica de Valencia (UPV) (Spain), has launched an institutional Project on transversal skills UPV (i.e. skills acquired by the UPV graduates). This project is supported by the strategic plan UPV2020. Its main goal is to accredit, by using rubrics, 13 transversal skills of any graduate from the Universitat Politècnica de València [3].(fragment of text)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu
Pełny tekst
  1. EHEA, Bologna-process European Higher Education Area. History, 2014.
  2. Reinalda B. and Publishers B.B.: The Bologna Process - Harmonizing Europe's Higher Education, 2005.
  3. ICE, Proyecto de competencias transversalesUPV. Rúbricas, 2015.
  4. Grao J., Carot J.M., Mora J.G., Ochoa C., Pérez P.J., Uriarte C. and Vila L.E.: Aportación de la universidad y de la experiencia laboral al desarrollo de competencias en la juventud egresada, Investig. Econ. la Educ., Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 563-576, 2011.
  5. Anderson R.S.: Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment, New Dir. Teach. Learn., Vol. 74, pp. 5-16, 1998.
  6. Christoforou A.P. and Yigit A.S.: Improving teaching and learning in engineering education through a continuous assessment process, Eur. J. Eng. Educ., Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 105-116, 2008.
  7. Reiter H.I., Eva K.W., Hatala R.M. and Norman G.R.: Self and peer assessment in tutorials: application of a relative-ranking model., Acad. Med., Vol. 77, No. 11, pp. 1134-1139, 2002.
  8. Nicol D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick D.: Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Stud. High. Educ., Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 199-218, 2006.
  9. Higgins M. and Grant F.: Formative Assessment: Balancing Educational Effectiveness and Resource Efficiency, Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 4-24, 2010.
  10. Vickerman P.: Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning?, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 221-230, 2009.
  11. Ohland M.W., Loughry M.L., Woehr D.J., Bullard L.G., Felder R.M., Finelli C.J., Layton R.A., Pomeranz H.R. and Schmucker D.G.: The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation, Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 609-631, 2012.
  12. Sluijsmans D., Dochy F. and Moerkerke G.: Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer-and co-assessment, Learn. Environ. Res., pp. 293-319, 1998.
  13. Tu Y. and Lu M.: Peer-and-Self Assessment to Reveal the Ranking of Each Individual's Contribution to a Group Project., J. Inf. Syst. Educ., Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 197-205, 2005.
  14. Lai C.-L. and Hwang G.-J.: An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students' art design performance using handheld devices, Comput. Educ., Vol. 85, pp. 149-159, 2015.
  15. Fürnkranz J. and Hüllermeier E. (Eds.): Preference Learning. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
  16. Kadziński M., Słowiński R. and Greco S.: Multiple criteria ranking and choice with all compatible minimal cover sets of decision rules, Knowledge-Based Syst., Vol. 89, pp. 569-583, 2015.
  17. Adler N., Friedman L. and Sinuany-Stern Z.: Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context, Eur. J. Oper. Res., Vol. 140, No. 2, pp. 249-265, Jul. 2002.
  18. Hullermeier E. and Furnkranz J.: Ranking by Pairwise Comparison: A Note on Risk Minimization, Fuzzy Syst. 2004. Proceedings. 2004 IEEE Int. Conf., Vol. 1, pp. 97-102, 2004.
  19. Tavana M., Di Caprio D. and Santos-Arteaga F.J.: An ordinal ranking criterion for the subjective evaluation of alternatives and exchange reliability, Inf. Sci. (Ny), Vol. 317, pp. 295-314, 2015.
  20. Tran N.M.: Pairwise ranking: Choice of method can produce arbitrarily different rank order, Linear Algebra Appl., Vol. 438, No. 3, pp. 1012-1024, 2013.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu