TABLE 8.12 Workforce Readiness Assessment Methodology for SCANS: Example 2 | | | | | | General Methodology | Specific Example | | | | | | | | | | | | Select a work environment | Analytically derived | | Conduct job and task analysis | Analytically derived | | Select competency | Interpersonal Competency | | | | | ( SCANS) | | Conduct componential analysis of competency | Negotiates | | Specify basic skills foundation | Thinking creatively, making | | | | | decisions, solving problems | | Create indicator(s) for subcompetency requirement | Articulating common goals, | | | | | understanding others' | | | | | positions, creating | | | | | integrative solutions | | Classify indicator(s) within a cognitive science taxonomy | Integrative negotiation | | | | | (Womack, 1990) | | Create rapid prototype of measures of indicator(s) via | [see examples in Tables 8.11 ] | | | test specifications | | 8.11 ] | | Select/develop final measures of indicator(s) | To be done | | Select experimental/analytical design | Criterion groups | | Run empirical studies | To be done | | Analyze statistically | To be done | | Use/create norms | To be done | | Report reliability/validity of indicator(s) measure | To be done | | Report on workforce readiness using multiple indicators | To be done | | | | | | WHERE ARE WE NOW? We have created a good "first cut" of a general methodology for measuring workforce readiness competencies. Further, we have instantiated this meth- odology with two prototypic examples. Our plans are to explore the use of technology to administer, score, and interpret our workforce readiness competency measures. Such explorations are documented in chapters by O'Neil, Allred, and Dennis (this volume) and O'Neil, Chung, and Brown (this volume). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work reported herein was supported under the Educational Research and Development Center Program cooperative agreement R117GIO027 and CFDA catalog number 84.117G as administered by the Office of Edu- cational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in this report do not reflect the position or policies of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement or the U.S. Department of Education. -202- |