NEW METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING, MONITORING AND ASSESSING THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN THE...

8/16/2019 NEW METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING, MONITORING AND ASSESSING THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN …

1/12


2/12

126 New Methods and Techniques for Developing, Monitoring...

that it is an essential process for improvement. According to the McKinsey report (Barber and Mourshed,

2007:43 in Malm, 2009), ”the quality of an educational system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers”

and ”the only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction”. In this respect, Candlin and Edelhoff

(1982:vi) mention that ”learners learn most when they are quite precisely aware of . . . how their efforts

are to be judged and evaluated”. Therefore, evaluation is crucial for the improvement of the educational

system since it plays a pivotal role in deciding what the learners learn and what the teacher teach

(Agrawal, 2004). Given its importance, the present article aims to propose an evaluation method that

could lead to the development of a remedial measures plan and hence to the improvement of the entire

process.

According to the National Science Education Standards, there are two major types of evaluation:

formative and summative (Coffey et al., 2001). The first one is designed to distinguish worthwhile

programs from ineffective ones and the latter is designed to help improve existing ones in order to

achieve the desirable results. The one that is currentlygoing to be addressed is the summative evaluation,

which is conducted to determine whether the subject’s expectations are being met and which of its

consequences are met (Scriven, 1991). Cowan et al. (2013) focus more on the intention of the evaluation,

highlighting the fact that formative evaluation aims to identify the scope and the potential for

improvement, while summative evaluation is a judgement that usually works as a basis of one or moredecisions that will determine whether the competencies have been gained and if the candidate deserves

the promotion, award etc. Through summative evaluation, the professor can also assess the way in which

the objectives have been reached according to the difficulty level of the standardized test.

In this respect, the method described below is a useful tool we have used successfully in regular

teaching and learning situations, and which we can thus recommend for as practicable and useful.

Designing the Evaluation Test

From a quantitative point of view, the evaluation test is made of a series of items with precise elaboration

rules. In terms of qualitative research, the evaluation test becomes more relevant and efficient if the items

do not particularly focus on assessing the gained knowledge, but rather on how this knowledge could beapplied on similar or new situations. Therefore, the evaluation test has to meet some elaboration

requirements in order to meet the purpose for which it was designed, the items being selected based on a

specification matrix – a relational and distribution table between the content elements and the specific

competencies.

Another essential stage is the analysis and the interpretation of the evaluation test in order to quantify

the learning outcomes. This has to focus on determining the level of knowledge acquired, on intellectual

capacity building and on the students’ ability to apply the knowledge acquired in specific situations. This

stage ensures an objective feedback through which the professor is systematically being provided with

information related to the learning outcomes. Therefore, through analysis, the frequent shortcomings and

mistakes are being highlighted, offering the evaluator the possibility of drawing a set of remedial

measures in order to improve the teaching methods and techniques for better results.

The Structure of the Evaluation Test

In order to assess the learning outcomes for the subject Geography of Tourism at Faculty of Geography,

University of Bucharest, an evaluation test was designed using all the types of items – objective, semi-

objective and subjective (Figure 1). The highest proportion was covered by the semi-objective items

(50%), items which require an answer limited in length, form and content. In this category there are

included: an item of filling in the gaps (exercise II, 10 points), a short-answer item (exercise IV, 15

points) and two items based on the analysis of the graphic/cartographic support (exercise VII, 10 points

and exercise VIII, 15 points). The advantages brought by the use of more semi-objective items is given by


3/12

Aurel Gheorghila and Anca Tudoricu 127

the possibility of evaluating a high range of abilities, capacities and knowledge. Moreover, it is quite easy

to mark them since they have a high degree of objectivity in the context of a suitable grading scale.

The objective items cover 22% of the evaluation test content, comprising two categories: a multiple

choice item (exercise I, 10 points) and a selection/association item (exercise III, 12 points). The strengths

of using objective items lie in the fact that the answers have to be given in a reasonable amount of time

and space, covering a wide range of evaluation objectives and content elements.

The third category - the subjective items, which call for an open answer can be found in the

evaluation test in a proportion of 18%. This comes to complete the other selected categories presented

above due to the fact that a complex evaluation should also assess the abilities of analysis, argumentation

and synthesis. In this category there are two items: an unstructured essay (exercise V, 8 points) and a

structured essay, where the expected answer is guided by the way in which the request is formulated

(exercise VI, 10 points). In this case, the strengths of this type of items are related to the fact that they can

cover a wide range of objectives from knowledge to analysis and evaluation, measuring high-level

abilities and complex learning outcomes.

The structure of the

test / The item type

Assigned

score

Objective items

Multiple choice item

(I = 10 p)

Association/selection

item(III = 12 p)

22 p

Semi-objective

items

Filling-in items

(II = 10 p)Short-answer items

(IV = 15 p)

Items of analysis

based on

graphic/cartographic

support

(VII+VIII = 25 p)

50 p

Subjective items

Unstructured essay

(V = 8 p)

Structured essay

(VI = 10 p)

18 p

Granted points 10 p

TOTAL 100 p

Figure 1. The score distributed on each item type

0 5 10 15 20

VIII

VII

VI

V

IV

III

II

I

22%

50%

18% 10%

Objective Items Semi objective items

Subjective items Granted points


4/12


EVALUATION TEST (SAMPLE)

GENERALITIES ON GEOGRAPHY OF TOURISM –

* NOTE: all items are compulsory; you will be awarded 10 granted points; Total = 100 points

I. Circle the correct answer: 10 points

1. The National Tourism Bureau (O.N.T.) was founded in:

a. 1924;

b. 1944;c. 1975;

d. 1995.

2. In Roman times, there were several spas operating, among which on current Romanian territory:

a. Slnic Moldova i Olneti;

b. Bile Herculane i Bile Geoagiu; c. Slnic Moldova i Bile Geoagiu;

d. Bile Herculane i Olneti.

3. In Ancient Greece, the symbol of a friendly visit was:

a. A symbolic object (sumbolon);

b. A written contract; c. A symbolic gesture;

d. A gift for the host.

4. The potential tourist offer includes:

a. All accommodation options in a region;

b. All tourist resources;c. All labour force in tourism;

d. All investment in tourism.

5. Speleological tourism is:

a. The exploration and the complex study of

caves; b. A type of rural tourism;

c. A type of cultural tourism;

d. The exploration and the complex study ofdeltaic regions.

II. Fill in the gaps with the correct words: 10 points

1. The most important intergovernmental body that creates an overall framework for the tourism activity

in the world is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Epidaurus archaeological site is famous for its best-kept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. The terms of ”tourism” and ”tourist” started being used in the everyday language in the mid-

nineteenth century, a great influence in this respect having Stendhal’s novel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

4. Between Cap de Tortosa and Barcelona lies …………………Coast

5. On the Italian coast o Adriatic Sea there is a dence network of resorts between Trieste and . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. Put the following resorts into the right column: 12 points

Meribel, Interlaken, Kitzbühel, Val d’Isère, Valgardena, Crans Montana, Saas Fee, Zell am See, Bormio,Courchevel, Zermat, Jungfraujoch, Cortina D’Ampezzo, Hintertux, Grinderwald .


5/12


a. Italian Alps b. Bernese

Alps

c. Austrian

Alps

d. Pennine Alps

IV. Define the following concepts: 15 points

1) social and cultural sustainability; 2) tourism planning; 3) traveller.

V. Explain briefly the relation between Geography of Tourism and Physical Gography. 8 puncte

VI. Characterize briefly health tourism. The characterization should include: generalities, forms

and dedicated areas. 10 points

VII. Observe closely the image below

and identify the type of extreme sport

given. Describe it briefly focusing on:

the activities, resources and dedicated

areas.

10 puncte

VIII. Analyse the cartogram below which represents the international tourist arrivals (2010) in

Europe.

Present the main regional differences regarding international tourist arrivals;

Describe the reasons which lead to these differences. 15 points


6/12


The Specification Matrix

The specification matrix is a very relevant tool / procedure used in order to ensure the fact that the test

assesses the educational objectives, having a good content balance. As mentioned before, the specification

matrix is a distribution and relational table between the content elements and the appropriate

competencies. The matrix rows contain the evaluated content and the columns hold the cognitive levels atwhich we want to measure the content (Stoica, 2001). By including and detailing the competencies to be

evaluated, it will clarify what and how much the evaluation test can measure.

Evaluation Test Model – Fundamentals of Geography of Tourism

Competencies

Contents

C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6

T O T A L

1. Fundamentals,

content,

terminology

I.1. (2p)

I.4. (2p)

II.1.(2p)

IV.2. (5p)

IV.3. (5p)

V. (8p) 24 p

27 %

2. Brief history

of the emergence

and evolution of

travel and

tourism

I.3. (2p)

II.3.(2p)

I.2. (2p)

II.2.(2p)

8 p

9 %

3. The dimension

of the tourism

phenomenonnowadays

IV.1. (5p) VIII. (15p) 20 p

22 %

4. Types and

forms of tourism

I.5. (2p) VII. (10p) VI. (10p) 22 p

24 %

5. International

tourism areas

II.4.(2p)

II.5.(2p)

III. (12p) 16 p

18 %

TOTAL 16 p

(18 %)

14 p

(15 %)

25 p

(28 %)

12 p

(13 %)

15 p

(17 %)

8 p

(9 %)

90 p

100 %* Where:

C 1. Identifying / acknowledging certain data, concepts, relations or specific categories

C 2. Describing / exemplifying certain phenomena, processes or concrete situations

C 3. Defining / characterising / comparing facts, data, properties, phenomena etc.C 4. Using / applying specific knowledge in problem situations.

C 5. Analysing / generalising / transferring facts, processes, phenomena, situations in various contexts.

C 6. Evaluating / explaining / interpreting facts, processes, phenomena, situations in various contexts.

Figure 2. Specification Matrix


7/12


In the evaluation test projected and presented above the specification matrix model is composed of

five chapters which cover the content taught during the first semester that refers to the general concepts in

Geography of Tourism (see Figure 2). The distribution of the content items is balanced so that the test

would cover all the issues taught during classes. Given the fact that the subject aims to introduce and

consolidate the knowledge/the fundamentals through definitions and characterizations, higher proportions

were assigned to: 1. Fundamentals, content, terminology (27%); 3. The dimension of the tourism

phenomenon nowadays (22%). 4. Types and forms of tourism (24%). Lower content proportions were

assigned to the chapters which present examples, descriptions or localization of specific elements: 5.

International tourist areas and 2. Brief history of the emergence and evolution of travel and tourism.

Competencies:C 1. Identification/Recognition of data,concepts, relations, categories related to the

subject/field of study 16 p / 18 %C 2. Description / Exemplification of certain

phenomena, processes or concrete situations

related to the subject/field of study 14 p / 15 %C 3. Definition/ Description/ Comparison of

facts, data, properties, phenomena. 25 p / 28 %C 4. Using / Applying specific knowledge for

problem-solving in the field of study12 p / 13 %C 5. Analysis/ Generalization /Transfer of

facts, processes, pheomena, situations in various

contexts 15 p / 17 %C 6. Evaluation / Explanation /Interpretation of facts, processes, phenomena,

situations in various contexts 8 p / 9 %

The distribution of competencies based on

content

1. Fundamentals, content, terminology:C1 (6p) + C3 (10p) + C6 (8p) = 24 p

2. A brief history of the emergence and evolutionof travel and tourism

turistice: C1 (4p) + C2 (4p) = 8 p3. The dimension of the tourism phenomenonnowadays: C3 (5p) + C5 (15p) = 20 p4. Types and forms of tourism:

C1 (2p) + C2 (10p) + C3 (10p) = 22 p5. International tourism areas:

C1 (4p) + C4 (12p) = 16 p

TOTAL: 90 p + 10 p oficiu = 100 puncte

Figure 3. Specification matrix model

Given the fact that during the second semester one of the aims of the subject is to develop the

practical abilities, it was necessary, where possible, to try a familiarization of the students with the items

which are relevant for consolidating these competencies. However, since the aim of the evaluation test is

to provide a complex summative evaluation of the knowledge acquired during the first semester, it was

necessary to also focus on other competencies, such as C4. Using / applying specific knowledge in

problem situations (13%) and C6. Evaluation / Explanation / Interpretation of facts, processes,

phenomena, situations in various contexts (9%).


8/12


Results and Discussions

Interpreting the scores obtained by the students in the summative evaluation test offered us the possibility

to assess the level of the knowledge acquired to ensure the development of the intellectual capacities and

the ability to apply the knowledge in specific situations. If we take into consideration the score obtained,

the analysis of the results, as well as the realization levels on contents and competencies, helped us spotthe frequent shortcomings and mistakes made by students. From this interpretation stage we got an

objective feedback – a starting point in elaborating a remedial measures plan through which we aim at

improving the teaching methods and techniques so that the students could eventually assimilate and use

the knowledge accordingly.

For a better understanding of the interpretation process of the results of the evaluation test we chose

to present a case study (a group of first-year students – 107, majored in Geography of Tourism) following

the entire analysis and elaboration process of the remedial measures plan.

Analysis of the Score Awarded

An initial step in interpreting the results obtained from the evaluation test is analysing the score ranges for

the entire group of students. The scores can be centralised and illustrated in a graphic model which showsthe distribution curve of points per student (Figure 4).

Score range No of students

30 – 39 points 1

40 – 49 points 2

50 – 59 points 3

60 – 69 points 4

70 – 79 points 580 – 89 points 6

90 – 99 points 3

100 points 1

Figure 4. Distribution of score per number of students

For the group of students (no. 107) chosen as a case study for the current research, the graphic model

of the distribution of the score per number of students has a bell shape or a parable shape pointing

upwards. Its highest peak marks the category 80-89 points, where 6 students fit, 24% from the group total.

On the lower level of the representation lies the category 30-39 points, where a single student falls. Then,

until the highest peak of the parable the curve is growing steadily, having added one student for each

category. Below the highest peak the curve drops abruptly, 3 students falling inside the 90-99 points

category, reaching the upper end of the representation (the maximum score) where only one student falls.

The results of the group 107 show that it is an average one, given the fact that 60% of the sample obtained

scores between 60 and 89 points. Below the passing score (30-49 points) there are only 3 students, but it

is a worrying fact that other 3 students are at risk (with scores between 50-59 points). The good results,

above avera ge, were reached by a moderate number of students of whom three fell into the 90-99

points category, and one student reached the maximum score – 100 points.


9/12


Level of Achievement Based on Items

The analysis of the score obtained by every student for every item of the evaluation test offers the

possibility to determine the achievement level based on difficulty levels. Among our case study the rate of

achievement lies between 46.9% for item VIII (semi-objective item of analysis based on a cartographic

support) and 89.6% for item I (multiple choice item). Decent achievement levels were reached for item II

(82.4% - fill in the gaps item type) and for item V (81% - subjective item type to explain certain

phenomena and relations).

The focus on the analysis based on item types used in the structure of the evaluation test shows that

students got better results when it came to objective items, with an average achievement rate of 79%. If

they did not face any difficulties when it came to the multiple choice item, having the highest

achievement rate – 89.6%), for the objective selection item (item III) a lower level of achievement was

reached – of only 70.3%. The average achievement rate for the four semi-objective items was of only

65.6%, the students facing difficulties when it came to items VII and VIII (semi-objective items of

analysis based on images and cartograms). Better achievement rates were attained in case of the semi-

objective items with a short answer and filling in the gaps (item IV- 72%, itm II – 82, 4%). At the same

time, the level of achievement for the subjective items was moderate, of only 64, 8%, the highest

difficulties being faced when it came to item VI (unstructured essay item type) - 52%.

Level of Achievement Based on Content

Due to fact that the subject Geography of Tourism aims to provide the students with the fundamentals of

the field, different proportions were allocated to each item category for a better coverage of the

content/chapters taught (see Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution and level of achievement based on content

Content Calculation Total score Average score

awarded (Gr.

107)

Rate of

achievement

Chapter 1 I1 + I4 + II1 + IV2 + IV3 + V 24 p 18,36 p 76,5 %

Chapter 2 I2 + I3 + II2 + II3 8 p 7,04 p 88 %

Chapter 3 IV1 + VIII 20 p 10,92 p 54,6 %

Chapter 4 I5 + VI + VII 22 p 13,84 p 62,9 %

Chapter 5 II4 + II5 + III 16 p 11,72 p 73,2 %

Therefore, we focused more on the content that reinforces the fundamentals through definitions and

characterization (chapters 1, 3 and 4) and less on the ones that mainly present examples, descriptions or

localization of specific elements (chapters 2 and 5). After a brief analysis of the content-related results wediscovered that the highest level of achievement was reached for chapter 2 – A brief history of the

emergence and evolution of travel and tourism. On one hand, this is due to the fact that the chapter

presents generalities and, on the other hand, the information was structured on multiple choice items, with

a relatively low difficulty level. Other good levels of achievement (around 75%) were reached for chapter

1 – Fundamentals, content and terminology and for the chapter 5 – International tourist areas. For these

chapters, there were several items that required defining terms (short answer items), one unstructured

essay item type and one item of association /selection. A lower level of achievement (62.9%) was attained

for chapter 4 – Types and forms of tourism, mostly because the knowledge was evaluated through a

structured essay and an image-based analysis and the students were not used to this type of assessment

and interpretation of information taught during classes. The same explanation applies to the lowest rate of


10/12


achievement - of just 54.6% - attained for the content of chapter 3 (The dimension of the tourist

phenomenon nowadays), most of the points being awarded for an item of analysis based on map support.

Level of Achievement Based on Competencies

The competencies to be evaluated through this test were covered by different item types depending ontheir characteristics and on the information taught to the students, which aimed mostly to familiarize them

with the concepts and fundamentals of Geography of Tourism (see Table 2). Therefore, the specific

competencies that meet the general aim have balanced rates of achievement, the highest being assigned to

the competence C3 - Definition/ Description/ Comparison of facts, data, properties, phenomena (28%).

Table 2. Distribution and level of achievement based on competencies

* Calculation Total

score

Average

score

awarded

Rate of

achievement

C 1 I1 + I3 + I4 + I5 + II1 + II3 + II4 + II5 16 p 13,68 p 85,5 %C 2 I2 + II2 + VII 14 p 10,24 p 73,1 %

C 3 IV1 + IV2 + IV3 + VI 25 p 16 p 64 %

C 4 III 12 p 8,44 p 70,3 %

C 5 VIII 15 p 7,04 p 46,9 %

C 6 V 8 p 6,48 p 81 %

* Where:

C 1. Identification/Recognition of data, concepts, relations, categories related to the subject/field of study

C 2. Description / Exemplification of certain phenomena, processes or concrete situations related to the

subject/field of study

C 3. Definition/ Description/ Comparison of facts, data, properties, phenomena.

C 4. Using / Applying specific knowledge for problem-solving in the field of study

C 5. Analysis/ Generalization /Transfer of facts, processes, phenomena, situations in various contexts

C 6. Evaluation / Explanation / Interpretation of facts, processes, phenomena, situations in various contexts

As the competencies-based analysis shows, the highest rate of achievement (85,5%) belongs to C1

(Identification/Recognition of data, concepts, relations, categories related to the subject/field of study)

due to the fact that in order to cover these competencies there were used items which do not request the

interpretation of information, being mostly multiple choice items or filling-in the gaps. At the other

extreme the students faced major difficulties when it came to the map-based analysis item which covered

C5 (Analysis/ Generalization /Transfer of facts, processes, pheomena, situations in various contexts),

reaching a rate of achievement of only 46,9%. Another low rate (64%) refers to C 3 (Definition/

Description/ Comparison of facts, data, properties, phenomena), fact which indicates that students had notdeveloped a specialized language to help them define clearly the concepts taught or explained during

classes. The level of achievement for the other competencies is relatively good (between 70-80%);

according to the items solved most of the students were able to describe, present or illustrate various

processes, facts or concrete situations.

Conclusions

The present study presented the evaluation process and its stages, from the elaboration techniques of the

evaluation tools, to the ones for the interpretation and monitoring of the learning outcomes.


11/12


For the case study chosen we highlighted the correlation between the learning outcomes, the

formulated assessment objectives and the specific competencies, the whole approach aiming to explain

the relation between the method, the evaluation tool, the purpose and the evaluation objectives of the

subject Geography of Tourism.

The instruments, the analysis and the techniques helped us measure the acquired knowledge level,

the development of the intellectual capacity and the students’ ability to apply the knowledge. Generally,

the results obtained by the students from the group 107 on score categories showed us that the level of the

group is an average one (the average score – 71,88 points) and 14 students (56% respectively) got scores

above the average, out of whom one got the maximum score. Below the passing score there were 3

students (12% of the total), and between the range of 50-71,88 points there were 8 students (32% of the

total).

The analysis of the achievement level based on item types, content and competencies helped us

identify the weak points and the strengths regarding the entire evaluation process. As strengths we spotted

the fact that students solve easily the items which require a short answer or to fill in the gaps, as well as

the multiple choice items. Given the fact that the rate of achievement for these items was above 80% this

means students have understood the content taught and that they can identify, through association, the

correct answers. Another good rate of achievement (around 80%) was attained for the items which coverthe competencies related to the assessment, explanation or the interpretation of various processes, facts or

concrete situations.

As weaknesses, we realized that students faced great difficulties in interpreting and analysing

information based on map support (rate of achievement below 50%), as well as in dealing with the

unstructured essay (rate of achievement of 50%). When it comes to competencies, the weakest result was

for C3 (Definition/ Description/ Comparison of facts, data, properties, phenomena) which covers best the

introductory character of the subject. This highlights the fact that students had not developed yet a

specialized language to help them define the concepts taught and explained during classes. All these claim

for remedial measures in the second semester of the academic year through simple, empirical

explanations of several processes and phenomena to improve and consolidate the specialized language for

most of the students. Moreover, the action plan also involves guided or structured description of specific

elements based on graphic and cartographic support as well as making students work more with maps andimages.

In conclusion, we believe that the present study could be a model for the improvement of the

evaluation system because these tools give the evaluator the possibility to design a set of remedial

measures in order to improve the educational process.

References

1. Agrawal, M. 2004. Curricular reform in schools: the importance of evaluation. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

36, 361-379.

2. Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. 2007. How the world's best-performing schools systems come out on top,

McKinsey & Company.3. Candlin, C., Abbs, B. & Edelhoff, C. 1982. Challenges: a multi-media project for learners of English.

Teacher's guide, Langenscheidt.

4. Centra, J. A. 1994. The Use of the Teaching Portfolio and Student Evaluations for Summative Evaluation. The

Journal of Higher Education, 65, 555-570.

5. Coffey, J., Black, P., Atkin, J. M., Harrison, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. 2001. Classroom Assessment andthe National Science Education Standards, National Academies Press.

6. Cowan, J. D., John, C., George, J. D. D. & Judith, G. 2013. A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation: Mapping the Students' Learning Experience, Taylor & Francis.

7. Dulam, M. E. 1996. Didactic geografic , Editura Clusium, Cluj Napoca;


12/12


8. Dulam, M. E. 2002 Modele, strategii i tehnici didactice activizante cu aplica ii în geografie, EdituraClusium, Cluj Napoca;

9. Dulam, M. E. 2010 Didactica axat pe competen e, Editura Presa Universitar Clujan, Cluj Napoca;

10. George, J. W. & Cowan, J. 1999. A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation: Mapping the Student's

Learning Experience, Kogan Page.

11. Gheorghila A. 2014 Geografia Turismului. Metode de analiz în turism, 3rd edition, Editura Universitar ,Bucureti

12. Ilinca N. 2000 Didactica geografiei, Editura Corint, Bucureti

13. Malm, B. 2009. Towards a new professionalism: enhancing personal and professional development in teachereducation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35, 77-91.

14. Marsh, H. W. 1987. Students' evaluations of University teaching: Research findings, methodological issues,and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.

15. Radu I.T. 2004 Evaluarea în procesul didactic, Editura Didactic i Pedagogic, Bucureti

16. Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus, SAGE Publications.

17. Stoica, A. 2001. Evaluarea curent i examenele. Ghid pentru profesori.

NEW METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING, MONITORING AND ASSESSING THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN THE...

Documents

Transcript of NEW METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING, MONITORING AND ASSESSING THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN THE...