The heteroevaluation It is a process of evaluating the work or knowledge of a student by agents with a different status than their own, who do not fulfill the same function. It is a technique opposed to peer evaluation, in which two students in the same category rate their performance mutually.
Hetero-evaluation is one of the most widely used scoring techniques in the educational system. One of the most common examples is the correction of exams, assignments and exercises by the teacher. However, it can also occur in other contexts, such as the Selectivity tests or those for access to an institution.
Heteroevaluation has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it is a supposedly objective measure, since personal biases should not come into play when deciding the rating of another individual. Thus, when done correctly, an assessment done in this way can be extremely informative..
On the other hand, however, it is very difficult for one person to take into account all the factors that influence the performance of another. For this reason, very important aspects such as the personal characteristics of an individual, their circumstances, or the relative progress they have made in their learning are often overlooked..
Article index
The main difference between hetero-evaluation and other ways of scoring performance has to do with the difference in status between the examiner and the examinee..
While in the self-evaluation it is the person himself who scores his work, and in the co-evaluation it is done by an equal, in this model it is done by someone from a different position.
Thus, the most common version of hetero-evaluation is that in which a teacher examines the work performed by his students through objective tests, such as tests or standardized tests. However, it can also occur in very different contexts.
On the one hand, in the traditional educational system itself it is possible that students also evaluate the performance of their teachers. This is something increasingly common in centers such as institutes and universities; and it is done with the intention of improving the performance of educators.
On the other hand, the hetero-evaluation can also be carried out by an external observer to the evaluation process, as would be the case of the Selectivity tests to access a university; or in less formal settings, such as entrance exams to an art school.
Although this does not always happen, one of the most important characteristics of hetero-evaluation is that the rating is given objectively. While with other techniques there is usually a bias that prevents impartial scoring, with this method the evaluator would not have to have a personal interest in the process.
To ensure that this objectivity is really achieved, in general the hetero-evaluation is carried out through standardized tests, such as exams or evaluation of written works. In areas where the tests are more subjective, a court is usually used to ensure the greatest impartiality in the final grade.
However, in some cases it is very difficult for the evaluation to be carried out in a totally objective way. An example of this would be the rating of a teacher by his students: in this process, the personal feelings of the students will almost certainly influence the criticism of their teachers..
In both self-assessment and co-assessment, the process of determining how well the work has been carried out by the examinee is performed by another individual. In this way, the time it takes to rate the performance of 2 or 30 people will be approximately the same.
In contrast, when conducting a hetero-evaluation process, a single person or a small group (as in the case of expert tribunals) must evaluate the performance of a variable number of individuals. For example, in a university class with 100 students, a single teacher has to correct all the exams.
This means that the time and effort involved in conducting a hetero-evaluation process will be directly related to the number of people to be examined. Therefore, in environments where there are many students, this method can be very inefficient..
The main objective of the hetero-evaluation is to determine in the most objective way possible whether a person has carried out their work or obligations correctly, or if they have acquired the knowledge that they were supposed to achieve in an adequate way..
This objective is common with that of all the other forms of evaluation that exist. However, hetero-assessment is unique in that this process is intended to be carried out in such a way that the views or biases of the examiner cannot be influenced. To achieve this, he cannot have the same social position as that of the examinee.
Generally, hetero-evaluation is carried out with the added objective of telling the people examined where they need to improve and how they can do it. In this sense, it should be a positive process that helps students in their own intellectual and personal development..
As we have already seen, the main advantage of hetero-evaluation is that when done properly, it is the most objective examination process available. In co-evaluation and self-evaluation, biases almost always come into play that make it difficult to carry out the process in a totally impartial way.
On the other hand, in hetero-evaluation the examiners are usually experts in their field. This means that they are generally much better prepared to spot flaws and areas for improvement, and to offer the people tested guidance on how they can change and what they can do differently next time..
In addition to this, hetero-evaluation has the advantage that it is a fully compatible process with other similar ones, especially with self-evaluation. Thus, even if a student receives feedback from a teacher, they can also (and should) examine their work for themselves to detect where they need to improve and what they have done well..
Finally, at the training level, the hetero-evaluation is usually easier to carry out. This is because teachers already know how to assess their students. In the case of analogous processes, in which students are the ones who evaluate their classmates or themselves, it is necessary to train them in advance so that they can do it well..
Unfortunately, not all are advantages in the heteroevaluation. Although carrying out this process correctly achieves an objective examination, in many cases this is very difficult, which leads to failures in the final result..
One of the most common problems in this regard occurs when the examiner is not completely objective about the person he has to evaluate..
This can happen, for example, when a teacher has a mania for a student, or when students evaluate their teachers negatively due to personal problems.
This disadvantage, however, can be greatly alleviated by using objective tools to carry out the assessment, such as multiple choice tests. Still, this adds to the difficulty that it is necessary to create these tests, which requires considerable effort on the part of the examiners..
In addition to this, heteroevaluation also has the efficiency problem that we have already seen before. If a single person has to assess a large group of individuals, the time it takes to do so can be extremely long. The clearest example of this is given in opposition processes, which can last for days..
Still, the disadvantages of hetero-evaluation are in most cases outweighed by its benefits. This is the main reason why it continues to be the most widely used examination method within the educational system, although recently attempts are being made to combine it with other more innovative ones..
Heteroevaluation is very present in all those processes in which one person evaluates another of a different status than their own, both within the educational system and outside it. Some common examples would be the following:
- A university professor passing a multiple choice test to his students, and then giving them the grade.
- An evaluation made by the students of an institute about their teachers, which is then delivered to the director of the center.
- An opposition exam in which a court tests the knowledge and skills of a candidate, to see if he is suitable for the position or not.
- An analysis of a restaurant or bar on a gastronomy website, carried out by a customer who recently ate there.
- A professional criticism of a film that has just been released in the cinema, pointing out possible points of improvement for a next installment.
Yet No Comments