Assessment Criteria

Understanding definitions and how to meet the criteria

Antioch School avatar
Written by Antioch School
Updated over a week ago

One of the most difficult tasks to master, in the context of an Antioch School program, is assessing documents for competency. For many people, it’s because this is a new task. In the traditional paradigm, students don’t evaluate their own work; they just hand it in when they think it’s ready. For others, particularly Local Mentors, this is their first experience assessing work for competence; their only point of reference is often the metric of the traditional school paradigm, which doesn’t map onto the Antioch School well.

Far and away, though, difficulty in assessment has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of the assessment criteria. We will discuss other matters of competency assessment later, but for now, let’s walk through the nine criteria.

1. Clarity

Is it crisp and readable? Can it be readily seen that a particular competency is being addressed (rather than the others)? Is it easy to see strengths and weaknesses related to the other criteria? Does it use subheadings, bolding, and underlining effectively?

This assessment criterion has to do with the basic intelligibility of the document. We want competency demonstrations to be easily understood. It shouldn’t take a ton of effort to understand what a student is saying, and if it is, it’s a clarity problem. The student should present a straightforward, orderly argument, making use of document formatting to make the argument clear. For example, the student should use document headings to separate the different parts of the competence (we call this “chunking”).

2. Complete (All Parts)

Does it address all parts of the competency?

This may be the most straightforward of our assessment criteria. Simply put, we want to make sure the student addresses all the parts of the competency; most have more than one.

For example, Acts Competency 3: "Developed a biblical definition for missionary and missionary work as taught in Acts." There are two parts: a biblical definition for (1) missionary and (2) missionary work. Failure to address both will not meet the Complete criterion.

Remember to do your chunking: break the competency into its component parts and address each. One good way to do this is to creator headings for each part of the competency.

3. Accurate

Is it on target? Does it demonstrate an accurate understanding of the development of thought in the course?

Each of the BILD courses takes you on a journey of thinking through a set of issues. This criterion asks whether or not it is clear that you have taken that journey. We often ask, as a matter of shorthand, “Is this document answering the question we’re asking?” Students often go off topic and talk about issues that are interesting to them. This will fail to meet the Accurate criteria.

Note: this does not mean that you have to agree with us on every individual particular. There is room for divergent opinions. However, you will need to make a sound, biblical argument in order to be awarded credit.

4. Supported (Substantial)

Are the ideas supported logically? Is evidence given to support claims that are made? Has a case (or argument) been built? Have explanations been given? For instance, is biblical teaching used as a point of reference for examining ministry structures and practices in one's own tradition (not merely using verses to provide proof-texted support for one's tradition)?

This assessment criterion is pursuing the question of whether or not the student has said enough to make it clear that she knows what she’s talking about and can be granted credit. Students can’t just make bald assertions (e.g. “It is clear that the bible says thus-and-so”). They must back up their case with scriptural references, arguments, quotations from the theological reader, and so forth.

5. Resource Interaction

Does it include interaction with the main articles of the course? Does it show engagement of thought, not mere quotations, citations, or bibliographic references? For instance, does it show where your ideas came from and comparison of your ideas with the ideas of the author?”

This criterion evaluates whether or not the student has interacted with scholars (and especially those found in the course binder) that can inform and advance their thinking. Many students think it would be better to form their own opinions rather than learn from scholars. But there is absolutely no reason not to take advantage of the work that has been done by generations of faithful biblical scholars.

Note: there is no one correct way to do this. Students can use (attributed) quotations, footnotes with formal biographies, paragraph introductions (“This section was influenced by my reading of scholar so-and-so”). There is no fixed way to meet this criterion.

6. Ministry Reflection

Does it include interaction with the main articles of the course? Does it show engagement of thought, not mere quotations, citations, or bibliographic references? For instance, does it show where your ideas came from and comparison of your ideas with the ideas of the author?

We don’t just want you to gain knowledge from your Antioch School program—we want to equip you for ministry! This criterion, then, assesses whether or not you have thought about how what you have learned can be (or has been) implemented in your own personal ministry context.

Note: in your own personal ministry context. If the student reflects on the Christian world as a whole, or even the overall ministry of which they are a part, they will not meet this criterion. They must talk about the ministry that they themselves carry out, whether paid or not.

7. Creative

Does it show unique or personal style in its format? Does it use graphics, original charts, or other media? Does it have special literary effects, such as original alliteration or particularly clever phrasing?”

For this criteria we are looking to see if the student’s individual uniqueness is discernible. It doesn’t need to be creative in the conventional sense (painting, photography, art, etc.). Very often, this criterion is fulfilled through the use of novel organization or an unconventional perspective.

8. Critical

Does it use standards from the competency as points of reference for evaluation? Does it show exercise of judgment (wisdom) regarding options? For instance, does the ministry reflection include assessment of ministry experience based upon standards related to the competency?

This criterion has to do with whether the student can use the things they have learned in a evaluative way. Perhaps they are holding contemporary Christian culture up for evaluation against what they have learned. They might raise counterarguments or take on different strands of interpretation.

One great way to meet this criterion is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their own personal ministry setting, and make suggestions for what they can change. By doing so, they will also meet the Ministry Reflection criterion.

9. Collaborative

Does it show the interrelationships of one's ministry with other individuals, organizations, and networks (rather than individual independence)? Note that doing collaborative work with others on the document to be uploaded is not necessarily what is meant by collaboration.

It is important to understand that this criterion does not mean that two or more students collaborated on the same demonstration of competency. We almost never accept jointly produced work because we can’t parse which student is competent in what material. Do not jointly produce demonstrations of competency and claim credit for Collaborative.

Instead, we give credit for this criterion when we can see evidence that the student is reflecting on the material not simply in terms of their own personal ministry, but also in terms of their ministry with other people, groups, or efforts. We’re looking to see if the student is connecting the material to spheres larger than his own, and how he integrates himself and the material into those spheres.

Who Meets What Criteria

For students whose work is being assessed at the Bachelor’s level, they must meet the first four criteria (Clarity, Complete, Accurate, Supported) and one other (Resource Interaction, Ministry Reflection, Creative, Critical, Collaborative).

For students whose work is being assessed at the Master’s or Doctoral level, they must meet the first six criteria (Clarity, Complete, Accurate, Supported, Resource Interaction) and one other (Creative, Critical, Collaborative)

Our aim in all this is to align the vision of the student, the Local Mentor and the Associate Faculty Member. For the first couple of courses, the task is mainly to help the Local Mentor use the criteria accurately. Over the next few courses, the student will learn to use. The criteria accurately for herself. Eventually, though, all three individuals will be assessing the work well, necessitating few returns for revision.

Did this answer your question?