Overview
This evaluation test provide you a simple procedure to evaluate the level of the trainees competences in analysis (media literacy competences). The test allows to evaluate each trainee individually before and after the training, and to assess the progression during the training by comparison between the two tests. The test is based on the idea that at most the trainees are competent, at the most they are able to analyse classify media objects.
Task
The trainees have to classify several media objects following different criteria they have to explain and justify. At most they can do it following different various and relevant/justified criteria, at most they are considered as competent.
Media objects may be provided by the trainer or searched by the trainees (for example in another exercise – following context and available time: see the different submethods below).
Method 1 – Objects to classify are given by the trainer. Trainees only have to classify them following different criteria and justify these criteria.
Method 2 – Object to classify are searched by the trainees. For example in a search-and-classify exercise: “Look on the Internet for different media objects that are similar or different from each other. Create categories with almost 3 different media objects in each. Justify the central criteria that defines each created category.”
Method 3 – Successive classifications. After a first classification, trainees are asked to find another classifications with the same set of media objects, in an iterative way. The idea is to see if they are able to envisage successively the same objects following different criteria.
Interpretation
The evaluator will focus on the media objects relevancy (especially in the Method 2 perspective) and the relevancy of classification criteria in regard to the instructions (all methods).
Each answer is individually coded with the following scale:
| Level | Criteria | Interpretation |
| 0 | The trainee is unable to classify the media objects whatever the considered criteria (or only with unrelevant dimension: “I like it”, etc.) | The trainee has no analysis competence. |
| 1 | The trainee is able to classify the media objects using only 1 relevant criteria (for example: targeted audience). He/she is for example unable to find another possible classifications in a given set of media objects (method 3). | The trainee has basic analysis competences. |
| 2 | The trainee is able to classify the media objects using several relevant criteria (for example: targeted audience and sender’s intentions). He/she is for example able to find another possible classifications in a given set of media objects (method 3). | The trainee has good analysis competences. |
| 3 | The trainee is able to classify the media objects using several relevant criteria that are justified and organised in a coherent manner. He/she is able to find another possible classifications in a given set of media objects (method 3). He/she is able to make links between the considered dimensions. (For example targeted audience, sender’s intention and highlight that the audience is chosen following intentions). | The trainee has excellent analysis competences and may be viewed as an “expert” in these competences. |
The progression is evaluated by comparison between the scores before and after the training. You should expect that the final score is (individually and/or globally) higher at the end of the training that at the beginning.
Extra comments
It is recommended that the objects used in the pre-training and post-training tests are equivalent in difficulty. Do not use easier objects at the end of the training: it should false the results.
It is recommended that the same evaluator does the scoring in the pre-training and post-training tests to ensure that the interpretation of the scoring indicators are constant.