Evaluation method

Abstract

To provide an evaluation method capable of evaluating non-cognitive ability.SOLUTION: The evaluation method for evaluating non-cognitive ability of human resources comprises a step of comparing evaluation contents for an evaluation object and the non-cognitive ability of each evaluation object by an evaluator in the same evaluation object before and after the implementation of the evaluation, and obtaining the difference between the evaluation contents by the evaluation object and the evaluation contents by the evaluator from a plurality of the evaluations; a step of setting the effect of the implementation with respect to the evaluation object by the evaluator and the accuracy of the evaluation by the evaluator from the change in the difference obtained from the plurality of evaluations; and a step of correcting evaluation values of the evaluation object based on the set accuracy of the evaluation by the evaluator.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for evaluating human resources. [Background technology]

[0002] Traditionally, educational evaluations have been conducted to evaluate the abilities of those being evaluated using quantifiable items. In such evaluations, knowledge and skills are objectively measured as points, and the overall position is assigned to a standard deviation or the like to evaluate the abilities of the person being evaluated.

[0003] In the technology described in Patent Document 1, a learner terminal and an instructor terminal are connected via a school server, and the school server automatically marks test answers from the learner terminal and transmits them to the instructor terminal. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] JP2013-156788A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] However, in human resource training, there is a need to evaluate not only the amount of knowledge and skills that can be automatically scored, but also non-cognitive abilities such as thinking ability, judgment, expression, motivation, and cooperation. There is a problem that evaluation based only on items that can be quantified, as in the technology described in Patent Document 1 mentioned above, cannot properly evaluate human resources, and there is a need to properly evaluate non-cognitive abilities.

[0006] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above circumstances, and aims to evaluate non-cognitive abilities. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] In order to achieve the above-mentioned object, one embodiment of the evaluation method of the present invention is a method for evaluating non-cognitive abilities of human resources, which includes the steps of: comparing the evaluation content of the non-cognitive abilities of the subject and the evaluator for the same evaluation item before and after the evaluation is conducted, and obtaining a difference between the evaluation content by the subject and the evaluation content by the evaluator from multiple evaluations; setting the effect of the evaluator's implementation of the evaluation on the subject and the accuracy of the evaluator's evaluation from the change in the difference obtained from the multiple evaluations; and correcting the evaluation value of the subject based on the set accuracy of the evaluator's evaluation. Effect of the Invention

[0008] According to the present invention, non-cognitive abilities can be evaluated in personnel evaluation. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0009] [Figure 1] FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a method for evaluating human resources according to the first embodiment. [Diagram 2] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a method for evaluating an educational program in another embodiment. [Diagram 3] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a method for evaluating an educational program in another embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0010] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described, however, the present invention is not limited to the following embodiment.

[0011] <Embodiment> In traditional education, educational evaluations have been conducted with the aim of quantifying the abilities of those being evaluated. The evaluations have been conducted by objectively measuring the amount of knowledge and skills as scores, and positioning the overall position in terms of a deviation value or the like to evaluate the abilities of the person being evaluated. However, in human resource education, there is a demand for evaluation of not only the amount of knowledge and skills, but also non-cognitive abilities such as thinking ability, judgment, expression, motivation, and cooperation, and there is a demand for a system to evaluate non-cognitive abilities to replace the traditional system of evaluating the amount of knowledge and skills.

[0012] According to Iwata et al. (2021), "If children's learning is shaped by cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, teachers need to rigorously evaluate both abilities. However, it cannot be said that the validity and reliability of teachers' evaluations of children's non-cognitive abilities can be fully expected" *1, and clarified the characteristics of teachers' evaluation trends of non-cognitive abilities. According to Iwata et al., "Teachers' evaluation of non-cognitive abilities has the characteristic that by specializing the subject of evaluation to content and domain, or as the time spent with children increases, there is a stronger tendency to evaluate non-cognitive abilities from children's behavior and attitudes, and a weaker tendency to evaluate non-cognitive abilities through evaluation of cognitive abilities" *1. From this point of view, in the evaluation of non-cognitive abilities, a system is needed in which evaluators can objectively evaluate the non-cognitive abilities of the person being evaluated. *1 Koji Iwata, Atsushi Yoshikawa, Hiroyuki Nakagawa, Satoshi Enomoto, and Tatsuo Miyazaki, "Teachers' evaluation of children's non-cognitive abilities specific to the content and domain of academic education: Through a comparison of mediation models that determine the evaluation of non-cognitive abilities," Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Japan Society for Science Education, Japan Society for Science Education, 2021

[0013] In addition, in order to have a system in which the evaluator can objectively evaluate the non-cognitive abilities of the person being evaluated, an educational evaluation system is needed that recognizes the discrepancy between the evaluator's educational instructional effectiveness on the person being evaluated and the evaluator's objective evaluation as a teacher.

[0014] Japanese Patent Laid-Open Publication No. 2002-099634 (hereinafter referred to as Document 1) discloses an evaluation system as a method for objectively evaluating learning outcomes and ability achievement, in which "the educator and the student discuss and reach an agreement in advance on the evaluation of educational outcomes and prepare a unified evaluation document that includes evaluation criteria and evaluation items," and based on this evaluation document, "the educator and student compare the evaluation results, have an opportunity to negotiate, and make a final decision on the evaluation and guidance. In addition, the educator will have two or more evaluators, and the educator will also prepare his or her own evaluation document and evaluate the content of his or her own education, thereby enabling greater fairness and an improvement in the level of the educator."

[0015] In the invention of the document 1, the educator and the trainee discuss and agree on the evaluation of the educational results in advance, prepare a unified evaluation document including evaluation criteria and evaluation items, compare the evaluation results, and have an opportunity to negotiate to determine the final evaluation and guidance. However, in this process, the trainee is often strongly conscious of the opinions of the educator, and the unified evaluation criteria between the trainee and the trainee may be biased toward the evaluation criteria of the educator. A similar tendency is seen in business management. In addition, the trainer has two or more evaluators, and the trainer also prepares his or her own evaluation document. With regard to the evaluation of the content of his or her own education, it is possible for the trainers to objectively view the evaluations made by each other, but each of the trainers sets a unified evaluation standard with the trainee, so the evaluation criteria may be based on evaluation criteria that are biased toward the evaluation criteria of the trainer, and there is a possibility that the objective evaluation of the trainee's abilities may lack fairness.

[0016] The technology according to the present embodiment compares the evaluation content of the "non-cognitive ability of the evaluation subject" of each of the evaluation subjects and the evaluator before and after the introduction of the project, and by continuously performing this, the evaluation criteria are biased toward the evaluation criteria of the side that provides education because the evaluation subjects and the evaluators evaluate the "non-cognitive ability of the evaluation subject" using the same evaluation items (no prior adjustment or consensus formation for the evaluation criteria is performed). In addition, by comparing the evaluation content of the "non-cognitive ability of the evaluation subject" of each of the evaluation subjects and the evaluator before and after the introduction of the project, and by continuously performing this, the evaluator can recognize the difference between the educational instruction effect of the evaluator on the evaluation subject and the objective evaluation as a teacher from the change in the "ability of the evaluation subject" and the change in the difference in the evaluation content between the two, which enables higher fairness and improvement of the teaching ability of the side that provides education.

[0017] In addition, JP 2017-123123 (hereinafter referred to as Document 2) is a "practical ability development support system for improving the judgment and action abilities (hereinafter referred to as "practical ability") of a subject who is participating or scheduled to participate in a project." The evaluation method is described as "a practical ability development support system characterized by comprising: a self-diagnosis result acquisition means for receiving answers from the subject; a practical ability diagnosis means for aggregating the received answers by field to which the questions belong and registering the current level, which is the aggregation result, in a current level table; a practical ability evaluation means for creating visualized display data by comparing the target level read from the target level table with the current level by field; and a training selection means for reading training corresponding to the field in which the current level does not reach the target level from a training information database and selecting training recommended to the corresponding person." From the above point, the practical ability of the subject is continuously accumulated and analyzed, and the difference between the current value and the target value is objectively analyzed and visualized as the achievement status. The technology of Document 2 is premised on the subject's self-evaluation, and there is a possibility that non-cognitive abilities that are difficult to recognize by oneself are not objectively evaluated.

[0018] The technology according to this embodiment compares the assessment content of the "non-cognitive abilities of the person being evaluated" of the person being evaluated and the evaluator before and after the project is introduced, and by continuously performing this, it visualizes the change in the "ability of the person being evaluated" and the change in the difference in the assessment content between the two. Therefore, when objectively analyzing and visualizing the progress status from the difference between the current value and the target value, it is possible to make a more objective evaluation by comparing with the numerical value seen by the person being evaluated.

[0019] In the technology according to this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, first, the subject and the evaluator do not agree on the content of the evaluation (no prior coordination or consensus building on the evaluation criteria is performed), but instead evaluate the "non-cognitive abilities of the subject" using the same evaluation items.

[0020] The number of evaluation items will vary depending on the non-cognitive abilities being analyzed, but typically there will be around 20-50 items, with each item rated on a 5-10 scale. For example, for non-cognitive abilities related to trait self-efficacy, such as "ability to follow through," "sociability," and "self-control," a 5-scale evaluation will be conducted on around 20-25 items. Similarly, for items related to basic working abilities, such as "ability to communicate effectively," "ability to influence," "ability to emphasize," and "ability to think," a 5-scale evaluation will be conducted on around 20-25 items.

[0021] The assessments of the "non-cognitive abilities of the subject" of each individual are then compared, and the discrepancies between the assessments made by the subject and the evaluators are visualized using graphs such as radar charts.

[0022] A comparison of the evaluation content of the "non-cognitive ability of the subject" of the evaluation and the evaluator is conducted before and after the introduction of the project, and by continuously conducting this, the evaluator's educational instruction effect on the subject and the objective evaluation discrepancy as a leader can be recognized from the change in the "ability of the subject" and the change in the difference in the evaluation content between the two. Note that it is preferable to have multiple evaluators to objectively evaluate the "non-cognitive ability of the subject". For example, the non-cognitive ability of one subject is evaluated by evaluator (1) and evaluator (2). In this case, the subject, evaluator (1), and evaluator (2) use the same evaluation items. This makes it possible to compare the evaluation of the non-cognitive ability of the subject from the evaluator's perspective, and the evaluator's educational instruction effect on the subject and the discrepancy in the evaluation content of the "ability of the subject" between the evaluators can be recognized more objectively from the change in the "ability of the subject" and the difference in the evaluation content of the "ability of the subject" between the evaluators.

[0023] The technology according to the present embodiment makes it possible to objectively evaluate non-cognitive abilities, replacing the conventional evaluation system for knowledge amount and skills. It also solves the problem of the evaluation criteria being biased towards the evaluation criteria of the educator. It also makes it possible to improve the teaching ability of the educator. This evaluation system can support the development of the "non-cognitive abilities of the person being evaluated."

[0024] As a specific effect of the technology according to this embodiment, when the technology according to this embodiment was used to analyze changes in trait self-efficacy of approximately 25 subjects, an overall improvement of 7% in trait self-efficacy was observed. Regarding basic social skills, an overall improvement was observed in "ability to communicate effectively," "ability to influence," and "ability to think," with an improvement of 5% in "ability to communicate effectively" and 4.6% in "ability to think."

[0025] <Other embodiments> Visualization system for evaluating human resource development (Visualization system and visualization method for evaluating human resource development) The discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator is visualized as an objective evaluation.

[0026] Provide evaluation of human resource development in an easy-to-understand format (visualization). Up until now, in the visualization of evaluations in human resource development, methods of objective evaluation have been developed such as objectifying the evaluation target by comparative and comprehensive analysis of the evaluation target with multiple other evaluation targets. However, in the first place, in the objective evaluation of the evaluation target, it is important to be aware of and analyze the discrepancy between the evaluation target and the evaluation target (visualization of the discrepancy). The subjects of analysis are the assessee and the assessor, and each performs analysis using the same evaluation items. In addition, the evaluation can be used to help with coaching plans by visualizing the discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator using a graph (radar chart).

[0027] That is, a visualization system for evaluating human resource development in an organizational group (a visualization system and a visualization method for evaluating human resource development in an organizational group) Hard: Visualize the abilities required of organizational members (managers) that are important for actually making Bernard's collaboration system work ("the ability to realistically carry out coordination activities" ("calmness," "flexibility," "agility," "adaptability," and "courage"). Soft: The person being evaluated and the evaluator each analyze the abilities required of the person being evaluated as a member of the organization (manager). The discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator regarding the abilities required of the person being evaluated as a member of the organization (manager) is visualized using a radar chart.

[0028] [background] Collaboration is important in organizational activities in organizations (companies, schools, etc.). In particular, if students are unable to carry out organizational activities well in secondary and higher education, they will not be able to become organizational members.

[0029] In Japan, the school curriculum requires students to learn the basics of group activities that are important in society, and by extension, to carry out organizational activities in a variety of social groups.

[0030] In recent years, with the development of information technology such as ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and IoT (Internet of Things), it has become possible to engage in collective activities (online meetings, classes, etc.) that transcend spatial boundaries. Although this has significantly transformed learning and working environments, the essence of organizational groups has not changed. Therefore, it is important to reevaluate the importance of collaboration and to continue and maintain that collaboration in group formation.

[0031] What is important in this collaboration is abilities other than academic ability (non-cognitive abilities). Therefore, it is important to evaluate abilities other than academic ability (non-cognitive abilities) and develop them over the long term.

[0032] [The need to visualize the evaluation of human resource development in the educational field] Starting in the 2020 academic year, education will be based on new curriculum guidelines, and schools will be required to develop new systems of education in line with these guidelines.

[0033] The new curriculum guidelines place emphasis on three pillars (1. "individual knowledge and skills," 2. "ability to think, judge, express, etc.", and 3. "ability to learn, humanity, etc."), which calls for improvements in methods for assessing learning status (1. "knowledge and skills," 2. "ability to think, judge, express," and 3. "attitude toward actively engaging in learning") as well.

[0034] In particular, no specific quantitative evaluation method has been presented for 3 "Attitude of actively engaging in learning." In addition, the evaluation of "ability to learn, humanity, etc." in the new curriculum guidelines does not necessarily match the "attitude of actively engaging in learning" in the learning situation evaluation, so a new system for evaluating "ability to learn, humanity, etc." is required. In addition, "ability to learn, humanity, etc." is an evaluation axis for abilities other than academic ability (non-cognitive abilities), and a mechanism is needed to grasp and visualize these abilities other than academic ability.

[0035] It is effective to analyze these non-academic abilities (non-cognitive abilities) from the perspective of the abilities required of organizational members (managers) who are important in making the collaborative system actually function. In other words, these non-academic abilities (non-cognitive abilities) are important abilities for making collaboration actually function, and it is necessary to objectively evaluate and develop these abilities.

[0036] Therefore, it will be important in future educational activities to objectively visualize abilities other than academic ability (non-cognitive abilities) and provide optimal coaching plans for each student, and long-term development of non-cognitive abilities is required. Improving non-cognitive abilities is expected to improve motivation to learn, engagement in learning, and aspirations for career design, etc.

[0037] <Other embodiments> Provides an easy-to-understand (visualized) evaluation of human resource development as an organizational member (manager) in an organizational group (company, school, etc.). The evaluation visualization system is based on Barnard's organizational theory (collaborative system) and provides a comprehensive numerical evaluation of x evaluation items (based on two axes: "specific self-efficacy" and "basic social skills"). The subjects of analysis are the assessee and the assessor, and each performs analysis using the same evaluation items. In addition, the evaluation can be used to help with coaching plans by visualizing the discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator using a radar chart.

[0038] In organizational activities in organizations (such as companies and schools), it is important to make the collaborative system function. In particular, if organizational activities cannot be carried out well in secondary and higher education, students will not be able to become organizational members.

[0039] Analyzing and visualizing abilities other than academic ability (non-cognitive abilities) through a collaborative system and providing optimal coaching plans for each student will be important in future educational activities, and there is a demand for the long-term development of non-cognitive abilities.

[0040] Improving non-cognitive abilities is expected to improve motivation to learn, engagement in learning, and aspirations for career design, etc.

[0041] In this system, five topics were designed to measure the abilities required of organizational members (managers) who are important for actually making a collaborative system function, and by obtaining scores for each topic, it is possible to accurately grasp abilities other than academic ability.

[0042] Barnard's Organizational Theory (Collaborative Systems) Since people act based on bounded rationality, collaboration is essential to achieve certain goals. Organizations are the places where collaboration toward achieving goals takes place, and Barnard defined an organization as "a collaborative system of two or more people."

[0043] He also clearly states that the three conditions for the formation of an organization are (1) the willingness to work together, (2) a common purpose, and (3) communication, and expresses the view that a balance between these elements is extremely important for the survival and maintenance of an organization.

[0044] The will to cooperate is the act of contributing one's efforts to the organizational objectives, which means the abandonment of personal action (freedom). Collaborative behavior arises as a contribution to the organization only when the individual judges that the incentives provided by the organization are worth more than the abandonment. Next, looking at common objectives, this can be said to be the basis for the formation of an organization. This is because collaborative behavior does not occur without an objective.

[0045] However, no organization sets a universal common purpose, and the purpose is always changed in response to the conditions under which the organization exists, such as changes in the internal and external environment. In such cases, the change in the common purpose must not only be understood by the members of the organization, but must also be "accepted." And the acceptance of the purpose is closely related to the will to cooperate, and the two can be exercised simultaneously.

[0046] However, when we look at the common purpose of an organization and the process of getting people to accept it and to cooperate, the two are polar opposites. In achieving a common purpose, individuals basically behave in a organizational manner and sacrifice themselves, and the combination of these actions leads to the achievement of the organization's purpose. Therefore, common purpose and individual contributions are polar opposites.

[0047] And what connects a common goal and the will to work together is communication. Without communication as a means, it is impossible to promote the acceptance of a common goal. It also becomes difficult for an organization to obtain the information necessary to achieve its goals and to make the most rational decisions possible. Therefore, Barnard pointed out that communication occupies a central position in organizational theory.

[0048] Bernard points out that a collaborative system is a communication system, and that the leader is the communication center. However, because leaders are also human, they must act under limited rationality. Therefore, the access to information for achieving organizational objectives and the coordination activities based on this information are also limited. If the size of the organization continues to expand while achieving the objectives under these constraints, there will be a limit to how much the organization can function as a system under a centralized chain of command. As a result, if the organization grows beyond the constraints, it will inevitably be necessary to form a new organization, and organizational restructuring will occur.

[0049] In addition, organizational restructuring creates the existence of managers who manage and coordinate the new organization. In the process of organizational restructuring, a single organization is subdivided to create a complex organization (a collection of two or more unit organizations), where managers function, and the organization achieves its goals and can further expand. In other words, as a condition for the organization's survival, it is necessary to set new goals as well as achieve them, so acceptance by individuals is necessary accordingly, and managers must make individuals understand the organization's goals and encourage demand. Therefore, managers become a communication center belonging to two unit organizations.

[0050] Evaluation criteria based on Barnard's organizational theory (collaborative systems) Within Bernard's collaborative system, we focus on the "ability to realistically carry out coordination activities" ("calmness," "flexibility," "agility," "adaptability," and "courage") and use these five topics as evaluation criteria. We visualize this overall evaluation as "the abilities required of organizational members (managers) who are important in actually making the collaborative system function."

[0051] As another embodiment, there is a method for evaluating an educational program as shown in Figures 2 and 3. In this educational program, for example, the program is implemented with the aim of improving students' initiative (sense of responsibility), and items for evaluating the results of the program are visualized in an easily recognizable manner.

[0052] The following points are included in educational programs aimed at improving "autonomy." (1) The analysis of "autonomy" from two perspectives: "characteristic self-efficacy" and "basic social skills." (2) Making changes in individual autonomy visible (3) By having students and teachers evaluate and analyze their "initiative," it becomes possible to visualize the gap between students' and teachers' initiative and to provide a reference for teachers' educational guidance. (4) Develop "basic programs," "fieldwork programs," and "applied programs" as tools to improve autonomy.

[0053] Up until now, in the visualization of evaluations in human resource development, methods of objective evaluation have been developed such as objectifying the evaluation target by comparative and comprehensive analysis of the evaluation target with multiple other evaluation targets. However, in the first place, in the objective evaluation of the evaluation target, it is important to be aware of and analyze the discrepancy between the evaluation target and the evaluation target (visualization of the discrepancy). Provide evaluation of human resource development in an easy-to-understand format (visualization). The subjects of analysis are the assessee and the assessor, and each performs analysis using the same evaluation items. In addition, the evaluation can be used to help with coaching plans by visualizing the discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator using a graph (radar chart).

[0054] Researchers provide an easy-to-understand (visualized) evaluation of the human resource development of organizational members (managers) in organizational groups (companies, schools, etc.). Specifically, it is an evaluation visualization system that is based on Barnard's organizational theory (collaborative system) and compares individual evaluation items considered by the person being evaluated and the evaluator (evaluation items based on the two axes of "specific self-efficacy" and "basic social skills" (e.g., numerical values ​​of "calmness," "flexibility," "agility," "applicability," "courage," etc.)) to give a comprehensive evaluation. This system does not necessarily have to focus only on Barnard's organizational theory, but we will build a visualization system that can be evaluated broadly.

[0055] The court also assessed the patentability of a system for visualizing the evaluation of human resources development, which visualizes the discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator as an objective evaluation. Specifically, the subjects of analysis are the person being evaluated and the evaluator, and each is analyzed using similar evaluation items.The evaluation also visualizes the discrepancy between the evaluation by the person being evaluated and the evaluation by the evaluator in a graph (radar chart), making it a system that can be used to assist with coaching plans.

[0056] The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and modifications and improvements within the scope of the present invention that can achieve the object of the present invention are included in the present invention.

[0057] Although several embodiments of the present invention have been described above, these embodiments are merely illustrative and do not limit the technical scope of the present invention. The present invention can take various other embodiments, and further, various modifications such as omissions and substitutions can be made within the scope of the gist of the present invention. These embodiments and their modifications are included in the scope and gist of the invention described in this specification, etc., and are included in the scope of the invention described in the claims and their equivalents. In addition, the present invention is not limited to the above-mentioned embodiments and examples, and various modifications are possible within the scope of the claims, and embodiments obtained by appropriately combining the technical means disclosed in different embodiments are also included in the technical scope of the present invention. In addition, all academic documents and patent documents described in this specification are incorporated by reference in this specification.

Claims

[Claim 1] 1. A method for evaluating non-cognitive abilities in human resources, comprising: A step of comparing the assessment contents of the non-cognitive ability of each of the subject and the evaluator for the same assessment item before and after the assessment is conducted, and obtaining a difference between the assessment contents by the subject and the assessment contents by the evaluator from multiple assessments; A step of setting an effect of the implementation by the evaluator on the evaluation subject and an accuracy of the evaluation by the evaluator from a change in the difference obtained from the plurality of evaluations; correcting the evaluation value of the person to be evaluated based on the set accuracy of the evaluation by the evaluator; The evaluation method according to claim 1,

Images