Evaluation criteria per quadrant and per training phase

Evaluation criteria BP I

shows a realistic picture of one's own qualities and challenges and can translate this into a professional context. can describe one's own frame of reference

Evaluation Criteria BP II

takes active steps (with support) to raise awareness of his greatest professional qualities and challenges

Evaluation criteria BP III

shows a growth mindset sees his own part in difficult situations, gets rid of limiting beliefs such as “I am like this” and independently adjusts his behavior in a methodical way

Evaluation criteria BP I

questions own professional behavior can think about his own approach after taking broader factors (micro, meso and macro factors) into account

Evaluation Criteria BP II

actively searches for factors at the micro, meso and macro level that influence one's own professional behavior takes an active part in peer review in function of reflection on one's own professional behavior

Evaluation criteria BP III

actively searches for factors at the micro, meso and macro level that influence one's own professional behavior seeks ways to view and analyze one's own behavior and arrives at new interpretations and actions makes the insights gained visible in daily actions provides adequate contribute to peer review: asks clarifying questions, learns for himself and helps others.

Evaluation criteria BP I

is open to feedback and sees this as an opportunity to learn gets started with feedback

Evaluation Criteria BP II

proactively asks for feedback from various stakeholders (mentor, fellow students, children and young people, parents, context figures…) gets to work with feedback can give feedback in an appropriate way

Evaluation criteria BP III

can ask for, receive and give feedback and discuss it can test feedback against one's own experience actively works with the feedback, also in relationships in which position, hierarchy and authority play a role

Evaluation criteria BP I

can formulate SMART goals for the professional attitude and competences of a youth professional

Evaluation Criteria BP II

comes with feedback from the internship mentor/supervisor to a clear internship work plan with concrete goals and actions

Evaluation criteria BP III

makes a richly filled internship work plan, based on various experiences (including practical experience/internship in phases 1 and 2) sets itself - in addition to the generally expected competences - nuanced, personal, challenging goals, in accordance with the internship context and draws up concrete actions

Evaluation criteria BP I

is aware of own emotions and of their impact on own behaviour

Evaluation Criteria BP II

proactively recognizes the impact of one's own emotions on one's own professional behavior and tackles hindering emotions and thoughts dares to be authentic and learns from experience

Evaluation criteria BP III

actively works to consciously increase one's own emotion regulation, ie deal more consciously with feelings and thoughts in the event of irritation, being challenged, conflict ... makes conscious choices in behavior and adjusts this behavior in function of (co-) regulation in the guidance

Evaluation criteria BP I

connects – focuses on the individual relationship with the other can support, motivate, enthuse, can help create a warm and stimulating climate

Evaluation Criteria BP II

connects with the group and each individual is aware of what a safe climate entails and can support this can be involved and present can actively participate in the operation.

Evaluation criteria BP III

can create its own climate, adapted to the needs of the target group

Evaluation criteria BP I

can recognize the different coaching skills that must be acquired in phase 3 and discuss them during a case discussion. can apply basic coaching skills (setting boundaries, bringing structure) in simple socio-pedagogical situations

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can supervise a small activity in a group can estimate when support, guidance and stimulation is necessary and apply this can -under supervision- take an active role and bring structure to the daily functioning of a group, can set boundaries with regard to both an individual and a group

Evaluation criteria BP III

brings structure to time, space and behavior develops activities independently can a child or young person learn something keeps control in a small group

Evaluation criteria BP I

can analyze relevant influencing factors in a simple socio-pedagogical situation

Evaluation Criteria BP II

knows the analytical map and its various components and can use it to interpret a practical situation estimates a situation from the position of a child/young person/parent/teacher (multiperspectivity) actively monitors the needs of the child or young person makes own observations negotiable with the mentor

Evaluation criteria BP III

actively seeks out the needs of a child/young person/family sees in a situation the protective and risk factors at the micro-meso and macro level. gains insight into the specificity of a social pedagogical situation and proposes hypotheses puts out-of-the-box thinking in 

Evaluation criteria BP I

can formulate SMART goals for a simple socio-pedagogical situation

Evaluation Criteria BP II

actively searches for the goals within a guidance can - under supervision - contribute to the drawing up of certain goals starts from the perspective of children's and human rights

Evaluation criteria BP III

works purposefully based on prior analysis works on and monitors the goals if an action plan has been drawn up

Evaluation criteria BP I

can develop an appropriate methodological-agogic intervention for a simple socio-pedagogical situation

Evaluation Criteria BP II

observes and questions interventions recognizes and names the interventions used within the organization and of itself

Evaluation criteria BP III

can justify interventions based on professional knowledge, own analyses, team and organizational agreements ...use appropriate methodologies

Evaluation criteria BP I

N/A

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can approach a situation from the learned creative professionalism

Evaluation criteria BP III

uses play and musical methods sees possibilities in the unexpected, in “open space” 

Evaluation criteria BP I

can evaluate a methodological-agogic intervention

Evaluation Criteria BP II

reviews the steps of methodological-agogic working can share reflections on own input and its effect comes up with creative alternatives from thinking out of the box

Evaluation criteria BP III

reviews the steps of methodological-agogic working thinks critically about one's own input and its effect seeks new ways if something does not work comes up with creative solutions/possibilities based on thinking out of the box (idem BP2)

Evaluation criteria BP I

N/A

Evaluation Criteria BP II

N/A

Evaluation criteria BP III

takes the lead in a care trajectory, activity, a larger project possesses organizational skills 

Evaluation criteria BP I

N/A

Evaluation Criteria BP II

is aware of the system around an individual and can describe it

Evaluation criteria BP III

is aware of the system around an individual, can describe it and actively works with it Integrates the systemic perspective in pedagogical action looks for strengths in the network is supportive of parents, teachers, respects context respects loyalties invests in the network (sports club, school, neighbourhood...) is alert to structural aspects that help determine a situation and identifies it works collaboratively seeks -where possible- partnerships with other professionals 

Evaluation criteria BP I

N/A

Evaluation Criteria BP II

possesses varied skills and uses them

Evaluation criteria BP III

can work individually and in groups; adapted to the target group can work within different target groups can work with different ages/themes can be used for various assignments within the organization 

Evaluation criteria BP I

can recognize knowledge and insights from theoretical OPOs in a simple socio-pedagogical situation can represent and use the frameworks provided within professional practice (analytical map, model critical thinking, methodical agogic action…)

Evaluation Criteria BP II

works according to the vision of the organization (including the necessary critical sense) uses the theoretical insights provided in the training

Evaluation criteria BP III

works according to the vision of the organization (including the necessary critical sense) idem BP2 uses the theoretical insights provided in the training

Evaluation criteria BP I

can write a report, e-mail, invitation, etc., according to the standards as set out in the study program

Evaluation Criteria BP II

takes into account who the reader is and adapts word usage. can write in a professional manner can take into account possible ethical consequences and the legal framework regarding privacy and professional secrecy

Evaluation criteria BP III

takes the reader into account and adapts the use of words writes in a professional manner (mail, reports) takes into account ethical consequences and the legal framework (privacy and professional secrecy) 

Evaluation criteria BP I

can present in a classroom context communicates clearly attunes communication to the interlocutor

Evaluation Criteria BP II

makes connections communicates clearly communicates sufficiently and on time attunes communication to the interlocutor – and uses creativity an appropriate communication channel depending on the situation

Evaluation criteria BP III

makes a connection communicates clearly communicates sufficiently and on time attunes communication to the interlocutor – uses/looks for good methodologies (age, diversity, etc.) and uses creativity uses an appropriate communication channel depending on the situation 

Evaluation criteria BP I

is aware that he/she belongs to a class group; is transparent in his thinking and acting and consults about his actions can present his experiences in a structured/constructive manner (at class level) has an active contribution to the class group

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can pass on important information to colleagues (e.g. in logbook) can display own impressions about a client system actively participate in a meeting and use connecting communication recognizes and names the meeting roles and meeting rules and finds his place in these can make contact with colleagues in an informal way

Evaluation criteria BP III

can combine his experiences/opinion and convey this in a structured way during a meeting has a visible share in the meeting and decision-making and can explain a theme leads (prepared) part of a meeting can write a meeting report according to the expectations of the organization and the training goes actively engaged in conversation to acquire and test information.

Evaluation criteria BP I

N/A

Evaluation Criteria BP II

sees the added value of multidisciplinary work and actively seeks it out has a sense of the input from different disciplines at his/her internship (can follow a multidisciplinary consultation) enters into discussion with other disciplines within the own internship context

Evaluation criteria BP III

has informed himself about the contribution of each discipline and knows which discipline can be used in certain problems/circumstances (substantive knowledge of the contribution of each discipline, including those who participate in basic) has his input from the SRW approach and knows how to make it explicit makes the contribution of different disciplines in the pedagogical actions of the child/young person/the context 

Evaluation criteria BP I

can situate the offered practical organizations in the youth care landscape is aware of existing networks in the youth care landscape

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can situate one's own internship organization in the field of work can name and explain existing networks in the youth care landscape can use the social map and look up information in one's own practical environment

Evaluation criteria BP III

is able to use the social map in a targeted manner according to the demand that presents itself (implies communication about possible referral (direction) )

Evaluation criteria BP I

knows the vision, goals and working method of the organization (practical experience) and adjusts his actions accordingly

Evaluation Criteria BP II

understands how the internship organization is structured understands the vision of the organization and can describe it in own words understands how the organization wants to realize its mission can see how the vision of the organization is applied in practice and can articulate it in own words agrees its actions on the vision and mission of the organization

Evaluation criteria BP III

understands the impact of the choices the organization makes on the operation makes realistic proposals for improvement has a clear view of the mandate of his function within the organization.

Evaluation criteria BP I

can describe influences of meso and macro level

Evaluation Criteria BP II

has insight into the (social) structural factors that determine a client's situation has insight into the structural factors that promote and/or hinder parenting/help/guidance

Evaluation criteria BP III

has insight into the structural macro factors that determine a client's situation. (see analytical map) has insight into the structural macro factors that promote and/or hinder education/help/guidance 

Evaluation criteria BP I

is aware of current events and trends that are discussed through assignments in the class group (elementary level) follows and discusses current affairs in connection with youth care and related themes at micro, meso and macro level

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can trace the history of a certain situation, vision, point of view, operation, ... with the aim of understanding the present. is aware of current events and trends looks for the necessary background information about the contents and the different points of view in society debate on education, care, guidance and assistance

Evaluation criteria BP III

consults international sources and compares how certain themes are tackled possesses and acquires the necessary background knowledge (from education, current affairs, personal experience, etc.) about social themes that influence upbringing, care, guidance and assistance can consciously use this background knowledge

Evaluation criteria BP I

can assess information at an elementary level, asking simple critical questions

Evaluation Criteria BP II

can critically assess information and ask the associated questions

Evaluation criteria BP III

actively searches for different opinions, points of view and enters into dialogue in various sources (literature, interviews, documentaries,..,) can look at social themes from a broad, nuanced view. can form an opinion on social themes and can also adjust it

Evaluation criteria BP I

recognizes situations in which beliefs/values are decisive and can name them

Evaluation Criteria BP II

recognizes the situations in which beliefs/values are decisive and asks questions about choices made. is willing to investigate his own values/beliefs by actively gathering knowledge and/or entering into dialogue.

Evaluation criteria BP III

can analyze an ethical dilemma from different perspectives forms an opinion about ethical dilemmas and discusses them