The provision of education over the past ten years, it can be argued more in the last three years, has been transformed with the introduction of new technology and concepts. Learners are more tech savvy than ever and have at their fingertips an array of devices, whether it is smart phones or tablets, which enable them to access learning material 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as and when THEY want to. It is not just technology that is different; the whole model of providing education is evolving with more and more providers allowing free access to their material. So with this shift in education in mind should we be asking whether summative assessment can make way for different methods of measuring a learner’s capability such as evidence gathering, badging or work based practical assessment, or whether the increase in distance learners calls for more stringent testing than ever?
I recently attended an assessment conference and asked this question to a number of the delegates and I received a mix bag of responses, of which I have selected three for further thought (please excuse the paraphrasing!):
“I cannot see how a certification can maintain credibility if the assessment model is drastically reformed, but this maybe specific to our exams where security is very important.”
“We used to deliver end of course assessments but they have been phased out over the past 3 years in favour of apprenticeship style work placements where the employer monitors the learner and provides on the job assessment. This clearly involved some education for the employer to be able to assess but we operate in a small niche market where experience matters more than an exam score so it seemed the most logical approach for us.”
“Our organisation delivers exams using a combination of methods. We deliver in test centres for the higher level qualifications and over the internet for lower level qualifications. We find this approach gives us the flexibility to test at least some of the candidates under controlled conditions and the others then have the freedom to take an assessment where they like and at any time of the day they wish. We also run a CPD programme where candidates are asked to collect and record evidence and although it goes towards their overall score it is not adequate on its own to grade and award a formal qualification in our field of expertise; I think the fear of litigation is too great not to have some formal controls in place”
When mentioning security the person from the first quote was specifically talking about ensuring the identity of the candidate whom is taking the exam. Clearly some professions require a formal qualification in order to practice their trade and therefore it is logical to insist upon assurances that, for example, it really is Dr J Bloggs that passed the final exams before letting him loose with a scalpel on a poor unsuspecting patient. This example is clearly fictitious but it does highlight the gravity of what is at stake should that part of the assessment process be exchanged for forms of less stringent assessment. Having spoken to numerous people it seems a lot of awarding bodies are taking the approach of having a mix of assessment types and it seems which type deployed is to some extent dependent upon the industry in which it will be used.
It is certain that the evolution of education has provoked new developments in the world of assessment, certainly in the field of internet based testing and e-portfolio style evidence gathering tools, and I am sure there are more developments to follow as remote invigilation becomes tried and tested (and trusted!) and Bring Your Own Device testing emerges from its embryonic state. Having said this it would seem the same message comes through; where there is some level of defensibility required or where a license to practice is required, whether it be in medicine, offering financial advice or proving that you have the skills to operate heavy plant machinery, the traditional invigilated exam appears to remain the chosen method.
