Are traditional assessment methods appropriate in contemporary higher education? Jun. 2014

Alternative authentic assessments Assuming the above challenges can be overcome, two alternative forms of assessment that provide more opportunity for authenticity are portfolio and group based assessments. Portfolios According to Race et al, “it seems probable that, in due course, degree classiﬁcations will no longer be regarded as sufficient evidence of students’ knowledge, skills and competences, and that proﬁles will be used increasingly to augment the indicators of students achievements, with portfolios to provide in-depth evidence” (2005:71) . Eight years after Race wrote this there has been increased interest in the use of e-portfolios but overall the portfolio based assessment hasn’t really caught on to the degree perhaps envisaged. Stock and Trevitt (2012)argue that the use of portfolios is becoming increasingly common . They are frequently used in teaching qualiﬁcations and Healthcare qualiﬁcations but they are not a new assessment just less commonly used than other traditional methods. Elton conﬁrms that they have been used for a “long time in architecture and in art and design” (Elton 2011). The evidence therefore suggests that they are more commonly used within qualiﬁcations of a more vocational orientation. In ﬁelds such as Art and Design for example, the portfolio is part of their professional practice, designers would expect to have a portfolio in the real world and therefore portfolio based assessments provide authenticity with regards to mirroring real world practice. A portfolio whilst comprising of several different documents, still constitutes as one overall piece of work. The danger with portfolio based assessment is that each document become s an assessment in its own right which then leads to over assessing of the course and student. Elton (2011) argues that portfolios are better suited to the higher level skills. This is largely due to the reﬂective nature of portfolios that are used to evidence and demonstrate the development of skills over time, in particular criticality, problem solving and creativity. Elton (2011) also argues that portfolios are a more inclusive form of assessment as the students write about themselves and their own experience in their own context. Inclusivity is an important element of assessment design with an increasingly diverse student population. Portfolio’s therefore also provide a more authentic form of assessment as they can test higher level learning outcomes around activities such as evaluation and synthesis but also lower level outcomes such as knowledge and comprehension albeit in a more indirect manner. A BPP Business School working paper Portfolios are in essence an individual piece of work, they don’t necessarily have to conform to a set style or format unlike essays and business reports that tend to have certain universal conventions that should be applied. Stock and Trevitt (2012) allow their students to determine their own format and encourage them to be innovative with it. This does of course make it very difficult to mark and can cause some difficulty for tutors or examiners not familiar with portfolio based assessment. However it does reduce the possibilities for plagiarism and purchasing completed assignments. There is some challenge with perceived fairness and reliability of marking over such individual pieces of work. Knight (2002) suggests that the types of higher level skills and professional practice skills that portfolios can assess should be formatively assessed only as they are too subjective and cannot be assessed fairly. He argues that summative assessments should be kept for the domain of knowledge which he believes can be fairly and reliably assessed. The requirement for portfolios to evidence personal reﬂection and creativity makes them less formulaic and bound by standard formats and conventions. Arguably the uniqueness of each individual students learning journey would make it difficult to copy someone else’s work or to pay somebody else to write your portfolio for you. Stocks et al (2010) make the point that whilst portfolio’s are designed to be an honest reﬂection of the learners development the very nature of its use as a summative assessment can impact the degree of honesty students are prepared to share or undertake. Buckridge (cited in Stocks et al 2010) refers to students focussing on success against competence rather than providing genuine reﬂection on the things that didn’t go so well. She suggests that portfolios become subject to game playing in the same way that any assessment can. Baume (2001) suggests that portfolio assessment can be reliable and are therefore suitable for summative assessments. He also notes that many assessments used in higher education could be deemed ‘discouragingly unreliable’ (Baume 2001:12) but key principles need to be adhered to, to ensure the reliability of any assessment. The primary principle is that they are based on the learning outcomes. However he does note that any course with an excessive number of learning outcomes will ﬁnd it difficult to have a reliable assessment. It’s a tall order to expect one summative assessment to meet extensive multiple learning outcomes. There is also a wide ﬁeld of literature on the unreliability of marking in traditional assessments. Studies have shown huge discrepancy between markers which suggests that traditional assessments are no more reliable or fair than other forms. The discrepancies don’t just exist between markers, but external examiners often vary greatly in their allocation of marks too (QAA 2013). bpp.com

Are traditional assessment methods appropriate in contemporary higher education? Jun. 2014 | Page 5