Aligning Teaching and Assessment: The Key to Greatly Improved Graduate Quality and Sustainable Teaching Efficiency Status quo

In practical terms, what we teach (the syllabus) and how we teach it (the teaching method) are often derived from criteria for assessment ("what we teach is that which will be assessed"). This is particularly the case where external (e.g. professional) accreditation is essential to the sustainability of a program. Criteria for accreditation are almost invariably expressed in terms of minimum (lowest) standards, of domain-specific core technical abilities acceptable to the accrediting authority that must be achieved by all graduates. In practical terms this means the accreditation criteria are the abilities of the weakest passing graduate.

An "accreditation imperative" dominates most such programs, and the minimum standards set by the accreditation criteria often become "criteria for assessment". In the worst situations the minimum standard core competencies become the whole curriculum, with teaching confined to the minimum necessary to "pass" the accreditation criteria, and passing all the accreditation criteria is often claimed as "excellence".

Criteria for professional accreditation, however, do not include many of the essential elements of a quality university education that are expected of all university graduates (regardless of specialization).

Claims of excellence in these situations are simply absurd; an education program restricted to meeting only minimum standards cannot legitimately claim excellence. In these situations, it is the learning outcome objectives that are lacking, not necessarily the teaching or assessment. Nevertheless, the actual learning outcomes do not meet university quality assurance expectations and deny claims of excellence. Relevant employers, the community and government know these claims are absurd and express their dissatisfaction through public complaints about "the problem with higher education" and take action by lobbying for intervention in the programs and in the organization and funding of higher education (A.C. Nielsen Research Services, 2000).

As academic teachers, we react to pressures from external accreditation authorities for "greater relevance" by adding new "relevant" content; to pressure from our institution for more "cost effectiveness" by changing our teaching methods; and to government pressure for "accountability" by changing our assessment methods (Cowdroy & Williams, 2002). Significantly, though, we tend to focus on only one of the three operative elements of education at a time (James et al., 2002); we rarely consider all three in a coordinated or integral approach, causing us to be locked into an inevitable succession of attempted "catch-up" changes that becomes a quality failure syndrome (because the succession of changes never catch up).

مواضيع ذات صلة

Discussion and questions

Expectations and suggestions

Problems encountered with portfolio assessment

Advantages of portfolio assessment

Similarities and differences between portfolio assessment and prior assessment experiences

Reflective questions with regard to the course practical relevance

Trainer comments

Discussion of a problem-solving experience

"Critical" course synthesis

Portfolio content

Results, analysis and discussions

Context and goals