and “enterprise leads” or partners, which suggests the writing and the report to be a more dynamic, interconnected and co-constructed process through which judgement is formed. Our findings also suggest that assessors and instructors exercise professional judgement during assessment which is more holistic than the exacting standards and explicit criteria written down in assessment documents and checklists – this is highlighted in the rota commander course, F&B menuchange training, and certified IP associate course. It raises questions about how assessment could be redesigned explicitly for holistic judgement, and the communication and understanding of these judgements for learners in particular: An important consideration is that of how performance of an assessment task is to be judged. Are explicit criteria and standards involved, or are more holistic judgments needed? Indeed, given Sadler’s work on how markers go to great lengths to avoid using criteria even when they are specified in detail (Sadler, 2009), are students being given a false indication of how work is to be judged by providing such criteria? Further, is an assessment just a paper to be handed in and marked, or does it involve students identifying and using criteria for themselves, or does it involve others (e.g. peers) in the judgment process, at least informally? (Boud & Soler, 2016, p. 10) Judgements need to be made by assessors to determine if the competencies have been met but, unless learners have developed the capacity to make their own judgements, they could be ineffective in dealing with changing practices at the workplace. 4.2.6 Future-orientedness Future-orientedness refers to learners’ readiness for work, and their ability to face future unknowns and new challenges beyond the immediate course/training. Findings show that institutions deal with it by designing possible scenarios using simulations (e.g. field exercises in the rota commander course) which expose and guide learners towards specific responses and “best” solutions to known and/or possible problems. In other cases, like the doctor residency programme, future-orientedness is expressed in the institution’s learning framework as “ability to adapt and innovate to solve unexpected problems using deep learning and reflection”, which highlights the preparedness of healthcare professionals to face future uncertainties and challenges. This reflects the recognition course designers, instructors and assessors have of future-orientedness as an important goal. In practice, future-orientedness is interpreted as “forward thinking”, which means “thinking about, planning for, or considering the future, rather than just the present” (Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2016). This is not the same as having the capacity to resolve unfamiliar problems through reflective practices, and it moves the emphasis away from reflective practices and resolution of unfamiliar problems (a key feature of future-orientedness) towards predicting the landscape of the future (we shall examine this issue of the “future” in the next chapter). Our findings also show that the learners’ notion and timescale of what the “future” is, and their priorities about learning, are often quite different from what their institutions imagine that future to be. For example, in the aircraft engineering programme, learners raised concerns about the validity of their certificate and training for future employment. Here, the learners’ “future” horizon is the immediate threeto six-month period after graduation, where gaining entry into the industry as recognised engineers is a priority and challenge. Their future landscape is characterised by competition for work, and their anxieties about opportunities and salaries raise concerns of a systemic kind: educational inequities and social expectations rather than issues of quality or capability.
56
