in order to operate with the knowledge in a different context. One may be able to operate the machine but if something unpredictable happens, then it would call upon the underpinning knowledge, attitude, response to crisis, and so on. The notion of embodiment or the “whole aspect” and how to assess this embodied whole rather than the parts comes into play but it is a complex issue altogether. In addition, the shifts from “knowledge” into the “knowing” and “doing” and by the “doing” to distill what the learner might have known, that is the space where I think it provides hope for assessment. Here, if everything aggregates into the “doing” then it becomes a learning as well as assessment artifact, so the question becomes how do you design this kind of learning at the workplace? And that is a challenge we are all confronted with not just as “deliverers” of training but as “designers” of learning and performance facilitators. In the IT network engineers case, we highlighted how the training provider focuses on “ways of thinking” with strong features of “authenticity” by drawing heavily on work-based practices, problems and varieties of complexity to develop learners’ confidence to meet challenges in the field of network engineering. Examples like the IT network engineers showcase how training and assessment could be thought about and developed in other ways for practitioners and providers in the CET sector. There is also potential for further collaboration among training providers and industry professionals to design and deliver new programmes across many other fields. Here, we will continue to refine the six dimensions of assessment design and we will work with LPDD to develop and/or incorporate them into IAL’s learning programmes. The discussion between Prof. Lim and David Kwee also suggests that challenges such as the nature and role of technology in assessment and learning present opportunities for future research. It points to a dynamic research agenda that integrates several aspects of the IAL Research and Innovation Division’s current research thrusts, including “Skills Strategies & Utilisation”, “Blended & E-Learning”, “Adult Learning” and “Workplace Learning”. We will highlight the potential and share some of our ideas through “practice notes”. 7.2
Conclusion
Participants from the focus group workshop on 21 September 2016 concur in principle with our findings and understanding about the current state of assessment, and the value as well as importance of assessment doing more than just testing knowledge and/or measuring learning. They adopt different positions as educators, training providers and industry partners but generally recognise the need to develop deeper capabilities in assessment in relation to “change” caused by technology and globalisation that are continuously shaping and changing the nature of work. They offer candid and refreshing perspectives suggesting, for example, that the response to these dynamic conditions could perhaps be a matter of “building on” the current capabilities of workers rather than outright change: You don’t get a new aircraft every year. You get a new aircraft only every ten years. The aircraft technology evolves slowly but the number of people working on the aircraft, the technicians and engineers working on the aircraft don’t change overnight. And more importantly, they “add on” to their skills and not “minus” their skills, so it is not so much about changing skills, it is additional skills and layered on. (Prof. Lim Y. K., Air Transport and Training College) We will work with relevant stakeholders to further develop and incorporate assessment thinking and design into their learning programmes, and continue to engage with our partners in the CET sector.
80
