2.2.3 Work and assessment

accompanied by dull and lifeless learning that has short-lasting outcomes” (p. 20). The shortcomings of “traditional” summative assessment that some of these scholars have highlighted are perhaps amplified in work settings and situations where practices and priorities, needs and values are more varied and dynamic.

2.2.3 Work and assessment

Assessment through real-work activities has been found to be a much better predictor of ultimate performance than many formal or standardised tests (Gardner, 1999). Assessment is most valid when it is authentic; real work offers great opportunities for valid assessment, where assessment is based on actual performance, rather than inferred performance from a less-authentic task or activity (Vaughan & Cameron, 2010). Authenticity is likely to be strongest when the content of the assessment aligns well with the assessment task; when the assessment environment is realistic; where the degree of interaction allowed during the assessment is close to that which would occur in a real workplace; where the form of the assessment method is also valid; and where the criteria of the assessment are those valued by practitioners in the profession (Gulikers, Bastiaens, Kirschner & Kester, 2008). Realistic assessment environments provide opportunity to assess or make holistic judgements over time and as part of continuous learning, as opposed to judgements about separate tasks:

Authentic work settings, in particular, provide opportunities for students to learn about all aspects of practice, including how to engage their “self” in practice and learning to take responsibility for decisions … instilling a greater sense of self-awareness, selfassurance and self-confidence” (Trede & McEwen, 2012, p. 28).

However, assessment in work settings goes beyond opportunities for the individual. A lot of work is collective in nature (requiring interaction and interdependence between roles, individuals, teams and networks) or at least networked in the sense that what one person does is interconnected and has implications as well as consequences for others. In writing about the medical field, Hodges (2013) notes that team-based competence has a direct impact on patient outcomes:

Over a few decades, evidence about the importance of team-based competence in health care and in particular links to patient outcomes propelled the adoption of a number of new practices, including the preoperative briefing (‘‘safe surgery checklist’’). Many studies have since demonstrated improved patient outcomes when team-based training is employed (Haynes et al. 2009; Marr et al. 2012; Stevens et al. 2012). As research emerges that team training has a meaningful impact on patient outcomes, the notion that competence is something held by an individual surgeon, anesthetist, nurse, or individual anyone becomes more and more untenable. (Hodges, 2013, p. 566)

This example of changing learning practices indicates a need for assessment of collective practices rather than just assessment of individual competence. After all, as Hodges indicates, individual performance is influenced by workplace culture, the situation and other team members. Performance is directly influenced by others and by the context (Trede & Smith, 2012).

Not all workplaces offer positive, constructive experiences and opportunities for learning, resulting in potential concerns about reliability and validity of assessment. The issue of reliability can be addressed through stakeholder engagement and the building of strong relationships between provider, workplace supervisors and learners. Such a model however assumes stability in personnel and employment relations not evident in sectors that rely heavily on non-permanent work. In such sectors, relations may be between industry “masters”, as opposed to workplace personnel (see Bound et al., 2015).

28