1 - Purposes of assessment

There are two distinct purposes of assessment: assessment of learning, and assessment for learning.

Assessment of learning involves measuring what and how much students have learned, tied to specific learning outcomes which are themselves derived from the graduate profile. This kind of assessment answers the question: what exactly do students need to demonstrate that they know and can do as a result of teaching and learning? How confident is the institution that the student has mastered the graduate profile on programme completion? Assessment of learning requires attention to the validity, reliability, utility, consistency, and equity of measures, grading and marking.

The following definitions of these dimensions have been adapted from Victoria University’s 2009 Assessment Handbook.

• Validity – assessment should be ‘fit for purpose’. It should sample fairly the objectives and content of the course, be free of ambiguity and have a clear and appropriate marking criteria fit for task and level of students.
• Reliability – marking practices should ensure consistent interpretation of assessment criteria by different markers. Students should not be graded on just one piece of work unless student performance can be gauged in stages.
• Utility – the ‘nuts and bolts’ of assessment, including timing, managing feedback to students, tracking student progress and so on
• Consistency – the definition of consistency is consistent with that for reliability, that is giving an accurate representation of each student’s performance and fairness by using methods which treat all students the same.

Assessment for learning is focused on using assessments to help students improve and move forward in their learning. This kind of assessment is equally important in giving students the information they need to guide and promote their own learning so that they can meet the intended outcomes. Assessment for learning requires that academic staff assess in a manner that will allow them to identify what kinds of improvements are needed and communicate this information to students. Is the student being told what to do in order to improve and master the graduate profile?

TEO policy and practice guidelines tend to emphasise assessment of learning through attention to procedures around assessments. There is a risk that too much emphasis on rules, regulations, moderation and oversight will result primarily in compliance of staff with procedure at the expense of effectively determining whether
or not students are working successfully towards the skills, knowledge and attributes defined in the graduate profile.

An exclusive or even primary focus on consistency, for example, can constrain creativity in assessment, preclude appropriate discipline specific professional variations in assessment practices, and limit the use of feedback and feed-forward processes to inform student learning. Staff and students may conclude that student learning is taking a back seat to quality assurance processes driven by institutional risk management, not quality.