Content uploaded by Desireé Scholtz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Desireé Scholtz on May 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
South African Journal of Higher Education http://dx.doi.org/10.20853/30-1-553
Volume 30 | Number 1 | 2016 I pages 245-264 1 eISSN 1753-5913
THE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY: AN ELUSIVE CURRICULUM
STRUCTURE
D. Scholtz
Fundani CHED
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Bellville, Cape Town
e-mail: scholtzd@cput.ac.za
ABSTRACT
The unprecedented scale of curriculum development in response to national imperatives has
prompted questions on curriculum approaches and strategies. The focus of this article is on how
four departments conceived assessment during the recurriculation of diploma qualifications. The
findings suggest that assessment is approached from a technicist perspective and compliance
with principles of good assessment practice. In response to the findings, the purpose and structure
of an assessment strategy as an over-arching mechanism to inform and guide assessment
practices at programme level are explored. It is argued that a collaborative, programme-specific
assessment strategy creates an opportunity for synergy to achieve the purpose of the qualification
and for holistic graduate development.
Keywords: assessment strategy, higher education, curriculum revision, collaboration
It is widely acknowledged that the curriculum and knowledge in higher education are especially
visible through (and often constructed by) assessment practices. If this is the case, it matters
greatly what perspectives and theoretical tools are brought to bear on the task of understanding
these practices (James 2014, 155).
INTRODUCTION
Higher education in South Africa is in the process of unprecedented curriculum revision and
curriculum development owing to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) revised Higher
Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF) (CHE 2013). This is particularly pertinent
for universities of technology (UoTs), where certain qualifications will be phased out in favour
of new qualifications that now feature on the HEQSF (CHE 2013). The first phase of curriculum
renewal commenced with the revision of diploma qualifications where up to 50 per cent changes
could be effected to existing qualifications. The construct of ‘curriculum’ at this institution was
viewed within the broader all-encompassing definition where ‘curriculum is more than just
content ... but can be defined as a set of purposeful, intended experiences ... which may be
divided into four parts: content [programme development], organisation [programme design],
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
2
learning and teaching methods and assessment’ (Knight 2001, 369). Curriculum revision for
the diploma programmes was a process of intensive critical reflection of content, approaches,
methods, activities, procedures and practices for teaching, learning and assessment. The
dynamic, organic nature of curriculum revision and curriculum development refutes the
reductionist view that curriculum is a static blueprint for implementation. This institution
viewed the revision of diplomas as a window of opportunity to bring about the kinds of changes
that would render the qualifications current, responsive to industry and society, and relevant
regarding knowledge, skills and values for a super-complex world (Barnett 2000). This article
focuses on how four departments conceived assessments for their diploma programmes. The
discussion is located within the framework of different perspectives of assessment as espoused
by James (2014). The purpose of this article is to foreground the importance of thinking
strategically about assessment at programme level. Within the context of this article, a
programme refers to ‘a purposeful structured set of learning experiences that leads to a
qualification’ (CHE 2013, 44), and consists of a composite, complementary subject structure
across the levels of learning. This notion of a programme-wide systems approach to assessment
is reinforced by Knight (2000, 239), who argues ‘that attention should be paid to the collection
of courses or modules that together comprise a programme leading towards a named award’.
He claims that assessment strategies ‘only make operational sense if attention is concentrated
upon assessment arrangements in complete programmes’ of study (Knight 2000, 239).
Although this article raises issues of assessment, it is not viewed in isolation of teaching and
learning. Given the institutional stance of constructive alignment as an approach to teaching
and learning, assessment is viewed as a constituent part of a whole within a holistic framework
of teaching and learning practice.
This article provides brief insight into the purpose and nature of curriculum revision,
followed by theoretical perspectives on assessment and its relation to teaching and learning.
Responses provided by four departments were evaluated and discussed in relation to how each
department conceived assessment for their diplomas respectively. Considerations for
developing an assessment strategy for a programme of study are presented to define how
assessment could best serve the purpose of developing graduates from a collaborative,
complementary, constituent staff position.
While the large corpus of literature on assessment underscores the importance of
assessment as the primary indicator of academic success for students, there is a paucity of
literature on the use and value of assessment strategies. CHE presents the view that ‘assessment
has a critical influence on the quality of teaching and learning and can be used as a powerful
point of leverage for change and improvement in education’ (CHE 2004b, 5). It is against this
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
3
background of assessment as ‘leverage for change’, that responses of how four departments
viewed assessment as an integral part of the diploma re-curriculation process were explored.
Assessment plans for subjects are often inherited and perpetuated by virtue of subject guides in
the absence of departmental collaboration and assessment planning at programme level. For
example, if the exit-level outcomes of a qualification suggest the kinds of knowledge,
competences and qualities that graduates should be able to demonstrate on exiting the
qualification, it is incumbent on all lecturers across all levels of learning to collaborate in
achieving those outcomes. Developing an assessment strategy at programme level is often
overlooked or is simply elusive, in that it does not exist.
THE PURPOSE AND NATURE OF CURRICULUM REVISION
The impetus for curriculum renewal may be attributed to a range of internal and/or external
imperatives. In this instance, re-curriculation came about in response to the South African
Qualifications Authority’s (SAQA) revised HEQSF of 2013 (SAQA 2013).
The HEQSF (CHE 2013) has a much greater impact on UoTs with their vocational and
professional qualification pathways than on traditional universities that offer mainly general
and professional degrees. For example, the national diplomas registered with the SAQA were
revised to align with HEQSF (CHE 2013) requirements. In addition, UoTs are tasked with
developing new qualifications such as the Advanced Diploma and the Postgraduate Diploma to
ensure vertical progression to master’s and doctoral levels.
Curriculum revision at this institution had as its focus to effect the kinds of changes that
would render vocational-oriented qualifications:
• relevant to current and future educational and professional trends;
• pertinent in developing graduates holistically in terms of knowing, doing and being
(Barnett, Parry and Coate 2001) and,
• responsive to the employment sector and society regarding applied competencies and
graduate attributes for workplace purposes and public good.
A student-centred approach was adopted that focused on epistemology (knowledge and
competencies) and ontology (values, attributes and developing a professional gaze) so that
curriculum would ‘turn its face both ways’ (Barnett 2006, 152) academically and vocationally.
To this end, academics engaged in robust, reflective processes of critiquing the existing diploma
qualifications offered for several years where merely superficial changes had been made.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
4
Assessment in higher education
The discourse of assessment is commonly located in two integrated domains, summative
assessment’s ‘certifying and credentialing role’ and formative assessment’s ‘developmental
ends’ (Dawson, Bearman, Boud, Hall, Molloy, Bennett and Joughin 2013). Assessment as an
integral component of teaching and learning is powerful and dominant in that it: (1) serves as
access to promote students from one level to another; (2) provides an indication of what
students know (or do not know); (3) serves as an indicator of academic progress, and (4) is the
final determinant of academic success. Dawson et al. (2013) assert that since ‘assessment is so
central to higher education ... it provides a key arena for exploring how academics’ decisions
can shape the educational environment’. For example, assessment plans are determined by
lecturers, departments or institutions where students often do not have a voice regarding
assessment pacing, methods or practices. Assessment could be a patent site of hegemony given
the kinds of decisions that influence assessment and whether these decisions are based on
pedagogical, empirical or rational reasoning. In other words, hegemony is evident in the agency,
culture and structure of how assessment occurs at an institution in terms of who dictates or
steers assessment practices, what knowledge is assessed, when assessment occurs and how
assessment is practised, conducted and measured. Often the academic schedule is dictated by
the administrative agenda, or decisions taken by faculty management are irrefutable.
Assessment decisions are frequently made and operationalised in such higher education
contexts.
In spite of the centrality and importance of assessment in higher education, the
overwhelming focus seems to be located within the quality assurance realm of what constitutes
good assessment practice. This focus is evident in research and assessment guides and policies,
where the virtues of good assessment practices are portrayed as canons for developing good
assessments (Morgan and Houghton 2011; Yorke 2003; Airasian and Miranda 2002; Rust 2002;
Fowell, Southgate and Bligh 1999). A literature review reveals emergent themes on particular
aspects of assessment, including, amongst others:
• formative and summative assessments;
• assessment methods such as portfolios and e-assessments;
• feedback;
• peer and self-assessment;
• integrated assessment;
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
5
• assessment as pedagogy within constructive alignment, and
• deep and surface learning.
(Refer to Trigwell and Prosser 2014; Bayat and Naicker 2012; Crisp 2012; Irwin and
Hepplestone 2012; Torrance 2012; Bezuidenhout and Alt 2011; Biggs and Tang 2007; Biggs
2003; Yorke 2003; Rust 2002.)
The literature on assessment strategies that should ideally inform all of the above themes within
a programme of study seems to be scant, with ‘strategies’ often being conflated with ‘methods’.
Although there is a school of thought that higher education is becoming more managerialist and
that it panders to market forces, there is merit in drawing on a management perspective of a
strategy and strategic thinking for assessment planning and implementation at programme level.
Often lecturers inherit assessment schemes with methods and weightings for the subjects they
teach, and pursue these without any rationale why these particular methods and weightings are
appropriate. It is argued that within the context of re-curriculation and curriculum development,
assessment requires strategic thinking from a programme-wide perspective, that is, developing
and managing an assessment strategy for the programme of study that provides context and
rationale for decisions made at subject level.
PERSPECTIVES ON ASSESSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
James (2014, 156) alerts us to the pivotal nature of assessment in higher education and the
myriad ways in which assessment is defined, approached and applied, ‘each of which comes
with ontological and epistemological positioning’. James describes three perspectives of how
assessment is viewed and practised and suggests that boundaries between these perspectives
are permeable and by no means absolute. Elements of one perspective could be evident in
another. The three perspectives, according to James (2014), that most often feature in
assessment include (1) the technical perspective, (2) humanistic perspective, and
(3) interactionist perspective. A brief exposition of each perspective provides insight into how
assessment might be viewed in higher education.
James (2014, 156) is of the opinion that most discussion and literature on assessment in
higher education centres on the technical perspective that foregrounds the ‘tick box’ criteria of
good assessment practice. The technical perspective is concerned with the appropriacy of
assessment methods and whether ‘matters like fairness, transparency, efficiency ... reliability,
validity ... and coherence between assessment processes and learning outcomes’ were adhered
to (James 2014, 156). The claim that most institutional policies and subsequent departmental
assessment plans fall squarely into the technical perspective where emphasis is placed on
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
6
technicist details of assessment principles (James 2014) is validated by this research. For
example, a national document on programme development explains assessment requirements
for curriculum as having:
appropriate policies and procedures for internal assessment; internal and external moderation;
monitoring of student progress; explicitness, validity and reliability of assessment practices;
recording of assessment results; settling of disputes; the rigour and security of the assessment
system ... (CHE 2004a, 7).
Similarly, the institutional assessment policy, according to the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology (CPUT), ‘provides academic staff with clear, brief, user-friendly guidelines for fair
and valid assessment ... that is appropriate to professionally oriented education’ (CPUT 2012,
2). Both the national and institutional guidelines outline specific assessment criteria that present
elements of ‘good practice’ (for example, validity, reliability, fairness, moderation and
procedures for handling grievances). By implication, evidence of ‘good practice’ principles
could be interpreted as assessments being fit for purpose when this might not be the case. While
there is inherently nothing amiss with providing guidelines to ensure that all assessments meet
minimum criteria, it may be argued that assessments are more than tick lists of compliance with
institutional standards. The focus of the technicist perspective resides in compliance and seems
to evade the issue of whether assessments contribute to epistemological access to knowledge
(Morrow 2009) and/or contribute to developing an ontological stance towards self and the
profession. Yet, assessments viewed through the lens of the technical perspective ‘can be
sophisticated’ but the critique is that there could be an ‘over-reliance on the codification of
learning and knowledge through devices like learning outcomes and ... placing too much
reliance on generic notions of “good practice”’ (James 2014, 157).
The humanistic perspective (James 2014) draws attention to the contradictory
expectations of learners and lecturers respectively, where teaching and learning practices set
expectations for assessments that might be at odds with what is actually required. In other
words, pedagogic practices applied in teaching and learning might be out of kilter with
assessment practices. For example, critique and deep learning might characterise learning
activities, yet assessment tasks encourage recall and reproduction without further expectations
of analysing, comparing, contrasting and substantiating that should typify higher education
reasoning and thinking abilities. The converse of this example could also be applicable. While
James (2014) advances no explanation for such contradictory practices, the cautionary note is
that this could create mistrust between students and lecturers. The divergent expectations of
teaching, learning and assessment militate against the principles of constructive alignment and
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
7
occlude developing an understanding of how components and practices of disciplinary
pedagogy constitute a holistic whole. The CHE Resource on Assessment of Student Learning
(2004b, 3) presents a tenet of constructive alignment for the higher education fraternity, to
‘[make] explicit the learning outcomes and levels of knowledge, understanding and skills one
intends students to achieve and then designing assessment instruments that will effectively test
students’ attainment of these outcomes’.
Analytic marking schemes that purport to minimise subjectivity and are designed to
promote fairness and transparency in assessment are also brought into question for their
‘divergent’ nature (James 2014, 157). The argument presented by James (2014) is that for
students to develop the ability to evaluate and review their own work, a holistic view of the
composite output would be required rather than analytical schemes that compartmentalise the
whole into what sometimes appear to be discrete tasks. In defence of the humanistic perspective,
James suggests that ‘many of those teaching in HE have much less individual autonomy ... or
find themselves pulled in different directions by assessment purposes other than facilitating
student learning’. Often academics are compelled to work within the confines of departmental
or faculty assessment practices that might well conflict with their own views of education. It
could be argued that the humanistic perspective could arise from diverse interpretations of
teaching and learning with different expectations for assessment, or from authoritarian
structures at variance with lecturer requirements and expectations. Often lecturers work within
the confines of authoritarian decision-making structures and are not at liberty to follow
individual or innovative practices.
The interactionist perspective promotes collective thinking and decision making between
lecturers and/or lecturers and students, bearing in mind that assessment tasks and results could
well be interpreted differently by lecturers and students. Assessment underscores the power
relations of the various hierarchical levels in academia that ‘can frame [lecturers] actions and
... [where] habitual practices reproduce or contest interests’ (James 2014, 158). The
interactionist perspective could be viewed as an attempt to minimise an authoritative stance,
especially between lecturer and students, while simultaneously clarifying expectations of tasks
and assessment criteria. Assessment is a situated, context-dependent, social process and a
‘community of judgment’ is always relevant (James 2014, 164). The inherent hegemony
prevalent in assessments, with lecturers exercising power over what is assessed, how and when
assessment occurs, and how marks are allocated, could at times be detrimental to students who
have limited recourse to bring about change. The interactionist perspective tends to open
channels of communication and allow the student voice to contribute to pedagogy and create
opportunities for dialogue in the interests of an improved learning experience.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
8
In practice, the three perspectives that range from technical aspects of assessment to levels
of abstraction, are not mutually exclusive and are largely dependent on the learning
environment and the culture in which teaching, learning and assessment occur. Institutional
assessment practices are governed by rules, policies and procedures, suggesting that lecturers
have limited autonomy to adopt, for example, a more democratic interactionist perspective.
RESPONSES AND DISCUSSION AS SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENTS
The re-curriculation of diplomas required departments to respond to questions relating to
assessment practices at programme level. (Refer to Table 1 for excerpts of questions and
verbatim responses.) The submissions revealed the purpose, interpretation and value placed on
assessments at programme level. Four diplomas from four faculties (Applied Sciences,
Business, Health and Wellness Sciences, and Informatics and Design) were purposively
selected based on their different fields of study to determine how staff viewed assessment as a
component of curriculum. The selected diplomas are not attached to professional bodies that
may be prescriptive to ensure accreditation of the programme and graduates as professionals in
the field of practice. The responses are, therefore, the interpretation of academics in each
department, either individual staff members or groups tasked with completing the template. The
responses to each question were analysed using content analysis and the discussion focused on
the commonalities and/or differences across diploma programmes using James’s (2014)
perspectives of assessment to frame the discussion.
Table 1: Responses to questions on assessment
Diploma A
Diploma B
Diploma C
Diploma D
Question 1: Describe the overall assessment approach applicable to this programme and how this assessment
approach is aligned to the exit-level outcomes of the qualification.
Assessment criteria have
been set in accordance
with the exit-level
outcomes of the
programme.
Assessment tools are
weighted in accordance
with the volume of work
assessed and the
cognitive complexity of
the assessment task.
The department adheres
strictly to institutional and
faculty assessment rules
and procedures.
Moderators ensure that
assessment tasks are
fair and that the cognitive
complexity (Bloom’s
taxonomy) of the
Includes case studies,
problem-solving
assignments and
strategies, logbooks,
portfolio of learning
materials, projects and
presentations, written and
oral examinations,
authentic practical
exercises and
demonstrations. Some
strategies will be more
suited to assess
foundational competence
while others are more
suited to assess practical
and reflexive competence.
The final integrated
assessment needs to
measure applied
competence [assessing a
Assessment is largely
formative. The
department aligns itself
with all appropriate
policies and procedures
for internal
assessment; internal
and external
moderation; monitoring
of student progress;
explicitness, validity
and reliability of
assessment practices;
recording of
assessment results;
settling of disputes; the
rigour and security of
the assessment
system; RPL; and for
the development of
staff competence in
The assessment approach is
based on the principles of
constructive alignment. The
departmental assessment
focus is on engagement with
and construction of
knowledge.
All assessments subscribe to
institutional guidelines and
include both formative and
summative assessments. All
assessments are moderated
and subscribe to the
appropriate levels. The basic
assessment approach used
in most subjects is as
follows:
• All students write
structured end-of term
tests;
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
9
Diploma A
Diploma B
Diploma C
Diploma D
assessment is
commensurate with the
specific outcomes of the
subject, the exit-level
outcomes of the
programme and
corresponding level
descriptors.
case, developing a solution
and applying the solution to
an authentic case – focus
is on problem solving].
assessment.
Assessment [aligns
with] policy documents,
aligns with the level of
the programme and the
needs of industry.
Assessments are
effective tools for
measuring how
students are coping
and succeeding.
• There are practical
projects where they apply
theoretical principles.
• Students will do class
presentations and write
class tests mainly as
formative assessments
during the year.
Question 2: Describe the main aim(s) or purpose(s) as well as method(s) of assessment for each academic year
of study.
• To determine the
extent to which
learning has taken
place.
• To assess whether
learning outcomes for
the course were
achieved.
• To monitor the
learning process and
development of
graduate attributes.
• To reflect on and
review where
necessary the efficacy
of teaching and
learning methods.
• To serve as indicators
of the extent to which
progress has been
made towards
achieving the level
descriptors.
Assessment methods:
Tests, assignments,
laboratory reports, oral
presentations, project,
portfolio
Year 1: To assess
knowledge, to allow
students to understand and
remember the basics of
[content knowledge].
Year 2: 40 – 50%
application ... unless the
subject needs are
structured differently,
needing more
remembering and
understanding.
Year III: Mostly
application and unknown
resolution of queries.
Largely formative
assessment strategies
are applied though mid
and year-end
moderations are
summative in nature.
The students are
assessed on specific
assessment criteria.
Assessments are conducted
as part of the learning
process. Formative
assessments are conducted
for learning, to determine the
levels of understanding of
content for both the lecturer
and student. The results of
formative assessments
inform future discussions
and the approach to learning
in terms of providing
adequate academic support.
Summative assessments are
conducted to determine
students’ overall
perspectives of units of work.
Integrated assessments: The
subject content of various
first-year subjects is
integrated into this
assessment.
The knowledge component
will be assessed through
knowledge and insight
questions in tests. The
application component will
be assesssed through
practical questions in tests,
class presentations in groups
and practical application
projects.
In the first year the focus
will be more on knowledge
and basic application.
The second and third year
will focus on more
specialised knowledge and
more detailed application.
Assessment methods:
Tests, projects,
presentations, research
Assignments
Question 3: Will there be an appropriate balance between formative and summative assessments in the
programme? Provide details.
Currently, formative
assessment is neglected
and misunderstood by
staff as an assessment
The department follows the
continuous assessment
system. Students receive
ongoing formative
Yes. As attested to by
feedback from external
examiners and
All summative assesssments
are preceded by formative
assessments like peer group
assessment, etc. The
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
10
Diploma A
Diploma B
Diploma C
Diploma D
tool, but also as a
diagnostic tool to assist
in developing a viable
teaching and learning
strategy. Staff
development in respect
of assessment is
essential in the revised
curriculum to ensure that
formative assessment
assume their rightful
place in the new
curriculum.
assessments throughout
the academic year to allow
them to reflect and critically
evaluate their competency
skills. Students will receive
a minimum of four
theoretical or practical
assessments before their
final summative
assessment.
moderators year after
year.
purpose of the formative
assessments are to confirm
and substantiate the
concepts and knowledge
needed before students
embark on the summative
assessments. Formative
assessments in the form of
class tests and work sheets.
These formative
assessments then form the
basis of knowledge and
understanding before
students engage in the
summative assessment.
Question 4. Will students be assessed in an integrated and holistic manner in terms of knowledge, skills and
capabilities/attributes in relation to the requirements of complex practice in the field of study? Provide details.
No response was
provided.
Assessment is based on
accumulated knowledge
and indicates growth of
knowledge and skills with
various forms of
assessments: formative
and summative
assessments. Integration
of subjects and
assessments will be
encouraged in a holistic
manner. Lecturers will
make use of integrated
assessments aligned to
learning outcomes
appropriate to the SAQA
level descriptors for the
qualification. Graduate
attributes will be embedded
in the subject learning
outcomes which will be
aligned with student
competencies to be
achieved. Students will be
awarded re-assessment
opportunities to achieve
the required competencies.
Yes, because the entire
programme is
structured to simulate
the world of work and
life-long study.
Students will be assessed in
an integrated and holistic
manner in terms of
knowledge, skills and
graduate attributes in relation
to the requirements of
complex practice in the field
of study. The following two
examples are relevant:
In the first year the student
will do a practical market day
that will be assessed by a
content subject,
communication and the use
of computer software.
In the third year the students
will compile a business plan
that will integrate all the
knowledge of all the subjects
learnt from the first year.
The questions in Table 1 formed part of an institutional template for the recurriculation of
diplomas. The responses in Table 1 are verbatim excerpts that reflect departmental perspectives
of assessments. For purposes of anonymity, the diplomas were not identified and are referred
to as A, B, C and D. Each question is presented below, followed by a discussion of the
responses.
Question 1: Describe the overall assessment approach applicable to this
programme and how this assessment approach is aligned with the exit level
outcomes of the qualification
For Diploma A, the assessment approach was viewed in terms of aligning subject outcomes
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
11
with exit-level outcomes, assessment criteria and level descriptors, and ensuring that the
institutional rules and procedures for assessment were met. For Diploma B the assessment
approach was interpreted within the context of demonstrating applied competence. SAQA
(2005, i) defines applied competence as ‘a learner’s ability to integrate concepts, ideas and
actions in authentic, real-life contexts that is expressed as practical, foundational and reflexive
competence’. Being a more practice-oriented programme of study, the emphasis was on the
application of knowledge in a sequential problem-solving format by means of ‘assessing a case,
developing a solution and applying the solution to an authentic case’. The assessment approach
for Diploma C was presented within the context of the rules and procedures of the institutional
policy. Assessments were considered ‘tools for measuring how students [were] coping and
succeeding’ and had to subscribe to the needs of industry and the rules of the institution. The
lecturers in Diploma D based their approach on the principles of constructive alignment with
their focus being on students’ construction of knowledge. This department’s understanding and
application of formative and summative assessments, constructive alignment, and Bloom’s
revised taxonomy suggest a developmental approach to improving learning, reasoning and
cognition (Airasian and Miranda 2002).
Each department conceived an assessment approach in distinctly different ways, such as
alignment of outcomes, cognitive complexity, applied competence and/or constructive
alignment. The commonality was that all departments considered compliance with institutional
rules and procedures an important part of their assessment approach. These focus areas could
be interpreted as the value that departments placed on specifics of assessment. For example,
Diploma C considered assessments to be ‘tools for measuring’ learning, suggesting a technicist
perspective of assessments being measuring instruments that should comply with institutional
and industry requirements. James’s (2014, 157) assertion that an ‘over-reliance on the
codification of learning and knowledge’ through different devices seems evident in the
centrality of focus areas (alignment of outcomes, level descriptors, applied competence and
constructive alignment) to understanding assessment approaches. Airasian and Miranda (2002,
253) are of the view that there is merit in aligning assessments with teaching and learning
practices. They contend that ‘severe misalignment of assessment, objectives and instruction
will likely not lead to high student performance on the assessments’. All the focus areas noted
above are pertinent to a comprehensive explanation for an assessment approach, yet discrete
aspects were afforded attention. The responses revealed the importance of compliance with
institutional and/or national imperatives as rules and procedures were copied verbatim. It could
be argued that in the absence of developing an assessment strategy with all its facets, the
technicist perspective became the default position.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
12
Question 2: Describe the main aim(s) or purpose(s) as well as method(s) of
assessment for each academic year of study
The aims of assessment for Diploma A alluded to the purposes of formative and summative
assessments and described assessment as being an integral part of teaching and learning.
Assessment served as a lens to critique, ‘reflect on and review the efficacy of teaching and
learning methods’. This suggests a cyclical stance to constructive alignment where assessment
provides insight into the kinds of changes that could effect improvement in subsequent teaching,
learning and assessment cycles. The assessment methods were sufficiently varied to
accommodate different learning styles and the different facets of theory and practice across
levels of learning.
Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Airasian and Miranda 2002) served as a basis for explaining
the aims and purposes of assessment for Diploma B. In Year 1 of this diploma, the aim was ‘to
assess knowledge ... to understand and remember the basics’; Year 2 required ‘40% – 50%
application ... unless the subject needs are structured differently, needing more remembering
and understanding’ and in Year 3, the focus was mostly on application. Although progressive
levels of complexity seemed evident, there was an absence of cognitive challenge beyond
application of knowledge. This response reveals an understanding of Bloom’s revised
taxonomy where the first year of study draws on the lower levels of cognition, ‘remembering’
and ‘understanding’, the second year is a continuation of the first year with ‘application’
included, and the third year focuses mainly on the application of knowledge. The upper levels
of Bloom’s taxonomy that are meant to assess meta-cognition and higher-order thinking such
as, ‘analyse’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘create’ were not included. This interpretation of Bloom’s revised
taxonomy seems problematic, given that all levels of cognition should feature in all levels of
study. For example, at first-year level, students should be challenged to ‘analyse’ and
‘synthesise’ with incremental cognitive tasks being scaffolded across the three-year diploma
qualification. In addition, the absence of higher-order reasoning and cognition did not align
with the level descriptors for higher education (SAQA 2012).
Formative and summative assessments and assessment criteria framed the assessment
aims of Diploma C although no clarification was provided as to how formative and summative
assessments were interpreted. No differentiation regarding the aims of assessment was reflected
across the three years of study.
The two dominant assessment domains (formative and summative assessments) featured
prominently in Diploma D. The response was comprehensive and showed clarity of
understanding as to how formative and summative assessments were used as an integral part of
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
13
the teaching and learning cycle. At second- and third-year levels, the assessment focus was ‘on
more specialised knowledge and more detailed application’. However, the explanation suggests
that theory and practice are separate and are assessed as such, for example, ‘the knowledge
component will be assessed through knowledge and insight questions ... the application
component will be assessed through practical questions’. This trend militates against the
integration of different kinds of knowledge, since practical tasks draw on conceptual and
procedural knowledge for understanding and implementation.
Each department alluded to formative and summative assessments in the learning process
ranging from cryptic statements (Diploma C) to a detailed explanation (Diploma D). While
assessment methods varied according to the field of study, clarity on the aims of assessment for
each year of study was largely absent or the aims were ill-defined. It could be argued that if
there is a lack of clarity on the aims and purposes of assessment at programme level, this could
have implications for assessment practices at subject level if lecturers do not have a clear
understanding of how assessment is applied and integrated into the cycle of teaching, learning
and assessment. The separation of theory and application of knowledge seems problematic,
especially for vocational education. The responses aligned with information in the institutional
policy suggesting limited reflection on the importance of how assessment contributes to the
acquisition of knowledge, competences and values for vocational education. The technicist
perspective was prevalent in compliance with institutional commitments without presenting a
broader contextualisation of how the question was interpreted within each field of study.
Question 3: Will there be an appropriate balance between formative and
summative assessments in the programme? Provide details
Formative assessments formed part of assessment practices for each diploma, to a lesser or
more noteworthy degree, as follows:
• The comment that formative assessment for Diploma A was ‘neglected and misunderstood
by staff’ called for staff development in this domain.
• Diploma B explained the relationship and function of formative and summative
assessments within the context of continuous assessment.
• Diploma C drew on feedback from moderators to confirm the relationship between
formative and summative assessments without providing any clarification or explanation.
• Diploma D provided a clear understanding of lecturers’ interpretation of the relationship
between formative and summative assessments as part of assessment practice.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
14
The responses to this question suggest that the clarification (or lack thereof) of assessment terms
has implications for teaching, learning and assessment. If educational jargon is not clarified at
programme level, subject lecturers will be left to decipher for themselves what practices to
implement. This does not imply that there is a direct consequence between understanding
terminology and effective implementation in practice, but it does imply that if opportunities to
discuss all aspects of assessment are not created and valued at programme level, uniform
practices to support all students might be elusive and could negatively influence their academic
performance. The need for professional development seems evident in three departments, given
the perceived inability to provide comprehensive responses.
Question 4. Will students be assessed in an integrated and holistic manner in
terms of knowledge, skills and capabilities/attributes in relation to the
requirements of complex practice in the field of study? Provide details
Diploma A did not respond to this question. The interpretation of this question for Diploma B
included references to formative and summative assessments, the integration of subjects in a
holistic manner, and that the assessment of graduate attributes would be embedded in subject
learning. The response did not allude to how assessments related to the particular field of study.
In contrast, for Diploma C, ‘the entire programme [was] structured to simulate the world of
work and life-long study’ with no further explication of this statement. No reference was made
to any other aspects of assessments as required of the question. The response from Diploma D
took the form of an explanation of an integrated assessment where knowledge and competences
of three subjects were integrated for an authentic assessment task that mirrored workplace
practices.
The responses for all four diploma programmes provided limited information on how
knowledge, skills and attributes would be assessed holistically within the context of the field of
study. The brevity of information could suggest limited understanding by departments of what
was required or that assumptions were made that reviewers for accreditation of the
qualifications would understand the context and fill in the omissions.
Discussion
The responses to each of the questions by the different departments revealed different
understandings of assessment purposes and practices, starting with different terms, that is,
‘tools’ and ‘strategies’ for assessment methods. Although assessments were varied, no rationale
was provided for the selection of assessment methods. Attempts were made to demonstrate
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
15
understanding of assessment but the focus seemed to be on technicist thinking and compliance
with institutional rules. The importance of accumulative knowledge building across the levels
of learning was diminished. Comprehension and analysis seemed to be the threshold at which
cognition was pitched, entrenching declarative knowledge without due attention paid to the
application of functional knowledge and higher-order thinking. The limited information
provided suggests that not all departments grappled adequately with the construct of assessment
as a profound component of pedagogy that has long-term consequences for students. The
responses suggest a narrow view on specific aspects, without paying due attention to other
equally pertinent points relevant to each question.
The evidence provided, it might be argued, suggests that a compelling argument could be
made for departments to engage in debate on the role of assessment at programme level.
Common understandings and a collaborative approach to assessment could encourage lecturers
to work towards achieving common departmental goals regarding knowledge, competences and
attributes. The ramifications of clarifying understanding and improved collaboration could
contribute to higher-order thinking and deep learning that should translate into improved
student academic performance. In other words, the importance of developing an assessment
strategy is paramount to improving knowledge about and practices of assessment. For
academics, learning and reflection reside in the process of developing a strategy and the product
should represent collaborative input that is scaffolded to subject level. As Mutch (2002, 166)
succinctly states, ‘the concern is more with “strategising” as a process than of a strategy as a
product’. Furthermore, ‘assumptions about assessment need to be formalised and articulated,
so that they can be debated amongst a larger staff constituency’ (Mutch 2002, 164). This could
encourage innovation and creativity among staff and obviate possibilities of authoritarianism.
PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
While no attempt is made to incorporate managerial principles into education, there is
acknowledgement that strategic thinking provides direction and purpose (Mutch 2002).
Drawing on Naylor (2004) and Gimbert (2011), the following points hold merit for developing
an assessment strategy at programme level:
• A strategy requires reflection and reasoning to provide an overview of the objectives and
practices adopted by the department.
• A strategy requires collaborative efforts by all staff in a department to achieve strategic
goals.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
16
• A strategy allows for extroverted (looking outwards to the social and work environment)
and inward-looking perspectives (to programme and institutional guidelines) as they are
all inter-related.
• A strategy provides a long-term perspective of assessment for the programme of study,
for review and revision at various intervals.
Naylor (2004, 248) suggests a four-stage process of developing a strategy that could be adapted
for higher education: (1) analysis, (2) selection, (3) implementation, and (4) control and
evaluation. Refer to Table 2.
Table 2: Developing an assessment strategy for a programme of study
Analysis at
programme level
(Macro-level)
Selection at subject
level
(Meso-level)
Implementation at
assessment level
(Micro-level)
Control and Evaluation
(Programme, Subject
and Assessment levels)
(Macro-, Meso-, and
Micro-levels)
• Purpose and
rationale of
qualification
• Exit-level outcomes
• Graduate outcomes
/Attributes
• Disciplinary
literacies
• Knowledge and
knower structures
• Teaching and
learning activities
• Curriculum
coherence for types
and integrated
assessment
• Core areas of
knowledge,
competences and
values of the
programme of study
• Purposes and types
of formative and
summative
assessments
• Staff development
• Assessment methods,
question types and
weightings
• Pacing and sequencing
of assessments
• Pacing and sequencing
of content for integrated
assessments
• Level descriptors for
each subject and year
of study
• Opportunities for
innovation and change
relevant to ‘analysis’
factors.
• Work-integrated
learning
• Apply good practice
principles of validity,
reliability,
authenticity and
fairness
• Apply decisions
made during the
‘Analysis’ and
‘Selection’ phase to
all subjects in the
programme
• Develop rubrics for
assignments
• Appropriate
feedback
• Opportunities for
innovation and
change relevant to
‘Analysis’ factors.
• Moderation
• Monitoring
effectiveness of
selection and
implementation
Reflection and review of
assessments to:
• encourage deep
learning
• achieve the exit-level
outcomes and graduate
attributes
• determine amendments
and improvement
• evaluate the efficacy of
constructive alignment
(i.e. evaluate teaching
methods, learning
activities, assessment
criteria and assessment
methods
• evaluate whether good-
practice principles were
achieved.
The selection of components for each of the four stages is contingent on the discussion and
decisions taken in the preceding stage. The findings of this research with the often disparate
and incomplete responses suggest that a strategic approach could prove useful in assisting
departments to:
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
17
• align assessment strategies, policies, procedures and practices;
• clarify thinking about the multiple purposes of assessment for the field of study;
• align assessment with the theories of and approaches to learning, and locating assessment
within these theories and approaches;
• adopt strategies that can be justified as a product of critical reflection;
• diminish fragmentation and develop a coherent structure for staff and students;
• develop a strategy that forms part of the learning and reflection for future improvement
(Mutch 2002, 168);
• ‘bring into view (and keep in view) the circumstances that give us a current set of practices
and which current practices reproduce, refine or challenge’ (James 2014, 162);
• promote thinking and practices for educational advantage within a super-complex world
(Barnett 2000).
Although a strategic approach could direct thinking and reflection, it is not presented as a
panacea for improved assessment practices. If the institutional environment is not conducive to
change or a dominant culture of authoritarianism is prevalent, lecturers could well adopt the
default position of prior assessment practices. Similarly, given that the process for developing
strategies for assessment is dynamic and iterative, lecturers should be open to shifting thinking
and develop a learning cultures perspective to embrace new learning challenges. James (2014,
164) presents a succinct summation of learning to effect change:
A learning cultures perspective is geared to exploring and articulating the social practices through
which people learn, and this must include a careful examination of what concepts and notions of
learning, knowledge, curriculum and judgement are in play in a given setting. One reason this may
be a useful thing to do is the highly practical one of staff becoming more accustomed to articulating
what they find most productive in pedagogic arrangements, if only to defend or negotiate more
effectively when those come under pressure to change.
CONCLUSION
Assessment is the only means by which students are judged competent and eligible to be
promoted from one level to another. As such, it is a powerful role player in the realm of teaching
and learning. As noted by Brown (in Rust 2002, 145):
Assessment defines what students regard as important, how they spend their time and how they
come to see themselves as students and then as graduates ... If you want to change student
learning then change the methods of assessment.
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
18
Curriculum development provides an opportunity to reflect on and evaluate past assessment
practices, as well as exploring innovative methods to engender student-centred learning and
construction of knowledge using different guises and gazes. Assessment, as an integral part of
the teaching and learning process, should gain its rightful place and recognition as a powerful
tool in cognition and learning. This may only be achieved if the assessment strategy is
developed in such a way that it ‘fosters a meaningful bridge’ between the myriad components
that constitute teaching, learning and assessment. The promise of adopting a strategic approach
to assessment is that implementation ‘must be as a result of conscious decisions based on
informed choice’ (Mutch 2002, 166).
REFERENCES
Airasian, P. W. and H. Miranda. 2002. The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory into
Practice 41(4): 249‒264.
Barnett, M. 2006. Vocational knowledge and vocational pedagogy. In Knowledge, curriculum and
qualifications for South African further education, ed. M. Young and J. Gamble, 143‒157. Cape
Town: HSRC Press.
Barnett, R. 2000. Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 25(3): 255‒265.
Barnett, R., G. Parry and K. Coate. 2001. Conceptualising curriculum change. Teaching in Higher
Education 6(4): 435‒449.
Bayat, A. and V. Naicker. 2012. Towards a learner-centred approach: Interactive online peer assessment.
South African Journal of Higher Education 26(5): 891‒907.
Bezuidenhout, M. J. and H. Alt. 2011. ‘Assessment drives learning’: Do assessments promote high level
cognitive processing? South African Journal of Higher Education 25(6): 1062‒1076.
Biggs, J. 2003. Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. York: Learning Teaching
and Support Network Generic Centre.
Biggs, J. and C. Tang. 2007. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Maidenhead: Open University Press; McGraw-Hill Education.
Cape Peninsula University of Technology. 2012. Policy on assessment in professionally-oriented
programmes. Bellville: CPUT.
CHE see Council on Higher Education.
CPUT see Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
Council on Higher Education. 2004a. Higher Education Quality Council criteria for programme
accreditation. Pretoria: CHE.
Council on Higher Education. 2004b. Teaching and Learning Resource No.5: Assessment of Student
Learning. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
Council on Higher Education. 2007. Higher education qualifications framework. Pretoria: CHE.
Council on Higher Education. 2013. Higher education qualifications sub-framework. Pretoria: CHE.
Crisp, G. T. 2012. Integrative assessment: Reframing assessment practice for current and future
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(1): 33‒43.
Dawson, P., M. Bearman, D. J. Boud, M. Hall, E. K. Molloy, S. Bennett and G. Joughin. 2013.
Assessment might dictate the curriculum, but what dictates assessment? Teaching & Learning
Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 1(1): 107‒111.
Fowell, S. L., L. J. Southgate and J. G. Bligh. 1999. Evaluating assessment: The missing link? Medical
Scholtz The assessment strategy: An elusive curriculum structure
19
Education 33(4): 276‒281.
Gimbert, X. 2011. Think strategically. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Irwin, B. and S. Hepplestone. 2012. Examining increased flexibility in assessment formats. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 37(7): 773‒785.
James, D. 2014. Investigating the curriculum through assessment practice in higher education: The value
of a ‘learning cultures’ approach. Higher Education 67(2): 155‒169.
Knight, P. 2000. The value of a programme-wide approach to assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 25(3): 237‒251.
Knight, P. 2001. Complexity and curriculum: A process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in
Higher Education 6(3): 369‒381.
Morgan, H. and A-M. Houghton. 2011. Inclusive curriculum design in higher education: Considerations
for effective practice across and within subject areas. York: Higher Education Academy.
Morrow, W. E. 2009. Bounds of democracy: Epistemological access in higher education. Cape Town:
HSRC Press.
Mutch, A. 2002. Thinking strategically about assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 27(2): 163‒174.
Naylor, J. 2004. Management. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Rust, C. 2002. The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education 3(2):
145‒158.
SAQA see South African Qualifications Authority.
South African Qualifications Authority. 2005. Guidelines for integrated assessment. Pretoria: SAQA.
South African Qualifications Authority. 2012. Level descriptors for the South African National
Qualifications Framework. Pretoria: SAQA.
Torrance, H. 2012. Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and
transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education 38(3): 323‒342.
Trigwell, K. and M. Prosser. 2014. Qualitative variation in constructive alignment in curriculum design.
Higher Education 67(2): 141‒154.
Yorke, M. 2003. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement
of pedagogic practice. Higher Education 45(4): 477‒501.
