The Multidimensional Nature of Learning Outcome Assessment in Practice-Based Courses
Keywords:
Practice-based learning, learning outcomes, authentic assessment, qualitative research, higher education, stakeholder engagement, assessment innovationAbstract
This study aimed to explore the multidimensional nature of learning outcome assessment in practice-based courses, focusing on the perceptions and experiences of educators and curriculum designers. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth insights from 23 participants, including university instructors, curriculum planners, and evaluators from Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their experience with assessment in practice-based disciplines. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. An inductive coding approach was used to identify key categories and themes. The analysis revealed three overarching themes: (1) Assessment Design and Alignment, including subthemes such as alignment with learning outcomes, tool diversity, and task authenticity; (2) Stakeholder Engagement in Assessment, including student involvement, instructor collaboration, and external feedback integration; and (3) Challenges and Innovations, encompassing issues such as time constraints, subjectivity, and digital tools. Participants emphasized the importance of constructive alignment, authenticity, and transparent criteria in assessment design. Stakeholder participation—especially from students and industry partners—was considered essential for relevance and effectiveness. Despite notable innovations, challenges such as inconsistency, lack of training, and institutional limitations remained prevalent. Learning outcome assessment in practice-based courses is inherently multidimensional, requiring flexible, authentic, and context-sensitive approaches. Educators navigate complex dynamics involving alignment, stakeholder expectations, and resource constraints. Addressing these challenges requires institutional support, ongoing professional development, and culturally responsive assessment strategies to ensure equity and educational impact.
Downloads
References
Baartman, L. K. J., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2007). Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: A qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.001
Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT Initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
Boud, D., & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium.
Knight, P. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063819
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956059
Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post‐secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701591867
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
