Does authentic assessment undermine authentic learning?

Abstract

In this editorial the editors consider the ideals and realities of high and low stakes assessments in clinical workplaces, the impact of these assessments on clinical workplace learning, and the clash between authenticity in assessment and authenticity in learning.We ask some of the big questions in health professions education (HPE) scholarship in our editorials for Advances. In this editorial we consider the ideals and realities of high and low stakes assessments in clinical workplaces. Assessment is, after all, one of the most important aspects of health professions education. Without assessment we would have little objective evidence as to how learners are progressing, and little way to meet our mandate for ensuring the quality of those entering the workforce. Workplace learning is another essential component in training health professionals, which may have many different names (practicums, clerkships, placements etc.) but is also central to the ethos of HPE. It is when these two bastions collide that things get interesting.Assessment in the clinical workplace has become ubiquitous across HPE, in both undergraduate and postgraduate programs. (Crossley, 2018) Depending on the profession, the local context, and the available resources, these assessments can take the form of single point in time assessments (workplace-based assessment -WBA) or they can be a component of programmatic assessment with an assessment-for-learning focus. (Prentice 2020) The research effort that has gone into unpacking and revising assessment in the workplace to 'make it work' has been substantial. (Weller 2021;Tavares et al., 2023) Rather than going over old ground, we want to step back and ask whether the fundamental concept is sound and whether that effort might be better invested elsewhere.