I don’t think CMALT was overly prescriptive. If anything I suppose I would looking for ways to firm these schemes up somewhat, but I am unsure how that could be done without stifling innovation and creativity too much. Sometimes it almost feels like qualifying as a mechanic because you have a screwdriver (I’m exaggerating of course, but I’m sure you get my point).

Personally I found it useful to reflect on some of the topics that CMALT requested, but I do also wonder about the extent to which this certification could ‘guarantee’ a certain level of competence. Does this certificate have an intrinsic and objective value to a future employer or client? That’s something I am unsure of.

I don’t think a mark should ever be considered to be directly proportionate to learning. A zero mark does not reflect zero learning, just as zero degrees Celcius does not mean no temperature. What it means is that on the scale you chose to measure particular learning outcomes, the student scores zero, which on any scale that I am aware of would indicate that for those outcomes the learner did not pick up what you had intended. He or she might have picked up other things, but that is not the subject of the assessment, not do I think does it have to be.

I’m curious though, with your stated skepticism on assessment, how do you think we should verify learning has taken place?