On a lookout beyond STCW: Seeking standards and context for the authentic assessment of seafarers

The Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention (STCW) amendments in 1995 intended to improve the knowledge-based training mandate established in STCW’78 by making it outcome-based. This required seafarer students undertake competence assessment (or outcome of training received) to demonstrate their capacity to perform tasks listed in the STCW Code. This necessitates that students direct their learning efforts to the attainment of clearly stated expectations that, typically, are represented by learning outcomes based on the STCW competencies. Maritime Education and Training (MET) providers working under the directives of the National Maritime Regulators interpret the STCW requirements to develop the seafarer training curriculum and the resulting learning outcomes, to assure that students attain the minimum standards of competence established by the STCW. This paper will review and argue that different ideas as to ‘outcomes’ has been confusing the interpretation of STCW and, therefore, how seafarer students are being assessed. Critically, a review of specific excerpts from the STCW Code will be used to show that the Code largely fails to provide a ‘standard’ that can assure assessment of seafarers to one of the most critical outcomes: the performance expected at a level of work in the industry. A short review of the inherent characteristics of authentic assessment is provided in justification of its use as an alternate and optimal solution to improve current assessment practices and respond to stakeholder needs. The paper will point to an evidence-based way forward where future research will empirically investigate how authentic assessment can improve the STCW and the resulting training outcomes

[1]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  A Guide to Authentic e-Learning , 2009 .

[2]  Amy Driscoll,et al.  Developing Outcomes-Based Assessment for Learner-Centered Education , 2007 .

[3]  G. Wiggins.  The Case for Authentic Assessment. , 1990 .

[4]  Grant Wiggins,et al.  Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance , 1998 .

[5]  P. Kirschner,et al.  A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment , 2004 .

[6]  Linda C. Hodges,et al.  From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice , 1986 .

[7]  Kelley J. Burton,et al.  A framework for determining the authenticity of assessment tasks : applied to an example in law , 2011 .

[8]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Perceptions of authentic assessment Five dimensions of authenticity , 2004 .

[9]  Graham S. Maxwell,et al.  Contextualising Authentic Assessment , 1999 .

[10]  P. Benner.  From novice to expert. , 1984, The American journal of nursing.

[11]  Vicki L. Schmitt,et al.  Defining Authentic Classroom Assessment. , 2012 .

[12]  Susan G Forneris,et al.  Contextual Learning: A Reflective Learning Intervention for Nursing Education , 2006, International journal of nursing education scholarship.

[13]  Helen Sampson,et al.  Water-tight or sinking? A consideration of the standards of the contemporary assessment practices underpinning seafarer licence examinations and their implications for employers , 2011 .

[14]  H. Andrade.  Using Rubrics To Promote Thinking and Learning. , 2000 .

[15]  Jan Herrington,et al.  Authentic conditions for authentic assessment: aligning task and assessment , 2006 .

[16]  Craig Gibson,et al.  Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education , 2000 .

[17]  A. Walczak.  STCW convention and the challenges of the future , 1999 .

[18]  Deborah Nusche,et al.  Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: A Comparative Review of Selected Practices. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 15. , 2008 .