Guest Editorial

It is generally accepted in the literature that assessment has three purposes: to support and enhance learning; to provide certification; and to provide a system of quality control (inter alia Yorke, 1998; Black, 1998; Brown, 2001). Assessment methods and requirements probably have a greater influence on how and what students learn than any other single factor (Boud, 1989), as students consciously or subconsciously vary their attitudes and strategies of learning in order to cope with the assessment system (Harris and Bell, 1986). Indeed, Tang (1994) suggested that, among all the contextual factors such as ability, preferred learning style and teaching environment, assessment has the most powerful effect on the learning process. Therefore, assessment is designed to support and thus enhance learning. For example, when assessment is perceived by students to require a high level of cognitive processing they are more likely to engage in a deep learning approach to succeed in the assessment set (Tang, 1994). Likewise, if assessment instruments are not constructively aligned (Biggs, 1987) with the relevant learning outcomes of an educational experience, then a ‘backwash effect’ will stifle innovation (French and Coppage, 2000). Assessment provides certification for progress by either passing or failing, grading or ranking candidates. It can also provide an exit award such as a degree or a licence to practice. Allied to the role of certification is the fact that assessment is also a form of accountability (quality assurance) to various stakeholders such as students, parents, professional bodies, government agencies, the public and employers. Added to the complexity of these multi-faceted roles and stakeholders is the potential for conflict. The publication of league tables at school and university level in the UK and in some other western countries has been dismissed as evidence not of raised standards as the figures might suggest, but rather of ‘dumbing down’ and of examinations becoming easier (inter alia, de Luca, 1994; Linn, 1995; Black, 1998). Likewise, publication of passrates by competing professional accounting bodies is of great interest to the ‘Big 4’, which tend to operate like market-based commercial institutions rather than professional organizations (Willmott and Sikka, 1997). With large numbers of trainees at their disposal for training, professional accounting bodies are under pressure to respond to the educational demands of these global firms, otherwise competitive advantage may be lost. Governments have also been seen to exert pressure on professional accounting bodies to increase the number of qualified accountants (as seen, for example, in Nigeria in response to the need for economic development, Uche, 2002). In addition, assessment takes up a considerable amount of effort, time and resources, by both students and academics alike (Crooks, 1988). This is of particular relevance for academics employed within an increasing commercial, key performance indicator driven university sector environment—as evidenced, for example, in the UK (Willmott, 1995; Nixon, 1996; 1997) and Australia (Parker, 2005). This has resulted in the massification Accounting Education: an international journal Vol. 16, No. 2, 123–127, June 2007