Authentic assessment has become a fixture in higher education, praised for boosting student engagement and demonstrating the relevance of academic work. By designing tasks that mirror real-world challenges, universities aim to help students develop the knowledge and skills they'll need beyond graduation. Yet according to Dr. James Thompson, a senior lecturer in the School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science at Adelaide University in South Australia, this approach may inadvertently perpetuate the very divide it seeks to bridge.
The problem, Thompson argues, is not the quality of the innovation but the context in which it operates. While 'learning to be' approaches emphasize knowledge and skills acquisition, they overlook the attributes and qualities most valued by employers. Consider the disconnects Thompson outlines: authentic assessment captures students' optimized efforts at a single time point, typically reflecting content knowledge or specific skills, whereas workplaces value consistency, reliability, and personal attributes, where a worker's weakest area may shape perceptions of their competence. Universities accommodate flexible learning and extension requests, but professional settings demand punctuality and on-time delivery with accountability. Academics often design prescriptive authentic assessments that may make students passive, awaiting instruction rather than demonstrating the initiative employers prize.
Additional gaps reveal deeper cultural inconsistencies. While employers expect individuals to respect expertise and respond constructively to feedback, students may challenge or negotiate grades. Universities provide standardized, transparent responses to protect grading defensibility, but this shields students from the candid critiques encountered in professional practice. Students control where they sit, who they work with, and how tasks are completed, yet professional settings require adaptation to unfamiliar colleagues and environments.
Thompson's solution moves beyond refinement of existing practices. He proposes a fundamental shift in pedagogical thinking—moving beyond what students need to learn or do to consider who they need to become and how they must act. This 'Being to Learn' approach recognizes that professional identity formation requires immersive, sustained support beyond a single embedded task. It reflects an intentional effort to design experiences that engage students in the how of working, not just the what.
This is not a call to withdraw essential supports, but an invitation to infuse professional expectations throughout the student journey. If universities are to bridge education and employment, they must illuminate the often-unspoken norms of professional life and provide genuine opportunities for students to develop them. Authentic assessment has enhanced the relevance of higher education, but it is not a silver bullet. True preparation for life beyond university requires shifting from helping students complete tasks to helping them become professionals.