Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT A wide range of diverse responses by individual students to innovative or alternative assessment are described and discussed, drawing on research data. Student perspectives are significant since assessment is a powerful factor in determining the hidden curriculum and assessment reform has frequently been proposed as a means of better aligning actual experience with the official curriculum. At a general level, students appeared to understand and adapt to new assessment requirements but case studies illustrate that students do not respond in a fixed nor simple way. Individuals are active in the reconstruction of the messages and meanings of assessment. Ostensibly the same assessment is interpreted differently not just by `staff and 'students' but by individuals. Students import a range of experiences, motivations and perspectives which influence their response. However, although the process is complex, insights gained can be helpful in better aligning the hidden and the formal curriculum.
Introduction
This paper focuses on the `hidden curriculum' in higher education, drawing particularly on students' experiences and perceptions. The emphasis is on newer forms of assessment, variously termed innovative, alternative or authentic assessment, which are becoming increasingly common in universities. Our research study included 13 case studies of such innovative assessment in practice in a UK university.
Versions of the Hidden Curriculum
The term `hidden curriculum' is widely-known and used but encompasses a broad range of definitions. It is an apposite metaphor to describe the shadowy, ill-defined and amorphous nature of that which is implicit and embedded in educational experiences in contrast with the formal statements about curricula and the surface features of educational interaction. At the macro-level, social theorists describe a hidden curriculum largely in terms of its detrimental effects on the ideals of liberal educational philosophy and the process of schooling as a coercive societal mechanism (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Illich, 1973; Meighan, 1986).
At a micro-level, the hidden curriculum is expressed in terms of the distinction between `what is meant to happen', that is, the curriculum stated officially by the educational system or institution, and what teachers and learners actually do and experience `on the ground', a kind of de facto curriculum. Snyder (1971) was a key influence in bringing the term `hidden curriculum' to the attention of the higher education community....