Jean Connon Unda, a trainer with the Ontario Federation of Labour's Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) program, suggests that "an analytic approach allows us to identify some salient features of the whole for further development but we need to start with the whole and keep returning to the whole."²⁷

The 1994 College Standards and Accreditation Council (CSAC) Guidelines say that assessment of learners to ensure the attainment of learning outcomes is best if based on:

• evidence collected over a period of time;
• the application of skills in a variety of contexts (e.g. classroom, lab, independent study, group work, field placements, etc., as appropriate);
• the use of a variety of activities (e.g. projects, simulations, self-assessments);
• the use of instruments which are demonstrably reliable and valid measures of the achievement of the learning outcome.

The sum total of the above assessments forms the basis for a final evaluation that, in the judgement of the learner and the assessor, the learner has indeed met the learning outcome.²⁸

One question Norm Rowen of George Brown College then raises is, "What do you need for comparability for certification and at what possible cost to instructional benefits?" That is, if different scoring methods are acceptable, where is the point of comparison and how far can you go in comparing outcomes for the sake of certification without compromising an individual's learning?