A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment

  • Judith T. M. Gulikers
  • Theo J. Bastiaens
  • Paul A. Kirschner
Development

Abstract

Authenticity is an important element of new modes of assessment. The problem is that what authentic assessment really is, is unspecified. In this article, we first review the literature on authenticity of assessments, along with a five-dimensional framework for designing authentic assessments with professional practice as the starting point. Then, we present the results of a qualitative study to determine if the framework is complete, and what the relative importance of the five dimensions is in the perceptions of students and teachers of a vocational college for nursing. We discuss implications for the framework, along with important issues that need to be considered when designing authentic assessments.

References

  1. Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). An NCME instructional module on: Using portfolio of student work in instruction and assessment.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment.Higher Education, 32, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birenbaum, M. (1996). Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.),Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 3–29). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1996).Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78–80.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment in teaching in context.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dierick, S., Dochy, F., & Van de Watering, G. (2001). Assessment in het hoger onderwijs: Over de implicaties van nieuwe toetsvormen voor de edumetrie. [Assessment in higher education: About the implications of new assessment forms for edumetrics].Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 19(1), 2–18.Google Scholar
  11. Dochy, F. J. R. C., & McDowell, L. (1998). Assessment as a tool for learning.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias, influences of testing and teaching on learning.American Psychologist, 39(3), 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbs, G. (1992).Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services.Google Scholar
  14. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). The influence of assessment on learning. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart, D. (1994).Authentic assessment: A handbook for education. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Educational Research & Development, 17(3), 305–322.Google Scholar
  17. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Desinging environments for constructive learning (pp. 88–108). Berlin: Springer-Verslag.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, H. M. (2002). Towards constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L. & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner & R. L. Martens (Vol. Eds.),Computer-supported collaborative learning: Vol. 3. What we know about CSCL_. And implementing it in higher education (pp. 3–30). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  22. Martens, R., Bastians, Th., & Gulikers, J. (2002). Leren met computergebaseerde authentieke taken: motivatie, gedrag en resultaten van studenten [Learning with computer-based authentic tasks: student motivation, behavior and results].Pedagogische Studiën, 79(6), 469–482.Google Scholar
  23. McDowell, L. (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning.Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(4), 302–313.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, C. (1992). What's the difference between authentic and performance assesment?Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39–40.Google Scholar
  25. Moerkerke, G., Doorten, M., & de Roode, F. A. (1999).Constructie van toetsen voor competentiegericht curricula [Construction of assessments for competency-based curricula] (OTEC report 1999/W02). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland, Educational Technology Expertise Center.Google Scholar
  26. Newmann, F. M. (1997). Authentic assessment in social studies: Standards and examples. In G. D. Phye (Ed.).Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 359–380). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards for authentic instruction.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.Google Scholar
  28. Nicaise, M., Gibney, T., & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: Student perceptions of an authentic classroom.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petraglia, J. (1998).Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Prodromou, L. (1995). The backwash effect: From testing to teaching.ELT Journal, 49(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.).Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Leadership, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  33. Sambell K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 391–402.Google Scholar
  34. Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). But is it fair?: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessments.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.Educational Technology, 35, 31–38.Google Scholar
  36. Schnitzer, S. (1993). Designing and authentic assessment.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 32–35.Google Scholar
  37. Segers, M., Dierick, S., & Dochy, F. (2001). Quality standards for new modes of assessment. An exploratory study of the consequential validity of the OverAll test.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(4), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003).Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & De Corte, E. (1999). Assessment practices and students' knowledge profiles in a problem-based curriculum.Learning Environments Research, 2, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective.Journal of Educational Research, 33, 231–243.Google Scholar
  41. Sluijsmans, D. (2002).Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Torrance, H. (1995).Evaluating authentic assessment. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Uhlenbeck, A. (2002).The development of an assessment procedure for beginning teachers of English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  45. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test.Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41–47.Google Scholar
  47. Wiggins, G. P. (1993).Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith T. M. Gulikers
    • 1
  • Theo J. Bastiaens
    • 1
  • Paul A. Kirschner
    • 1
  1. 1.the Educational Technology Expertise Center at the Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations