Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 253–265 | Cite as

Wikis as Platforms for Authentic Assessment

Article

Abstract

Calls for accountability focus attention on assessment of student learning. Authentic assessment involves evaluating student learning as students perform real world tasks. We present a four-stage conceptual framework for authentic assessment. We argue first that evaluation is a process rather than a static one-time event. Second, authentic assessment involves evaluating experiential learning. Third, multiple evaluators assess student work, including self-assessment or review by a public audience. Finally, authentic assessments offer more learner choice. Wikis, as user-friendly web spaces that support easy web authoring for individuals or for collaborative groups, provide a platform for both student learning and authentic assessment.

Keywords

Assessment Student learning Technology and teaching Wikis 

References

  1. Allan, M. J. (2004). Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banta, T. W. (Ed.). (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning–a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton, M., & Cummings, R. (Eds.). (2008). Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the college classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blumberg, P. (2009). Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bresciani, M. J., Oakleaf, M., Kolkhorst, F., Nebeker, C., Barlow, J., Duncan, K., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Examining design and inter-rater reliability of a rubric measuring research quality across multiple disciplines. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(12). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n12.pdf
  9. Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skilled teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the Classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. (2000). Authentic assessments and authentic standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 405.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Duffy, P., & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of possibilities. Proceedings of the Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006, 31–38. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5398/1/5398.pdf
  14. Einstein, A. (1994). Ideas and opinions. New York, NA: Random House. (Original work published 1954).Google Scholar
  15. Ewell, P. T. (2005). Can assessment serve accountability? It depends on the question. In J. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 104–124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Ewell, P. T., & Boeke, M. (2007). Lumina Foundation new agenda series: Critical connections: Linking states’ unit record systems to track students’ progress. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Retrieved from https://folio.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/10244/260/Critical_Connections_Web.pdf?sequence=1
  17. Goodfellow, R., & Lea, M. R. (2005). Supporting writing for assessment in online learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, A. F. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lightner, R., & Benander, R. (2010). Student learning outcomes: Barriers and solutions for faculty development. Journal of Faculty Development, 24(2), 34–39.Google Scholar
  22. MacFarlane, G. R., Markwell, K. W., & Date-Huxtable, E. M. (2006). Modelling the research process as a deep learning strategy. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, J. (2011). Authentic assessment toolbox. Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/index.htm
  25. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  26. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50, 8–12.Google Scholar
  27. Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Obama, B. (2009, July 14). Remarks by the President on the American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MI/
  29. Pratt, D. D. (2004). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
  30. Rennert-Ariev, P. (2005). A theoretical model for the authentic assessment of teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(2). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n2.pdf
  31. Rhodes, T. L. (2011). Making learning visible and meaningful through electronic portfolios. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scalise, K., & Wilson, M. (2011). The nature of assessment systems to support effective use of evidence through technology. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seldin, P. (2004). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  35. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: Processes and consequences. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Duinen, D. (2005). Authentic assessment: Praxis with power. International Journal of Learning, 12(6), 141–148.Google Scholar
  39. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(2). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2
  40. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  41. Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, Inc. (ED 364 144).Google Scholar
  42. Wolfe, J. (2010). Team writing: A guide to working in groups. New York, NY: Bedford St. Martins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The College of William and MarySchool of EducationWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations