Authentic assessment: Principles, practices, and issues.

Abstract

Reviews the theory of authentic assessment, arguing that assessment must begin with a defensible theory of academic competence and describing key principles and examples of authentic assessment. Also reviews issues contributing to current ferment in the field of testing and describes how authentic assessment fits into the larger testing reform movement. The conclusion examined implications of authentic assessment for school restructuring and state assessment policy."Authentic assessment" has attracted much attention since Archbald and Newmann (1988) argued that assessment must begin with a defensible theory of academic competence.1 Here and subsequently (Newmann & Archbald, in press) they contend that for assessment to be considered "authentic" it must measure performance on tasks that reflect meaningful forms of human accomplishment. While the term "authentic" invites a variety of interpretations, we tried to offer a careful definition of academic competence that could inspire student engagement in academic work and involve "transfer" to intelligent functioning in non-school activities. Such a conception of achievement has been conspicuously absent in the psychometrics underlying the development and use of standardized multiplechoice tests.In the last few years "authenticity" has been coupled with assessment and like other concepts of education reform (e.g., "empowerment," "restructuring," "school choice") has taken on multiple meanings. Authentic assessment has been I would like to thank Fred Newmann for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Students' Perceptions of Literacy Assessment

“…Previous research into students' participation in literacy assessment has tended to support Edwards and Westgate's (1987) view, indicating that students play a passive role in literacy assessment activities (Valencia, 1990;Graue, 1993). Recent shifts to authentic classroom-based models of assessment which encourage learning-integrated assessment, collaborative assessment activities and self-assessment (Archbald, 1991, Harrison et al, 1998Kleinsasser, 1995) suggest that students should play a more active role in constructing assessment.…”

La Percepción de los Estudiantes sobre los Sistemas de Evaluación Formativa Aplicados en la Educación Superior

“…Ese aprendizaje ha tenido, además, un carácter práctico y útil para la vida profesional. Esto guarda relación con lo dicho por Stake (2006) sobre que la evaluación formativa es un proceso que incita al cambio y al desarrollo, y también con lo concerniente a la evaluación auténtica (Archbald, 1991;Boud y Falchikov, 2007;Fernández, 2010;Joy y Maxwell, 1999), corroborándose la cercanía que puede, y debe haber, entre la evaluación formativa y la evaluación auténtica (López-Pastor, 2009, 2012.…”

Standardise and individualise – an unsolvable tension in assessment?

“…This concern has lead to the search for an alternative assessment form and the birth of the authentic assessment movement. Authentic assessment is an collective term (Archbald and Newman, 1988;Wiggins, 1989) that refers to a diversification of assessment tools, including test paper, observation, portfolio, performance, questioning and feedback, projects, self assessment, peer assessment and so on (Archbald, 1991;Bol et al, 1998;Genesee and Hamayan, 1991;Harrison et al, 1998;Kleinsasser, 1995;Linn, Baker and Dunbar, 1991). Although the concept itself is under constant contestation and different authors tend to attach different meaning to it (Harlen et al, 1992;Klenowski, 2002;Stobart and Gipps, 1997), the commonly agreed-upon elements of it usually include a strong emphasis on presenting assessment tasks in a realworld problem context, a continuous component that re-distributes the high stakes carried by one single assessment, as well as a formative component that emphasises the importance of using the assessment to promote and facilitate learning and students' personal growth-instead of using it mainly for evaluating and monitoring purposes (Black and William, 1998;Huot, 2002;Nitko, 1995;William, 2001).…”