Running Head: AUTHENTIC ASSIGNMENT FINAL PAPER

Authentic Assessment: Driving Teaching, Learning and Policy Heidi Milovick UOIT

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER Introduction Increased attention has been drawn toward the types, uses and value of assessment tools in education. More traditional, objective methods of testing are being challenged as failing to capture the achievement of skills needed in todays society: collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving (Darling-Hammond, 1993). Multiple choice and standardized tests may provide objective information about student recognition and recall of items; however, they do not seem to predict career success (Kohn, 2008). These forms of assessment seem to fall short in demonstrating that students have developed skills needed for real world applications. Furthermore, large scale assessments that capture a snapshot of general information across diverse educational settings may not produce specific or relevant information needed to make program specific decisions. Some researchers see authentic assessment as a way to better measure and direct learning to tasks that are more meaningful in society (Montgomery, 2002). There is a movement towards the use of authentic assessment as a method to capture more meaningful information to drive teaching, learning and policy to meet the needs of todays complex society. At the same time a cultural shift is needed to facilitate the adoption of a new mindset in a society dependent on more traditional methods of assessment.

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER What is authentic assessment? Authentic tests are contextualized, complex intellectual challenges, not fragmented and static bits or tasks (Wiggins, 1989, p. 711). Wiggins (1990) differentiates authentic assessment from traditional forms of assessments such as multiple choice and norm-referenced tests. Authentic assessment measures student development through performances or products of meaningful, real-life ill-structured tasks, which require students to use higher-order thinking skills and judgement. Examples of authentic assessments include writing books or reports, presentations, portfolios, simulations etc. They involve dialogue and human judgement, which contributes to a more equitable test (Wiggins, 1989). In contrast, conventional forms of assessment focus on isolated knowledge relying more on memorization of information for recall and recognition of specific answers. Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002, p.564) detail ten characteristics of authentic activities: real-world relevance, ill-defined tasks, occur over a period of time, illicit different perspectives, collaborative, reflective, interdisciplinary, integrated with assessment, create products, and result in diverse outcomes. These characteristics seem to correspond with real world occurrences. What is the purpose of assessment? Kohn (1994) suggests three broad categories that provide rationale for why people assess: sorting, motivation and feedback. Grades have been

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER used to sort students according to their level of performance. They may be used for employment purposes or admission into higher educational institutions. Some individuals grade students to motivate them to work harder. Finally, grades may be used as a form of feedback to let students know how they are performing. In his paper, Kohn describes in detail issues surrounding the appropriateness of the use of grades for these three purposes, illustrating his position that grading is harmful to student engagement in learning (Kohn, 2008). Recognizing that we live in a society of grades, Kohn (1994) purports that while grades persist, teachers and parents ought to do everything in their power to help students forget about them. Using authentic assessment, which places more emphasis on the learning that occurs and the feedback received than on the final score, may help with this cultural shift. Wiggins (1989), on the other hand, suggests that tests are an integral part of instruction; they are not something to be done quickly to provide students with a grade. They not only monitor standards, but also set them (p. 704). Assessments are used to monitor performance, guide and improve instruction, make institutions accountable and shape policies. DarlingHammond (1993) suggests that pressures to teach in ways that can easily be captured in conventional tests have directed teaching practices in a way that has contributed to a decline in higher order thinking skills in students. Students need to understand the value of developing these skills in an

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER increasingly complex world. Making tasks more authentic and relevant to their lives and future careers can help them make connections. Furthermore, since assessment results can potentially be used for systemic changes, it is important to understand the purpose of the assessment and the appropriateness of the assessment tool (Wiggins, 1989). Teaching and Learning and Authentic Assessment Montgomery (2002) suggests that it is not if traditional or authentic assessments should be used, but rather in what situations. For example, traditional assessments, which are easy to mark and administer, may be used to measure content knowledge in college courses. Published results of standardized tests administered at schools have been used as objective tools to compare schools and hold teachers and schools accountable for the results (Madaus and ODwyer, 1999). However, conventional testing has been criticized for not being able to accurately measure student growth in more meaningful and complex areas. In some instances a combination of different assessment methods may be desired to capture the full picture. The move to more constructivist learning environment has precipitated the need for a more suitable type of assessment. Literature suggests that authentic assessment would be better suited to measure applications to real world situations (Montgomery, 2002). Students are more likely to adapt and transfer what they learn in school to other real world situations, if they perform successfully in authentic activities, which require collaboration,

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER critical thinking and problem solving skills (Cumming and Maxwell, 1999). There is pressure for educational institutions to move more towards authentic assessment since it is more closely aligned with the skills demanded by employers. Similarly, should there not also be a push for more authentic large scale assessments which drive policy change? There are a number of issues that create challenges in the implementation of authentic assessment. What are challenges of authentic assessment? A number of issues create barriers in the implementation of authentic assessment. Madaus and ODwyer (1999) suggest a number of concerns: the subjective nature of the results makes it difficult to make comparisons; more time is needed to administer and mark the tests; they are more costly than more traditional multiple choice tests; and training and criteria need to be provided but expertise in the industry is limited. Wiggins (1989) makes a couple of suggestions to address cost and reliability issues. If costs are prohibitive, despite inherent gains, sampling of student work is an option. In his paper, Wiggins (1989) provides examples of credible national testing programs that rely on human judgement when scoring. He cautions that guidelines and criteria do need to be established. Cummings, Maddux, and Richmond (2008) add the concern of faculty resistance due to time constraints to deliver curriculum and increased workload. They also provide a solution in the use of portfolios to minimize faculty workload by putting

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER more responsibility on the students to select their own material and the assessment can be integrated across a number of subject areas. Both faculty and students need to believe in the value of using authentic assessment and understand their new roles: students as more independent learners and faculty as facilitators. There needs to be a supportive administrative network and training and time provided to faculty in order to modify curriculum. With the advent of online learning environments, technology also presents opportunities to support authentic assessment. Just as technology increased the efficiency of administering and scoring multiple choice tests, it can also be used to operationalize authentic assessment. Herrington and Herrington (1998) describe how authentic assessment can be integrated in multimedia learning environments. For example, they discuss the use of digital portfolios and simulations to engage students with the content in a real and meaningful ways. Technology also has the capability of providing students with immediate and ongoing individualized feedback providing valuable information about their learning over a period of time. Furthermore, Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2002) highlight the use of videos and images to present situations and discussion boards to facilitate collaboration. Students from around the world can work collaboratively to share and construct knowledge and solve real world problems. Despite the affordances offered by technology to support authentic assessment, consideration should be given to some of the challenges. There needs to be a supportive network

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER moving online curriculum from an arena where content is provided in modular form and explored in isolation to one where students are actively engaged in sharing and constructing knowledge together. Herrington and Kervin (2007) present practical ways for faculty to design and deliver online curriculum following authentic principles. Furthermore, to benefit from the collaborative affordances of technology, faculty need to facilitate online group work since it is not readily present in computer software programs (Herrington and Herrington, 1998). Faculty and students need a supportive environment that provides not only training in the use of different technology, but also on strategies for effective online learning and collaboration. Policy and Authentic Assessment Data gathered from large scale assessments in education provides a snapshot that is used to drive policy. At this level, information obtained is more about the performance of the institution than the individual. KPI (Key Performance Indicators) is one example of many quality-assurance mechanisms in place in post-secondary education in Ontario. It lends itself as a framework for taking a closer look at authentic assessment and policy decisions. KPI can be defined as a quantifiable measurement of defined objectives to evaluate progress (Peterson, 2012). Since 1998, colleges have been mandated by the Ontario government to collect and report

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER performance data in five areas graduate satisfaction, student satisfaction, employer satisfaction, employment rate, and graduation rate (Key performance indicators, p.1). The surveys consist of a number of questions that provide institutions with information which guide policy decisions about programs. KPI are calculated from select capstone questions representing a students overall impression on certain issues. The main goals of KPI are to help students make informed choices about institutions, foster continuous improvement, demonstrate public accountability, and reward institutions for performance achievements through operating grants. Assessment methods should be clearly related to goals and objectives (Joint Advisory Committee, 1993, p. 4). How useful is the information gathered from KPI at supporting the intended goals? Kohn (1994) discusses the use of assessments for sorting purposes. This can be seen in the reporting of KPI results as a hierarchal list despite cautions against ranking institutions. PLEASE NOTE: College-to-college comparisons (ranking) could produce misleading results, because of college size, local employment conditions, program mix and graduate demographics. The data from each college should be considered on its own. (Key performance indicators, p.1)

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER Some institutions use the results to advertise perceived benefits to prospective students. Since KPI are calculated from specific capstone questions, only a portion of the information gathered is used to make up the institutions grade. Kohn (1994) describes how reducing assessments to a particular number or letter grade is not helpful in providing information about what is good or needs to be improved. It lacks detailed information about what components of the post-secondary experience are being assessed. A more authentic approach to KPI would provide more detailed, usable feedback to support claims and help stakeholders make more informed decisions. Wiggins (1989) suggests that authentic assessment should occur over a period of time. KPI data is captured once a year, at one point in time. Many factors can affect individual responses. Depending on personal, professional and academic experiences, students, graduates and employers may respond differently on different days. Individual differences in interpretation of the questions or the scale used are also a factor. Exploring ways of gathering data over the course of a year may help to provide a more comprehensive picture of the institutions strengths and areas that need improvement. Furthermore, Wiggins (1989) discusses the importance of dialogue in the assessment process. Providing individuals with opportunities to discuss and elaborate on their experiences will provide richer information from which to make decisions.

10

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER When developing or choosing assessment methods, consideration should be given to the consequences of the decisions to be made in light of the obtained information (Joint Advisory Committee, 1993, p. 4). Institutions are financially rewarded for achieving certain levels of performance for identified KPI. Are these select KPI indicative of the key areas of the educational experience for all stakeholders and should they drive institutional change? Extrinsically motivated by funding, decisions may be made to ensure any areas of weakness in these particular areas get priority. According to Kohn (1994), extrinsic motivators frequently undermine intrinsic motivation (p.2). Decisions are then made to increase the grade and may not necessarily meet the needs of the stakeholders. Capturing criteria that is relevant to the different institutions will make the information more authentic and foster a more intrinsically motivated environment. Conclusion If one of the goals of education is to facilitate the development of lifelong learners, students will need to develop skills in collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking. Correspondingly, institutions will need to change in order to support and provide an educational environment conducive to this type of learning. What to change, how to change and when to change is not so clear. Authentic assessment tools that capture meaningful information to drive teaching, learning and policy are needed to

11

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER help answer these questions. Ongoing decisions need to be made around what assessment tools, if any, to use when measuring the different facets of education. Awareness of the issues surrounding assessment is integral in continuing the process of aligning educational outcomes and ever-changing societal needs. Changes in assessment practices often necessitate a corresponding transformation of curriculum and instructional strategies (McTighe, 1997). Implementing change of any magnitude does not come without concerns regarding time, money and the adoption of ideas. Change starts from within individuals. With authentic principles guiding thoughts and actions, individuals become more critical, collaborative and focussed on relevant issues. Change becomes more than quick fixes based on fads that promise the illusion of success in meeting external demands.

12

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER References Colleges Ontario, (n.d.). Key performance indicators. Retrieved from website: http://www.collegesontario.org/outcomes/key-performanceindicators.html Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). Curriculumembedded performance assessment in higher education: Maximum efficiency and minimum disruption. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 599-605. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701773067 Cumming, J.J. & Maxwell, G.S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2), 177-194. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Setting standards for students: The case for authentic assessment. NASSP Bulletin, 77(18), 18-26. Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com Herrington, J. & Herrington A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(3), 305-322.

13

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER References Herrington, J. & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236. Kohn, A. (2008). The dangerous myth of grade inflation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(11), B7. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/gi.htm Kohn, A. (1994). Grading: The issue is not how but why. Educational Leadership. 52(2). Madaus, G.F., & ODwyer, L. (1999). A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. The Phi Delta Kappan. 80(9), 688-695. McTighe, J. (1997). What happens between assessments? Educational Leadership, 54(4). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/dec96/vol54/num04/What-Happens-BetweenAssessments%C2%A2.aspx

14

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT FINAL PAPER References Montgomery, K. (2002). Tasks and rubrics: Going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34-39. Peterson, R. (2012, Feb 18). 12 experts define key performance indicators (kpi's). Retrieved from http://barnraisersllc.com/2012/02/expertsdefine-key-performance-indicators/ Principles for fair student assessment practices for education in Canada. (1993). Edmonton, Alberta: Joint Advisory Committee. Retrieved from http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/educ/psych/crame/files/eng_prin.pdf Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, p. 562-567. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/conference/2002/papers/Reev es.pdf Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-713. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Clearninghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED328611)

15