Session Information
09 SES 13 B, Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Testing and Measurement (Part 2)
Paper Session
Contribution
Authentic assessments are developed all over the worlds and at various educational levels from primary to higher education. The power of authentic assessments lies in its, seemingly, simplicity (Cronin, 1993): the assessment should resemble real-life. Motivational benefits are expected when students perceive assessments as authentic, thereby also enhancing their learning (Cummings & Maxwell, 1999). However, research has shown that developing an effective authentic assessment that positively effects student learning is not that straightforward (e.g. Cummings & Maxwell, 1999).
Much work on authentic learning comes from learning theories stressing the situatedness of learning (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). They stress that authentic learning requires learning in real world contexts. Next to stressing the relevance of a real world context, other researchers emphasize assessment task authenticity that should require real world activities and thinking processes (Newmann & Archbald, 1992). In a review on authentic assessment, Gulikers et al (2004) developed a five-dimensional theoretical framework describing five assessment characteristics defining assessment authenticity, namely (1) the assessment task, (2) physical context, (3) social context, (4) form, and (5) criteria. The rationale behind this framework is that an assessment can be made more authentic by increasing the resemblance of one or more of these dimensions to students’ future (professional) practice. This offers educators various opportunities for making their assessments more authentic.
This framework was specifically validated in vocational education and training settings, where students are educated for a clear job (e.g., nurse, gardener). The dimensions, except for the social context, were found to individually influence students’ learning and generic skills development. However, these effects differed for VET students with little or more professional practice experience (Gulikers et al. 2009). An authentic task conducted in a school simulation already positively affected authenticity perceptions and learning for inexperienced students, while students with more practical experience placed higher requirements on the authenticity of the context (i.e., the workplace).
This study examines the relative importance of task authenticity versus context authenticity for students in prevocational education (in Dutch: VMBO). That is, education of 12-16 year old students with no professional practice experience, who are still orienting at a broad variety of vocations. In response to the transition towards competence-based education in Dutch agricultural prevocational education, schools collaboratively developed authentic performance assessments. The format of these assessments is the same for all students, but schools can decide to conduct the assessment in a school simulation or in a company (physical context variable), and decide whether the authentic assignment is provided on a piece of paper or in interaction with a client (task variable), resulting in four conditions for this study. It examines the effects on students’ perception of authenticity, their perceived generic skill development, and final grade. Elaborating on the findings with inexperienced VET students, it is hypothesised that for VMBO-student both the authenticity of the task and context positively influence the dependent variables, but that the effects of the task will be stronger.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78-80. Cummings, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6, 177-194. Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-85. Gulikers, J. T. M., Baartman, L. K. J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2010). Facilitating evaluations of innovative, competence-based assessments: Creating understanding and involving multiple stakeholders. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 120-127. Gulikers, J. T. M., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2008). The effect of practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach, and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 18, 172-186. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards for authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12. Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33-53.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.