Defining authentic assessment: Five dimensions of authenticity

Balancing Dilemmas in Assessment and Learning in Contemporary Education

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 73-86

  Gulikers, Judith T M ^a   Bastiaens, Theo J ^b,c   Kirschner, Paul A ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954472190     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203942185     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. 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.
2. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364.
3. Birenbaum, M. & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1996). Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
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, 3-29. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
5. Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and the implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. J. R. C. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
6. Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101-111.
7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
8. Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78-80.
9. Cummings, J. J. & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 1 (2), 143-166.
10. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Setting standards for students: The case for authentic assessment. The Educational Forum, 59, 14-21.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment in teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545.
12. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., Van Dooren, W., & Cleas, K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphical representations always have a beneficial impact on students' performance? Negative evidence from a study on modelling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441-463.
13. Dierick, S. & Dochy, F. (2001). New lines in edumetrics: New forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 307-329.
14. Dochy, F. (2001). A new assessment era: Different needs, new challenges. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 11-20.
15. Dochy, F. J. R. C. & McDowell, L. (1998). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (4), 279-298.
16. Entwistle, N. J. & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205-227.
17. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post- and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
18. Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, Th., & Martens, R. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 509-521.
19. Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for education. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
20. 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.
21. Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.
22. 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.), Designing environments for constructive learning, 88-108. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
23. Huang, H. M. (2002). Towards constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 27-37.
24. McDowell, L. (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32 (4), 302-313.
25. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13-23.
26. Meyer, C. (1992). What's the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 39-40.
27. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards for authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
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.
29. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Leadership, 16(9), 13-20.
31. Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). But is it fair? An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (4), 349-371.
32. Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
33. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
34. 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.
35. Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.
36. Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G., & Andrews, T. (2004). Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 239-258.
37. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students' perceptions about new modes of assessment in higher education: A review. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & Cascallar E. (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards, 171-224. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
38. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.
39. Torrance, H. (1995). Evaluating authentic assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
40. 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.
41. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publishers.
42. Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41-47.
43. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.