Authentic Assessment in Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning
Environments in Higher Education
Konstantinos Mathiopoulos
Fotini Paraskeva
Contents at a glance
• Theoretical background of Authentic Assessment
• Definitions of Authentic Assessment
• Traditional Assessment VS Authentic Assessment
• Advantages and disadvantages of Authentic Assessment
• Authentic Assessment’s expectations
• Research gap
• Goal of the paper
• Study on Authentic Assessment in Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning Environments in Higher Education
• Conclusions
Definitions of Authentic Assessment:
"A form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world
tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills "-- Jon Mueller 2008
"...Engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which
students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of or analogous to the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field." -- Grant Wiggins -- (Wiggins 1993, p229).
"Performance assessments call upon the examinee to demonstrate specific
Traditional Assessment VS Authentic Assessment
Multiple choice or other tests that are easily marked, often revealing only whether students can recognise, recall or “plug in” what was learned out of context.
Authentic Assessments in general are expected to:
• stimulate students to learn more deeply
(Birenbaum, 1996; Dochy & McDowell, 1997; McDowell, 1995; Frederiksen, 1984)
•stimulate students to develop professionally relevant
skills and thinking processes used by professionals
(Gielen et al; Savery & Duffy, 1995)
•motivate students to learn by showing the immediate
relevance of that which is learnt for professional practice
Research gap:
New ways of assessment are required so as to replace
standardized tests and quizzes.
It is important to examine how authentic assessment
could be integrated in a web based environment in
higher education.
This paper is a report on findings of a study focused on
examining perceptions of assessment authenticity and the
influence on student learning in a computer supported
collaborative learning environment at higher education
level.
A growing body of literature and research on new modes
of assessment stresses that the effects of assessments
on student learning should always be examined in the
light of the whole learning environment along with student
perception of the learning environment (Biggs, 1996;
Birenbaum, 1996; Segers, Dierick, & Dochy, 2001;
Struyven, 2005).
The method: Research Questions
• Does authentic assessment change the way that
students think about assessment in general?
• Does implementation of authentic assessment
improve study approach(deep/surface)?
• Does authentic assessment promote reflective
thinking?
The Method: The Participants
The Method: The Instruments
A 41- item questionnaire for perception of authenticity based on 5-dimensionsal framework for authenticity (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004; 2006) and on perceptions of the purpose of formative computer based assessment through quiz items (Sandra T. Miller, 2009) •
The 20-item deep and surface study approach questionnaire based on Revised-Study Process Questionnaire - 2 Factors (R-SPQ-2F; Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2002).
The 16-item reflective thinking questionnaire based on the Level of Reflective Thinking Questionnaire (Kember D. et al, 2000).
The 81-item motives, cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies questionnaire based on the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990).
The Statistical Results of the Research
Pearson r Correlation
Deep Study Approach Surface Study Approach Overall Authenticity Task Physical Context Form/ Result Criteria Criteria Transparency Perception of Purpose Overall Authenticity ,390* -,176
Task
(Low Cronbach a)
,410* -,244 ,834**
Physical Context ,297 -,175 ,633** ,680**
Form /Result ,364* -,255 ,745** ,798** ,727**
Criteria ,297 -,324 ,768** ,777** ,751** ,833**
Criteria Transparency ,348* -,157 ,579** ,544** ,656** ,672** ,660**
Perception of Purpose
,401* -,339* ,737** ,722** ,709** ,766** ,680** ,570**
Value of AA ,395* -,524** ,699** ,675** ,761** ,796** ,725** ,580** ,795**
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Sample size: N=36
The Statistical Results of the Research
Pearson r correlation analysis indicates that authentic assessment indicators have positive linear relationship with deep study approach.
Statistically significant is the correlation between deep study approach and overall authenticity r(36) = .390 p< .05, Form /Result r(36) = .364 p< .05, Criteria Transparency r(36) = .348 p< .05, Perception Of Purpose r(36)= . 401 p< .05 and Value of Authentic Assessment r(36)= .395 p< .05.
On the contrary, authentic assessment indicators have negative linear correlation with surface study approach.
The Statistical Results of the Research
There is positive linear correlation between Perception of Purpose of Authentic Assessment and the dimensions of authentic assessment.
Overall authenticity r(36)=.737 p< .01, Physical Context r(36)=.709 p< .01, Form/Result r(36)=.766 p< .01, Criteria r(36)=.680 p< .01, Criteria Transparency r(36)=. 570 p< .01 apart from task factor due to low internal consistency Cronbach a=.436.
There is positive linear correlation between Value of Authentic Assessment and the dimensions of authentic assessment.
The Statistical Results of the Research
Pearson r Correlation
Overall Authenticity Physical Context Form /Result Criteria Criteria Transparency Perception of Purpose Value of AA Reflection ,188 ,327 ,255 ,196 ,349* ,489** ,472**
Critical Reflection ,280 ,363* ,366* ,330* ,395* ,480** ,333*
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Sample size: N=36
There is a positive connection between authentic assessment and reflection.
Reflection is related with Criteria Transparency by r(36) = .349 p< . 05, with Perception of Purpose by r(36)= .489 p< .01 and with Value of Authentic Assessment by r(36)= .472 p< .01. Reflective thinking is positively correlated with Physical Context r(36) = .363 p< .05, Form /Result r(36) = .366 p< .05, Criteria r(36) = .330 p< .05, Criteria Transparency r(36) = .395 p< .05, Perception of Purpose
r(36)= .480 p< .01 and Value of Authentic Assessment r(36)= .333 p< .05.
The Statistical Results of the Research
Pearson r Correlation
Value of AA Perception of Purpose intrinsic goal orientation ,313 ,362*
extrinsic goal orientation ,145 ,092
task value ,451** ,410*
self-efficacy for learning and performance ,345* ,266
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Sample size: N=36
Authentic assessment increases learners’ motivation.
Goal Orientation is positively correlated with Perception of Purpose of authentic assessment r(36) = .362 p< . 05. Task value is positively correlated with Perception of Purpose of authentic assessment r(36) = .410 p< . 05 and Value of Authentic Assessment r (36) = .451 p<. 01. Self-efficacy for learning and performance is positively correlated with Value of Authentic Assessment r (36) = .345 p<. 05.
Conclusions
• Authentic assessment in computer supported collaborative learning
environments is highly preferable and benefits not only the assessment
procedure, but also the learning experience for learners.
• According to perceptions of authentic assessment, for successful
application, all dimensions (Overall Authenticity, Task, Physical Context,
Form/ Result, Criteria, Criteria Transparency) should be taken into
consideration.
Conclusions
• The value of authentic assessment (topic understanding, guidance of
student learning, application of mastered skills and knowledge, fair
assessment) was enhanced by a suitably designed e-learning
environment, which implement all aspects of authentic assessment.
• Moodle could be used in this way, since activities could be created or
modified so as to become authentic.
Conclusions
• Intrinsic motivation of learners was also augmented when goals of
authentic assessment were considered more transparent. On the
contrary, there was no sign of connection between extrinsic motivation
and perceptions of authentic assessment. Authenticity did not seem to
be imposed by the teacher or the curriculum and it became part of the
learning procedure.
• High perception of the value and the purpose of authentic assessment
is also reflected in students’ increased appraisal of the task they
perform and self-efficacy for learning and performance.
Future Research
Future research should:
• focus on how curriculums may be changed so as to take
advantage of the benefits of authentic assessment
• orientate to the production or transformation of applications, in
order to support authentic learning environments.
References
• Herrington A. & Herrington J. (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. United States of America, Information Science Publishing
• Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructionaldesign framework for authentic learning environments. United States of America. Educational Technology Research and Development
• Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, Th. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.
Maastricht, Educational Technology Research & Development .
• Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, Th. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Authentic assessment, student and teacher perceptions: the practical value of the five-dimensional framework. Maastricht, Journal of Vocational Education and Training,
• Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, Th. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2006). Authenticity is in the Eye of the Beholder Beliefs and perceptions of authentic assessment and the influence on student learning. Maastricht, Studies in
Educational Evaluation.
• Pintrich P., Smith D., Garcia T., McKeachie W. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Technical Report 91-B-004. The Regents of the University of Michigan. 1991
References
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology
Kember et al. (2000) Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
