what are authentic tasks in education

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence

Authentic assessments.

Nicole Messier, CATE Instructional Designer April 15th, 2022

WHAT? Heading link Copy link

Authentic assessments involve the application of knowledge and skills in real-world situations, scenarios, or problems. Authentic assessments create a student-centered learning experience by providing students opportunities to problem-solve, inquire, and create new knowledge and meaning.

Elements of Authentic Assessments

There are several elements to consider that make an assessment more “authentic” (Ashford-Rowe, 2014; Grant, 2021; Wilson-Mah, 2019;), including:

• Accuracy and validity – The accuracy of the assessment refers to how closely it resembles a real-world situation, problem, disciplinary norm, or field of study. The assessment validity refers to the alignment of grading criteria to the learning objectives, transferable skills (e.g., communication, critical thinking, etc.), workforce readiness skills, and disciplinary norms and practices.
• Demonstration of learning – The outcomes of an assessment should allow students to demonstrate learning in ways that reflect their field of study, for example, a performance or a product that is authentic to their future career. Or the assessment should allow for student choice based on interests and skills; for example, one group of students decides to create a podcast to demonstrate their learning in general education coursework.
• Transfer of knowledge – The assessment should provide the transfer of knowledge from theory to practice and from one task or experience to another. For example, students writing a blog post about a scientific principle that was demonstrated in current events replacing a traditional essay or paper on the scientific principle.
• Metacognition – The process of reflecting on learning should be purposefully planned for students to make connections to prior knowledge, experiences, and different subject areas. For example, metacognition can be encouraged in authentic assessments by asking students to evaluate their progress, self-assess their product or performance, and reflect on their thought processes and learning experiences during the authentic assessment.
• Collaboration – The assessments should provide opportunities for interaction that are aligned to the real-world situation. For example, if the task is typically completed by a team in the field, then the assessment should be completed collaboratively by a group.

• Flexibility – The assessment should provide flexibility in the timeline and due dates for meeting project benchmarks and deliverables to align with real-world tasks. For example, if the task would take a few weeks to complete while working full time then the timeline in the course should reflect this timing to ensure authenticity and manageability.
• Environment and tools – The environment and tools used to provide the assessment should be like the environments and tools in the students’ field of study or aligned with a real-world situation. For example, students taking a graphic design course utilizing software that is used in their field to create typography, logos, etc., or medical students practicing authentic tasks in a simulation room to mirror a hospital room.

Authentic assessments can also be referred to as alternative assessments or performance-based assessments. All of these assessments are considered “alternatives” to traditional high-stakes tests or research papers, and are based on the constructivist theory where students actively construct new meaning and knowledge.

Also, it is important to understand that authentic assessments can be used to assess students both formatively (during instruction) and summatively (when the instruction is over). Want to learn more about formative assessments or summative assessments? Please visit the Assessment & Grading Practices teaching guides in the Resources section of the CATE website.

Types of Authentic Assessments Heading link Copy link

Authentic assessments can be designed using different teaching methods like inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, scenario-based learning, or design-based learning. Select each of the headings below to learn about how these teaching methods can support your design of authentic assessments.

Inquiry-based Learning

Inquiry-based learning involves the process of research and experimentation with complex questions and problems. Inquiry-based learning is structured around phases similar to the scientific method where students develop questions, experiment, and evaluate.

Elements of Inquiry-based Learning

• Identifying a problem or question.
• Making predictions or formulating hypotheses.
• Active construction of new knowledge through testing, research, and experimentation.
• Communication and discussion of results and new knowledge.
• Evaluation of process, data interpretation, and self-reflection.

The focus of inquiry-based learning is scientific thinking and reasoning. The process students use to discover new information can vary based on the type of inquiry process you select to use in the course.

One example of an inquiry process is the 5E model :

• Engagement Phase – connections are made to past and present learning.
• Exploration Phase – students engage in testing, research, or experimentation.
• Explanation Phase – students communicate and demonstrate their learning.
• Elaboration Phase – instructor extends students’ learning with new activities.
• Evaluation Phase – students self-assess and reflect on learning.

Inquiry-based learning can be designed for science courses such as natural sciences, social science, or health science courses. Grading of inquiry-based learning could be centered around the metacognition and critical thinking documented during the inquiry process as well as the deliverables submitted during each phase of the inquiry process.

Example – Inquiry-based Learning

An instructor decides to use inquiry-based learning during lab work in a physics course. Instead of providing students with step-by-step instructions on how to complete the lab, students are allowed to decide what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to analyze it to explain the physics principle or phenomenon. The instructor notices that student interactions increase as students voice their opinions and facilitate decision-making with their group (Nutt, 2020). Please see the Additional Resources section for more information on this example.

Please note that in some cases, inquiry-based learning is used as an umbrella term that encompasses numerous forms of inquiry learning like problem-based, scenario-based, and design-based learning. In this teaching guide, inquiry-based learning is modeled after research aligned with the scientific method and experimentation.

Problem-based Learning

Problem-based learning involves a dilemma or problem that needs to be solved. The problem-based learning experience is structured around the research process and the discovery of solutions.

Elements of Problem-based Learning

• Application of learning to real-world situations – the context of the problem.
• Alignment of learning objectives – the purpose behind the problem.
• Creates new knowledge while retrieving previous experiences and knowledge – the investigation of solutions to the problem.
• Communication of findings and/or collaboration with peers – the discussion or defense of solutions to the problem.
• Feedback and metacognition – how the problem improved student learning.

The focus of problem-based learning is typically on the research journey to solve real-world problems. This research journey involves an examination of previous knowledge, collection of new information, analysis, and determination of possible solutions. Grading of this type of problem-based learning could center around the documentation of the research process and the critical thinking used to determine solutions based on research.

Problem-based learning can also be designed for major coursework (e.g., a patient problem in medical training).  Students might be directed to determine one solution to the proposed problem and then students present their solutions and receive peer and instructor feedback on their presentation of the problem and solution. Grading of this type of problem-based learning could center around students’ ability to present the problem and defend the solution with research-based evidence.

Example – Problem-based Learning

An instructor decides to use problem-based learning in a teacher education course. The instructor creates several student personas with different learning problems. Students work in small groups during class to discuss the student persona and brainstorm ideas on the student persona’s learning problem based on prior knowledge. Students decide roles and the steps to complete the assessment. During the next class session, each small group explains their student persona’s diagnosed learning problem and describes examples of differentiation and scaffolding to adapt instruction to improve the student persona’s learning. Students receive feedback from their peers as well as the instructor.

Scenario-based Learning

Scenario-based learning involves a real-world scenario that prompts student learning. Scenario-based learning provides students opportunities to draw on previous experience and knowledge to complete authentic tasks.

Elements of Scenario-based Learning

• Realistic scenarios
• Contextualize learning from theory to application
• Incorporates retrieval of previous experience and knowledge
• Completion of authentic tasks to address the scenario
• Authentic tasks show alignment to learning objectives and workforce readiness

The focus of scenario-based learning is the application of learning in real-world scenarios through authentic tasks to demonstrate learning objectives, workforce readiness, and transferable skills (e.g., communication, critical thinking, etc.). Grading of scenario-based learning could be centered around the demonstration of learning objectives and workforce readiness through authentic tasks.

Scenario-based learning can be designed for major coursework in undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as undergraduate general education coursework. In major coursework, students can develop workforce readiness while demonstrating proficiency in learning objectives during the scenario-based learning. In undergraduate general education coursework, scenario-based learning can provide an understanding of the assessment’s importance which can improve student engagement and motivation, as well as support student development of transferable skills.

Example – Scenario-based Learning

An instructor decides to use scenario-based learning in a general education writing course. The instructor designs scenarios for students to understand audience-centered writing. An example of a writing scenario could involve a historical event or person, where students write a letter providing advice to a historical person or take on the role of a historical person to suggest ways to address the historical event. Another example of a writing scenario could involve a human resource problem at a company, where students are asked to create a memo or policy to address the problem. These scenarios provide students with a real-world context for a specific audience and purpose for each formative assessment (Golden, 2018).

Project-based Learning

Project-based learning involves student interest, choice, and autonomy to create a student-centered experience. Project-based learning can be completed individually or collaboratively. If project-based learning is completed collaboratively, then a group of students works together to demonstrate the application of their collective knowledge and experiences.

Stages of Project-based Learning

• Project planning – the student or group determines how they will demonstrate the learning objectives through a selected format (product or performance).
• Project starts – the student or group research topics aligned to learning objectives and analyzes the research collected or practices skills and prepares for the performance.
• Formative feedback – the student or group receives formative feedback on the project as well as self-assess their progress.
• Completion of the project – the student or group adjusts the project based on feedback and completes the product or performance preparation.
• Presentation – the student or group presents the product or performance to the class (synchronously or asynchronously).
• Reflection – the student or group reflects on learning and experience for metacognition and provides the instructor with feedback on the process.
• Assessment of the project – the student or group receives feedback from the instructor and/or peers and receives a grade on the project.

The focus of project-based learning is the application and assimilation of knowledge that is demonstrated in a product or performance. Students select the product or performance in project-based learning based on their interests and skills. The final product or performance is used as the summative assessment to confirm student outcomes and the project plan will have a timeline for submitting deliverables for formative feedback.

Project-based learning can be designed for major coursework in undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as undergraduate general education coursework. Allowing for student choice on how students demonstrate learning can help motivate and engage students in undergraduate general education coursework. In major coursework, students can demonstrate their proficiency in the learning objectives, professionalism, and transferable skills (e.g., communication, critical thinking, etc.) during the project.

Example – Project-based Learning

An instructor decides to create a summative authentic assessment using project-based learning in a social sciences course. The instructor provides a list of societal issues aligned with the learning objectives that students will select from, or students have the option of submitting a different societal issue with an explanation of how it aligns with the learning objectives. Next, students will select the product or performance to demonstrate their learning. Students will then create a project plan and submit their plan to receive feedback from the instructor. Students adapt their project plan based on instructor feedback, begin research on the societal issue, and complete the product or performance to demonstrate their learning. Lastly, students present their product or performance asynchronously using a video recording tool like VoiceThread for feedback and grading.

Design-based Learning

Design-based learning (or design thinking) involves creativity, critical thinking, and brainstorming to solve human-centered problems. Design-based learning provides opportunities to collaboratively engage with peers to innovate and determine solutions. The process students use to ideate can vary based on the type of design process you select to use in the course.

One example of design-based learning

• Empathize – students focus on human-centered experiences and learn about their audience.
• Define – students define personas (e.g., who will benefit from the innovation, who will be the end user of the product or service, or who might be the customers to attract), goals, and objectives.
• Ideate – students brainstorm without judgment of ideas.
• Prototype – students develop an outline, sketch, flowchart, model, role-play, etc.
• Test – students implement the prototype and receive feedback (self, peer, and instructor).
• Reflect and redesign – students reflect on their learning process and refine or redesign the prototype.

The focus of design-based learning is to foster students’ ideation, curiosity, openness to new ideas, and comfort with ambiguity. Design-based learning can be implemented in major coursework in design fields like industrial design, environmental, architecture, graphic design, and engineering as well human-centered fields like law, psychology, anthropology, and business.

Example – Design-based Learning

An engineering or architectural instructor decides to incorporate design-based learning activities into scheduled class time. Each design-based learning activity begins with a class discussion of a human-focused problem and personas (people who are impacted by the problem). For example, the instructor shows a picture of a public building and asks students to identify personas who might find the building unaccessible. Students spend time empathizing and defining the personas and goals of their redesign of the entrance. Next, students begin the ideation nonverbally using an asynchronous interactive board ( Padlet , Jamboard , Trello , etc.) during class and then continue to ideate over the next few weeks. In a subsequent class, the instructor guides students through a discussion to determine the top ideas for solving the problem. Each group selects one idea to design and test. Students submit the prototype and reflection on the process for feedback and grading.

Want to learn more about tools that you can use for design-based learning? Please visit the Other EdTech Apps in the EdTech section of the CATE website to review tools, resources, and more.

WHY? Heading link Copy link

Impact of authentic assessments.

Authentic assessments have the potential to improve student self-efficacy (belief in own capacity), performance, and learning.

• Self-efficacy and confidence – in a review of research completed on fifteen studies of project-based learning, 90% of the students reported improved confidence and were optimistic that they could implement project-based learning in future careers (Indrawn, 2019).
• Higher grades – In a general education writing course, students who participated in scenario-based learning showed consistently higher averages (one to two letter grades higher) than students who did not receive scenario-based learning (Golden, 2018).
• Engagement and retention – authentic assessments have shown improved student engagement and learner retention through participation in authentic assessments.
• Direct evidence – authentic assessments provide direct evidence of students’ learning and skills for instructors and students to better understand the learning taking place and plan the next steps for instruction and learning.
• Student diversity – authentic assessments allow students to demonstrate their unique abilities, lived experiences, interests, and social identities.
• Real-world artifacts – authentic assessments provide students with authentic tasks that can be utilized in professional portfolios, resumes, or interviews.

Workforce Readiness and Graduate Attributes Heading link Copy link

Workforce readiness and graduate attributes.

Authentic assessments’ impact has also been viewed through the lens of workforce readiness and graduate attributes. For example, in a project-based learning experience, 78% of students reported that the experience prepared them to be workforce ready because of the real-world practice they received through the authentic assessment (Indrawn, 2019).

Several graduate attributes have been identified as outcomes of authentic assessment participation (Foss, 2021; Indrawn, 2019; Karunanayaka, 2021; Elliott-Kingston, 2018; Murphy, 2017; Rowan, 2012), including:

• Open-mindedness – students who participate in authentic assessments learn to be receptive to the diversity of ideas and multiple perspectives.
• Comfort with ambiguity – students who participate in authentic assessments learn to live with uncomfortableness as they construct new knowledge and meaning.
• Ability to engage in an iterative process – authentic assessments provide students with opportunities to ideate, evaluate, and reflect on ideas and learning. Students develop effective problem-solving skills through this iterative process that includes idea incubation.
• Creativity – authentic assessments positively reinforce students’ creativity through the inquiry process.
• Learn to fail – authentic assessments provide formative feedback to help students build resiliency and strengthen their self-efficacy even when faced with failure.
• Take risks – authentic assessments encourage student risk-taking, and the instructor provides a safe and supportive learning environment for taking risks.
• Search for multiple answers – students learn how to brainstorm ideas and develop numerous solutions to address problems.
• Internally motivated – authentic assessments support students’ internal motivation by providing opportunities for student choice based on their interests and future careers. Students develop metacognition and self-regulation skills as they reflect on their motivations, interests, and learning.
• Take ownership of their learning – authentic assessments foster student ownership and autonomy. Students develop scholarship and a commitment to life-long learning through participation in authentic assessments.
• Leadership – authentic assessments foster leadership, professionalism, and decision-making skills as students self-direct their learning and performance.
• Citizenship and empathy – in many cases, authentic assessments ask students to reflect on an audience, end-user, or global community when solving a problem or designing a product. These experiences help to foster citizenship and empathy.

HOW? Heading link Copy link

Considerations for authentic assessments.

There are several variables that you should consider as you begin to design an authentic assessment: 

• The education and experience level of students – consider how you will support students who may not have the professional skills yet to complete the authentic tasks (see the Student Success during Authentic Assessments in the HOW section of this guide).
• The subjectivity of authenticity – consider how you will ensure that the designed assessment is authentic to the students. Please note that authenticity is subjective in nature; this means that what one person views as authentic might not be regarded the same by another (see the Elements of Authentic Assessments in the WHAT section of this guide for ways to make your assessment more authentic). Will you provide students with an opportunity to give you feedback to improve authenticity? Will you engage with practitioners in the field to ensure the authenticity of scenarios, problems, or prompts?
• Complexity – consider how you will ensure that the assessment’s level of complexity is aligned to the learning objectives, course outcomes, and real-world situation, problem, or field of study.
• Instructor’s role – consider how you will interact with students during the authentic assessment (see the Student Success during Authentic Assessments in the HOW section of this guide). How will you ensure that your role supports the education and experience level of your students? Will you provide guidance, facilitation, or direct instruction during the authentic assessment?
• Student ownership and choice – consider what level of student responsibility and choice that will be present in the authentic assessment. Will students have minimal responsibility if you are using direct instruction, or will the students have higher levels of responsibility if you are guiding student-directed inquiry? Will students have the opportunity to choose how they will demonstrate their learning with a final product or performance?
• Formative feedback – consider how students will receive formative feedback during the authentic assessment. Who will provide the formative feedback (instructor, TA, peers, or self)?
• In large class sizes consider incorporating authentic assessments through partner or group work to reduce grading and feedback time as well as encourage communication and collaboration skills of students.
• In online courses consider incorporating asynchronous peer review to provide opportunities for student interaction and feedback.
• Alignment of assessments and instruction – consider how you will utilize authentic learning instruction to support student achievement in authentic assessments. For example, if using design-based learning during a group assignment then consider utilizing design thinking during your lectures and activities.

Authentic Assessment Products or Performances Heading link Copy link

There are numerous types of products and performances to choose from when designing an authentic assessment. This is not an all-encompassing list of authentic products or performances, but more of a starting point for ideas. Instructors should also consider allowing students or groups to brainstorm ideas for products or performances and self-select a format.

Writing for an Actual Audience

• Action plan
• Analysis – Gap, SWOT, Comparative
• Article for a professional publisher
• Autobiography
• Blog article
• Business report
• Children’s story
• Executive summary
• External document
• Fictional short story
• Historical fiction
• Internal document for communication – memo
• Literary analysis
• Media review
• Outline for meeting, training, or presentation
• Pamphlet or brochure
• Podcast narrative
• Presentation slides and speaker notes
• Research paper
• Short story
• Song lyrics
• Script for presentation, skit, or role playing

Performances

• Conference presentation
• Dance performance
• Demonstration
• Dramatization
• Music performance
• Oral report
• Panel discussion
• Play performance
• Poetry performance
• Presentation
• Recorded interview
• Role playing
• Routine – exercise, cheer, aerobic, gymnastics
• Teaching a skill
• Video presentation

Design of Products

• Drawings or sketches
• Physical model
• Project plan

Creation of Products

• Animation video
• Assessment tool – checklist, rubric
• Dance choreography
• Data display – spreadsheet
• Infographic
• Musical piece
• Photographs
• Questionnaire
• Visuals – chart, graph, Venn diagram

Other Types

• Peer review
• Self-assessments
• Work samples

GETTING STARTED Heading link Copy link

Getting started.

The following steps will support you as you develop an authentic assessment:

• a) What should students know and be able to do?
• b) What are your learning objectives and course outcomes?
• c) Are there disciplinary norms or practices that should be incorporated into the authentic assessment?
• d) Are there transferable skills or workforce readiness skills that should be incorporated into the authentic assessment?
• a) Will the authentic assessment allow students to demonstrate proficiency in the learning objectives as well as develop self-regulation and metacognition skills?
• b) Will the authentic assessment have opportunities for practice and feedback?
• c) Will the authentic assessment collect valid and reliable data to confirm student outcomes?
• a) Authenticity – What elements of the assessment will make it authentic (see Elements of Authentic Assessments in the WHAT section of this guide)?
• b) Format – Will the format be a product or performance? Will the format be student-selected or instructor-selected?
• c) Students’ and instructor’s role – What will be the level of responsibility for student ownership of learning? What forms of guidance and authentic learning will you provide for student support?
• d) Timeline and Progress – What will be the timeline for the authentic assessment? How will progress be monitored by the students and instructor?
• e) Deliverables – What items or elements of the authentic assessment will be graded?
• f) Feedback – What will be the frequency of feedback? Who will provide the feedback? Will there be an opportunity for students to provide feedback to the instructor on their experience?
• g) Grading – What are the grading criteria for this authentic assessment? How will these criteria be explained so that students understand the expectations?
• 4)  The fourth step is to review data collected from the authentic assessment and reflect on the implementation of the authentic assessment to inform continuous improvements for equitable student outcomes.

Want to learn more about assessments? Please visit the other Assessment & Grading Practices teaching guides and the Resources Section of the CATE website to review resources and more. Would you like support in designing an authentic assessment? Consider scheduling an online or in-person instructional design consultation .

Student Success during Authentic Assessments Heading link Copy link

A well-planned and communicated authentic assessment will help improve student performance and student satisfaction during the authentic assessment.

Communication of Authentic Assessments

Consider providing an overview of the authentic assessment that demonstrates alignment to the course and learning objectives, as well as possible disciplinary norms and practices. This overview can also help explain how students’ participation in the authentic assessment will provide them with the opportunity to practice transferable and workforce readiness skills. Additionally, this information can help create buy-in improving student motivation and engagement during the authentic assessment.

Consider creating a timeline of the authentic assessment that includes the following information:

• Start date for authentic assessment
• Due dates for the submission of deliverables
• Dates for formative feedback and progress monitoring
• The final due date for authentic assessment product or performance
• Date for summative feedback and grade

Deliverables

Consider providing a detailed list of the required deliverables for the authentic assessment. For example, if utilizing project-based learning then the deliverables might include:

• The project plan
• Draft(s) of the project with formative feedback
• Completed project
• Presentation of project
• Reflection on process
• Self-assessment of final project and presentation

Expectations and Grading for Authentic Assessments

Grading criteria .

Defining grading criteria is one way to support students’ understanding of expectations during the authentic assessment. Grading criteria refer to what students will do (performance) and what instructors will measure and score. Once you have determined what students will submit for grading (the deliverables) then you can communicate expectations for each deliverable by listing the grading criteria and total points for each criterion.

For example, if utilizing project-based learning then one deliverable might be the project plan. The project plan might be worth 50 points and the grading criteria and total points for each criterion might include:

• Project question or problem – 10 points
• Proposed materials or research – 15 points
• Proposed product or performance – 10 points
• Proposed process of design – 15 points

You might consider taking the grading criteria for a deliverable and expanding on the information by utilizing a rubric . Rubrics can help you describe the varying levels of performance for each grading criterion.

For example, you can describe the criterion: project question or problem (worth ten points) in three levels of performance.

• Proficiency – project question or problem is fully developed and demonstrates a clear alignment to the learning objectives (ten points).
• Developing – project question or problem is adequately developed and demonstrates alignment to the learning objectives (seven points).
• Needs revision – project question or problem isn’t developed enough to support the project and/or is not aligned to the learning objectives. Please revise and resubmit (six or fewer points).

The description of the performance levels will help students understand what the expectations are for each component of the authentic assessment. You can develop a rubric with one, two, three, or more levels of performance. The criterion performance levels can be displayed in Blackboard by utilizing the rubric tool. Want to learn more about rubrics and assessment tools in Blackboard? Please visit the Blackboard Assessments & Grading page in the EdTech section of the CATE website.

Facilitation and Guidance during Authentic Assessments

Facilitation .

Consider the varying levels of student responsibility and instructor facilitation that can be offered during an authentic assessment, examples include:

• Direct instruction – the instructor provides the question or problem, materials, process, or design, as well as directs the analysis and facilitates the drawing of conclusions. This type of instruction provides the most structure, scaffolding (support), and guidance during the authentic assessment.
• Structured authentic assessment – the instructor provides the question or problem, materials, process, or design, but the students direct the analysis with support from the instructor and draw conclusions based on their analysis. This type of instruction allows for students to create new meaning or knowledge while being guided through a structured authentic assessment.
• Guided authentic assessment – the instructor provides the question or problem, and materials and the students determine the process or design, as well as direct the analysis and draw conclusions. This type of instruction allows for student autonomy with an instructor-selected focus on a specific question or problem.
• Student-directed authentic assessment – the instructor provides the learning objectives or course outcomes, and then the students determine the question or problem, materials, process or design, analysis, and conclusions. This type of authentic assessment provides the least amount of structure but can still contain scaffolding and guidance from the instructor through reminders and feedback.

Consider how you will encourage students’ ability to self-direct their learning while providing them with appropriate levels of support and guidance to ensure their success in the authentic assessment.

There are several ways to provide support and guidance to students during an authentic assessment, including:

• Class discussion – add time for authentic assessment discussions around progress, challenges, and achievements.
• Peer review – provide opportunities for students to review their peers’ work and provide feedback.
• Calendar – add the authentic assessment timeline to your course calendar, so that students have due dates and progress monitoring dates.
• Announcements – create reminders using the announcements tool in Blackboard to support student progress monitoring as well as provide students with resources.
• Online office hours – designate specific online office hours for students to drop in to ask questions and get support.
• Resources – provide students with resources, including preferred databases, exemplar authentic assessments, and UIC academic support services.

CITING THIS GUIDE Heading link Copy link

Citing this guide.

Messier, N. (2022). “Authentic Assessments.“ Center for the Advancement of Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois Chicago. Retrieved [today’s date] from https://teaching.uic.edu/resources/teaching-guides/assessment-grading-practices/authentic-assessments/

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Heading link Copy link

Articles, websites, and videos, authentic assessments.

• Selkin, P. (2020). Video – Alternative Assessment Strategy for a Physics Final (6:01 minutes)
• University of Liverpool (n.d.). Authentic Assessment – including authentic case studies
• UNSW. (n.d.). Assessing Authentically
• Ashford-Rowe, K. (n.d.). Authentic Assessment Matters .

Inquiry-based learning

• Nutt, D. (2020). Inquiry-based labs give physics students experimental edge. 
• Art of Mathematics. (n.d.). Inquiry-based Learning Guides
• Lesley University. (n.d.). Empowering students: The 5E model explained. 

Problem-based and Scenario-based learning

• WPI. (2021). Video – The Great Problems Seminar (GPS) at WPI (4:20 minutes)
• Harvard Business School. (2020). Video – Take a Seat in the Harvard MBA Case Classroom (9:59 minutes)
• Cornell University. (n.d.). Problem-based Learning
• Lerner College of Medicine. (n.d.). Problem-based Learning

Project-based learning

• WPI. (n.d.). PBL in Higher Education
• WPI. (2018). Transforming Higher Education Through Project-based Learning
• Cult of Pedagogy (2016). Project Based Learning: Start Here
• Buck Institute for Education (n.d.). my PBL works.

Design-based learning (Design Thinking)

• Brown, T. (2009). Video – Designers – think big! (16:34 minutes)
• IDEO (n.d.). Design Thinking for educators.
• IDEO (n.d.). Design Thinking.
• Morris, H., Warman, G. (2015). Using Design Thinking in Higher Education

REFERENCES Heading link Copy link

Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education . 39. 10.1080/02602938.2013.819566.

Berglund, J., Candefjord, S., Gil, J. (2020). Scaffolding activities for project-based learning. 10.13140/RG.2.2.34702.92487.

Eddy, P., Lawrence, A. (2012). Wikis as platforms for authentic assessment. Innovative higher education. 38. 10.1007/s10755-012-9239-7.

Elliott-Kingston, C., Doyle, O.P.E., Hunter, A. (2018). Benefits of scenario-based learning in university education. Acta Horticulturae . DOI:10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1126.13

Foss, M., Liu, Y. (2021). Developing creativity through project-based learning .

Golden, P. (2018). Conceptualized writing: Promoting audience-centered writing through scenario-based learning . International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Volume 12, Number 1, Article 6.

Grant, K., Fedoruk, L., Nowell, L. (2021). Conversations and reflections on authentic assessment. Imagining SoTL . 1. 146-162. 10.29173/isotl532.

Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, P.A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. ETR&D 52, 67 (2004).

Indrawan, E., Jalinus, N., Syahril, S. (2019). Review project-based learning. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 8. 1014 – 1018.

Karunanayaka, S., Naidu, S. (2021). Impacts of Authentic Assessment on the Development of Graduate Attributes. Distance Education . 42. 10.1080/01587919.2021.1920206.

Lane, J. (2019). Inquiry-based learning . Penn State University. Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence.

Lippmann M. (2022) Inquiry-based learning in psychology. In: Zumbach J., Bernstein D., Narciss S., Marsico G. (eds) International handbook of psychology learning and teaching . Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_59-2

Murphy, V., Fox, J., Freeman, S., Hughes, N. (2017). “Keeping It Real”: A review of the benefits, challenges and steps towards implementing authentic assessment . The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J). 9.

Nundy S., Kakar A., Bhutta Z.A. (2022.) The why and how of problem-based learning? How to practice academic medicine and publish from developing countries? Springer, Singapore.

Nutt, D. (2020). Inquiry-based labs give physics students experimental edge.

Rowan, B. (2014). Academic portfolios, holistic learning, and student success in higher education. US-China Education Review A. 4. 637-645.

Sutadji, E., Susilo, H., Wibawa, A.P., Jabari, N.A.M., Rohmad, S.N. (2021). Authentic assessment implementation in natural and social science . Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 534.

Thomsen, B.C. & Renaud, C., Savory, S., Romans, E.J., Mitrofanov, O., Rio, M., Day, S., Kenyon, A., Mitchell, J. (2010). Introducing scenario-based learning: Experiences from an undergraduate electronic and electrical engineering course. 953 – 958. 10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492474.

Wilson-Mah, R. (2019). A study of authentic assessment in an internship course.

Authentic Assessment

Authentic assessment evaluates whether the student can successfully transfer the knowledge and skills gained in the classroom to various contexts, scenarios, and situations. Authentic Assessment is grounded in theoretical best practices for teaching and learning and serves as an effective measure for course learning outcomes. In many ways, it can be considered the difference between measuring what students know vs. how they can apply that knowledge. These types of assignments will vary by discipline but typically require students to complete a project. For example, you may ask students to apply an engineering problem to a real world example, develop a web application, design a model, critically review case studies, or create multimedia presentations.  This page has more information on authentic assessment.

What is authentic assessment?

An authentic assessment evaluates if the student can successfully transfer the knowledge and skills gained in the classroom to various contexts, scenarios, and situations beyond the classroom. Authentic assessments can include a myriad of assessment techniques including skill labs, experiments, presentations, simulations, role-plays, class/term projects, debates, discussions, etc. (University at Albany SUNY, n.d.).

The table below from Wiggins (1998) compares traditional assessments (tests and exams) to authentic assessments (tasks).

Source: Indiana University Bloomington's Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning

Why use authentic assessments?

Authentic assessments evaluate how students are learning the course material and subject matter over time. Traditional assessments such as quizzes and exams are useful in providing a snapshot of the students' mastery over the subject at a specific interval, but these assessments do not necessarily evaluate how the student can (or will) apply what was learned beyond the classroom.

Consider the way physicians, professional engineers, electricians, teachers, firefighters, and other professionals are assessed. Students of these professions must provide direct evidence they are competently applying learned knowledge/skills before being allowed to perform them in the real world. This is accomplished by way of an authentic assessment and does not solely rely on a written or oral exam (traditional assessment) (Mueller, n.d.).

Moreover, reliance on traditional assessments may prompt students to learn the material simply to pass the exam and then discard the material (or knowledge and skills) after the exam or course has been completed (Thompson, 2016). Authentic assessments provide students a chance to apply what they've learned and allows students to construct meaning about what they've been taught (Mueller, n.d.).

Lastly, authentic assessments do not have to be chosen over traditional assessments. A mix of both types of assessments can be effective, and in some cases (depending on the course objectives and outcomes), required.

Authentic assessments benefit students in a number of ways, but also present some challenges (adapted from  this resource  from the University of New South Wales Sydney).

Motivates students to deeply engage with the subject matter leading to more constructive and productive learning

Builds a portfolio of academic work, which is helpful for students to:

Reflect on and assess their own work and effort

Seek admission into advanced degree programs and continue their academic career

Pursue career opportunities after earning their degree

Aids students in preparing for the complexities of professional life by equipping them with relevant workplace skills

Prepares students for lifelong learning

Authentic, Formative, and Summative Assessment

There are two types of assessments frequently used in courses: formative and summative.

Formative assessments can be thought of as "spot checks" used throughout the course to assess the student's current grasp of the material and current mastery over the subject matter (e.g. pop quizzes). Formative assessments are focused on evaluating specific knowledge and/or skills at a specific point, the results of which can be used to improve learning as the course progresses (Indiana University Bloomington, n.d.).

Summative assessments are used to measure how well students have mastered the entirety of the material and subject matter sometimes by the mid-point of the course (mid-term) and/or at the end of the course (final).

Well-designed summative assessments can be authentic assessments requiring students to think like a practitioner of the field/discipline (Wiggins, 1998). Authentic (summative) assessments require a significant investment of time from both the student and the instructor. The student will be required to think critically and apply a myriad of skills (merging those learned within the course with those learned outside the course) to approach, evaluate, and solve a problem which may take weeks to solve (e.g. a final project). The instructor will need to take more time to evaluate and grade the students' work than they would if applying a traditional assessment technique such as a multiple choice exam.

How do you design authentic assessments?

The following infographic taken from the  Authentic Assessment Toolbox  created by Mueller (n.d.) provides a design map for creating authentic assessments:

Source: Jon Mueller's Authentic Assessment Toolbox

The first step (STANDARDS) involves reflecting on, writing down, and determining what the goals are for your students (re: course outcomes). Standards can be one-sentence statements or phrases of what students should know and/or be able to do at some point (e.g. "students must define single integrals by week 3"). Course outcomes and standards should be written using  Bloom's Action Verbs , which will help with designing the assessment and to measure how much of the material students have learned.

Read  Step 1 in the Authentic Assessment Toolbox  to learn more about standards.

Authentic Tasks

The second step (AUTHENTIC TASKS) determines how you will know students have met the standards written in Step 1. At this step, selection of the appropriate  authentic task(s)  is performed.

There are three types of authentic tasks:

• Constructed-Response: students construct responses out of previously learned and newly learned knowledge
• Production: students create a deliverable that demonstrates their ability to apply, analyze, and synthesize what they've learned
• Performance: students perform a task that demonstrates their ability to apply, analyze, and synthesize what they've learned

Read Step 2 in the Authentic Assessment Toolbox  to learn more about authentic tasks.

The third step (CRITERIA) establishes indicators of "good performance" on the authentic task(s) selected in Step 2. Students must achieve these criteria when completing authentic tasks to not only demonstrate what they've learned, but that they are also capable of effectively applying what they've learned.

Read Step 3 in the Authentic Assessment Toolbox  to learn more about criteria.

The fourth step (RUBRIC) measures the student's performance on the authentic task(s). Rubrics are essential for structuring the authentic assessment. To start building the rubric, use the criteria established in Step 3 and then decide whether to create an analytic rubric or holistic rubric.

An analytic rubric is used when performance will be evaluated for each criterion. A holistic rubric is used when all of the criteria are evaluated together (holistically).

Read Step 4 in the Authentic Assessment Toolbox  to learn more about rubrics.

• Assessing Authentically. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/authentic-assessment
• Authentic Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/assessing-student-learning/authentic-assessment/
• Bloom's Taxonomy Action Verbs. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/assesments/Blooms%20Level.pdf
• Mueller, Jon. (n.d.). "How Do You Create Authentic Assessments?" Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/howdoyoudoit.htm
• Mueller, Jon. (n.d.). "Why Use Authentic Assessment?" Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whydoit.htm
• Summative and Formative Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/assessing-student-learning/authentic-assessment/
• Thompson, Steven. “The Differences Between Traditional and Authentic Assessment.” YouTube , YouTube, 2 July 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOupbmSx27A
• Unit 2: Types of Authentic Assessment. (2008, May 14). Retrieved from https://tccl.arcc.albany.edu/knilt/index.php/Unit_2:_Types_of_Authentic_Assessment
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• IF Rubric >
• Authentic learning: what, why and how?

As educators, we have all known for a long time that learning is best done through experience – learning by doing rather than learning by listening or observing. Educational theory and research support this claim. The daunting thing is, how do we as educators, plan for this? How do we design learning so that it is a meaningful experience? How do we ensure that students are active and engaged participants in their learning? In this article, I aim to help to define ‘authenticity’ in learning, and begin to introduce some ideas to help guide you through the design process. What is authentic learning? Authentic learning is learning designed to connect what students are taught in school to real-world issues, problems, and applications; learning experiences should mirror the complexities and ambiguities of real life. Children work towards production of discourse, products, and performances that have value or meaning beyond success in school; this is learning by doing approach. It was once said that ‘education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten’ (New methods and new aims in teaching, 1964). Experiences that do not encourage the children to make meaning from their learning will quickly be forgotten. Any learning experience should aim to instill authenticity into every task, lesson and unit to ensure that ‘students are [able] to develop problemsolving skills and confidence in their own learning abilities’ (Nicaise, Gibney and Crane, 2000). It is only with this confidence that children are then able to use the skills and knowledge learned beyond the classroom walls. To prepare students for life outside school, we need to develop children who can make meaning of their learning; this is done by making links between previous learning and new learning, from one subject to another. Research at Canterbury Christ Church University has found that placing ‘each learner’s personal quest for meaning at the heart of curricular and pedagogical decisions, is one most likely to generate the resilient communities needed to face a future of unimaginable challenge and change’ (Barnes and Shirley, 2007). Neither our lives, nor our jobs, are compartmentalised and sectioned into subjects. In order to reflect the real world, authentic learning takes a truly cross-curricular approach in its design as well as implementation in the classroom. There are ten design elements that learning researchers believe represent the ‘essence’ of authentic learning. According to these researchers, each learning experience should have: 1 Real life relevance Activities and tasks that represent those of a professional as closely as possible. 2 An ill-defined problem Challenges that are not easily solvable, or don’t have an obvious answer. There may be layers of tasks that need to be completed in order to solve the problem. 3 Sustained investigation Projects and tasks that require a significant investment of time and cannot be solved in a matter or minutes or hours. 4 Multiple sources and perspectives Resources may be theoretical or practical, and may require learners to distinguish useful information from irrelevant information. Experiences that do not encourage the children to make meaning from their learning will quickly be forgotten Figure 1: The AMT Model (McTighe, 2010) 5 Collaboration Individuals cannot achieve success alone. Projects and tasks will require social connections. 6 Reflection Learners will reflect on their own learning and make choices and set targets accordingly. 7 An interdisciplinary perspective Projects are not limited to a single subject or set of knowledge, but will make use of knowledge and skills from across subjects. 8 Integrated assessment Formative assessment is woven seamlessly into tasks and activities and used purposefully by learners and teachers alike. 9 Polished products Activities and tasks will lead to the creation of a product. 10 Multiple interpretations and outcomes There are many possible solutions and answers to the problem. (in Lombardi, 2007) This checklist is exhaustive and represents authenticity at its greatest. However, I do believe that it can seem intimidating to the first time authentic learning designer. Essentially, authentic learning is multi-disciplinary, skills-based learning in a real-life context, demonstrating to students that their learning is connected, relevant, and can have an impact upon the world around them, as well as their future selves. Why is authentic learning beneficial? Every day, in both our professional and personal lives, we come up against unfamiliar situations in which we have to solve problems, adapt our own behaviours and make decisions. We do this by utilising and manipulating the knowledge we already have, drawing upon our experiences and skills to guide our choices and help us to determine our next steps within the context of the situation we find ourselves in. Authentic learning aims to equip students with these essential life skills, to show the connection between learning and real-life and to give students the problem solving abilities that they require for life beyond school. Along with this, authentic learning experiences give students the opportunity to address the three goals of learning: acquisition, making meaning and transfer (AMT). The AMT model in Figure 1 illustrates how these three processes are interrelated: By designing learning experiences with relevance and authenticity, teachers can plan occasions for all three of these goals to be realised, allowing teachers to become ‘coaches of understanding, not mere purveyors of content or activity’ (Wiggins and McTighe, 2011). In the AMT model in Figure 1, understanding cannot be told; it is constructed by the learner and transferred independently between tasks or activities. Further to this, authentic learning is able to change the dynamics of the learning environment, to ‘[break] down the barriers of the classroom and the power hierarchies within it’ (Steventon, 2016), encouraging learning communities and connections among both peers and staff. Learning along with the students about a topic with which you may not be familiar models learning behaviours in a way that students do not see in other learning pedagogies. When thoughtfully designed, authentic learning experiences can help teachers in their assessment of, and for, learning. Building in ongoing assessment, teacher led as well as peer and self assessment, is an added benefit for teachers and students; assessment becomes a part of the learning process, a formative tool to drive next steps, rather than an added extra at the end of a unit that generates data yet has no meaningful impact on learning. More than anything else, authentic learning experiences generate engagement with students. Think about it – how many times in your own schooling did you ask the teacher, ‘Why are we learning this?’ or ‘When am I going to use this in real life?’. Authenticity automatically gives relevance to the learning journey; relevance encourages engagement and enthusiasm, which should bring about meaningful learning. How to design authentic learning experiences? There is no set formula for the planning and design of authentic learning experiences. The guidance here should be used merely as that – guidance. As an educator, it is you who knows your students best, who knows what they need from their learning and can make decisions accordingly. Use your professional judgment as your best guide! 1 Get to know your students. What are their interests? What engages them? Determine their learning needs. For example, are they a group who performs well in written tasks but could work on speaking and listening skills, or vice versa? The needs and interests of your students should always be a starting point. 2 Based on your students, determine a possible project, goal or outcome. This is where relevance and authenticity come into play – link the outcome to something real life. It could be running a restaurant, publishing a book, creating a museum, solving an environmental issue or a number of other ideas. There are many Project Based Learning (PBL) websites that can give you ideas if you need a starting point. More than anything else, authentic learning experiences generate engagement with students Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn. Benjamin Franklin I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. Maya Angelou Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. Mahatma Gandhi He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. Confucius 3 Break down the skills that your students will need in order to complete the project or reach the outcome. Remember, these may be across a number of curriculum areas and can be matched to curriculum statements and objectives if necessary. 4 Pre-assess your students – how do they perform in these skills already? There are a number of ways to pre-assess, but the best approach is to speak to your students – what do they think they need? Giving the students a role in the design of their learning journey helps to break down the ‘hierarchy’ and gives them ownership and control over their progress. 5 Make time for the AMT model – give students the opportunity to transfer previously learned skills (or skills they have learned for this outcome). 6 Teach, facilitate, coach, guide…and learn. Some skills will require discrete teaching in a traditional sense, then an opportunity to transfer. Others will be better suited to more student-led learning and exploration. Assess throughout the project; help students determine their own next steps. Model positive learning behaviours. 7 I think it is helpful for students to self-assess at the end of a project. What have they learned? What new skills do they now have? What would they like to learn more about? There are some who would argue that true authenticity only comes when the outcome or goal is shared beyond the classroom; this may well be the case, but again, the first time authentic learning designer may see the idea of sharing beyond the classroom daunting. I think it should be said at this point that authentic learning experiences do not have to be all singing and dancing, which it may seem from the steps above. Start small and work towards the larger projects. The key is that they need to have relevance, some sort of application to the real world – larger-than-life outcomes are not always necessary and can actually be a deterrent when taking on this approach. Conclusion From the standpoint of the child, the great waste in school comes from his inability to utilize the experience he gets outside while on the other hand he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning in school. That is the isolation of the school–its isolation from life. (Dewey, 1915) The outcome of any schooling or education system should be to send students into the world prepared for both their personal and professional lives – education and life should not be isolated from each other. However, we cannot teach our students everything. What we can do is teach our students to be adaptable and creative thinkers who are able to utilise the skills and knowledge they do have to create new solutions to problems. By giving students the opportunity to learn through authentic, real life, relevant learning experiences, we are giving them the ability to apply their learning, to learn through doing, to see their abilities, to adapt and change, and to form the habits required to do this successfully in their lives beyond school. References Barnes, J, Shirley, I 2007, ‘Strangely familiar: crosscurricular and creative thinking in teacher education’, Improving Schools, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.162–179. Dewey, J 1915, The School and Society, U of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Lombardi, M 2007, 1st ed. [ebook], available at https://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf, accessed April 2016. McTighe, J 2010, Understanding By Design Stage 3: Teaching for understanding 1st ed. [ebook] p.2, available at: https://www.nesacenter.org/uploaded/conferences/ FLC/2010/spkr_handouts/McTighe_Workshop_-_NESA. pdf [Accessed 1 Mar. 2016]. ‘New methods and new aims in teaching’, 1964, New Scientist, pp. 122. 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, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 80. Steventon, G 2016, ‘Authentic Learning. A route to student attainment?’, in: G Steventon, D Cureton and L. Clouder, (eds.), Student Attainment in Higher Education: Issues, Controversies and Debates, 1st ed, Routledge, New York, p.98. Wiggins, G, McTighe, J 2011, The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units,. Alexandria, Va, ASCD

http://www.acel.org.au/acel/ACEL_docs/Publications/e-Teaching/2016/e-Teaching_2016_10.pdf

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Authentic assessment.

• Kim H. Koh Kim H. Koh Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.22
• Published online: 27 February 2017

Authentic tasks replicate real-world challenges and standards of performance that experts or professionals typically face in the field. The term “authentic assessment” was first coined by Grant Wiggins in K‒12 educational contexts. Authentic assessment is an effective measure of intellectual achievement or ability because it requires students to demonstrate their deep understanding, higher-order thinking, and complex problem solving through the performance of exemplary tasks. Hence authentic assessment can serve as a powerful tool for assessing students’ 21st-century competencies in the context of global educational reforms. The review begins with a detailed explanation of the concept of authentic assessment. There is a substantial body of literature focusing on the definitions of authentic assessment. However, only those that are original and relevant to educational contexts are included.. Some of the criteria for authentic assessment defined by the authors overlap with each other, but their definitions are consistent. A comparison of authentic assessment and conventional assessment reveals that different purposes are served, as evidenced by the nature of the assessment and item response format. Examples of both types of assessments are included. Three major themes are examined within authentic assessment research in educational contexts: authentic assessment in educational or school reforms, teacher professional learning and development in authentic assessment, and authentic assessment as tools or methods used in a variety of subjects or disciplines in K‒12 schooling and in higher education institutions. Among these three themes, most studies were focused on the role of authentic assessment in educational or school reforms. Future research should focus on building teachers’ capacity in authentic assessment and assessment for learning through a critical inquiry approach in school-based professional learning communities or in teacher education programs. To enable the power of authentic assessment to unfold in the classrooms of the 21st century, it is essential that teachers are not only assessment literate but also competent in designing and using authentic assessments to support student learning and mastery of the 21st-century competencies.

• authentic assessment
• authentic tasks
• criteria for authenticity
• 21st-century competencies

Introduction

The term “authentic assessment” was first coined in 1989 by Grant Wiggins in K‒12 educational contexts. According to Wiggins ( 1989 , p. 703), authentic assessment is “a true test” of intellectual achievement or ability because it requires students to demonstrate their deep understanding, higher-order thinking, and complex problem solving through the performance of exemplary tasks. Authentic tasks replicate real-world challenges and “standards of performance” that experts or professionals (e.g., mathematicians, scientists, writers, doctors, teachers, or designers) typically face in the field (Wiggins, 1989 , p. 703). For instance, authentic tasks in mathematics need to elicit the kind of thinking and reasoning used by mathematicians when they solve problems.

In the assessment literature, some authors have argued that the term “authentic” was first introduced by Archbald and Newmann ( 1988 ) in the context of learning and assessment (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999 ; Palm, 2008 ). However, the term “authentic” in Archbald and Newmann ( 1988 ) was associated with achievement rather than assessment. A few years later, Newmann and Archbald ( 1992 ) provided a detailed explanation of authentic achievement. Cumming and Maxwell ( 1999 ) have aptly pointed out that authentic assessment and authentic achievement are interrelated, as it is important to identify the desired student learning outcomes and realign the methods of assessment to them. Authentic assessment should be rooted in authentic achievement to ensure a close alignment between assessment tasks and desired learning outcomes. This alignment is of paramount importance in the worldwide climate of curriculum and assessment reform, which places greater emphasis on the development of students’ 21st-century competencies—including critical and creative thinking, complex problem solving, effective communication, collaboration, self-directed and lifelong learning, responsible citizenship, and information technological literacy, just to name a few.

In addition to K‒12 education, “authentic assessment” was further defined by Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner ( 2004 ) in the context of professional and vocational training that incorporates competence-based curricula and assessments. To better prepare students for their future workplace, there is a need for assessment tasks used in professional and vocational education to resemble the tasks students will encounter in their future professional practice. Authentic assessments in competence-based education should create opportunities for students to integrate learning and working in practice, which results in students’ mastery of professional skills needed in their future workplace.

Authentic assessment has played a pivotal role in driving curricular and instructional changes in the context of global educational reforms. Since the 1990s, teacher education and professional development programs in many education systems around the globe have focused on the development of assessment literacy for teachers and teacher candidates which encompasses teacher competence in the design, adaptation, and use of authentic assessment tasks or performance assessment tasks to engage students in in-depth learning of subject matter and to promote their mastery of the 21st-century competencies (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000 ; Koh, 2011a , 2011b , 2014 ; Shepard et al., 2005 ; Webb, 2009 ). Although many of the 21st-century competencies are not new, they have become increasingly in demand in colleges and workplaces that have shifted from lower-level cognitive and routine manual tasks to higher-level analytic and interactive tasks (e.g., collaborative problem solving) (Darling Hammond & Adamson, 2010 ). The amount of new information is increasing at an exponential rate due to the advancement of digital technology. Hence, rote learning and regurgitation of facts or procedures are no longer suitable in contemporary educational contexts. Rather, students are expected to be able to find, organize, interpret, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and apply new information or knowledge to solve non-routine problems.

Students’ mastery of the essential 21st-century competencies will enable them to succeed in colleges, to thrive in a fast-changing global economy, and to live meaningfully in a complex, technological connected world. According to Darling-Hammond and Adamson ( 2010 ), the role of performance assessment is critical in helping both teachers and students to achieve the 21st-century standards of assessment and learning. Many authors in extant research have used “performance assessment” and “authentic assessment” interchangeably (e.g., Arter, 1999 ; Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2010 ). Some authors have distinguished between performance assessment and authentic assessment (Meyer, 1992 ; Palm, 2008 ; Wiggins, 1989 ). Thorough review of the literature suggests that there is a need to differentiate performance assessment from authentic assessment.

All authentic assessments are performance assessments because they require students to construct extended responses, to perform on something, or to produce a product. Both process and product matter to authentic assessments, and hence formative assessment—such as open questioning, descriptive feedback, self- and peer assessments—can be easily incorporated into authentic assessments. In other words, the process is as important as the product. As such, authentic assessments also capture students’ dispositions such as positive habits of mind, growth mindset, persistence in solving complex problems, resilience and grit, and self-directed learning. The use of scoring criteria and human judgments are two of the essential components of authentic assessments (Wiggins, 1989 ).

Although all performance assessments include constructed responses or performances on open-ended tasks, not all performance assessments are authentic. As Arter ( 1999 ) pointed out, the two essential components of a performance assessment include tasks and criteria. This suggests that the line between performance assessment and authentic assessment is thin. Hence, the authenticity of a performance assessment or performance-based tasks is best to be determined by Gulikers et al.’s ( 2004 ) five dimensions of authenticity; Koh and Luke’s ( 2009 ) criteria for authentic intellectual quality; Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran ( 1996 ) “intellectual quality” criteria; and Wiggins’s ( 1989 ) four key features of authentic assessment. The dimensional framework proposed by Gulikers et al. is appropriate for use with assessments in professional and vocational training contexts including higher education institutions, while Wiggins ( 1989 ), Newmann et al. ( 1996 ), and Koh and Luke ( 2009 ) are appropriate for use with assessments in K‒12 school contexts. The criteria for authentic intellectual quality by Koh and Luke ( 2009 ) have also been linked to the Singapore Classroom Coding Scheme, which was developed by Luke, Cazden, Lin, and Freebody ( 2005 ) to conduct classroom observations of teachers’ instructional practices. Some of the criteria for authentic intellectual quality were adapted from Newmann et al.’s ( 1996 ) authentic intellectual work, Lingard, Ladwig, Mills, Bahr, Chant, & Warry’s ( 2001 ) productive pedagogy and assessment, and the New South Wales model of quality teaching (Ladwig, 2009 ). Lingard et al. ( 2001 ) have used the term “rich tasks” instead of authentic tasks in the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study. According to the authors, rich tasks are open-ended tasks that enable students to connect their learning to real-world issues and problems.

In short, this section presents a detailed explanation of the concept of authentic assessment. The remaining sections of this article will include a comparison of authentic assessment and conventional assessment, criteria for authenticity in authentic assessment, authentic assessment research in educational contexts (research problems/questions and methods included), and future research in authentic assessment.

Authentic Assessment Versus Conventional Assessment

Authentic assessment serves as an alternative to conventional assessment. Conventional assessment is limited to standardized paper-and-pencil/pen tests, which emphasize objective measurement. Standardized tests employ closed-ended item formats such as true‒false, matching, or multiple choice. The use of these item formats is believed to increase efficiency of test administration, objectivity of scoring, reliability of test scores, and cost-effectiveness as machine scoring and large-scale administration of test items are possible. However, it is widely recognized that traditional standardized testing restricts the assessment of higher-order thinking skills and other essential 21st-century competencies due to the nature of the item format. From an objective measurement or psychometric perspective, rigorous and higher-level learning outcomes(e.g., critical thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration, and extended communication) are too subjective to be tested. An overemphasis on objective measurement and closed-ended item formats has led to the testing of discrete bits of facts and procedures. As such, curriculum is fragmented and dumbed down as many of the desired learning outcomes are measured as atomized bits of knowledge and skills.

Standardized paper-and-pen tests are administered in uniform ways to ascertain student achievement for summative purposes (i.e., grading and reporting at the end of a unit or a semester, certification at the completion of a course). At the classroom level, standardized tests are typically used in summative assessment at the end of instruction. Assessment is seen to be detached from instruction. Large-scale administration of standardized paper-and-pen tests is often used for cross-national comparisons of student achievement. The use of standardized paper-and-pen tests on a large-scale basis is predominant in state/provincial assessments and international assessments. Examples of state/provincial assessments are the Foundation Skills Assessments (FSA) in British Columbia, Canada; the Provincial Achievement Tests (PAT) in Alberta, Canada; and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States. International assessments include the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS); and the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA). The closed-ended item response format in standardized tests tends to encourage students to fill in the bubbles or provide short answers using their rote memorization of discrete facts and procedures. Students are either rewarded or punished depending on whether they get that one answer right according to the answer keys or marking schemes. Such a testing format is aligned with the behaviorist learning theory that promotes the use of rewards to reinforce positive behaviors and of sanctions to remove negative behaviors.

Both summative and international assessments are high stakes because student achievement data derived from these assessments are used for making important decisions or policies, which may lead to unintended consequences for students, teachers, or school administrators. Oftentimes, teacher job performance is evaluated based on student performance on high-stakes assessments. In many high-performative education systems, teachers are held accountable by policy makers, parents, and school administrators for students’ performance. Such a high accountability demand has led to teachers’ tendency to teach to the content and format of state/provincial, national, or international assessments. For example, Koh and Luke’s ( 2009 ) large-scale empirical study of the quality of teachers’ assessment tasks in Singapore, one of the high-performative education systems in the world, has shown that worksheets and summative tests were two of the most commonly used assessment methods in the teaching of core subject areas such as English, mathematics, and science at both elementary and secondary levels. Teachers’ instructional practices were driven by preparing students for high-stakes examinations. As a result, the intended curriculum was reduced to a drill-and-practice of decontextualized factual and procedural knowledge.

Authentic assessments are characterized by open-ended tasks that require students to construct extended responses, to perform an act, or to produce a product in a real-world context—or a context that mimics the real world. Examples of authentic assessments include projects, portfolios, writing an article for newsletter or newspaper, performing a dance or drama, designing a digital artifact, creating a poster for science fair, debates, and oral presentations. According to Wiggins ( 1989 ), authentic tasks must “involve students in the actual challenges, standards, and habits needed for success in the academic disciplines or in the workplace” (p. 706). In other words, authentic tasks need to be designed to replicate the authentic intellectual challenges and standards facing experts or professionals in the field. Such assessment tasks are deemed able to engage and motivate learners when they perceive the relevance of the tasks to the real world or when they find that a completion of the tasks is meaningful for their learning.

The purpose of authentic assessment is to provide students with ample opportunity to engage in authentic tasks so as to develop, use, and extend their knowledge, higher-order thinking, and other 21st-century competencies. Authentic tasks are often performance-based and include complex and ill-structured problems that are well aligned with the rigorous and higher-order learning objectives in a reformed vision of curriculum (Shepard, 2000 ). Most professional challenges in the current and future workplace require individuals to strike a balance between individual and group achievement (Wiggins, 1989 ). The nature of authentic tasks enables students to learn how to achieve such a balance by engaging in independent learning of possible solutions and by collaborating with peers in a socially supportive learning environment over an extended period of time. As such, authentic tasks also support problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and other learner-centered pedagogical approaches. Productive discourse or extended communication in a social context is important in the process of arriving at solutions to problems. Hence students are able to “experience what it is like to do tasks in workplace and other real-life contexts” (Wiggins, 1998 , p. 24). John Dewey, a prominent philosopher of education, underscored the importance of experience in education by arguing that learners cannot know something without directly experiencing it. Dewey inspired the use of the project method in his laboratory school at the University of Chicago from 1896 to 1904 . The project method enabled children to reflect and examine critically at their prior beliefs or preexisting knowledge in the light of new experiences. Children were expected to learn content knowledge and procedural skills in a context that was relevant to their real-world lives. The context usually entails a complex, real-life problem or authentic project, with many levels of embedded problems and solutions. The project method was further defined as a “hearty purposeful act” by Kilpatrick ( 1918 , p. 320) in his essay “The Project Method,” which became known worldwide.

Authentic tasks assess not only students’ authentic performance or work, but also their dispositions such as persistence in solving messy and complex problems, positive habits of mind, growth mindset, resilience and grit, and self-directed learning. Given that the use of scoring rubrics is a key component of authentic assessment, it enables the provision of descriptive feedback, self- and peer assessment using criteria and standards as in the form of holistic or analytic rubrics. It is important that students receive timely and formative feedback from the teacher and/or peers so that they are able to use the feedback to improve the quality of their performance or work. Such a formative assessment or assessment for learning practice has long been advocated in key assessment literature that urges teachers to use classroom assessment to support student learning or to promote a learner-centered classroom culture (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998 ; Shepard, 2000 ). From a social-constructivist learning approach (Shepard, 2000 ), the opportunities for productive discourse or dialogue in the process of collaborating with peers and of giving/receiving peer feedback in completing authentic tasks underscore the importance of co-construction of knowledge and meaning-making through socially supported interactions.

Since the 1990s, the social-constructivist learning theory has played a key role in the curriculum and assessment reform movement. The social-constructivist learning theory was named an emergent constructivist paradigm in Shepard’s ( 2000 ) reconceptualization of classroom assessment practice for the 21st century . The emergent constructivist paradigm was characterized by the shared principles of a reformed vision of curriculum, cognitive and constructivist/social-constructivist learning theories, and classroom assessment. The shared principles emphasize that all students can learn, and thus they must be given an equal opportunity to be exposed to intellectually challenging subject matter and assessment tasks that are aimed at developing their higher-order thinking, problem solving, and dispositions. The principles of classroom assessment in Shepard’s ( 2000 ) emergent constructivist paradigm are similar to those that characterize authentic assessment.

Criteria for Authenticity in Authentic Assessment

There is a substantial curriculum and assessment literature focusing on the features or characteristics of authentic assessment. The use of “features” and “characteristics” seems to suggest that an assessment or a task can be quantifiable for its authenticity. I prefer to use the term “criteria” to determine and describe the degree of authenticity of an assessment or a task. This section includes a review of the relevant literature on the criteria of authentic assessment.

According to Wiggins ( 1989 , 1998 ), assessment is central to learning and must be linked to real-world demands. In these articles, some of the criteria for authentic assessment are overlapping. They can be summarized into eight criteria:

First , authentic assessment “is realistic” (Wiggins, 1998 , p. 22). This means that the authentic task or tasks must replicate how a student’s knowledge, skills, and/or dispositions are assessed in a real-world context. In other words, the authentic task or tasks should replicate or simulate the real-world contexts in which adults are assessed in the workplace, in social life, and in personal life. This enables students to experience what it is like to work or perform in real-life contexts, which are often messy, ambiguous, and unpredictable. Such a “learning by doing” experience is in line with Dewey’s experiential education.

Second , the authentic task or tasks require students to make good judgments and be creative and innovative in solving complex and non-routine problems or performing a task in new situations. This enables the assessment of transferable skills to new tasks or contexts. In addition, students need to be competent and confident in using a repertoire of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to tackle and complete authentic tasks that are intellectually challenging. Hence, authentic tasks serve as an effective tool for assessing students’ demonstrations of critical thinking, complex problem solving, and creativity and innovation. These are some of the essential 21st-century competencies.

Third , an authentic assessment or task enables students to deeply engage in the subject or discipline through critical thinking and inquiry. Instead of rote learning and reproduction of facts and procedures, students need to be able to think, act, and communicate like experts in the subject or discipline. This is akin to Shulman’s ( 2005 ) signature pedagogies.

Fourth , in authentic assessment, students are given opportunities to rehearse, practice, look for useful resources, and receive timely quality feedback so as to improve the quality of performance or product. Students also need to present their work publicly and be given the opportunity to defend it. This suggests that assessment for learning or formative assessment practice can be easily incorporated into authentic assessment.

Fifth , authentic tasks look for multiple evidences of student performance over time and the reasons or explanations behind the success and failure of a performance. In addition, both reliability and validity of judgment about complex performance depend upon multiple evidences gained over many performances across multiple occasions. To ensure fairness and equity, the teacher must be provided with informative data of students’ strengths and weaknesses at the end of each assessment. This will ensure that the teacher’s feedback is aimed at helping all students to make progress toward the standards.

Sixth , a multifaceted scoring system is used, and scoring criteria must be transparent. Sharing of scoring criteria explicitly with students will enable them to understand and internalize the criteria of success.

Seventh , student self-assessment must play a pivotal role in authentic assessment.

Finally , the reliability or defensibility of teachers’ professional judgment or scoring of student performance or work is achieved through social moderation, in which teachers of the same subjects gather to set criteria and standards for scoring, and to compare their scores (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2010 ).

Authentic achievement rather than authentic assessment is used in Newmann and Archbald ( 1992 ). They identify three criteria or standards for authentic achievement, namely, construction of knowledge , disciplined inquiry , and value beyond school . In their later work, Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) and Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka ( 2001 ) have used the term “criteria for authentic intellectual work” instead of “standards for authentic achievement.” Definitions of the three criteria for authentic achievement are as follows:

Construction of Knowledge

This criterion clearly indicates that students need to engage in construction or production of knowledge instead of reproduction of knowledge. Construction of knowledge is expressed in written and oral discourse. Examples of construction of knowledge are writing an article for a newsletter, performing a musical piece of work, creating a poster for a science fair, completing a group project, and designing a digital portfolio. All of these authentic assessments require students to engage in higher-order thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration. At the same time, students also need to present and defend their work in public.

Disciplined Inquiry

This criterion suggests that students need to be actively involved in critical inquiry within academic subjects or professional disciplines. Disciplined inquiry consists of three main components: prior knowledge base , in-depth understanding , and elaborated communication (Newmann et al., 2001 , p. 15). Students’ authentic performance is built on their prior knowledge in a subject or discipline. To engage in critical inquiry, students need to be able to tap into their prior knowledge base or the content knowledge that they have acquired before. The prior knowledge base or previously learned content knowledge includes facts, terminologies, vocabularies, concepts, theories, algorithms, procedures, and conventions. In-depth understanding refers to the ability to probe deeper into a problem and to organize, interpret, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize different types of knowledge or information that can be used to solve the problem. In-depth understanding helps students to engage actively in intellectual discourse or in making extended communication to explain their solutions to the problem. All experts or professionals in a subject or discipline are expected to use sophisticated forms of written and oral communication (i.e., elaborated communication) to carry out their work and to express their solutions to problems.

Value Beyond School

This criterion underscores the importance of having a value dimension in assessment tasks. To be intrinsically motivating for students, authentic tasks must have aesthetic, utilitarian, or personal value in the eyes of the learner.

Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) have pointed out that all three of these criteria are necessary for assessing the authenticity of student performance across grade levels and subject areas. They aptly stated that “construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry to produce discourse, products, or performance that have value beyond success in school can serve as a standard of intellectual quality for assessing the authenticity of student performance” (Newmann et al., 1996 , p. 287). However, they also cautioned that not all instructional activities and assessment tasks will meet all the three criteria at all times.

Building upon the three criteria of authentic achievement, Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) have further developed seven criteria for assessing the intellectual quality of assessment tasks. The criteria are organization of information , consideration of alternatives , disciplinary content , disciplinary process , elaborated written communication , problem connected to the world , and audience beyond the school . Organization of information and consideration of alternatives reflect the importance of assessing students’ higher-order thinking or critical thinking in solving real-world problems. Disciplinary content emphasizes students’ ability to engage in critical inquiry into the ideas, theories, and perspectives central to their academic subject or professional discipline, while disciplinary process refers to the ability to use sound methods of inquiry, research, and communication, which is central to their academic subject or professional discipline. The use of elaborated written communication suggests that authentic tasks must involve students in using extended communication or sustained writing to express deep understanding and problem solving. The last two criteria, namely, problem connected to the world and audience beyond the school , indicate that assessment tasks need to expose students to the real-world issues or problems that they encounter in their daily lives or are likely to encounter in their future colleges, workplaces, and lives.

Gulikers et al. ( 2004 ) have proposed five criteria for defining authentic assessment in the context of professional and vocational training. Similar to Wiggins ( 1989 ) and Newmann and Archbald ( 1992 ), they contend that authenticity of assessment is a multifaceted concept. In determining the authenticity of an assessment, there is a need to take into account students’ perceptions of authenticity. In other words, students’ perceptions of the meaningfulness or relevance of the assessment is central to the determination of authenticity. The five criteria for authenticity or dimensions of authenticity are task , physical context , social context , assessment form , and criteria (Gulikers et al., 2004 ). The criteria are summarized below:

Using Messick’s ( 1994 ) question of authentic to what , Gulikers et al. ( 2004 ) have argued that the degree of authenticity of an assessment or a task is measured against a criterion situation. According to them, “a criterion situation reflects a real-life situation that students can be confronted with in their work placement or future professional life, which serves as a basis for designing an authentic assessment” (Gulikers et al., 2004 , p. 75). Therefore, an authentic assessment task should resemble the complexity of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required in the criterion situation. And students should see the relevance or meaning of their performances on the authentic task to their future professions. The degree of authenticity of an assessment task can further be determined by whether the task requires multiple solutions and whether it is ill-structured and involves multiple disciplines.

Physical Context

In this criterion, three components are identified by Gulikers et al. ( 2004 ) to determine the degree of authenticity of an assessment: similarity to the professional work space (fidelity), availability of professional resources (methods/tools/materials, relevant or irrelevant information), and time given to complete the assessment task. Sufficient time for the completion of a task is important so that students’ thinking and acting will not be restricted by time constraints. Many professional activities in real life involve planning and execution of tasks over an extended period of time.

Social Context

The social processes of an authentic assessment must resemble those of a professional context. If the professional context or real-life situation requires collaboration with peers in solving problems, then the assessment should also involve students in collaboration and problem solving. However, it is important to note that if a professional context or real-life situation typically requires individual work then the assessment should not enforce collaboration. In other words, fidelity of the social processes in authentic assessment to those in a real-life situation is essential.

Assessment Form

The authenticity of assessment form is determined by the degree to which students are observed for their demonstrations of competences when performing on a task or creating a product. The observation will enable an inference about students’ competences in future professional contexts. The authenticity of the form of assessment also depends on the use of multiple tasks and indicators of learning. This is similar to Wiggins’s ( 1989 ) multifaceted scoring system, which emphasizes the use of multiple evidences of student performance. Many measurement and assessment experts also advocate for the use of multiple methods or tasks and multiple indicators of learning to ensure the accuracy, fairness, reliability, and validity of professional judgment about student performance (Messick, 1994 ; Shavelson, Baxter, & Gao, 1993 ; Wiggins, 1989 ). Hence, students’ professional competence should neither be assessed by a single task nor be judged based on a single performance.

Scoring criteria used in authentic assessment should be based on criteria used in professional practice or a real-life situation. In addition, scoring criteria should concern the development of relevant professional competence, which means that assessment of students’ learning progression is an important practice in the context of authentic assessment. Similar to Wiggins ( 1989 ), Gulikers et al. ( 2004 ) have argued that scoring criteria must be transparent and be shared explicitly with students to facilitate their learning. Hence, criterion-referenced rubrics should be used to judge students’ performance or work in authentic assessment.

Research in Authentic Assessment

Since the 1990s, research in authentic assessment was focused on three themes: authentic assessment in educational or school reforms, teacher professional learning or development in authentic assessment, and authentic assessment as tools or methods used in a variety of subjects or disciplines in K‒12 schooling and in higher education institutions. Among these three themes, most studies were focused on the role of authentic assessment in educational or school reforms. Due to space limitations, only key studies concentrating on authentic assessment in educational or school reforms have been reviewed.

Authentic Assessment in Educational or School Reforms

Since the late 1990s, authentic assessment has become a key lever for educational or school reforms that aim to develop students’ 21st-century competencies and prepare them for a global knowledge-based economy in a technologically connected world. In the curriculum frameworks of many education systems, there is a shift from low-level learning outcomes (e.g., factual knowledge and procedural skills) to higher-order learning outcomes (i.e., higher-order thinking, problem solving, and other essential 21st-century competencies). Likewise, teachers have been urged to move toward the use of social-constructivist, learner-centered pedagogy, authentic assessment, and formative assessment. Such changes have resulted in a substantial body of research focusing on teachers’ assessment practices and building teachers’ capacity in classroom assessment.

In the United States, Newmann and his associates (Newmann et al., 1996 ; Newmann et al., 2001 ) have conducted empirical studies to examine the impact of authentic pedagogy on student performance in Chicago public elementary schools. The focus of Newmann et al.’s ( 1996 ) study was to determine the relationship between authentic pedagogy and student performance in schools that used authentic pedagogy as a school reform initiative. Authentic pedagogy was comprised of authentic instruction and authentic assessment based on the criteria for authentic intellectual work. The study involved teachers who taught mathematics and social studies in three different grades ranging from elementary schools to high schools. Data included classroom observations of the teachers’ daily lessons and analyses of the assessment tasks and students’ written responses to the tasks that were embedded within the lessons. The data were analyzed using the criteria for authentic intellectual work. Student responses to the assessment tasks were used as evidence of student performance.

Most studies on educational or assessment reforms have often used standardized test scores as an indicator of improved student learning even when an educational innovation involves a new form of assessment. Student responses to tasks or student work samples are embedded within teachers’ instructional practices and hence serve as a better indicator of student performance. Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) found that authentic pedagogy was strongly associated with students’ authentic academic performance at all grade levels in both mathematics and social studies. Students who were exposed to assessment tasks with high intellectual demands demonstrated higher authentic performance than students who did not have the same exposure. In addition, the effects of authentic pedagogy were found to be equitably distributed among students of diverse social backgrounds, indicating that all students should have an equal access to the standards of intellectual quality. The findings suggest that student performance is dependent on the quality of teachers’ assessment tasks, and authentic assessment can play a pivotal role to raise the quality of students’ learning and performance irrespective of their gender, ethnic group, and socioeconomic status. Authentic assessment can serve as a powerful mechanism to ensure equitable learning opportunities and outcomes for all students.

In a second study, Newmann et al. ( 2001 ) examined the effects of authentic assignments or assessments on students’ authentic intellectual work in the day-to-day classroom and students’ achievement in high-stakes standardized tests. Samples of classroom assignments were collected from 19 elementary schools in Chicago. The study involved approximately 5,000 students and their teachers in grades 3, 6, and 8. These grades were purposefully selected because of the relevance of using test scores from both the statewide and national testing programs. This allowed the researchers to “link teacher assignments both to student performance on state tests of reading, writing, and mathematics and to results from the national norm-reference tests of reading and mathematics” (Newmann et al. 2001 , p. 16). In addition to test scores, teacher assignments in writing and mathematics were analyzed for their intellectual demands. A group of teachers from the Chicago public schools were trained to judge the quality of teacher assignments using scoring rubrics that consisted of the criteria for authentic intellectual work. Newmann et al. ( 2001 ) found that when teachers organized instruction around authentic assignments, students not only produced more authentic, intellectually complex work but also gained greater scores in both statewide and national tests in reading and mathematics. Similar results were noted in some very disadvantaged classrooms. Newmann et al. ( 2001 ) also pointed out that the intellectual demands in teacher assignments or assessment tasks played a far more important role than a particular teaching strategy or pedagogical method to influence student engagement in learning. Hence, professional development for teachers should focus on their capacity in designing and using curriculum materials and classroom assessments that include high authentic intellectual challenge.

Newmann et al.’s ( 1996 ) work, originating in the United States, has been adapted and expanded in the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (Lingard et al., 2001 ). The criteria for authentic intellectual work provided the basis for the Queensland model of productive pedagogies, assessment, and performance (Lingard et al. 2001 ). In Lingard et al.’s ( 2001 ) criteria for productive assessment, the three Newmann criteria of authentic intellectual work were extended to include knowledge criticism , technical metalanguage , inclusive knowledge , and explicitness of expectations as new indicators. Similar to Newmann et al.’s ( 1996 ) authentic pedagogy, productive pedagogies were intellectually demanding, connected to the real world, supportive of student learning, and diversity valuing. Lingard et al. ( 2001 ) found that the levels of intellectual or cognitive demand of teachers’ assessment tasks were positively associated with the quality of students’ performance as evidenced in students’ written work. This important finding has led to the New Basics trial of curriculum in grades 1‒9 in Queensland schools. The New Basics curriculum was aligned with productive pedagogies and rich tasks (i.e., authentic tasks). The trial yielded positive outcomes. As such, the use of rich tasks and teacher-moderated judgment of students’ work in response to rich tasks have become exemplary assessment practices in many Queensland schools. Such exemplary assessment practices are applauded by policy makers, school administrators, educators, and researchers around the globe. This has led to the Core 1 Pedagogy and Assessment project in Singapore (Luke, Freebody, Lau, & Gopinathan, 2005 ).

Both the Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) and Lingard et al. ( 2001 ) studies served as the basis for Koh and Luke’s ( 2009 ) study of Singaporean teachers’ assessment practices. As one of the world’s high-performing education systems, Singapore has launched a variety of educational reforms since the beginning of the 21st century . Like their counterparts in other developed countries, Singaporean teachers have been urged to implement new forms of assessment (i.e., authentic assessment and formative assessment) to capture higher-order learning outcomes in the intended curriculum. The Koh and Luke study was conducted to examine Singaporean teachers’ assessment practices as well as the quality of teachers’ assessment tasks and the quality of students’ work in grades 5 and 9 in seven subject areas: English, social studies, mathematics, sciences, Mandarin Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. It was the first large-scale empirical study of teachers’ assessment practices and the data were drawn from a representative sample of Singaporean classrooms. Following the framework of Newmann et al. ( 1996 ) and the work from Anderson and Krathwohl ( 2001 ), Marzano ( 1992 ), and Nitko ( 2004 ), Koh and Luke ( 2009 ) have devised nine criteria for assessing the quality of teachers’ assessment tasks and six criteria for assessing the quality of students’ work in response to the assessment tasks.

The nine criteria for assessment tasks were depth of knowledge , knowledge criticism , knowledge manipulation , sustained writing , task clarity and organization , connections to the real world beyond the classroom , supportive task framing , student control , and explicit performance standards or marking criteria . The six criteria for assessing the quality of students’ work included depth of knowledge , knowledge criticism , knowledge manipulation , sustained writing , quality of students’ writing or answers , and connections to the real world beyond the classroom (Koh, 2011a ).

Brief descriptions of the criteria are as follows:

Depth of Knowledge

According to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy of intended student learning outcomes, there are three types of knowledge, namely, factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and advanced concepts or conceptual knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ). Factual knowledge is knowledge of discrete and decontextualized content elements (i.e., bits of information), while procedural knowledge entails knowledge of using discipline-specific skills, rules, algorithms, techniques, tools, and methods. Conceptual knowledge involves knowledge of complex, organized, and structured knowledge forms (e.g., how a particular subject matter is organized and structured, how the different parts or bits of information are interconnected and interrelated in a more systematic manner, and how these parts function together). All three types of knowledge are essential for student learning.

Knowledge Criticism

Based on models of critical literacy and critical pedagogy, knowledge criticism is a predisposition to the generation of alternative perspectives, critical arguments, and new solutions or knowledge (Luke, 2004 ). Knowledge criticism enables students to judge the value, credibility, and soundness of different sources of information or knowledge through comparison and critique rather than to accept and present all information or knowledge as given.

Knowledge Manipulation

Knowledge manipulation calls for an application of higher-order thinking and reasoning skills in the reconstruction of texts, intellectual artifacts, and knowledge. It involves organization, interpretation, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation of different sources of knowledge or information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ). Authentic assessments or tasks should provide students with more opportunities to make their own hypotheses and generalizations in order to solve problems, arrive at conclusions, or discover new meanings, rather than only to reproduce information expounded by the teacher or textbooks, or to reproduce fragments of knowledge and preordained procedures.

Sustained Writing

This criterion aims to gauge the degree to which the assessment task requires and generates production of extended chunks of prose. Authentic assessments or tasks must ask students to elaborate on their nuances/understanding, explanations, arguments, or conclusions through the generation of sustained written prose.

Task clarity and organization , student control , and explicit performance standards or marking criteria are conceptualized based on Marzano’s ( 1992 ) learning-centered instruction. The assumption here is that the explicitness of the procedures and criteria for the assessment task provides clear goals and explicit criteria and language for the assessment of value. The incorporation of these criteria into the classroom assessment provides students with ample opportunity to engage in formative assessment or assessment for learning, which contributes to their self-directed learning, independent learning, and critical thinking.

Task Clarity and Organization

The assessment task is framed logically and has instructions that are easy to understand so that students will not have misinterpretations and missing information. The written instructions, guidelines, worksheets, and other textual advanced organizers must be clear and well organized.

Connections to the Real World Beyond the Classroom

This criterion assesses the degree to which the assessment task and affiliated artifacts were connected to an activity, function, or task in a real-world situation.

Supportive Task Framing

Teachers’ scaffolding of an assignment or assessment task—that is, providing some structure and guidance—can assist students to accomplish a complex task (Nitko, 2004 ). There are three types of scaffolding: content, procedural, and strategic. For highly intellectual tasks, teachers should place more emphasis on strategic scaffolding.

Student Control

Teachers provide students with the opportunity to determine the parameters of a task such as topics or questions to answer, alternative procedures, tools and resources to use (e.g., textbook, Internet, or newspaper), length of writing or response, or performance or marking criteria.

Explicit Performance Standards/Marking Criteria

The assessment task is provided with the teacher’s clear expectations for students’ performance and the marking criteria are made explicitly clear to the students. Reference to only technical or procedural requirements (e.g., the number of examples, length of an essay or response) is not taken as evidence of explicit performance standards or marking criteria. This criterion underscores the importance of sharing scoring criteria with students explicitly, which is also a key criteria espoused by Wiggins ( 1989 ) and Gulikers et al. ( 2004 ). To ensure fairness and equity, students need to know in advance the specific and differentiated criteria for what may count as “value,” quality, or success at completion of the task.

Given that the theoretical underpinnings of the criteria for assessing the quality of students’ work are similar to those for teachers’ assessment tasks, they will not be repeated here. Readers who are interested in the criteria and indicators used to judge the quality of teachers’ assessment tasks and students’ work across different subject areas can refer to Koh ( 2011a ).

Future Research: The Remaining Questions

In the context of professional and vocational training, Gulikers, Bastiaens, Kirschner, and Kester ( 2008 ) have argued that the notion of authenticity is subjective and students’ perceptions of the authenticity of an assessment or a task can influence the quality of their learning. Their study has shown that there is a difference between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of assessment authenticity. As such, it is important to take into account students’ perceptions of meaningfulness or relevance of an assessment or a task to their real-life situations. Further, this finding also supports another crucial aspect of authentic assessment task design, that is, students must be involved in the process of determining and negotiating the assessment or task parameters (i.e., student control).

There has been a substantial body of research in teacher professional learning and development in classroom assessment or formative assessment. Many of them have focused on formative assessment or assessment for learning and models of effective professional development. Koh ( 2011b ) has conducted a two-year intervention study with a group of elementary teachers in Singapore, to examine the effects of ongoing, sustained professional development in authentic assessment task design on the teachers’ assessment literacy, specifically teachers’ capacity in designing and implementing authentic assessment tasks. To enhance teachers’ understanding and internalization of the criteria for authentic intellectual quality in designing authentic tasks, only five of the key criteria were used in Koh’s ( 2011b ) study: depth of knowledge , knowledge criticism , knowledge manipulation , sustained writing or extended communication , and connections to the real world beyond the classroom . The study has demonstrated positive results in improving teachers’ assessment literacy through ongoing, sustained professional development in authentic assessment task design in English, mathematics, and science at the elementary school level. In addition, in-depth interviews with the participating teachers have shown that their conceptions of authentic assessment have greatly improved toward the end of the two-year professional development. In a second study, Koh, Burke, Luke, Gong, and Tan ( in press ) found that Chinese language teachers had difficulty to incorporate certain knowledge manipulation criteria into their assessment tasks despite a quick grasp of the design principles of authentic assessment.

Webb ( 2009 ) has called for professional development in mathematics education to focus on “helping teachers to develop a ‘designers’ eye’ for selecting, adapting, and designing tasks to assess student understanding” (p. 3). Although the term “authentic assessment” was not directly used by Webb ( 2009 ), we can make inferences that authentic assessment is the most effective way of assessing student understanding across different subjects or disciplines.

Given that teachers need to have a “designers’ eye” (Webb, 2009 , p. 3) or to be critical and intelligent consumers of high-quality authentic assessment or performance assessment, it is important for professional development and teacher education programs to provide both inservice and preservice teachers with ample opportunity to engage in authentic assessment task design and analysis of student work. For future research, the remaining questions should focus on building teachers’ capacity in authentic assessment and assessment for learning through a critical inquiry approach in school-based professional learning community or in teacher education programs. According to Wyatt-Smith and Gunn ( 2009 ), the critical inquiry approach refers to teachers’ ability to reflect on and understand the assessment processes and practices in actual sociocultural contexts in relation to four important lenses: (1) conceptions of the knowledge domains and competencies to be assessed; (2) conceptions of the alignment between assessment, teaching, and learning, and its enactment in practice; (3) teacher judgment practices in relation to standards, assessment task design, student work samples, and social moderation; and (4) curriculum literacies or discipline-specific language demands. To enable the power of authentic assessment to unfold in the classrooms of the early 21st century , it is essential that teachers are critical designers and reflective practitioners of classroom assessment tasks that support student learning and mastery of the 21st-century competencies.

Teachers’ capacity to design and implement authentic assessment is of paramount importance in the current era of competency-based education. In fact, authentic assessment has been used in International Baccalaureate programs and has also been incorporated into school-based assessments in several high-performing nations on PISA. The nations are Singapore, Hong Kong, Finland, and Australia. However, it is worth noting that the success of authentic assessment initiatives can be hindered by changes in school leadership or governmental policies. For example, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 in the United States and the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN, 2008 ) in Queensland, Australia have posed challenges to school-based, teacher-moderated assessment due to an overemphasis on “back to basics” and high-stakes accountability testing of students’ academic achievement.

In 2010 , the launch of the Common Core Standards in the Unites States brought significant changes in curriculum, assessment, and instruction. The standards define the 21st-century knowledge, skills, and dispositions students should have mastered within their K‒12 education so that they are well prepared for achieving their academic and careers aspirations as well as personal well-being in an increasingly complex and competitive world. Ideally, the Common Core Standards have created opportunities for the development and implementation of authentic assessments or performance assessments in English language arts and mathematics. However, a heavy focus on the use of student assessment data for accountability purposes has led to a push back from state governments, teachers, and parents. A lack of teacher autonomy in the design and use of assessments to help students achieve the 21st-century educational outcomes has defeated the original purpose of the Common Core. Hence, it is important for policy makers in the US and other countries to model the Finnish education system, in which teachers are given full autonomy to develop and implement classroom assessments that support student learning.

Bibliography

• Anderson, L. W. , & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York: Longman.
• Archbald, D. , & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic academic achievement in the secondary school . Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
• Arter, J. (1999). Teaching about performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 18 (2), 30–44.
• Black, P. , & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 5 (1), 7–74.
• Cumming, J. J. , & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 6 (2), 177‒194.
• Darling-Hammond, L. , & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning . Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
• Darling-Hammond, L. , & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education , 16 , 523‒545.
• Gulikers, J. T. M. , Bastiaens, T. J. , & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.
• Gulikers, J. T. M. , Bastiaens, T. J. , Kirschner, P. A. , & Kester, L. (2008). Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder: Student and teacher perceptions of assessment authenticity. Journal of Vocational Education & Training , 60 (4), 401‒412.
• Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record , 19 , 319–335.
• Klenowski, V. , & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Standards, teacher judgement and moderation in contexts of national curriculum and assessment reform. Assessment Matters , 1 , 84–108.
• Koh, K. (2011a). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy . Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.
• Koh, K. (2011b). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education , 22 (3), 255‒276.
• Koh, K. (2014). Authentic assessment, teacher judgment and moderation in a context of high accountability. In C. Wyatt-Smith , V. Klenowski , & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (Vol. 1, pp. 249‒264). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Koh, K. , & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 16 (3), 291‒318.
• Koh, K. , Burke, L. E. C. A. , Luke, A. , Gong, W. , & Tan, C , (in press). Developing the assessment literacy of teachers in Chinese language classrooms: A focus on assessment task design. Language Teaching Research .
• Ladwig, J. (2009). Working backwards towards curriculum: On the curricular implications of quality teaching. Curriculum Journal , 20 (3), 271‒286.
• Lingard, B. , Ladwig, J. , Mills, M. , Bahr, M. , Chant, D. , & Warry, M. (2001). The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study . Brisbane: Education Queensland.
• Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Luke, A. , Cazden, C. , Lin, A. , & Freebody, P. (2005). A coding scheme for the analysis of Singapore classrooms. Technical paper. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
• Luke, A. , Freebody, P. , Lau, S. , & Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based innovation and reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 25 (1), 5–28.
• Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning . Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Educational Researcher , 23 (2), 13–23.
• Meyer, C. (1992). What’s the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership , 49 (8), 39–40.
• Newmann, F. M. , & Archbald, D. A. (1992). The nature of authentic academic achievement. In H. Berlak , F. M. Newmann , E. Adams , D. A. Archbald , T. Burgess , J. Raven , & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment (pp. 71–84). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Newmann, F. M. , Bryk, A. S. , & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Improving Chicago’s schools . Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
• Newmann, F. M. , Marks, H. M. , & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education , 104 (4), 280–312.
• Nitko, A. J. (2004). Educational assessment of students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual analysis of the literature . Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 13 (4), 1‒10.
• Shavelson, R. J. , Baxter, G. P. , & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement , 30 (3), 215–232.
• Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher , 29 (7), 4‒14.
• Shepard, L. , Hammerness, K. , Darling-Hammond, L. , Rust, F. , Snowden, J. B. , Gordon, E. , … Pacheco, A. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 275–326). San Francisco: John Wiley.
• Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus , 134 (3), 52–59.
• Webb, D. C. (2009). Designing professional development for assessment. Educational Designer , 1 (2), 1–26.
• Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan , 70 (9), 703‒713.
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educational assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance . San Francisco: John Wiley.
• Wyatt-Smith, C. , & Gunn, S. (2009). Towards theorising assessment as critical inquiry. In J. J. Cumming & C. Wyatt-Smith (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting theory and practice (pp. 83–101). London: Springer.

Related Articles

• Accountabilities in Schools and School Systems

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

49 Authentic/Performance Assessment

Authentic/performance assessment.

Authentic Assessment is a form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills (Mueller, 2008). According to Jan Herrington and Anthony Herrington, “authentic assessment is required to assess the learning that students might actually carry out in the real world, as opposed to the kind of tasks traditionally learned in classrooms” (2006). The realistic context in authentic assessment makes problems more engaging for learners and helps to practice applying practical and higher-order cognitive skills. Authentic Assessment usually includes an authentic task and a rubric. Students perform the task while the rubric is used to evaluate their performance.

As opposed to traditional assessment, which lacks variability, the authentic assessment allows students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in different ways. For example, authentic tasks may include making projects or portfolios, creating artwork or videos, or other tangible products. The authentic assessment of these products may include evaluating the work of cooperative learning groups, ideas for assessing problem-based or active learning experiences. This type of assessment, where the aspect of “doing” is emphasized, decreases the level of anxiety (Fook & Sidhu, 2010).

There is a number of characteristics of authentic assessment that identify it from other types of assessment. Herrington & Herrington group these characteristics of authentic assessment into four categories (2006):

• Context (Authentic Assessment requires fidelity of context to reflect the conditions under which the performance will occur rather than being artificial).
• Student’s role (in Authentic Assessment students are required to perform the acquired knowledge and invest significant time and effort in collaboration with others).
• Authentic activity (it involves complex, ill-structured challenges that require judgment and a full array of tasks, as well as requires assessment to be seamlessly integrated with the activity).
• Indicators (Authentic Assessment provides multiple indicators of learning and achieves validity and reliability with appropriate criteria for scoring various products).

Authentic Assessment can be used in a multimedia learning environment, which allows educators to examine students’ performance directly on a task equivalent to real-life roles rather than a proxy, computerized test items (Herrington & Herrington, 2006).

Jon Mueller from North Central College, Naperville, suggests thinking of authentic assessment development in terms of four questions to be asked (2012).

• What should students know and be able to do? (The list of knowledge and skills becomes your standard. )
• What indicates students have met these standards? (To determine if students have met these standards, you will design or select relevant authentic tasks .)
• What does good performance on this task look like? (To determine if students have performed well in the task, you will identify and look for characteristics of good performance called criteria.)
• How well did the students perform? (To discriminate among student performance across criteria, you will create a rubric. )

According to these questions, Mueller distinguishes four steps in creating an authentic assessment.

• Identify the Standards: The first step in any kind of assessment is to determine where you want your students to end up. An assessment cannot produce valid inferences unless it measures what it is intended to measure. And it cannot measure what it is intended to measure unless the goals/ standards have been clearly identified. The first step in Authentic Assessment is to determine standards. Standards are usually a one-sentence statement of what students should know and be able to do at a certain point. Standards should be observable, measurable, and written in a language understandable for students.
• Select an Authentic Task: After the standards are identified, the instructor should find a way student can demonstrate that they are fully capable of meeting the standard, that is to create an authentic task. An authentic task is an assignment given to students designed to assess their ability to apply standards-driven knowledge and skills to real-world challenges. The task is considered authentic when students are asked to build their own responses rather than selecting from given answers. The second factor for Authentic Assessment is the replication of real-world challenges. The well-formulated standard should spell out the task students need to complete for demonstrating the mastery of it.
• Identify the Criteria for the Task: After the authentic task is identified, the instructor should determine what the performance on that task will look like. This means he will determine the criteria for good performance on the task. The criteria will be used to evaluate how well the students completed the task and, thus, how well they have met the standards.
• Create the Rubric: The last step in constructing authentic assessment is the constructing of a rubric to measure student performance on the task. A rubric is a scoring scale used to assess student performance along with a task-specific set of criteria. The construction of the rubric begins from the set of criteria identified in Step 3. The instructor should not look for everything in every assessment. That is why in Step 3 the instructor should keep the number of criteria manageable. The rubric can be either analytic or holistic depending on whether the instructor wants to judge performance for each criterion separately or altogether.

Note : Descriptive note. Adapted from Mueller, J., (2012). Authentic assessment toolbox: Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm.

This section outlines how you might begin to think about adopting the aforementioned teaching strategy and the tools you might consider employing.

• D2L Brightspace: Instructors who are teaching online courses may want to implement Authentic Assessment into their online pedagogy. Different tools housed in D2L provide means and space to construct Authentic Assessment into their course, whether it is fully online or hybrid. The ways in which the elements of Authentic Assessment can be translated online may be: the uploading standards and criteria into the D2L content area, introducing an authentic task into the discussion forum, adding the rubric into the quizzes section of D2L.
• Screen Capture Software : Screen Capture Software can help to create an Authentic Assessment in two ways. The first way is that instructors can use screen capture to present an authentic task, clarify criteria and expectations, and set goals. This can be utilized especially in an online environment. The second way is that students can capture videos, showing their performance in completing the task or just using screen capture as one part of their Authentic Assessment project.
• Multimedia project: IT Solutions supports a number of tools and software that can help students and instructors do multimedia projects having Authentic Assessment in the roots. Working on multimedia projects may have students completing authentic tasks, such as making movies, doing virtual tours, digitizing data, creating timelines, and so on. Depending on the objectives and purpose of the project the task may vary, but the authentic nature of tasks will help students apply skills and knowledge in real-world situations and be assessed according to relevant performance.
• Games and Simulations: Games and simulations provide an environment where learners complete close-to-real world tasks and get evaluation for their performance, that is show their competency in a more authentic setting. Games usually provide more scaffolding at the beginning and less and less towards the end. But overall, they contain criteria according to which the participant’s performance is evaluated, which, as a component of Authentic Assessment, makes learning more effective. After an instructor has identified his standards he can use a game-developing software at  IT   Solutions  to develop a game for Authentic Assessment for  their  students.  

On the Web 

• Authentic Assessment Toolbox

Fook, C.Y., & Sidhu, G. K. (2010). Authentic assessment and pedagogical strategies in higher education.  Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (2), 153-161.

Herrington J., & Herrington A. (2006). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 17 (3), 305-322, DOI: 10.1080/0729436980170304. 

Mueller, J. (2008). The authentic assessment toolbox: Enhancing student learning through online faculty development. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1 , 1-7. http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/vol1_no1_mueller_001.pdf. 

Mueller, J. (2012). Authentic assessment toolbox: Retrieved from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm. 

Maverick Learning and Educational Applied Research Nexus Copyright © 2021 by Minnesota State University, Mankato is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Professional development
• Knowing the subject
• Teaching Knowledge database A-C

Authentic task

An authentic task is a task that native speakers of a language would do in everyday life.

When learners do an authentic task they are doing something that puts real communicative demands on them.

Example The learners need to plan a trip around their country for a group of students on an exchange trip.

In the classroom Authentic tasks are easy to identify as they are what we do with our own language all the time. Examples include phoning for information, preparing a party, planning a holiday, answering e-mail, preparing reports, holding a meeting and filling in application forms.

Further links:

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/six-types-task-tbl

Research and insight

Browse fascinating case studies, research papers, publications and books by researchers and ELT experts from around the world.

See our publications, research and insight

• Our Mission

How to Set Up Authentic Assignments in High School English

Assignments that align with standards and hone students’ critical thinking skills can boost their engagement in learning.

During my district’s teacher-led summer professional development, my colleagues and I often discussed the benefits of authentic learning, which helps create a culture of learning. With authentic activities and assessments, ELA students work on a variety of tasks that connect to the real  world. Authentic learning is effective in virtual and in-person classes, and increases student engagement while deepening learning. 

What makes an activity meaningful or authentic? Authentic activities mirror real-world tasks. They give students an opportunity to showcase their work to others, the community, other students, or parents. Authentic assignments have several defining characteristics. When considering and planning authentic assignments, think about how to incorporate the following:

• Collaboration 
• Real audience/ assessment 
• Interdisciplinary connections 
• Polished products
• Multiple solutions/ perspectives
• Real-life relevance 

Authentic learning has many benefits in the classroom. Students individualize their assignments, hone critical thinking skills, practice autonomy, innovate and adapt, and become agents of change. 

Core Authentic Learning

Authentic learning  assignments closely align with the Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Skills . The Common Core State Standards center on preparing students to read, write, listen, and speak across all content areas. The skills and knowledge that make up the standards prepare students for the real world. Here are some examples of the standards :

• Writing. 9-10.2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
• Writing. 9-10.6: Use technology, including the internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products, taking advantage of technology’s capacity to link to other information and to display information flexibly and dynamically.
• Reading Information Text. 9-10.8:  Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.

These standards serve as the foundation of the authentic tasks. In my planning, I always look at the language of the standard to help design the authentic task. For example, the writing standard encourages a variety of ways to use technology to publish student work. Additionally, the Speaking & Listening Standards encourage students to question, share, and expand.

A common misconception is that teachers lack the time and resources to implement authentic learning, but they can easily integrate mini-lessons covering specific skills. Teachers can focus mini-lessons or small group work on these standards while also providing independent time for students to work on their authentic projects.

5 Examples of Authentic Tasks

1. Blogging/vlogging: Students capture their thoughts, ideas, and questions while showcasing their work to a wide audience. They can blog about current events, or react to themes in a unit, or explore ideas from class. Keeping a blog or vlog helps students learn how to write for an audience and practice using their voice.

2. Community newsletters: Communication is a foundational skill and part of the Common Core. Creating a newsletter is a good example. In my school, students make newsletters about what’s going on in our classrooms to send home to their families. Additionally, using a template from Canva or Google Docs, students can create newsletters about what’s happening in the local community. Sending out the newsletters to others, such the local newspaper, school community, and parents, gives meaning to student writing.

3. Student presentations: Speaking and presenting are two critical skills for students to learn, and teachers can invite other classes, administrators, or even community members to watch the presentations. With an audience, students practice their public speaking and gain confidence. My favorite students’ presentations have been when our class re-created Shark Tank and invited community members to listen, provide feedback, and comment on the projects. If time is an issue, students can record presentations on platforms like Flipgrid or upload videos to Padlet or Google Sites.

4. Student-designed assessments: The classroom is always abuzz when students create tests and quizzes for each other. The competition among peers results in increased motivation and engagement, with students competing over who can make a harder test. In the past, I’ve provided students with the Common Core State Standards they needed to assess, which culminated in deeper learning for all students.

5. Competitions and contests: The New York Times and NPR both run student contests that are free to enter. The New York Times  offers a variety of options throughout the school year, and NPR  has a student podcast challenge each year on any topic. I also check local organizations and groups for a variety of essay or poetry contests.

Remember to focus on making learning fun, applicable, and rigorous. Authentic assignments are flexible for teachers, as students can work on them independently, in small groups, as end-of-unit assessments, or as whole-unit assessments. These learning opportunities create student platforms that will engage all students . Most important, meaningful assignments foster highly effective student collaboration and critical thinking for a lifetime of learning. Authentic tasks help prepare students for the expectations of tomorrow. 

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, advice on using authentic assessment in teaching.

Authentic assessments attempt to demonstrate what a student actually learns in class rather than the student’s ability to do well on traditional tests and quizzes. Many have claimed this type of assessment an excellent means of evaluating a student’s knowledge of subject matter.

Authentic assessment in action

Educators define authentic assessment as an approach to measure student performance in a direct, relevant way to see if the learning objectives were met. Educators might use projects such as reports, journals, speeches, videos and interviews with the students to measure their understanding of the subject material.

For example, an authentic assessment on the expedition of Lewis and Clark would grade students on journals they wrote imagining themselves as the explorers, or have them draw a map showing the route which Lewis and Clark traveled.

The goal of authentic assessment is to enhance the learning process and help students gain knowledge while completing tasks that are beneficial to their “real-world” experiences. Unlike taking an exam, students work on the authentic assessment over a period of time and they are not limited to filling in bubbles on scannable test papers to demonstrate what they know. Authentic assessments let students show what they are really capable of without the pressure of having to perform well on a traditional test, so they are great options for students who suffer from test anxiety.

Why should educators use authentic assessments?

Authentic assessments help students analyze what they’ve learned and apply it their own experience. They don’t have to memorize facts for a test, so they can use their creativity to show what they’ve learned. For older students who can use a combination of writing and speaking, authentic assessment helps them refine their writing and oral presentation skills. Authentic assessment works great for groups, so students can get experience collaborating on projects with their peers.

Tips for using authentic assessments

Do it often: While it takes time and effort to plan and carry out authentic assessments, they are very rewarding for both the student and the teacher. When teachers first begin using them with a new class, they should expect some challenges and work through them as best they can. With repeated use of authentic assessment, teachers and students will become more comfortable with the process and come to enjoy the satisfaction that comes from completing holistic projects.

Break it down: Many students get overwhelmed easily, so teachers should help them out by breaking down the project into many small steps. For younger students, steps should be assigned to a time line, while students in middle school and above can schedule the tasks on their own and learn about self-discipline at the same time.

Don’t dwell on rules: When creating authentic tasks, educators must remember that there is no one right way to do them. They should approach it with the same creativity with which they expect their students to complete the work.

Go backwards: As teachers set out to design the lessons, they should first start with the assessment and what they want the students to demonstrate at the end. By knowing which objectives they want to see students meet, they can design their lessons accordingly.

Cater to students’ interests: Teachers should try to match the assessments to the interests of the students. This won’t work in every situation, but think of how students will really jump into their work when tech-savvy kids get to create a video or a website showing what they’ve learned or music-minded youngsters can share their knowledge via lyrics.

Never underestimate the power of reflection: Have students reflect on the project and assessment once it’s completed. This will help them to further synthesize what they have learned and it will give teachers an inside look into what the children thought of the project. Additionally, students will feel glad to know that the teacher cares about their opinions.

You may also like to read

• Advice for Teaching Word Processing
• Authentic Assessment Methods for Mathematics
• Advice on Teaching Through Games
• Advice for Teaching Poetry through Song Lyrics
• Advice on the Best Practices for Teaching Special Education
• 3 Tips for Assessment of ELL Students

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Assessment Tools ,  Leadership and Administration

• Alternative Teaching Certificates
• Summer Professional Development for Teachers ...
• Master's in Career and Technical Education

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Authentic Learning

In education, the term authentic learning refers to a wide variety of educational and instructional techniques focused on connecting what students are taught in school to real-world issues, problems, and applications. The basic idea is that students are more likely to be interested in what they are learning, more motivated to learn new concepts and skills, and better prepared to succeed in college, careers, and adulthood if what they are learning mirrors real-life contexts, equips them with practical and useful skills, and addresses topics that are relevant and applicable to their lives outside of school. For related discussions, see 21st century skills , relevance , and rigor .

An “authentic” way to teach the scientific method, for example, would be to ask students to develop a hypothesis about how ecosystems work that is based on first-hand observations of a local natural habitat, then have them design and conduct an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. After the experiment is completed, students might then write up, present, and defend their findings to a panel of actual scientists. In contrast, a “less authentic” way to teach the scientific method would be to have students read about the concept in a textbook, memorize the prescribed process, and then take a multiple-choice test to determine how well they remember it.

In the “authentic” learning example above, students “learn by doing,” and they acquire the foundational skills, knowledge, and understanding that working scientists actually need and use in their profession. In this case, students would also learn related skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, formal scientific observation, note taking, research methods, writing, presentation techniques, and public speaking, for example. In the “less authentic” learning situation, students acquire knowledge largely for purposes of getting a good grade on a test. As a result, students may be less likely to remember what they learned because the concept remains abstract, theoretical, or disconnected from first-hand experience. And since students were never required to use what they learned in a real-life situation, teachers won’t be able to determine if students can translate what they have learned into the practical skills, applications, and habits of mind that would be useful in life outside of school—such as in a future job, for example.

Another principle of authentic learning is that it mirrors the complexities and ambiguities of real life. On a multiple-choice science test there are “right” answers and “wrong” answers determined by teachers and test developers. But when it comes to actual scientific theories and findings, for example, there are often many potentially correct answers that may be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to unequivocally prove or disprove. For this reason, authentic learning tends to be designed around open-ended questions without clear right or wrong answers, or around complex problems with many possible solutions that could be investigated using a wide variety of methods. Authentic learning is also more likely to be “interdisciplinary,” given that life, understanding, and knowledge are rarely compartmentalized into subject areas, and as adults students will have to apply multiple skills or domains of knowledge in any given educational, career, civic, or life situation. Generally speaking, authentic learning is intended to encourage students to think more deeply, raise hard questions, consider multiple forms of evidence, recognize nuances, weigh competing ideas, investigate contradictions, or navigate difficult problems and situations.

In perhaps its purest expression, authentic learning culminates in students making some form of genuinely useful contribution to their community or to a field of study. The winners of the annual Google Science Fair , for example, would exemplify this ideal. In 2012, the Grand Prize winner, 17-year-old Brittany Wenger, created a software application—an “artificial neural network”—that successfully diagnosed breast cancer in 99% of tested cases and that may potentially be put into use in hospitals in the future.

While few students will develop better ways to diagnose cancer, schools create authentic learning experiences in a variety of ways. For example, a science class might study water conservation, conduct an analysis of their school’s water usage, investigate potential ways the school might reduce its usage, and then present a water-conservation proposal to the school board that includes a variety of recommendations—e.g., posting signs in bathrooms encouraging students not to leave water running, installing low-flow faucets with automatic on-off sensors, using rain barrels below drain spouts, planting drought-resistant plants in the schoolyard that are watered using the collected rainwater, etc. Once these solutions are put into practice, students might conduct observations to calculate how much water the school conserves on a daily, weekly, or annual basis, and then develop a website, infographics, or videos to share the information with school leaders and the broader community.

Authentic learning is closely related to the concept and theory of “constructivist teaching,” and in some contexts it may be used synonymously. For a more detailed discussion, see the Wikipedia entry for constructivist teaching methods .

As a school-reform concept, authentic learning is related philosophically and pedagogically to strategies such as personalized learning , community-based learning , and project-based learning , among others. In addition, instructional strategies such as demonstrations of learning , capstone project , personal learning plans , and portfolios may be associated with authentic learning.

Authentic learning is also a central concept in educational reforms that call for schools to place a greater emphasis on skills that are used in all subject areas and that students can apply in all educational, career, and civic settings throughout their lives. It’s also a central concept in reforms that question how teachers have traditionally taught and what students should be learning—such as the 21st century skills movement, which broadly calls on schools to create academic programs and learning experiences that equip students with the most essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions they will need to be successful in the collegiate programs and modern workplaces of the 21st century. As higher education and job requirements become more competitive, complex, and technical, proponents argue, students will need the kinds of skills that authentic-learning experiences can provide to successfully navigate the modern world, excel in challenging careers, and process increasingly complex information.

Calls for “more authentic learning” in education are, generally speaking, a response to the perception that many public schools pay insufficient attention to developing the intellectual abilities, practical skills, work habits, and character traits required for success in adult life. In other words, the concept of “authentic learning” intersects with larger social debates about what public schools should be teaching and what the purpose of public education should be. For example: Is the purpose of public education to get students to pass a test or to earn a high school diploma? Or is the purpose to prepare students for success in life after graduation, including postsecondary education and modern jobs or career paths? Advocates of authentic learning may contend that the purpose of public education is to look beyond test scores or graduation rates—success in school—to the knowledge, skills, and character traits students actually need to succeed in adult life—success outside of school. For related discussions, see career-ready and college-ready .

In addition, authentic learning may also intersect with a variety of ongoing debates about how and what schools should teach. Critics may question whether authentic-learning experiences can cover enough academic content in the core subject areas to ensure that students acquire a broad, well-rounded knowledge base. Critics may also argue that authentic learning, and related instructional strategies, may displace more traditional yet effective forms of teaching, fail to equip students with “the basics,” or lead to disorderly classrooms, among other possible arguments. Advocates would contend, however, that these criticisms are unfounded, and that a well-planned curriculum  built around authentic-learning experiences can cover all the academic subjects and concepts that students need (unless the learning experiences are poorly designed and executed, of course). In some cases, criticism arises in response to a negative experience with authentic learning or from an insufficient understanding of the concept.

Authentic learning may also place more burdens—both logistical and instructional—on teachers. For example, authentic learning may require significantly more planning and preparation, and teachers may need to acquire new and more sophisticated instructional techniques or substantially revise lesson plans they have used for years. Authentic learning may also introduce more logistical complexities, particularly when learning experiences take place outside of the school or classroom (in schools, even seemingly minor logistical tasks, such as making travel arrangements or securing parental permissions, can take up a lot of time). For a related discussion, see learning pathway .

Alphabetical Search

Authentic Learning Environments

• First Online: 01 January 2013

Cite this chapter

• Jan Herrington 5 ,
• Thomas C. Reeves 6 &
• Ron Oliver 7  

34k Accesses

144 Citations

2 Altmetric

Authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that situates learning tasks in the context of future use. Over the last two decades, authentic learning designs have captured the imaginations of innovative educators who see the approach as a means to enable students to develop robust knowledge that transfers to real-world practice. Authentic learning has its foundations in the theory of situated cognition, together with other pedagogical approaches developed over the last two decades, such as anchored instruction. It offers an alternative instructional model based upon sound principles for the design and implementation of complex and realistic learning tasks. The technologies associated with technology-based learning provide ideal conditions for the implementation of the approach, both in blended and fully online courses. New Web-based technologies and mobile devices provide affordances—as both cognitive tools and delivery platforms—for dissemination of polished and professional authentic learning experiences. As educational institutions increasingly embrace the internet and Web-supported learning, the potential exists for authentic learning environments to be used widely to improve student learning. This chapter reviews the seminal and recent literature in the field, and provides a model of authentic learning for the design of learning environments across educational sectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Google Scholar  

Angus, M., & Gray, J. (2002). Description of a situated learning approach in a research methods postgraduate subject. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD13/

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (2), 37–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barton, K., McKellar, P., & Maharg, P. (2007). Authentic fictions: Simulation, professionalism and legal learning. Clinical Law Review, 14 , 143–193.

Bonk, C. J. (2009, October 5). Using shared online video to anchor instruction: YouTube and beyond. Faculty Focus . Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional-design/using-shared-online-video-to-anchor-instruction-youtube-and-beyond/

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). London: Kogan Page.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brickell, G., & Herrington, J. (2006). Scaffolding learners in authentic problem-based e-learning environments: The geography challenge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 22 (4), 531–547. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet522/brickell.html

*Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 10–15.

Callison, D., & Lamb, A. (2004). Authentic learning. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 21 (4), 34–39.

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3 , 21–29.

Chang, C.-W., Lee, J.-H., Wang, C.-Y., & Chen, G.-D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers in Education, 55 (4), 1572–1578. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023 .

Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (2), 53–69.

Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (6), 755–780.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2–10.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 52–70.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development . Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Collis, C., Foth, M., & Schroeter, R. (2009). The Brisbane media map: Participatory design and authentic learning to link students and industry. Learning Inquiry, 3 (3), 143–155.

Deale, C. S., Elders, E., & Jacques, P. H. (2010). The Appalachian Growers’ Fair: An authentic learning, community engagement, sustainable tourism project. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10 (2), 143–162. doi: 10.1080/15313221003792001 .

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education . New York, NY: Touchstone.

Diamond, S., Middleton, A., & Mather, R. (2011). A cross-faculty simulation model for authentic learning. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48 (1), 25–35.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Fitzsimmons, J. (2006). Speaking snake: Authentic learning and the study of literature. In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 162–171). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 , 390–393.

Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (3), 67–86. doi: 10.1007/bf02504676 .

Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2008). Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder: Student and teacher perceptions of assessment authenticity. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 60 (4), 401–412.

Herrington, J. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments . Unpublished PhD dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth.

*Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (Eds.). (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education . Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). What is an authentic learning environment? In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 68–76). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

*Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 23–48.

*Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology , 19 (1), 59–71. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/res/herrington.html

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19 (1), 80–99. doi: 10.1007/BF03033421 .

*Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning . London: Routledge.

*Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16 (1), 3–29.

*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 (pp. 87–108). Heidelberg: Springer.

Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2007). Learning to solve complex scientific problems . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kantor, R. J., Waddington, T., & Osgood, R. E. (2000). Fostering the suspension of disbelief: The role of authenticity in goal-based scenarios. Interactive Learning Environments, 8 (3), 211–227.

Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching . New York, NY: Routledge.

Kemmis, S. (1985). Action research and the politics of reflection. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 139–163). London: Kogan Page.

Keppell, M., Gunn, J., Hegarty, K., Madden, V., O’Connor, V., Kerse, N., et al. (2003). Using authentic patient interactions to teach cervical screening to medical students. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), World Conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1439–1446). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35 (3), 207–256.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75–86.

Knotts, G., Henderson, L., Davidson, R. A., & Swain, J. D. (2009). The search for authentic practice across the disciplinary divide. College Teaching, 57 (4), 188–196.

*Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23 (3), 231–244.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15–21.

*Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Approaches that work : How authentic learning is transforming higher education . ELI Report No. 5. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative.

*Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century : An overview . ELI Report No. 1. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative.

Luigi, D.-P., Tortell, R., Morie, J., & Dozois, A. (2006). Effects of priming on behavior in virtual environments . Retrieved August 8, 2010, from http://projects.ict.usc.edu/see/publications/Priming_Civilian.pdf

Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 153–184.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Educational design research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elan, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), The handbook of research on educational and communications technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

*McLellan, H. (Ed.). (1996). Situated learning perspectives . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Merrienboer, J., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2005). The pedagogical use of information and communication technology in education: A Dutch perspective. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21 , 407–415.

Meyers, N., & Nulty, D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (5), 565–577. doi: 10.1080/02602930802226502 .

Morrissey, P. (2006). Not just a name on the wall . Retrieved August, 2010, from http://www.notjustanameonawall.com/

Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104 (4), 280–312.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50 (7), 8–12.

Oh, E. (2011). Collaborative group work in an online learning environment: A design research study . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.

Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2000). Using situated learning as a design strategy for Web-based learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 178–191). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Oliver, R., Herrington, J., Herrington, A., & Reeves, T. (2008). Representing authentic learning designs supporting the development of online communities of learners. Journal of Learning Design, 2 (2), 1–21.

Palmer, P. J., Zajonc, A., & Scribner, M. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 277–303). New York, NY: Springer.

Pellegrino, J. W., Hickey, D., Heath, A., Rewey, K., Vye, N. J., & the CTGV. (1991). Assessing the outcomes of an innovative instructional program : The 1990 – 1991 implementation of “ The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury Program ” (Technical Report No. 91-1). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Learning & Technology Center.

*Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46 (3), 53–65.

Petraglia, J. (2009). The importance of being authentic: Persuasion, narration, and dialogue in health communication and education. Health Communication, 24 (2), 176–185.

Reeves, T. C., Laffey, J. M., & Marlino, M. R. (1997). Using technology as cognitive tools: Research and praxis. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Eds.), What works and why: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 269–275). Perth, WA: Curtin University.

Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62 (1), 73–77.

Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16 (9), 13–20.

Rule, A. (2006). The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1–10.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Saxe, G. B. (1988). Candy selling and math learning. Educational Researcher, 17 (6), 14–21.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, N. L. (1987). Toward the justification of claims in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 309–314.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 24–33.

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure . New York, NY: Routledge.

van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research . London: Routledge.

Whitehead, A. N. (1932). The aims of education and other essays . London: Ernest Benn.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wigginton, B. E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience . New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Wilson, J. R., & Schwier, R. A. (2009). Authenticity in the process of learning about instructional design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology , 35 (2). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/520/253

Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Implementing authentic tasks in web-based learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 2007 (3), 36–43.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported in part by the Australian Research Council, the Australian-American Fulbright Commission, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, and Murdoch University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Perth, WA, 6150, Australia

Jan Herrington

Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, The University of Georgia, 604 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, 30602-7144, USA

Thomas C. Reeves

Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Perth, WA, 6027, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Herrington .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

J. Michael Spector

W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

M. David Merrill

, Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic Learning Environments. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32

Published : 22 May 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3184-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3185-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Designing and Using Authentic Tasks and Projects for Meaningful Learning and Assessment

Translating Student Voice into Student Action: How to Foster Civics in Your Classroom with the Students Taking Action Together Strategies

Feedback That Matters: Tools and Strategies for Making It Happen

Teaching with Empathy: Transform Your Practice by Understanding and Validating Your Students' Needs and Your Own

Help BIPOC Students End the Year with Positive Literacy Experiences

In this Webinar

Performance tasks and projects let students engage in deep and authentic learning and assessment that relies on applying disciplinary knowledge and engaging the 21st century skills—critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration—valued in the wider world. Classrooms that employ these experiences—or ideally are designed around them—stress using unique learning situations or contexts. Although these tasks and projects hold immense promise to engage students in meaningful learning, they come with their own challenges to design and implement.

About the presenter

Jay McTighe has a varied career in education. He served as director of the Maryland Assessment Consortium, a collaboration of school districts working to develop and share formative performance assessments and helped lead standards-based reforms at the Maryland State Department of Education. Prior to that, he helped lead Maryland’s standards-based reforms, including the development of performance-based statewide assessments.

Well known for his work with thinking skills, McTighe has coordinated statewide efforts to develop instructional strategies, curriculum models, and assessment procedures for improving the quality of student thinking. He has extensive experience as a classroom teacher, resource specialist, program coordinator, and in professional development, as a regular speaker at national, state, and district conferences and workshops.

McTighe is an accomplished author, having coauthored more than a dozen books, including the award-winning and best-selling Understanding by Design® series with Grant Wiggins. He has written more than 50 articles and book chapters and has been published in leading journals, including Educational Leadership (ASCD) and Education Week .

UNDERSTANDING BY DESIGN® and UbD® are registered trademarks of Backward Design, LLC used under license.

Kristina Doubet is a professor in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and Mathematics Education at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, where she has received the Distinguished Teacher Award, the Madison Scholar Award, and the Sarah Miller Luck Endowed Professorship for Excellence in Education. Her research interests include standards-based grading, flexible grouping, integrated ELA instruction, and innovative instruction for English Learners.

Doubet spent 10 years as a teacher and 20 years as an instructional coach and a curriculum developer. As a coach, Doubet partnered with over 100 schools, districts, and organizations around initiatives related to differentiated instruction, the Understanding by Design® framework, classroom assessment, digital learning, and classroom management and grouping. In addition to numerous journal articles, book chapters, and professional digital pieces, she has published five books including The Flexibly Grouped Classroom: How to Organize Learning for Equity and Growth and Designing Authentic Performance Tasks and Projects: Tools for Meaningful Learning and Assessment , of which she is coauthor, along with Jay McTighe and Eric M. Carbaugh.

Eric M. Carbaugh, PhD , is a full professor in the Department of Middle, Secondary, and Mathematics Education at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, where he instructs both undergraduate and graduate courses. As an educational consultant, he has worked with teachers and leaders at more than 100 schools and districts on a variety of topics related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

He is a coauthor of Designing Authentic Performance Tasks and Projects and the quick reference guide Principles and Practices for Effective Blended Learning . He has teaching experience at both the elementary and secondary levels and serves as the journal editor and a board member for the Virginia ASCD chapter.

Topics covered

Designing authentic performance tasks and projects: tools for meaningful learning and assessment.

Aimed at the growing number of educators who are looking to move beyond covering the curriculum, Designing Authentic Performance Tasks and Projects provides a comprehensive guide to ensuring students' deeper learning—in which they can transfer their knowledge, skills, and understandings to the world beyond the classroom. Readers will learn how to

Latest Webinars

Strengthening School Leadership: Effective and Empowering Professional Learning Opportunities for Principals

The Whole Child Approach: Insights from Leaders on its Impact on Students, Teachers, and Districts

Becoming Stress Wise at School

Coaching for Equity and Efficacy

How to Use ChatGPT: Time-Saving Tips for Busy Educators

Tell Your Story: Teaching Students to Become World-Changing Thinkers and Writers

7 Steps to Lead Inclusive School Transformation

Courageous Leadership Where We Live, Learn, and Earn: A Restorative Approach to Interracial Conversations About Race and Other Identity Topics

SEL Programs at the Middle and High School Level: A Practical Guide for Schools and Districts

Teach Happier: Small Shifts; Big Gifts

The Six Priorities

Learn and connect with peers, join us for one of our upcoming live events to continue learning while having the opportunity to connect with educators from around the world, to process a transaction with a purchase order please send to [email protected].

Home » Learning Stories » Authentic Assessment – What, Why, and Examples

Authentic Assessment – What, Why, and Examples

• May 16, 2022

Traditional early childhood assessments focus on what children can do in specific domains at a particular time. These assessments often rely on direct observations of children’s skills and abilities to make inferences about their learning.

However, recent years have seen a shift towards more authentic forms of assessment. This type of assessment concerns what children can do in real-world contexts and how they can apply their learning in new and different situations.

Besides being a more comprehensive approach, the authentic assessment also reflects more profoundly and accurately on a child’s progress. But, more importantly, it eliminates the limitations posed by the conventional checklist assessment.

What is Authentic Assessment?

The most concise and apt authentic assessment definition is that it is an approach to assessment that focuses on measuring how well students can perform tasks that are meaningful and relevant to real-world experiences. In an authentic assessment, the emphasis is on what students can do with their knowledge rather than memorizing facts or reproducing information from lectures. To be considered authentic, an assessment task must meet specific criteria. It must be:

• Purposeful: The task must be connected to a real-world problem or scenario.
• In-depth: The task must require students to use their knowledge and skills to complete it.
• Complex: It must be open-ended and allow for different solutions.

Components of Authentic Assessment

Authentic assessment relies heavily on observation. Therefore, the teacher regularly observes the student and reflects on their progress through a learning story.

Every story showcases the teacher’s observation of the children, focusing on events that contribute to the child’s growth. At Educa, the following elements comprise learning stories used for authentic assessment.

Framework Selection

The DRDP or Desired Results Development Continuum is one of the most popular frameworks used for authentic assessment in early childhood education. It is a comprehensive, research-based assessment system that allows educators to track children’s development and progress across multiple domains.

The DRDP has three versions:

• DRDP is aligned with California’s Early Learning and Development Standards
• DRDP-Preschool is aligned with the state’s former preschool learning foundations
• DRDP-Kindergarten is aligned with California’s Language Arts and Mathematics Content Standards.

Other popular frameworks for authentic assessment include the Reggio Emilia Approach and the Project Approach. Educa’s DRDP rating tool allows teachers to use the respective framework for efficiently reporting the child’s progress.

Learning Stories

Teachers use learning stories to capture and document a child’s learning experiences over time. 

A learning story includes the following elements:

• A description of the event being documented
• Observations of the child’s behavior and attitudes
• Teacher’s reflections on the child’s learning
• The context in which the event took place

Educa Academy provides paid training on learning stories and professional development courses led by experts from around the world.

Linking to Framework Measures

Essentially, the goal of learning stories is for them to be linked to domains or measures of the chosen frameworks. For instance, the Essential View subsection of DRDP has 29 measures. Learning stories should be able to show evidence of the child’s progress concerning these measures. In addition, it allows educators to have a more holistic understanding of where the child is developmentally and what areas they need support.

When writing a learning story, it is essential to use language accessible to both parents and administrators. In addition, the focus should be on the child’s strengths rather than on their weaknesses. Since it can be tricky for teachers to use MS Word or Google Docs to link learning stories with framework measures, it’s best to use an online learning story solution like that from Educa. In addition, since educators can instantly share reports with parents, there’s plenty of room for real-time input and collaboration.

The final step in the authentic assessment process is to compile all gathered data and observations into a report. The report should show the child’s progress over time and identify where they may need additional support. As a DRDP assessment vendor, Educa strives to create customized snapshots for every state in North America, allowing teachers to visualize how closely they’ve covered the framework measures. With Educa’s offering, teachers will be able to export customized reports for different frameworks or format them to be printed later.

Characteristics of Authentic Assessment

Early childhood educators have long been using authentic assessment to track children’s progress and development. However, the term “authentic assessment” has only recently become popular in educational circles. Here are some of its essential characteristics:

Observation

The principal characteristic of authentic assessment is that it is observation-based. It means that educators observe the child’s behavior and performance in order to make inferences about their development. This is in contrast to standardized tests, which rely on the child’s ability to answer questions correctly. With authentic assessment, there is no right or wrong answer – instead, the focus is on the child’s process of learning.

Parent Involvement

In authentic assessment, caregivers or parents are also involved in the process. This is because they can provide valuable insights into the child’s development, which the educators may not be able to observe directly. In addition, parent involvement helps to ensure that the assessment is genuinely authentic and accurately reflects the child’s abilities and development.

Identification

Both the educators and the caregivers identify particular activity-specific and routine-specific behaviors of the child to assess. The focus is on the child’s daily activities and routines rather than on one-time events or tasks. As a result, it helps to provide a more accurate picture of the child’s development over time. There’s a keen focus on the child’s behavior, such as interests, strengths, and preferences. For instance, educators will observe how a child interacts with other students. Meanwhile, parents will report the child’s behavior at home.

Interpretation

After the behaviors have been identified, they are then interpreted in terms of the child’s development. This interpretation is based on the educator’s professional knowledge and experience. It helps provide an accurate understanding of the child’s abilities and development. Authentic assessment is systematic, which means there is a structured process for observing and documenting the child’s progress. It helps ensure that the assessment is reliable and valid.

Outcomes of Authentic Assessments

Authentic assessments in early childhood are meant to provide educators with a more thorough understanding of children’s abilities, interests, and learning styles. Unlike standardized tests, which often focus on one specific skill or content area, authentic assessments consider the whole child. Furthermore, because authentic assessments are designed to assess how well children can apply what they have learned to real-world situations, they are often seen as being more valuable than traditional assessments. Moreover, educators can use different types of authentic assessment to understand the following.

• Behavioral Interactions: With an authentic assessment, educators can observe children’s behavior and interactions with others. This type of assessment can provide valuable information about a child’s social skills, communication abilities, and overall dispositions. While some may say it’s not as helpful in an educational setting, it can definitely provide useful information to a child’s clinician.
• Cognitive Processes: Another way to assess children’s learning is to focus on their cognitive processes. Some ideal tasks include having children explain their thinking, solve problems, or make predictions.
• Content Knowledge: In addition to assessing children’s behavior and cognitive processes, educators can also use authentic assessments to measure content knowledge. It might involve tasks such as asking children to identify pictures of different emotions or explain the function of various objects.
• Physical Development: Authentic assessments can also monitor children’s physical development. For instance, the child can be asked to stand on one foot or walk heel-to-toe in a straight line.
• Creative Expressions: Teachers may also assess children’s learning through their creative expressions. They could ask children to draw a picture of their family.

Advantages of Authentic Assessment Over Traditional Assessment Types in Early Childhood

Authentic assessment has several advantages over traditional forms of assessment. First, it allows children to demonstrate their accurate level of understanding and ability. Educators can then provide targeted instruction that meets the child’s needs with this information.

Second, an authentic assessment provides a more well-rounded picture of the child. It can prove to be very helpful in identifying the child’s cognitive approach, level of expression, and interaction with surrounding people and objects.

Third, authentic assessments are often more valuable than traditional assessments because they assess how well children can apply what they have learned to real-world situations. It is imperative in early childhood when children begin to learn how to transfer their knowledge and skills to new situations.

Finally, authentic assessments tend to be more engaging for both the child and the educator. They often involve active tasks that allow the child to explore and experiment. Such assessments can foster a love of learning in the child and help build a strong foundation for future academic success.

Authentic Assessment Examples

There are several different ways in which educators can go about conducting authentic assessments. One standard method is to have children complete tasks or projects related to the material they have been learning in class.

For example, if a child has been studying animals, they may be asked to create a diorama depicting the natural habitat of one animal. Another example would be if a child has been learning about different types of rocks, they could be asked to create a rock collection.

In both of these cases, the child must use what they have learned to complete the assessment. In addition, teachers can use inferences from these activities to create learning stories for their students.

Suppose you ask your students to create the natural habitat of an animal they learned about last week. Here’s how you may write a learning story about a child (let’s call her Jane).

Jane or Tarzan?

Jane, I must say you did a fantastic job with your diorama on birds’ natural habitat! The level of detail you put into it was awe-inspiring.

I could tell that you had put a lot of thought into every aspect of it, from how the trees were arranged to how the animals were interacting with each other. It was clear that you really understood what you were doing.

My favorite bit had to be the part where you had the bird eating the worm. It was so realistic! I could almost hear the bird chirping.

Well done, Jane. I’m very impressed with your work.

Such a story will be a delight to read not only for Jane but for her parents too. In the end, you can add a comment section and speak to the parents directly.

Jane did an amazing job on her project about bird habitats. She showed a clear understanding of the material and was able to apply it in a creative way. Great work, Jane!

Observations for a Learning Story

Let’s continue with the same example and explore which observations allowed you to write such a great learning story for Jane. Here are some of the things you might have observed:

• Level of Detail: It shows that Jane was able to understand and apply the material she learned about birds and their habitats.
• Inference: Jane was very engaged in the task and put a lot of thought into it.
• Creativity: The way Jane arranged the animals and the trees in her diorama showed creativity and imagination.
• Realism: Jane’s representation of the predator-prey relationship between the bird and the worm was very realistic.

When writing a learning story , it is crucial to focus on the child’s strengths. In this case, you might want to focus on how well Jane understood the material and was able to apply it creatively.

By virtue of the authentic assessment definition, the resulting learning story should be valued by the child’s parents/caregivers, clinicians, and even the teacher who’ll teach them next year. Simply put, it should provide an insight into the child’s capabilities.

Channel Authentic Assessments Through Learning Stories

Regardless of the types of authentic assessment, you can use learning stories to report on the child’s progress. The Educa Platform allows you to make the assessment personal, observational, and child-centered. Plus, you can use customizable templates and built-in frameworks to create stories that become keepsakes for the children and their parents.

Related Posts

​​Educa Champions Global Early Childhood Education with a Unified Vision: “Creating Inspired Explorers”

WELLINGTON, 7 February 2024 – Educa, a leader in early childhood education, today announced a major shift in its educational

5 Proven Quiet Activities for Nap Time

Creating a Peaceful Preschool Environment In the dynamic realm of early childhood education, understanding the diverse needs of young learners

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best browsing experience.

• Write a Great Authentic Task

Great authentic tasks incorporate collaboration, real-world problems, community connections, and self-directed learning.

Project-based Learning engages students in projects that allow them to construct their own knowledge and develop authentic products while dealing with real-world issues. In order to challenge students on this level, it is helpful to frame their work with an authentic task.

Authentic tasks require students to demonstrate proficiency by applying existing knowledge to solve a real-world problem.

Authentic tasks create a bridge between what is learned in the classroom and why this knowledge is important to the world outside of the classroom. Authentic tasks are not meant to replace current classroom practice, but to provide another strategy to meet learning goals and measure student understanding.

What does an authentic task look like?

Consider immigration. An authentic task that addresses the essential question – “What factors contribute to successful relocation of new immigrants?” – should require students to apply their knowledge about past immigrants and the immigration process to solve a problem. For example:

Immigration Station

In the past four years, your city has had an influx of over 10,000 immigrants. Some of them have found work and are settling in, while others are having problems with assimilation and cultural differences. Due to your vast expertise on immigration, the mayor has asked you to join a newly-formed task force for successful immigrant relocation. Before the next budget is formed, the task force must devise a plan that will help these new immigrants relocate successfully in your city. Your plan might address housing, education, language barriers, cultural pride, job training, and health care.

Your task force will make a 15 minute presentation of what needs to be done. You should also have a list of expenses and a budget for implementing your plan.

Writing an authentic task is not an easy process, and your first few may be time consuming. You might choose to begin by looking on the Web and asking other teachers for samples. It is much easier to create authentic tasks once you have seen many examples.

When you are ready to write on your own authentic tasks, consider these ideas and questions.

Authentic or Real-World

The authentic, or real-world, nature of the task frames student work in a relevant and interesting way. The world of work provides many contexts for authentic tasks, but real-world connections can also be daily activities such as buying a house, determining nutritious meals for a family, and hosting a family celebration.

By requiring students to solve a real-world problem, an authentic task creates a bridge between the content learned in the classroom and why this knowledge is important in the world outside of it. Much of what we ask students to complete in the classroom is contrived. Life in the real world doesn’t usually ask you to choose from provided options A, B, C, or D.

An authentic task can help you make classroom work relevant to students by asking them to make these real-world decisions.

Consider these questions to help you give the task real-world relevance:

• Who might be faced with a problem that requires this knowledge?
• Where might they work?
• How would knowing this information affect a person’s life or work?

An authentic task should include the creation of some sort of product. Again, rarely in the world of work does an employee create something for no reason at all or complete a worksheet that someone else will never utilize.

What kind of product should students make? As you are exploring a task, think about a person in the real world who would complete this task. Where would they work? What would they make? The definition of a “product” is quite broad. For example:

• A lawyer makes an argument.
• A politician creates a position paper.
• A graphic designer creates an ad campaign.
• An environmental scientist helps to create policy.
• A dancer completes a performance.
• A director puts together a movie.

The creation of a product also provides students with an opportunity to demonstrate their learning. Because of this, you will need to make sure that the product created will demonstrate mastery of the topic and understanding of key concepts.

• What kind of product can students create to address this problem or situation?
• Who is the audience for this product?
• What value does this product have?

Interdisciplinary Study

Authentic tasks, by definition, involve study from a variety of different disciplines. The essential question helps to facilitate this by both requiring inquiry and work from within many different disciplines, and also by linking disciplines and blurring the lines between them.

As students work to answer the essential question, they draw from their experiences in a variety of disciplines and stretch their knowledge and understanding of many subjects. Students also benefit from connecting to learning that goes beyond the traditional walls of the school building. The world literally becomes the students’ learning space.

• What different subject areas are involved?
• Can we work with a different subject area teacher?
• Collaboration

Working in collaborative, heterogeneous teams prepares students for modern citizenship and work, as most complex communal, social, and workplace problems are solved by groups of individuals. Working in teams on complex problems requires skills and expertise, helping students identify their own strengths and weaknesses, and driving them to achieve their team goals.

• Can we collaborate in this classroom?
• Can we collaborate with another classroom?

Self-Direction

We often tell students what we want them to know; however, we often do not tell them why. Students’ involvement in their schoolwork increases significantly when they are taught why they are learning, and how these concepts can be used outside the classroom. Questioning how a classroom activity is relevant to the students who will be completing it is the first step on the long journey of developing a student-centered learning environment.

In answering the project’s essential question, students will be probing concepts and ideas in great detail and will not all be studying the exact same topic at the same time. A student-centered learning environment requires students to determine what and how information is learned. This improves their self-assessment skills, responsibility, and meta-cognition (learning how they learn). An authentic task also requires students to be responsible for locating the information and finding the answer on their own, with you as a resource or “guide on the side”.

Students, whether exploring on their own or in a group, are likely to investigate and study beyond the knowledge of their teacher. In this case, the teacher and students learn simultaneously and the students may enjoy the role of teaching their teacher. This, combined with the use of technology, creates an environment where it is impossible for the teacher to be the “sage on the stage”.

• Does the task allow students to choose the type of product they want to make?
• Does the task require students to become experts on the topic?

Reviewing Your Task

It may be impossible to include all of these recommendations for every task, but keeping them in mind will help maximize learning during the project. As your students complete your task, there will be many opportunities for discussion. Use these to help you expand the scope and make next year’s project even better!

by Melinda Kolk

Melinda Kolk ( @melindak ) is the Editor of Creative Educator and the author of Teaching with Clay Animation . She has been helping educators implement project-based learning and creative technologies like clay animation into classroom teaching and learning for the past 15 years.

Project-based Learning Professional Development

Creative Educator can help you bring project-based learning to your school.

• What is PBL and why do it?
• Make It Matter! Move it from projects to project-based learning
• Developing the questions for project-based learning
• It's the Process, Not the Product
• Assessing Project Work
• Formative assessment during project-based learning
• PBL and Presentations of Learning

Bring project-based learning to your school

Make It Matter! Move from projects to project-based learning

The glorious, wonderful, empty page

Eight elements of great project design

Lesson: Choose Your Own Adventure

More sites to help you find success in your classroom

Share your ideas, imagination, and understanding through writing, art, voice, and video.

Rubric Maker

Create custom rubrics for your classroom.

Pics4Learning

A curated, copyright-friendly image library that is safe and free for education.

Write, record, and illustrate a sentence.

Interactive digital worksheets for grades K-8 to use in Brightspace or Canvas.

Professional Learning

Digital Storytelling

21st Century Classrooms

Project-based Learning

Teaching and Learning

Informational Text

English Language Aquisition

Language Arts

Social Studies

Visual Arts

© 2024 Tech4Learning, Inc | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

© 2024 Tech4Learning, Inc | All Rights Reserved | https://www.thecreativeeducator.com

Not a Member?

Read more about the Member Benefits of MAV and find out how to join MAV or renew your membership.

• Authentic tasks
• F - 10 Resources

Authentic tasks are designed to help students see mathematics as worthwhile and important. When students understand the purpose of a given problem in mathematics, they are more likely to persist when challenged. Authentic tasks generally have an ‘open middle’ which means that students can use different representations and solutions to communicate their knowledge and reasoning.

These curated links provide MAV members with access to nine authentic tasks from some of our primary consultants’ favourite resources. The 11 criteria provide MAV members with a research-informed context to consider each task’s potential impact on student thinking, ways of working, attitudes towards mathematics, their knowledge and understanding.

The following criteria was used to select the tasks based on their potential:

Used with permission © Martin Holt Educational Consultant 2017

If you would like to learn more about this approach to assessing or using tasks contact [email protected]

Statistics and probability

Measurement and geometry, number and algebra.

These support pages were produced using Strategic Partnership Program funding from the Department of Education and Training.

• Document Listing
• Undergrad and first year teachers
• Picture books
• Mathspiration
• News and research
• Curriculum and resources
• VCE Resources
• Investigations - Vinculum
• Learning Activities Years F to 9
• Town Squared-game
• Mathematics in Careers

The Common Denominator 1/24

DOWNLOAD NOW

• Join or Renew Membership
• Register for Professional Learning
• Maths Talent Quest
• Girls in STEM
• VCE Revision Lectures
• Resources in the MAV Shop

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

• Authentic Learning (Simulations, Lab, Field)

Authentic Learning describes learning activities that are either carried out in real-world contexts, or have high transfer to a real-world setting.  Authentic learning activities should have both personal and cultural relevance (Stein, Isaacs, & Andrews, 2004).   Personal relevance means that learners should be able to connect the new information they are learning to their lives outside of the classroom and their theories about how the world works. Cultural relevance refers to the culture of the academic discipline—authentic learning tasks should reflect “the ordinary practices of th[at] culture” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1988, p. 34).  In other words, authentic learning tasks teach students how to think like a member of their discipline (Meyers & Nulty, 2009). 

Authentic learning activities tend to be student-centered (Watters & Ginns, 2000). In an authentic learning approach, instructors are seen as facilitators of students’ learning. As Tochon (2000) points out, there is something of a paradox in planning to be authentic.  Although instructors are advised to come to class equipped with a plan, they also should be open to where their students take the learning task. Mayo (2010) describes how instructors may have to shift their perception of their own role in the class from that of sage on the stage to guide on the side .  Their primary role, then, is in helping students to explore the learning task themselves. Thus, instructors must be careful not to insert themselves into the center of activity or to micromanage how the task is explored (Tochon, 2000).

Authentic Learning is rooted in constructivist theory, which says that actively engaging with problems and materials constitutes the best way to learn (Mayo, 2010). As stated by John Dewey, “[E]ducation is not an affair of ‘telling’ and being told, but an active and constructive process” (Dewey, as cited in Mayo, 2010, p. 36).  There are two elements of constructivism. Cognitive constructivism , which deals with how individuals make sense of the world around them, is rooted in the developmental theories of Jean Piaget.  Social constructivism , which pertains to how groups collectively make sense of the world, comes from the thinking of Lev Vygotsky.  Cognitive constructivism pertains to the importance of sense-making at the personal level. From this perspective, learning is an “inside job.”  Learners will be more motivated to learn, will engage more deeply with the material, and will remember it longer if it feels personally relevant to them (Heath & McLaughlin, 1994; Stein et al., 2004).  Social constructivism speaks to the power of learning in groups—many collaborative and cooperative learning tasks are considered authentic, as they mimic the way problems are solved in real-world settings (McCune, 2009).  Moreover, students who are part of learning communities (in classrooms or residences) may be more motivated to learn if taking on the values of the group is seen as important to maintaining membership in the group (Glynn, Aultman, & Owens, 2005). 

In sum, a course can be authentic in two ways—by being personally relevant to the student and by containing cultural relevance, that is, by teaching the student something that is recognized as important or true by the discipline (Stein et al., 2004).  Scholars differ as to the extent that they focus on personal versus cultural relevance with some focusing on personal relevance (Heath & McLaughlin, 1994), some focusing on cultural/disciplinary relevance (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and some focusing on both (Stein et al., 2004; Tochon, 2000).  Within an authentic learning context, the activities undertaken by students in the classroom should be similar to those undertaken by real-world professionals in that field of study and instructors may also strive to craft lesson plans that resonate with the students’ “situated (lived) experiences” (Stein et al., 2004, p. 240). However, while exposing students to real-world practices or real-life dilemmas, the instructor may also shield them from nonessential aspects of these scenarios in order to focus the learning experience (Stein et al., 2004).  

Stein et al. (2004) write that authentic learning activities can be useful in bridging the gap between what students typically do in the classroom and what they will be expected to be able to do in their field, once they leave the university setting.  Fieldwork and work-study placements for course credit are considered the most extreme examples of authentic learning experiences, as students are literally learning on-the-job rather than attending a class (Brown, 2011; McCune, 2009).  Service learning experiences, where students complete a practicum at a community organization as one component of the course, can provide wonderful opportunities to make connections between concepts covered in class and real-world phenomena (Power, 2010). 

Authentic learning can also take place within the walls of the classroom itself.  Teaching methods include case-based instruction, where instructors use real or fictional cases as vehicles to present content or to require students to apply skills (Mayo, 2010).  Inquiry projects, where students work on a “real-life” problem of practice, and often have some choice of topic, give students the opportunity to see how problems are investigated or solved in the real world (Stein et al., 2004).  Mayo (2010) discusses how instructors’ use of the Socratic Teaching Method affords students the opportunity to internalize a style of critical knowledge consumption. Project-based assessment (as opposed to exams) is also a hallmark of authentic learning (Stein et al., 2004).  The common element to these methods is that they activate students’ motivation and curiosity by presenting them with real-world problems that feel interesting and important.

Importantly, incorporating activities that provide opportunity for reflection and synthesis may be key to getting maximum results from authentic learning methods. According to Power (2010), students benefit from being given structured opportunities to reflect.  Such periods of deliberate pause give them the chance to take stock of what they have learned and to form a more critical perspective on it.

A challenge to implementing authentic learning methods may be that instructors themselves, working mainly in academia, may be removed from the community of practice they are teaching about (Stein et al., 2004).  Another challenge is that although the activities are meant to mimic real-world scenarios, recreating them in a classroom may feel forced or awkward (Stein et al., 2004).  However, the hope is that, through authentic learning practices, students’ learning is deeper and more meaningful because it is connected to personal experiences and values (Power, 2010).  There is also evidence that students who take part in classes with an authentic learning component (in these instances, case-based instruction or service learning, respectively), make higher academic gains compared to students enrolled in similar classes that do not contain these components (Mayo, 2010; Power, 2010). 

Learning that feels personal is said to go deeper, to be more meaningful, and, thus, to last longer.  Students are more motivated to learn when they see how a concept relates to their own lives (Watters & Ginn, 2000).  Thus, authentic learning tasks capture students’ attention and raise their motivation to learn because they touch on issues that are directly relevant to students’ present lives or future careers.  The instructor’s role, in this mode of teaching, is to help students to make connections between their own ways of making sense of the material and the established cultural frameworks of the discipline (Stein et al., 2004). 

Written by Julia  Hayden Galindo, Ed.D., Harvard Graduate School of Education  

References: 

 Brown, R. (September 11, 2011).  Feed a lemur, castrate a calf: The real value of some unusual student jobs.  Chronicle of Higher Education, 58 (4).  Retrieved July 30, 2014 from: http://chronicle.com/article/Feed-a-Lemur-Castrate-a-Calf-/128930/

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.  (1989).  Situated cognition and the culture of learning.  Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42. 

Glynn, S. M., Aultman, L. P., & Owens, A. M.  (2005).  Motivation to learn in general education programs.  The Journal of General Education, 54 (2), 150-170.

Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994).  Learning for anything everyday. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26 (5), 471-489.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991).  Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).

Mayo, J. A. (2010).  Constructing undergraduate psychology curricula:  Promoting authentic learning and assessment in the teaching of psychology.   Washington, DC:  American Psychological Association.

McCune, V.  (2009).  Final year bioscience students’ willingness to engage; teaching-learning environments, authentic learning experiences, and identities.  Studies in Higher Education, 34 (3), 347-361.

• Meyers, N. M. & Nulty, D. D. (2009).  How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes.  Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (5), 565-577.

Power, A.  (2010).  Community engagement as authentic learning with reflection.  Issues in Educational Research, 20 (1), 57-63.

Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G. & Andrews, T.  (2004).  Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course.  Studies in Higher Education, 29 (2), 239-258.

Tochon, F. V. (2000).  When authentic experiences are “enminded” into disciplinary genres:  Crossing biographic and situated knowledge.  Learning and Instruction, 10, 331-359.

Watters, J. J. & Ginns, I. S. (2000).  Developing motivation to teach elementary science:  Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education.  Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11 (4), 301-321.

Further Resources:

• Biggs, J. & Tang, C.  (2007).  Teaching for quality learning at university:  What the student does (3 rd ed.).  Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education.
• Herrington, J. Authentic learning: Resources and ideas about authentic learning and authentic e-learning [website].  Retrieved July 30, 2014 from: http://authenticlearning.info/AuthenticLearning/Home.html
• Lombardi, M. M. (2007).  Authentic learning for the 21 st century:  An overview [white paper].  Retrieved on July 30, 2014 from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf
• Classroom Assessment, Reflection, & Feedback
• Expanding Depth and Breadth
• Fostering Motivation
• Group & Cooperative Learning; Students as Classroom Leaders
• Revealing & Dealing with Misconceptions
• Stimulating Students to Think
• Research on Activity Types
• Additional Research

Authentic learning: What is it, and why is it important?

Essentials series

By completing this form, you agree to Turnitin's Privacy Policy . Turnitin uses the information you provide to contact you with relevant information. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time.

Fostering self-directed learners with a long-term, deep understanding of concepts is a key goal for educators.

Authentic learning (or active learning) is, per Steve Revington , “real life learning. It is a style of learning that encourages students to create a tangible, useful, quality product/outcome to be shared with their world.”

Connecting what instructors teach to real-world issues and problems is at the core of authentic learning. In other words, authentic learning requires students to engage in meaningful activities and actively think about what it is they are learning . It is the opposite of the passive, teacher-led classroom in which students memorize and then regurgitate what they hear and see.

Authentic learning makes course concepts relevant to students so that they can retain the information at hand and pivot the knowledge to real-world situations. It involves centering students and their ideas while nurturing them along the educational journey through frequent, low-stakes assessments, constructive feedback, as well as assessment design that enables a student-instructor relationship.

Revington continues, “A student sitting at a desk, taking notes and regurgitating curriculum content uses a minute amount of their potential. In general, students learn to sit quietly, respond in turn, follow instructions and complete tests for a control teacher. Without relevance, personal connection, multisensory engagement and purpose, content driven curricula begins [sic] to evaporate once the test has been taken.”

Such mimicry , while a longstanding pedagogical tradition, doesn’t necessarily prepare students for a changing post-industrial world. In a 2018 Quartz article , Allison Schrager writes, “Factory owners required docile, agreeable workers who would show up on time and do what their managers told them. Sitting in a classroom all day with a teacher was good training for that. Early industrialists were instrumental, then, in creating and promoting universal education. Now that we are moving into a new, post-industrial era, it is worth reflecting on how our education evolved to suit factory work, and if this model still makes sense.”

According to 2013 research, “The education landscape has been shifting towards a stronger emphasis on higher-order level of thinking such as creative thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving as research shows that current graduates lack transcending skills like communication skills and problem-solving skills, which are crucial in the industry. The most important skills employers look for when hiring new employees are teamwork, critical thinking, communication...or innovative thinking. However, in many universities, the mode of teaching is still conventional pedagogy and students tend to learn passively particularly when content is taught in a way that causes students to memorize without thinking critically about what they are memorizing…. There is a call for more emphasis to be placed on authentic learning as it provides an environment that cultivates students who would be prepared for the complex working world ” ( Ju, Mai, et al. ).

Education, according to Horace Mann, is the “great equalizer.” Our world has changed—and it is safe to say a prepared student is one with the ability to communicate original ideas. ”An important characteristic of authentic learning is that there are multiple possible outcomes or solutions to a problem rather than a single correct answer. This can encourage students [sic] ask questions and think outside the box” ( Stenger, 2018 ).

Additionally, authentic learning fosters intrinsic motivation , which is to say behavior driven by internal rewards, because the nature of the work itself is satisfying. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, involves engagement based on external rewards or to avoid punishment. Among educators’ goals is to foster a love of learning for its own merits—and authentic learning is critical to engendering such intrinsic motivation.

In The Hechinger Report, Tara García Mathewson states, “Inspiring students’ intrinsic motivation to learn is a more effective strategy to get and keep students interested. And it’s more than that. Students actually learn better when motivated this way. They put forth more effort, tackle more challenging tasks, and end up gaining a more profound understanding of the concepts they study .” By learning through hands-on problem-solving, students “tackle open-ended assignments that require sustained effort; they get the power to choose what and how they learn; they finish projects with something to show for their learning in portfolios and concrete products; they set their own academic goals; they need never focus more on a grade than the process of learning.”

• Act as a role model for students , and demonstrate a passion for learning. Ask students to share information about themselves in class or in a letter to the instructor. In other words, provide students with a sense of belonging .
• Use examples so students know how the material can be of use. Provide meaningful reasons for learning activities.
• Communicate clear expectations for each assignment. Provide rubrics and consider co-creating rubrics with students.
• Provide constructive feedback early and often to help students understand next steps in their learning journey. Include positive feedback .
• Offer frequent, low-stakes assessments so students can fail safely and learn from their mistakes.
• Uphold fair assessment. Avoid grading on a curve, so students feel they have the opportunity to achieve the highest standards.
• Give students control over their learning . Give them opportunities to choose their own topics or reading lists and provide a variety of assessment formats, so they have control over how they demonstrate their understanding

Educators want the best outcomes for their students in an evolving world. If education is the foundation for positive change, then pedagogy, it goes to follow, has to model the world we want to see. Authentic learning centers student needs and in doing so, fosters original thinking and original ideas, while supporting the entire educational journey.

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024

Interprofessional socialization of first-year medical and midwifery students: effects of an ultra-brief anatomy training

• Dana Bostedt 1 ,
• Ebrar Hümeyra Dogan 1 ,
• Sina Chole Benker 1 ,
• Maret Antje Rasmus 1 ,
• Emily Eisner 1 ,
• Nadine Lana Simon 1 ,
• Martina Schmitz 2 ,
• Markus Missler 3 &
• Dogus Darici 3  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  464 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Interprofessionalism is considered a key component in modern health profession education. Nevertheless, there remains ongoing debate about when and where to introduce interprofessional trainings in the curriculum. We identified anatomy, a subject commonly shared among health professionals, as a practical choice for initiating early intergroup-contact between first-year medical and midwifery students. Our study examined the effects of a four-hour block course in anatomy on interprofessional socialization and valuing, as well as long-term effects on intergroup contact.

Based on different concepts and theories of learning, we implemented 12 interprofessional learning stations. Several measures were taken to foster group cohesion: (1) self-directed working in interprofessional tandems on authentic obstetric tasks, (2) competing with other tandems, (3) creating positive interdependencies during task completion, and (4) allowing room for networking. In a pre-post design with a three-month follow-up, we assessed the outcomes of this ultra-brief training with qualitative essays and quantitative scales.

After training, both groups improved in interprofessionalism scores with strong effect sizes, mean difference in ISVS-21 = 0.303 [95% CI: 0.120, 0.487], P  < .001, η² = 0.171, while the scales measuring uniprofessional identity were unaffected, mean difference in MCPIS = 0.033 [95% CI: -0.236, 0.249], P  = .789. A follow-up indicated that these positive short-term effects on the ISVS-21 scale diminished after 12 weeks to baseline levels, yet, positive intergroup contact was still reported. The qualitative findings revealed that, at this initial stage of their professional identity development, both medical and midwifery students considered interprofessionalism, teamwork and social competencies to be of importance for their future careers.

This study advocates for an early implementation of interprofessional learning objectives in anatomical curricula. Young health profession students are receptive to interprofessional collaboration at this initial stage of their professional identity and derive strong advantages from a concise training approach. Yet, maintaining these gains over time may require ongoing support and reinforcement, such as through longitudinal curricula. We believe that an interprofessional socialization at an early stage can help break down barriers, and help to avoid conflicts that may arise during traditional monoprofessional curricula.

Peer Review reports

Interprofessional education (IPE) is a learning approach in which two or more professions “ learn with, from, and about each other to improve collaboration in patient care ” (WHO 2010). Some of the IPE goals are to exchange ideas on a personal level, bring together distributed knowledge, and harness the benefits of different specializations [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. By fostering interprofessional communication and teamwork, IPE has been shown to break hierarchical structures [ 2 ], reduce stereotypes in health professions education [ 3 ], and ultimately improve patient care and job satisfaction [ 4 ].

Despite the chances IPE offers, there is still an ongoing debate on when and where to implement IPE into existing health profession curricula. One administrative and logistical challenge of IPE is that aligning schedules involves coordinating with multiple faculties, finding common time slots, and ensuring that students can participate without disrupting their core learning objectives. Nonetheless, proponents argue that early implementation of IPE, despite the scarcity of available time slots, is favorable. Thus, implementing IPE in undergraduate health profession curricula may promote early interprofessional socialization between various professions and effectively counteract stereotypes between them [ 2 ].

To address this feature of IPE, we identified anatomy as a feasible subject to enable early intergroup contact between undergraduate, first-year medical and midwifery students [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Following socio-constructivist principles of learning [ 1 ], which sees individual knowledge as socially constructed, we designed and implemented an interprofessional block training. We put effort to embody these principles through (a) the emphasis on collaborative learning and problem-solving activities among students in interprofessional tandems, (b) through authentic and contextual learning stations within real-world healthcare scenarios, and (c) through facilitating reflection and networking events.

In a mixed-methods approach, we explored the short- and long-term effects of this novel training on interprofessional socialization and valuing, as well as interprofessional identity and intergroup contact. We conclude by evaluating the challenges and merits of this new approach and derive recommendations for future curriculum planners.

Theoretical introduction into related constructs and IPE theories

Interprofessional socialization and valuing.

According to Arnold et al. (2020) [ 11 ], health professionals usually go through monoprofessional socialization during their training period. As a result, professionals work side by side, but not necessarily with each other, in their daily professional lives. Thus, interprofessional socialization is necessary not only to ensure better communication but also to prevent the isolation of professional groups [ 3 , 12 ]. This enables students to build a dual, professional and interprofessional, identity. Khalili et al. (2013) [ 13 ] suggest a three-stage process when transforming from an uniprofessional identity to a dual professional and interprofessional identity, (1) breaking down barriers, (2) interprofessional tole learning and interprofessional collaboration, and (3) dual identity development. We argue that an early exposure to IPE may break down barriers because it helps to shape perceptions and attitudes before monoprofessional identities become deeply ingrained.

Interprofessional identity (IPI)

Through effective interprofessional socialization, students are likely to develop an interprofessional identity. IPI can be understood as a sense of belonging in one’s own professional group to an interprofessional community [ 13 , 14 ]. IPI assists students in expanding their monoprofessional perspective of practice to encompass a wider interprofessional viewpoint that appreciates the contributions of other professions to client care [ 3 , 15 , 16 ]. Education focusing solely on uniprofessional identity formation bears the risk of dis-integrating one’s own profession from interprofessional elements [ 2 ]. At the same time, interprofessional and professional identities are intertwined and influence each other [ 3 ]. The establishment of a strong IPI is thought to be particularly beneficial because it increases efficiency and appreciation within the team [ 12 ].

Intergroup contact

Interprofessional socialization is reinforced by intergroup contact [ 13 ]. The contact hypothesis [ 17 ] suggests that bringing together different groups can effectively reduce prejudice between the group members. Constant intergroup contact may contribute to an interprofessional identity as different groups get to know each other better, build relationships, and become more positive about working together [ 2 ]. Feeling a sense of belonging to a group is a significant requirement in the professional realm and appears essential for cultivating a positive work environment. When extended to an interprofessional setting, fostering a favorable disposition toward interprofessionalism becomes possible [ 3 ].

The current study made a concerted effort to integrate these theoretical underpinnings into both the overall design of the training and the specific setup of the training stations, as detailed in the methods section.

Research questions and hypotheses

We asked whether an ultra-brief interprofessional training in anatomy (i.e., a four-hour block) may be sufficient to promote key elements of interprofessionalism. Specifically, we hypothesized that an ultra-brief anatomy training would have H1: positive effects on interprofessional valuing and socialization, and H2: intergroup contact (primary outcomes). We further hypothesized that these effects would be measurable H3: directly after training, and, with the anticipation that the positive effects of this training would persist beyond the classroom setting through ongoing intergroup contact, H4: three months after training (secondary outcomes). Finally, we explored professional and interprofessional identity formation in medical and midwifery students and conclude with practical implications for future curriculum design.

Materials and methods

A pre-post interventional study with a three-month follow-up was conducted at the University of Münster, Germany, during the winter term of 2022/2023. The study protocol was deemed not to require formal medical ethics approval. Study participation was voluntary, and informed consent was received from all participants. Data generated or analyzed during the study can be requested from the corresponding author.

Overview of the medical curriculum

The medical program at the University of Münster is a six-year curriculum that combines theoretical university teaching with practical training in hospitals. The final exam is the state medical examination, which is divided into two sections after 4 and 10 semesters of studying. The four-semester preclinical section focuses on fundamental knowledge of the human body and the natural sciences. Students attend lectures, seminars and practical courses in biology, chemistry, physics, biochemistry, physiology and anatomy. Sociology and psychology subjects teach the theoretical foundations of the doctor-patient relationship and communication. The preclinical section concludes with the preliminary exam. The clinical section of the curriculum consists of topic-based subject modules and block practical courses that introduce students to different medical specialties. Complementary courses cover communication skills, ethics, and the doctor-patient relationship. The clinical section concludes with the second medical license examination, the final clinical year, and the third medical license examination.

Overview of the midwifery curriculum

The Midwifery Bachelor of Science program at the University of Münster is a dual, primarily professionally qualifying program that combines practical professional training with university teaching and academic education. The standard period of study is 8 semesters with a volume of 240 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) points. The curriculum is structured to provide knowledge and skills (in various aspects) from the physiological basics to norm variants to pathology around pregnancy, birth and the first time as a family. In the first semesters, students acquire evidence-based midwifery knowledge and skills in the areas of the physiology of pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period, as well as in the physiological development of the newborn and infant. After that, students learn about pathological conditions in these areas. Important practical skills and hand movements are practiced in the practical exercises at the “study hospital”. In addition, the teaching of scientific work, communication skills, midwifery and health care research, as well as ethics and professional policy round out the acquisition of competencies in the profession of midwifery.

Bringing together anatomy for medical and midwifery students

Both, medical and midwifery students study anatomy in their first year. Medical students have mandatory anatomy lessons, four hours weekly in the first term, 7.7 h in the second, and 8.3 h in the third term. The anatomical curriculum proceeds as follows: The first semester covers general anatomy and embryology through theoretical introductions. The second semester includes seminars and practical instructions, focusing on macroscopic anatomy and a full dissection course. In the third semester, students delve into histology and neuroanatomy, concluding with a four-day anatomy and imaging block course. To complete the anatomy course, students must pass written and oral exams.

Midwifery students, in the first semester, integrate anatomy into their curriculum through a module called ‘basic sciences,’ dedicating four hours weekly. The anatomy coursework emphasizes general embryology and the reproductive system. This teaching approach includes histology, sonoanatomy, and in-depth gross anatomy sessions using prosections, i.e. using prepared cadavers to demonstrate anatomical structures. The primary goal is to equip students with proficiency in medical terminology and the ability to connect their anatomical knowledge to physiological processes in the human body. At the semester’s end, students undergo assessment via a written and an oral exam.

The design of an ultra-brief interprofessional training in anatomy

After a brief welcome and an overview of the upcoming four-hour interprofessional training, midwifery science and medical students formed self-selected groups of two or three, consisting of students from both professions (Fig.  1 ). The “selection” was based on openness and a positive first impression, with no specific order or pattern. To strengthen the interprofessional identity, the tandems gave themselves their own names and competed with each other against the other tandems.

The 18 interprofessional tandems were divided into two large groups. One group went through six theoretical stations covering hormones and diagnoses, while the other group completed six tasks related to body donations and various models in the dissection room. After their initial stations, they swapped places, resulting in each tandem experiencing a total of twelve stations, each lasting 15 min. In these interprofessional tandems, students mastered anatomical case studies, played “hormone memory”, solved tests on body donations, discussed embryology topics, and assessed spermiograms under microscopes. The use of authentic healthcare scenarios aligns with socio-constructivst theories that advocate for learning in context. Students managed task distribution and documentation themselves. Afterward, there was a joint meal, providing an opportunity to connect, network and reflect on their shared experiences in the medical field to create intergroup contact. Additionally, several students proposed the creation of a shared WhatsApp group to stay in touch. Participation in the group was optional, yet all students chose to engage with this platform for exchange to establish long-term intergroup contact.

Flowchart of the ultra-brief interprofessional training in anatomy

Details on the interprofessional training stations

The different interprofessional training stations required students to exchange and discuss skills and knowledge across various areas of anatomy, patient care and medical fundamentals (Fig.  2 ). Students from both disciplines actively built new knowledge to complete tasks. Learning did not occur through the institute lecturers’ teaching, as their role was to merely oversee and moderate the learning stations. Due to differing curricula, either the midwifery or the medical students’ knowledge levels could determine success in specific tasks. Their clinical and academic responsibilities could be demonstrated to the other profession without any bias. Both parties were able to score equally within the tandem, fostering equitable learning. For instance, midwifery students had limited exposure to dissection rooms, while medical students regularly dissected cadavers. This experience helped medical students alleviate the midwives’ apprehension regarding body donations and instill the necessary respectful ethical behavior.

In the dissection room, ethical work with body donors in interprofessional teams was a primary focus. For instance, station nine concentrated on fetal relics in a cadaver, such as the ligamentum teres hepatis and ductus arteriosus. Students acquired knowledge in an authentic learning environment, termed “situated learning”. This approach enabled students to visualize structures and engage in discussions within their interprofessional tandems. Station seven challenged participants to memorize and identify muscles and structures on 3D pelvic floor models, emphasizing joint documentation as part of interprofessional collaboration. Station ten tasked students with drawing and labeling the anatomical differences between female and male pelvic floors, employing the “learning with drawing” strategy. Furthermore, the students were challenged to create a document that encouraged discussion and agreement within interprofessional tandems. Station eleven tested embryological knowledge by having students identify structures on embryonic models of the 7th, 15th and 25th development days. Station twelve required tandems to name sex differences in male and female pelvic construction using male and female skeletons. Both, station eleven and twelve, employed “situated learning”, prompting students to exchange their individual skills and knowledge to reach a common conclusion.

Theoretical learning stations compelled participants to collaborate in solving tasks through knowledge exchange, discussion and evaluation. For example, in station one, students applied female reproductive system anatomy to address an ectopic pregnancy case. Station six involved comparing and evaluating healthy and unhealthy sperms, also utilizing “situated learning”. Station two fostered mutual appreciation for each other’s expertise by requiring tandems to create a fictional conversation to accompany and educate a woman after childbirth.

Example of the “Interprofessional Learning Station” six. A  The goal was to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy sperms based on various criteria (i.e., concentration, morphology, etc.) within a certain time limit. Medical and midwifery students both had to assess the specimen under the microscope in pairs, exchange information, and document their findings on the worksheet. B  The interprofessional learning objective was to conduct a joint documentation as part of an interprofessional collaboration, while the anatomical learning objective was to differentiate and evaluate healthy and unhealthy sperms

Study participants

The participating students were recruited through regular courses in the medical and midwifery science degree programs. The idea of the project was very well received. According to the students’ feedback, only scheduling difficulties prevented some students from participating.

Measurements

Interprofessional socialization and valuing scale (isvs).

The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) was developed by King et al. (2010) [ 18 ] to evaluate the beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that underlie interprofessional socialization and collaborative practice in health care settings. The scale is closely related to the extended professional identity scale of Reinders et al. (2020) [ 19 ]. The ISVS is a 24-item self-report measure with a 7-point scale used to assess the extent of the shift towards collaborative care in health care settings [ 20 ]. A sample item was: “I have a better appreciation for using a common language across the health professionals in a team”. Three subscales can be identified: The ability to work with others, as well as value and comfort of working with others. The reliability of the scale was deemed adequate (Cronbach’s α  = 0.67).

Maclead clark professional identity scale (MCPIS)

In order to control for socially desirable response behavior (i.e., the tendency of the students to adjust their answers to the perceived expectations of the study), we used a second scale, which measured a closely related but nevertheless different construct. For this purpose, we used the MCPIS, which we assumed to be a subordinate dimension of interprofessional identity [ 19 ]. The MCPIS is a validated instrument developed for the measurement of the professional identity of health and social care students from different professions. This scale was first developed by Adams and colleagues (2006) [ 1 ] for the measurement of PI in first-year students before the beginning of their training. We used the professional identity subscale of the questionnaire, which consists of 9 items measured on a five-point Likert scale. A sample item was: “I feel like I am a member of this profession.” The reliability of the scale was deemed adequate (Cronbach’s α  = 0.73).

Qualitative essays and content analysis

For methodological triangulation purposes and to avoid a common-method bias, we adapted the professional identity formation essay by Kalet et al. (2017) [ 21 ]. The 9 free-text items addressed mainly mono professional identity, e.g. with the sense of belonging to one’s own professional group, however, we specifically screened for answers related to inter professional identity, for example with regard to the perception of cooperation within the training. A sample item was: “What does being a member of the medical profession mean to you? How did you come to this understanding?”. The analysis was conducted using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2014) [ 21 ], and encompassed the following steps: developing a codebook, categorizing data, coding, ensuring reliability among raters via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) calculations, creating supracategories and quantifying qualitative data for comprehensive analysis.

For the evaluation of the free-text answers and to analyze the given content systematically, we operated with a category system, a codebook, that attempted to bundle the answers of the study participants into common categories. The utilization of the codebook allowed a more refined, focused and efficient analysis of the raw data in subsequent reads. After many iterations of the preliminary codebook, the final version was agreed upon by all four members of the research team. The iterative process of refining the codebook and the consensus among research team members ensured the validity of the categories used. In a similar inductive way, we assigned supracategories.

Subsequently, the same members independently read all the given answers again to assign the individual responses of the study participants to the defined categories. To evaluate the consistency among raters, we computed the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) employing a two-way random effects model. The ICC for individual measures stood at 0.86, while the ICC for average measures reached 0.95, signifying good and excellent reliability, respectively (Koo and BPS). Finally, the frequencies of the responses received in each case were compared, and a relative frequency was calculated. This was done in order to be able to compare frequency distributions independently of the sample size. In this way, the qualitative answers could be quantified to enable a much more comprehensive analysis of a problem as well as to get a more comprehensive understanding.

A follow-up was conducted 12 weeks after the interprofessional training. The “long-term” effects of the training on IPI were evaluated using the same scales, i.e., ISVS and MCPIS, as well as intergroup contact-related items. We asked if they would participate in interprofessional trainings again and in what kind of situations they refer back to their training experience in their daily lives (“preparations for anatomy tests, internship, awareness of interprofessional communication when team working in the hospital”). In addition, we created an item ranging from 1 to 10 (1 =  no contact , 10 =  daily contact ) to assess the frequency of contact among students from different professions. Additionally, participants were asked to provide examples of places and platforms where they interact with each other to validate their responses.

Statistical analyses were conducted using the software SPSS v. 29.0.0.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics). As the MCPIS and ISVS scales were administered to participants before and after the intervention, the quantitative analysis pipeline for the provided results involved conducting an ANOVA with dependent samples, where time was considered a within-subject, and intervention (i.e., the training) a between-subject factor, to compare pre- and post-test scores on the scales. All statistics were performed under a significance value of alpha = 0.05, and the results are reported with a two-sided P -value. The statistical testing results were specified by an effect size with η 2  = 0.01 considered a small effect, η 2  = 0.06 a moderate effect, and η 2  = 0.14 a strong effect. For the comparison of frequency distributions, regardless of the sample size from both professions, the relative frequency for each profession was calculated (Table  1 ). This process of converting the qualitative answers into quantitative values aimed to provide a more objective evaluation and allowed a systematic and objective analysis of the collected qualitative data.

Participants

In total, 42 students were enrolled in this curriculum: 24 first-semester students of midwifery sciences and 18 s-semester students of medicine were recruited. A total of 15 (63%) out of the 24 eligible midwifery students answered the survey before the training, and 13 (54%) answered the survey immediately after the training. All 18 medical students (100%) answered the survey before the activity and 17 afterward (94%). Seven midwifery students (29%) and eight medical students (44%) participated in a follow-up 12 weeks after the training.

The majority of the participants in both professions identified themselves as female: 93% of the midwifery students identified themselves as female ( n  = 14), 7% as non-binary ( n  = 1). Among the medical students, 89% of the participants were female ( n  = 16), 11.1% male ( n  = 2). The median age of the midwifery students was 20.47 years ( SD  = 2.32, range =  18–28 years), the median age of the medical students was 20.50 years ( SD  = 1.25, range  = 19–24). Both groups did not significantly differ in age, 𝛘 2 (6) = 4.64, P  = .591. One student from each group of professions already had a completed professional education.

Exploring interprofessional identity prior to interprofessional training

Free-text responses before training were analyzed qualitatively to explore the (inter)professional identities of midwifery and medical students. Social competence, i.e., interprofessional teamwork and collaboration, emerged prominently as a career expectation in both personal (4.54% vs. 5.26%) and external career contexts (6.48% vs. 5.69%). Participants similarly placed great value on social competence when considering their professional role models, as evident in category H3 (6.48% vs. 6.83%). Interestingly, the lack of social competences, particularly working within interprofessional teams, were identified as potential sources of conflict for participants (7.13% vs. 5.41%). These findings point to the need for interprofessional training programs that specifically address the development of social competence and teamwork skills.

Short-term effects of an ultra-brief training on interprofessional socialization, valuing and professional identity

Before training, the ISVS score was lower for medical students (3.87 ± 0.33) than for midwifery students (4.10 ± 0.32). This number increased to 4.13 ± 0.3 resp. 4.43 ± 0.33 after the training (Fig.  3 b). The ISVS showed a significant improvement with a strong effect size for both medical and midwifery students, mean difference = 0.303, [95% CI: 0.120, 0.486], P  < .001, η² = 0.171. However, it was noticeable that midwifery students had slightly higher values for the MCPIS compared to medical students, 4.20 resp. 4.31 vs. 3.86 and 3.88, yet the results of the ANOVA showed no pre-post differences in MCPIS scores before and after the training, mean difference = 0.033, [95% CI: -0.236, 0.249], P  = .789 (Fig.  3 a). To conclude, the ultra-brief anatomy training fostered interprofessional socialization and valued both midwifery and medical students without affecting their uniprofessional identities.

Short-term effects of an ultra-brief (4-hour) interprofessional anatomy training on professional identity formation (MCPIS) ( A ) and interprofessional valuing (ISVS) of medical and midwifery students ( B ). * = P  < .01

Themes identified in free-text responses after training

Table  2 presents the analysis of free-text responses provided by participants after completing the interprofessional training program. These responses were coded into different themes, and the relative frequency of each theme was calculated, with a distinction made between midwifery and medical students’ perspectives. The analysis of free-text responses revealed a generally positive outlook on the interprofessional training, emphasizing the value of professional collaboration, personal growth, improved social relationships, and a more positive perspective on each other’s professions among participants from both midwifery and medical backgrounds. The professional and social dimensions of collaboration were frequently mentioned categories, and participants from both groups valued the harmonious and helpful interactions during the training. Notably, these responses revealed distinct differences between midwifery and medical students in their reflections on the training program. For example, while both groups recognized the social dimension of the training, a higher percentage of medical students (13.81%) expressed increased appreciation and respect for the other profession compared to midwifery students (5.33%).

Long-term effects on interprofessional socialization and valuing

To assess the stability of the effect observed on interprofessional socialization and valuing, we re-examined a subgroup of students’ 12 weeks after the training (Fig.  4 ). Similarly, their results indicate an increase in ISVS values from 3.89 ( SD  = 0.17) and 4.13 ( SD  = 0.36) before training to 4.24 ( SD  = 0.28) and 4.44 ( SD  = 0.37) after training. However, 12 weeks after training, we observed a decline of the ISVS back to nearly baseline levels of 4.07 ( SD  = 0.44) and 4.08 ( SD  = 0.42). To conclude, the short-term effects observed after the training were not sustainable after 12 weeks.

Long-term effects of the ultra-brief interprofessional anatomy training on interprofessional valuing (ISVS) of medical and midwifery students

The intergroup contact rate for medical students was 2.63 (SD = 1.69), and 3.29 (SD = 2.63) for midwifery students. Common meeting places for both groups included the library (14.29%), university sports facilities (10%), the train station (10%), WhatsApp (14.29%), the cafeteria (42.86%), and university buildings (28.57%).

All participants expressed their willingness to attend the training again, highlighting the enjoyable nature of the experience, the opportunity to gain different perspectives, the ability to learn from one another, the establishment of new connections, preparation for their future careers, and the exchange of ideas. For instance, a medical student noted, “The exchange allowed us to have meaningful discussions and share common interests.” A midwifery student also pointed out that students from both disciplines experienced similar challenges in their education, and this training provided a valuable overview of topics they had already covered in class. This was exemplified by a midwifery student who said, “I realized that both professions encounter comparable difficulties, and we can support each other.”

Medical students expressed their intention to apply the training experience when studying for anatomy exams, during clinical internships, and in their interactions and teamwork within the hospital setting. Likewise, midwifery students found value in recalling their training experience during their daily duties in the hospital, exam preparations, and even in the cafeteria. As one midwifery student put it, “It helped me solidify my knowledge”. In conclusion, despite the quantitative data showing a decrease after 12 weeks, students reported positive outcomes in terms of intergroup interactions and their ability to apply these skills in clinical settings.

Although the importance of interprofessionalism in healthcare professions is recognized, the implementation of appropriate training formats remains a challenge for health profession curricula. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the potential of a theory-derived ultra-brief (i.e., 4 h) interprofessional training to promote key elements of interprofessionalism. The training showed strong effects on both professions in terms of interprofessional socialization and valuing (H1). The follow-up data indicated that these short-term effects did not remain stable over a period of three months (H3), yet positive intergroup contact was still evident (H2). Qualitative data suggested that the participants may have had transformative social experiences during their training, indicating a first step towards establishing an interprofessional identity. We believe that the results of this study provide an important contribution to the current discussion on the implementation of IPE curricula [ 22 ]. In the following, we evaluate our curriculum against the backdrop of existing literature, discuss potential strengths and weaknesses, and derive recommendations for future projects.

Bringing together members of different social groups is considered one of the most promising methods for improving relationships between these groups [ 23 ]. However, it is important to emphasize that intergroup contact between different groups per se does not guarantee an improvement in relations; it can also reinforce prejudices. The current ultra-brief interprofessional training, despite its brevity, demonstrated positive effects on medical and midwifery students. Importantly, the quantitative and qualitative data indicate that both professions benefited equally from the training format, and there were no indications of asymmetric interactions. Likewise, we observed no negative stress-inducing events associated with the training, which could have resulted in a negative perception of the other profession [ 1 ].

Of particular note is the strong effect size of the intervention on interprofessional socialization and valuing, with η² = 0.171 (Fig.  3 b). We attribute this effect particularly to incorporating several socio-constructivist learning theories into the curriculum design. For example, we placed considerable emphasis on the necessity of prior knowledge from both professions to successfully address the tasks. This positive interdependence , widely acknowledged in the literature as a critical foundation for successful collaboration [ 16 ], led to the inclusion of both tandem partners. In this way, the participants encountered each other on the same level, getting to know the respective team members on a personal level. Working collaboratively in the team allowed them to mutually support one another in different tasks while learning about the boundaries of their own profession. Concurrently, the competitive setting among the interprofessional tandems resulted in a shift in the identification subject from one’s own profession (“we as the medical students”) towards an interprofessional team (“we as an interprofessional tandem”) [ 24 ]. Together, we suggest that forthcoming curricula leverage the theoretical insights as a foundation when developing new educational formats.

Overall, we see early contact between professions as an excellent opportunity to break down barriers early on and establish a mutual understanding of roles. Following Khalili et al.‘s three-stage model [ 13 ], this early exchange could be an effective means of overcoming barriers and practicing interprofessional collaboration, ultimately leading to the formation of a dual identity. The early implementation of such training formats allows for the strengthening of identity-forming facets in a protected environment and a gradual approach to a new identity. This prevents the development of dysfunctional role perceptions and stereotypical notions about other professions in uniprofessional silos which constantly reinforce themselves when unsupervised and can lead to conflicts in future professional environments [ 22 ]. We also argue that it is more difficult and time-consuming to change an established dysfunctional identity later on than to support interprofessional socialization early on. However, the follow-up results warn against understanding such trainings as singular events, as the effects on interprofessional socialization seem to diminish over time. Therefore, we recommend anchoring such training formats in longitudinal curricula.

The current training was performed with medical and midwifery students, however, embedding such training formats in the core anatomy curriculum [ 25 ], in our experience, can be flexibly expanded to other health professions. Since most health professions begin their first semesters with anatomy lessons, both anatomical and interprofessional learning objectives can be cleverly combined. This not only avoids cutting valuable time from the anatomical core curriculum – a subject that has been heavily affected by curricular time reductions in recent years [ 26 ] – but also presents an excellent opportunity to allocate additional curricular time for interprofessional training formats. Additionally, we have found that the subject of Anatomy lends itself well to create various collaborative learning formats [ 27 ]. This includes, for example, working with body donors, which requires interaction between professions considering ethical principles, a core element of IPE [ 28 ]. Similarly, the vertical integration of clinical-obstetric content into anatomy is feasible and has allowed us to construct authentic cases that interprofessional tandems must tackle together. In our curriculum, this included clinical-anatomical cases on ectopic pregnancies or the examination of spermiograms using real microscopes (see Table  3 ). For future sessions, we plan to set up ultrasound devices and assign specific examination tasks to interprofessional tandems [ 29 ]. We believe that such authentic exercises will lower the threshold for future interprofessional collaboration, as the high authenticity of the stations results in socio-constructivist and situated learning [ 30 , 31 ]. Situated learning theory emphasizes authentic learning environments as particularly useful to promote effective collaboration and (inter)professional identity formation (“feeling like an interprofessional team solving a real task”) [ 2 , 3 ]. To further support students’ interprofessional identity, we plan to recruit the current study participants as interprofessional peer-teachers for future versions of this curriculum, who may serve as positive role models for interprofessional collaboration and communication.

Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, all the instruments that were used in this study relied on the self-reported data of the students, which may have inflated correlations due to shared method variance, such as tendencies toward socially desirable responses or further responding tendencies. To estimate the extent of socially desirable responses, we used a closely related uniprofessional identity scale as a control construct. Still, further research may advance the implementation of behavior-oriented measures of interprofessional socialization, or IPI, even though there are only a few studies that consider the objective assessment of such measures. Second, study participation was voluntary, so participating students may not be representative of the whole cohort. Finally, we lost some participants in the follow-up, so the follow-up data must be interpreted cautiously as they represent only a subset of the study population.

“Working together has given me hope, that as the next generation of doctors and midwives, we can break the old hierarchy and work together as a functioning team.” In essence, this participant’s perspective not only acknowledges the transformative potential of an ultra-brief interprofessional training in anatomy but also advocates for a paradigm shift in educational approaches. By emphasizing the importance of teamwork and breaking down hierarchical structures early in the educational journey, we may cultivate a generation of healthcare professionals who are not only proficient in their respective fields, but also inherently collaborative and well-prepared to meet the complex challenges of modern healthcare.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Adams K, Hean S, Sturgis P, Clark JG. Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learn Health Soc Care. 2006;5(2):55–68.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cantaert GR, Pype P, Valcke M, Lauwerier E. Interprofessional identity in health and social care: analysis and synthesis of the assumptions and conceptions in the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):14799.

Reinders JJ, Krijnen WP. Interprofessional identity and motivation towards interprofessional collaboration. Med Educ. 2023;57(11):1068–78.

Carney PA, Thayer EK, Palmer R, Galper AB, Zierler B, Eiff MP. The benefits of interprofessional learning and teamwork in primary care ambulatory training settings. J Interprof Educ Pract. 2019;15:119–26.

Google Scholar  

Cleveland B, Kvan T. Designing learning spaces for interprofessional education in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(4):371–80.

Herrmann G, Woermann U, Schlegel C. Interprofessional education in anatomy: learning together in medical and nursing training. Am Assoc Anatomists. 2015;8(4):324–30.

Hamilton SS, Yuan BJ, Lachman N, Hellyer NJ, Krause DA, Hollman JH, Youdas JW, Pawlina W. Interprofessional education in gross anatomy: experience with first-year medical and physical therapy students at Mayo clinic. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(6):258–63.

Meyer JJ, Obmann MM, Gießler M, Schuldis D, Brückner AK, Strohm PC, Sandeck F, Spittau B. Interprofessional approach for teaching functional knee joint anatomy. Ann Anat. 2017;210:155–9.

Smith DC. Midwife-physician collaboration: a conceptual framework for interprofessional collaborative practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(2):128–39.

Sytsma TT, Haller EP, Youdas JW, Krause DA, Hellyer NJ, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Long-term effect of a short interprofessional education interaction between medical and physical therapy students. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(4):317–23.

Arnold C, Berger S, Gronewold N, Schwabe D, Götsch B, Mahler C, Schultz JH. Exploring early interprofessional socialization: a pilot study of student’s experiences in medical history taking. J Interprof Care. 2020;1–8.

King G, Orchard C, Khalili H, Avery L. Refinement of the Interprofessional Socialization and valuing scale (ISVS-21) and development of 9-Item equivalent versions. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(3):171–7.

Khalili H, Orchard C, Laschinger HK, Farah R. An interprofessional socialization framework for developing an interprofessional identity among health professions students. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(6):448–53.

Tong R, Brewer M, Flavell H, Roberts LD. Professional and interprofessional identities: a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2020;1–9.

Reinders JJ, Krijnen WP, Goldschmidt AM, van Offenbeek MAG, Stegenga B, van der Schans CP. Changing dominance in mixed profession groups: putting theory into practice. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2018;27(3):375–86.

Scager K, Boonstra J, Peeters T, Vulperhorst J, Wiegant F. Collaborative learning in Higher Education: evoking positive interdependence. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016;15(4):ar69.

Crystal DS, Killen M, Ruck M. It is who you know that counts: intergroup contact and judgments about race-based exclusion. Br J Dev Psychol. 2008;26(1):51–70.

King G, Shaw L, Orchard CA, Miller S. The interprofessional socialization and valuing scale: a tool for evaluating the shift toward collaborative care approaches in health care settings. Work. 2010;35(1):77–85.

Reinders JJ, Lycklama À, Nijeholt M, Van Der Schans CP, Krijnen WP. The development and psychometric evaluation of an interprofessional identity measure: extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS). J Interprof Care. 2020;1–13.

de Vries DR, Woods S, Fulton L, Jewell G. The validity and reliability of the interprofessional socialization and valuing scale for therapy professionals. Work. 2015;53(3):621–30.

Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. (2014): 143.

Bogossian F, New K, George K. The implementation of interprofessional education: a scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2023;28(1):243–77.

Scheepers D, Ellemers N. Social Identity Theory. In: Sassenberg K, Vliek MLW, editors. Social Psychology in action. Cham: Springer; 2019.

Meyer EM, Zapatka S, Brienza RS. The development of professional identity and the formation of teams in the Veteran Affairs Connecticut healthcare system’s Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education program (CoEPCE). Acad Med. 2015;90(6):802–9.

Darici D, Reissner C, Brockhaus J, Missler M. Implementation of a fully digital histology course in the anatomical teaching curriculum during COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Anat. 2021;236:151718.

Gribbin W, Wilson EA, McTaggart S, Hortsch M. Histology education in an integrated, time-restricted medical curriculum: academic outcomes and students’ study adaptations. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(4):671–84.

Otto N, Böckers A, Shiozawa T, Brunk I, Schumann S, Kugelmann D, Missler M, Darici D. Profiling learning strategies of medical students: a person-centered approach. Med Educ. 2024;1–11.

Oandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: the learner, the educator and the learning context. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(Suppl 1):21–38.

Darici D, Masthoff M, Rischen R, Schmitz M, Ohlenburg H, Missler M. Medical imaging training with eye movement modeling examples: A randomized controlled study. Med Teach. 2023;45(8):918–24.

Darici D, Missler M, Schober A, Masthoff M, Schnittler H, Schmitz M. “Fun slipping into the doctor’s role”-The relationship between sonoanatomy teaching and professional identity formation before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(3):447–63.

Darici D, Flägel K, Sternecker K, Missler M. Transfer of learning in histology: insights from a longitudinal study. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;17(2):274–86.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study received no official funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical faculty, Universität Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany

Dana Bostedt, Ebrar Hümeyra Dogan, Sina Chole Benker, Maret Antje Rasmus, Emily Eisner & Nadine Lana Simon

Institut für Anatomie und Vaskuläre Biologie, Universität Münster, 48149, Münster, Germany

Martina Schmitz

Institut für Anatomie und Molekulare Neurobiologie, Universität Münster, Vesaliusweg 2-4, 48149, Münster, Germany

Markus Missler & Dogus Darici

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DD and MM formulated the overarching research goals and aims. DD developed the methodology and conducted the formal analysis. DB, EHD, SCB, MAR, EE, NLS, and DD conducted the investigation process.DB, EHD, SCB, MAR, EE, NLS, and DD wrote the main manuscript text. DB, MAR, EE, DD, and SCB prepared the figures. DD, MS, and MM reviewed the manuscript.DD and DB revised the manuscript.DD supervised the research process. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dogus Darici .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study protocol was exempted from full review by the ethics board (“Ethik Kommission der Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe und der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität”). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

All subjects provided informed consent for publication of information and images in an online open-access publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bostedt, D., Dogan, E.H., Benker, S.C. et al. Interprofessional socialization of first-year medical and midwifery students: effects of an ultra-brief anatomy training. BMC Med Educ 24 , 464 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05451-w

Download citation

Received : 30 November 2023

Accepted : 22 April 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05451-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interprofessional education
• Interprofessional socialization
• Interprofessional identity
• Anatomy education
• Ultra-brief anatomy training

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: url: universal referential knowledge linking via task-instructed representation compression.

Abstract: Linking a claim to grounded references is a critical ability to fulfill human demands for authentic and reliable information. Current studies are limited to specific tasks like information retrieval or semantic matching, where the claim-reference relationships are unique and fixed, while the referential knowledge linking (RKL) in real-world can be much more diverse and complex. In this paper, we propose universal referential knowledge linking (URL), which aims to resolve diversified referential knowledge linking tasks by one unified model. To this end, we propose a LLM-driven task-instructed representation compression, as well as a multi-view learning approach, in order to effectively adapt the instruction following and semantic understanding abilities of LLMs to referential knowledge linking. Furthermore, we also construct a new benchmark to evaluate ability of models on referential knowledge linking tasks across different scenarios. Experiments demonstrate that universal RKL is challenging for existing approaches, while the proposed framework can effectively resolve the task across various scenarios, and therefore outperforms previous approaches by a large margin.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.