Authentic assessment has no magic powers that solve every issue in academic integrity and student inclusion. Tim Fawns and colleagues explain why.
“If we think beyond authentic assessment as a form of assessment to conceive of authenticity as just one aspect to thoughtfully and judiciously consider within the design, we can more clearly see and address real problems and purposes of assessment,” they state.
On future preparation, they argue workplace assessments always involve “performativity and power,” notably learners playing to the assessing audience to appear competent. “The most commonly presumed benefits of authentic assessment – preparing students for their futures – are not as straightforward as they sound.”
As to authentic assessment preventing cheating, they suggest, “there appears to be minimal empirical evidence,” in part because it focuses on diligence and honesty not catching students out when they do not work with integrity.
And assessment that is based on what students will experience in work is, by its nature not necessarily inclusive, because the world is not.
“Authenticity in assessment opens up possibilities to discuss messy, ethical and complex ideas in relation to the relevance of assessment to broader personal, social and professional contexts,” they write.
The take-out: “authenticity in assessment is not a method or format, nor is it a fixed property of any given assessment. Instead, it can be viewed as a set of principles guiding design and implementation.”
“Authenticity be regarded as a set of aspirational principles, that can inform the design and implementation of assessment, but that must also be set alongside, and traded off against, constraints and alternative ambitions.”
