Authentic Assessment

Definitions: Wiggins, Archibald and Newman are considered to be the creators of the concept 'authentic assessment' both of whom proposed definitions that suggested assessments that posed cognitively challenging and "personally meaningful problems or tasks" (Frey et al. 2012, p13)

Paris and Ayres differ from Wiggins by  describing authentic assessment in terms of being  formative. (Frey et al 2012, p10) it…

1.Supports classroom instruction,
2.collects evidence from multiple activities,
3.promotes learning and teaching among participants, 
4.reflects local values, standards and controls.

‘Authentic’ assessment tasks encourage students to apply relevant disciplinary knowledge in a familiar context, develop and enhance their generic skills, and generate workplace specific knowledge.(McMullen et al. 2005)

Authentic assessments set meaningful and engaging tasks, in a rich context, where the learner applies knowledge and skills, and performs the task in a new situation. Authentic tasks help students rehearse for the complex ambiguities of adult and professional life. ……

Assessment is a process of gathering evidence of what a student can do,   and provides feedback on a student' s learning to encourage further development. (Aitken and Pungur)

Palm (Frey et al., 2008, p ) concludes that authenticity is defined as assessment that is real in terms of processes and products, assessment conditions or the presented context, and true to life beyond school, curriculum and classroom practice or learning and instruction. 

Frey et al. (2012, p14) conclude that Authentic Assessments.....

“involves the student deeply, both in terms of cognitive complexity and intrinsic interest, and are meant to develop or evaluate skills and abilities that have value beyond the assessment itself.”

My definition:

Authentic Assessment for adult learners.....

Tracking a learner's progress, identifying successes and areas for development through ongoing self-reflection, along with  review and feedback from peers and facilitator/tutor in relation to the learner's practical application of their learning.

Refs: 

Aitken, N. and Pungur, L. (date unknown) Authentic Assessment [Online] Available from:http://www.ntu.edu.vn/Portals/96/Tu%20lieu%20tham%20kh/Phuong%20phap%20danh%20gia/authentic%20assessment%202.pdf. (Accessed 7^th July, 2014)

Frey, B.B.,  Schmitt, V.L., Allen, J.P. (2012) Defining Authentic Classroom Assessment, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol 17, No,2 Jan. [Online] Available from: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n2.pdf (accessed 7th July 2014)

McMullen, C.  Braithwaite, B.  (2005) ‘Authentic’ Assessment: Workplace Based Formal Learning Setting The Stage For Ongoing Informal Learning

ANZMAC Conference: Marketing Education, Charles Sturt University
(available from: http://www.anzmac.org/conference_archive/2005/cd-site/pdfs/8-Mktg-Edn/8-McMullen.pdf) accessed 11 July 2014

Assessment and Authenticity

Eliot's principles of assessment in an authentic context

Completion of a 10 day leadership programme

This programme is split into four modules, three of which focus on leadership skills. Between modules the individuals meet up (in theory) with their ‘learning partners’ (another member of the group) to coach one another on practical applications of their learning. This is not mandatory, nor part of a formal assessment process. It often fails to occur because of time constraints and/or geographical issues (a learning partner may have to spend several days/weeks outside the UK). Those who do manage to have regular conversations with learning partners have acknowledged this as being a major contributory factor to their overall learning.

Ongoing coaching meetings with learning partners is an example of informal, formative assessment. The issues regarding cancelled meetings, could be ameliorated by implementing Web 2.0 tools such as Skype or communicating asynchronously through private messaging in Yammer, Linkedin, Facebook or a similar tool.

Authentic learning experiences  – these communications focus on practical actions as a result of the learning in the previous module. The adoption of a structured approach in meetings, identifying the current stage of development experienced by their team  vis a vis Tuckman’s theory and adopting strategies to move forward,  managing a change implementation or something similar

Personalised  - Individual’s are at various stages in their career paths and their learning objectives would reflect this

Negotiated - in the coaching session, learner's are questioned regarding the relevance and appropriateness of their desired actions

Engaging - all actions are identified by the learner and therefore reflect self interest and self motivation

Recognise existing skills - the individual's successes are reviewed by themselves and their learning partner, who can also give appropriate constructive feedback

Deep: assessing deep knowledge – individuals are coached through their actions to ensure a depth of understanding and an awareness of pertinent issues and consequences

Problem oriented - normally the action points are designed to facilitate a solution to a real life problem

Collaboratively produced - the outcomes are collaborative based upon agreements between the learning partners: a partnership or a trio

Peer and self assessed - Previous actions are reviewed and learning points from the strategy are considered. The skills of the coach are also scrutinised by the learning partners and coaches are given feed back to ensure ongoing improvement of coaching skills.

Principles for assessment for learning

Principles for assessment for learning

Whilst reading the article by the Assessment Reform Group (ARG, 1999) I was struck by the similarity between the positive outcomes of constructive classroom feedback and the positives of performance feedback in the workplace. There is very little difference. When effectively demonstrated they both increase: self-awareness, motivation and the identification of behaviours to adopt to increase progress and build upon successes.

ARG document

The key to assessment for learning is providing an opportunity whereby:

•  Students can receive swift, timely, constructive feedback
• Students are encouraged to take an active part in their learning
•  Teachers can adjust their input according to the learner’s needs (flexibility)
•   Both teachers and learners can recognise and identify what motivates and demotivates the            learning interventions
•   Students are given the tools and skills to self assess on their learning journey
•   Focus is on progress rather than success/failure

This can be helped if both students and teachers work together to

•  Construct learning goals
•  Recognise the importance of self-assessment 
•  Develop the skills of learning from and acknowledging feedback as a response to input
• Hold a genuine belief that everyone can improve
• Actively share assessment data

In essence, teachers can then use assessment as a formative rather than a summative (historical use) tool.

Skills required for assessment must include: observational, listening, reasoning, questioning, setting tasks to reflect specific skills, confidence working with a variety of Web 2.0 media/tools

Government too must support assessment for learning through teacher training initiatives, policies, inspections and resource allocation.

Assessment for learning must eventually become an integral component of the national educational strategy.

Ref:

Assessment Reform Group (ARG) (1999) Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box [online], http://assessmentreformgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/beyond_blackbox.pdf (Accessed 5th July)

Learning Design Team Work

Online collaborative teamwork is certainly an enlightening etivity!

I'm not so sure about the task that we're supposed to have completed, but the group dynamics have been a real learning opportunity.

Taking HayMcber's styles first: we have representatives from the coach leadership, directive, pace-setters and affiliative styles. We have been through Tuckman's norm phase and are probably experiencing some storming - and if the activity had a longer time frame then we would have to address this as it could be quite damaging. For now we can just gloss over the cracks.

We all have different communication and learning styles along with different agendas motivating participation. Some of us just want to pile through it, some want to get on with it and do it well, whilst others are giving it consideration. Some are motivated by power, others by self achievement and the rest by working in a team. Some want to be right and look good, others are not bothered and some straddle the middle ground. A microcosm of life.

With this in mind, we probably needed to discuss at the start of the exercise, some of our groundrules and how to deal with issues and problems. The "pace-setters" want to move quickly by foregoing reflection and at times bypassing activities (taking them even further ahead) others have to move at their own pace, not because they are less able, but because they have different lives and different priorities.

It is around these issues and in particular communications (as always) that the frustrations have percolated through.

Clearly, when leading or participating in an online task with a tight deadline, teams need to agree 'up front' how they will manage 'lag' and deal with disagreements in interpretation or comprehension.

Einstein said: give me an hour to solve a problem and I will take 55 mins to work out what the problem actually is and five minutes to solve it." My suspicion is that we probably needed longer to figure out what the problem really was and plan it out better, before finding the solutions. Unfortunately, we allowed the pace setters to run with the baton resulting in some unfortunate side effects.

Letter to Stephen Downes regarding his “halfanhour blog.” Entitled: What Connectivism is

Dear Stephen, 

I feel that I have just lost two hours of my life wading through your halfanhour blog. I approached this with an open mind willing to reflect and learn…but in the end my objectivity was overwhelmed by irritation and frustration. You point out in the penultimate paragraph of your blog that emotion precedes the cognitive. Well, initially, it didn’t with me…but emotion did overwhelm my objectivity in the end!

Why?

Well, apart from a feeling that your pompous postulations had an air of ‘emperor’s new clothes’ about them, your responses to Tony and Bill finally finished me off.…..

I wonder if you’re aware of how transparent you became in those replies?

A few examples:

You did not bother to respond to Tony’s suggestion that he is not sure ‘constructivism applies only to propositional learning’.

You responded to your own misinterpretation of this, “I think it would be ..difficult to draw out any…theory of constructivism that is not based on a system with linguistic or propositional characteristics” Neither do you bother to explain ‘why’ either. I guess we must just trust your unimpeachable judgement.

Tony continues, "Connectivism should still address the hard struggle within of deep thinking, of creating understanding. This is more than the process of making connections."

You refute this, “No. It is not more than the process of making connections.” Then you go on to make sweeping statements about learning, suggesting that the ‘learning’ process experienced by animals and infants will be identical. Really?  Surely not? So, presumably you believe that the infant hedgehog learns in the same way as a human infant?

If that’s the case I’ll be first in the queue to teach at ‘hedgehog school’.

Deep level thinking

You also use the example of a chess player, to highlight how we make connections at a deeper level by seeing ‘subtle patterns’. This is based upon the response and interpretation of one chess player…surely a  little tautological: – he says it’s true, therefore, it is true, ummm, because he says so!

Perhaps we can also make connections in highly individualistic ways…mine might be through sound patterns, others might be through association…etc.

Later on, you accuse Bill Kerr’s point about the need to ensure that theories have practical application  as being ‘absurd’…..you do this with reference to engineers and bridges…but again this is not what Kerr appears to be saying at all.  I can only wonder at what really is the point or use of a theory that has no practical application and cannot be tested?

“It’s not my fault”…..I didn’t make humans” – Is this the voice of a learned academician or a whinging 7yr old? When did anyone say it was your fault?

Modesty

I am also impressed with your modesty, ”…I have described…the principles that characterize successful networks…These follow from the theory I describe and inform many of the considerations people like George Siemens have rendered into practical applications…” So George, did you know that you owe it all to Stephen?

You then attempt to come out with a half-baked theory of practice: “To teach is to model…to learn is to practice and reflect” this is not a theory, it is as you originally suggested Stephen – simply a “slogan”.  Tut tut, this is shoddy work for someone who appears to be quite scathing of other people’s work and ideas (when you disagree with them).

You then say it is “hardly a theory” – correct again! This is followed by an admittance that it is “Not very original…that too is not my fault.” Oh dear, I strongly suggest you get over this egocentric ‘not my fault’ issue. Move on, please!

My learning (however that may be interpreted).

From this tortured reading, I have gleaned that connectivist networks are “grown like a plant.” That in a ‘connected’ state new meanings can be created for individuals, not by knowledge transference but by the individual learner’s own interpretation, participation, interaction and experience of being ‘connected.’

 “Basic words and concepts acquire new meaning when viewed from the connectivist perspective”

 I seem to have developed an allergy towards Mr Downs but I suppose I didn’t waste the entire two hours from my life!

 Refs:

http://halfanhour.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html