Traditional Assessment vs.
Authentic Assessment
Traditional -------------------------------------- Authentic
Selecting a Response ---------------------------- Performing a Task
Contrived ----------------------------------------- Real-life
Recall/Recognition ------------------------------- Construction/Application
Teacher-structured ------------------------------- Student-structured
Indirect Evidence -------------------------------- Direct Evidence
• In the TA model, the curriculum drives assessment. "The" body of knowledge is
determined first. That knowledge becomes the curriculum that is delivered.
• In the AA model, assessment drives the curriculum. That is, teachers first
determine the tasks that students will perform to demonstrate their mastery, and
then a curriculum is developed that will enable students to perform those tasks
well, which would include the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills. This
is "backwards design".
• But a teacher does not have to choose between AA and TA. It is likely that
some mix of the two will best meet your needs.
Definitions:
Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students are
typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with
those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask
students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually
representative of more meaningful application.
Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to
select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these
contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to
demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic
assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.
Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge: Well-
designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine
whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above,
tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment
portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and
propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the
demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about
what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or
performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask
students to analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner,
and students create new meaning in the process as well.
Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional assessment,
what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s)
who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and
limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student
choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency.
Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple
acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments
more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly,
more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered
when choosing and designing an assessment.
Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student
to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student
selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student
get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer?
We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student
might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect,
particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations.
Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and
construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the
golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the
student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has
presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a
critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series
of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may
be useful.
Taken from:
Jon Mueller’s Authentic Assessment Toolbox
http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/index.htm
