AUTHENTIC ASSESSEMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT OF
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project
is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include
proprietary or classified information.
________________________________________________________________________
Lakeisha C. Robinson
Certificate of Approval:
______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D
Co-Project Advisor
Education Department
_________________________
Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.
Co-Project Advisor
Education Department
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT OF STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
A project submitted
by
Lakeisha C. Robinson
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 19, 2011
iii.
Abstract
Traditional assessment methods are one of the instruments used in the classroom
to measure student achievement. However; these methods do not allow students to truly
show understanding of standards. In addition to traditional testing, authentic assessments
are used to demonstrate and show evidence of learning. This study was conducted in a
middle school math classroom and showed how the use of an authentic assessment
impacted the achievement of students and the organization of the school. Data were
collected using pre- and post -test, surveys and interviews. The analysis of the study
showed that authentic assessments provide opportunities to demonstrate understanding
and is a valuable assessment in the classroom.
iv.
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...iii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv
List of Tables……….......………………………………………………………………....v
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1
Significance of the Problem……………………………………………………….2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………4
Focus Questions……………………………………………………………….….6
Overview of Methodology………………………………………………………..7
Human as Researcher……………………………………………………………..8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………....9
Use of Authentic Assessment………….………………………………………...10
Feelings and Attitudes of Students………………………………………………14
The Change Process……….……………………………………………………..17
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………22
Research Design………………………………………………………………….22
Setting…..………………………………………………………………………..23
Subjects and Participants……...………………………………………………....23
Procedure and Data Collection Methods………………………………………...24
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias...………………………………….26
Equity…………………………………………………………………………….28
Analysis of Data………………………………………………………………….28
Chapter 4: Results...……...………………………………………………………………31
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………….…...…….43
Analysis….…………………………………………………………..……….…..43
Discussion……………………………………………………………..………....49
Implications……………………………………………………………………....51
Impact on School Improvement………..……………………………………...…52
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………….…53
References……………..………………………………………………………………....54
Appendixes…………………………………………………………..…………………..58
v.
List of Tables
Tables
3.1
Data Shell………………………………………………………………...24
4.1
Dependent Pre/Post of Control Group…………………………………...36
4.2
Dependent Pre/Post of Treatment Group……………………………...…37
4.3
Independent Pre/Pre ………………….………………………………….38
4.4
Independent Post/Post…………………………………………………....39
4.5
Chi-Square Student survey………………………………………………40
4.6
Chi-Square Faculty Survey………………………………………………42
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
A typical eighth grade math classroom consists of a heterogeneous group of
students and each student has his or her own way of obtaining knowledge and learning
information. However, generations ago many teachers delivered instruction in the form
of lectures and assessed their students using traditional methods such as paper pencil
tests. With the change of time and the curriculum, schools have advocated for authentic
assessments. Authentic assessments engage students in real world tasks and scenariobased problem solving (Moon, Brighton, Callahan & Tomlinson, 2002).
Authentic
assessments include projects, choice boards, performance tasks, and other forms of
differentiated assessment.
Students are given choices on how to demonstrate their
comprehension of concepts and apply what they have learned in ways that deviated from
the traditional methods previously used. Authentic assessments open the minds of the
learners and allow for control and accountability of their creativity. Students are engaged
and teachers are helping to meet the learning style of each child.
Each year as the school year approached spring, the determining factor of whether
eighth grade students were promoted to high school was dependent upon a passing score
on the Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) in April. The high stakes testing
has become the focal point for evaluating student learning, with nearly all of the
evaluative efforts dominated by the use of traditional objective assessment (Moon et al.,
2002). The CRCT consists of four domains and are weighed accordingly: Algebra 50%,
Numbers and Operations 22%, Data Analysis and Probability 17% and Geometry 12%.
With the pressure of making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), many teachers are resorting
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 2
to the once traditional teaching methods and teaching to the test.
Even though
standardized test are traditional in the multiple choice format, it does not mean that
educators need to use the same method to achieve student mastery.
Teachers and
administrators indicate that the pressure associated with standardized testing forces them
to compromise their ideals about good teaching and affects their performance, behavior,
and/or attitudes towards school (Moon et al., 2002). This traditional way of assessing has
not allowed students to fully demonstrate learning.
Authentic assessments provide
evidence of what students are able to do within the content and show the level of
achievement. When students are given an authentic assessment, rubrics serve as a guide
in preparing exemplary work. When rubrics are provided, it lets students know what is
expected of them. As with traditional assessments, there can be an element of surprise
because the goal is not only to get the right answer. By using performance assessments
and rubrics as goal setters, students are able to enable themselves to increase their
learning and achievement.
The purpose of this study is to answer the following research question: Do the use
of authentic assessments increase student achievement?
Significance of the Problem
The creation of state standards to guide student learning has clarified goals, and in
cases where standards are well designed, has usefully upgraded expectations for
knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 2010). In the fall of 2007, Georgia
implemented the new Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) for the eighth grade.
Students were doing more algebra than they had ever done previously in middle school.
The state implemented standards into the middle school curriculum that were once
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 3
standards introduced in high school. Students and teachers were slowly learning and
gathering the new information daily. Everything seemed to be going in the right
direction until the results of the CRCT of Spring 2008 for the county arrived. Nearly
fifty percent of the eighth grades students failed. These students included regular,
students with disabilities (SWD) and gifted students. As the frustration of trying to figure
out what happened, the state released their results. It is nearly the same; all stakeholders
involved were left perplexed. What caused the results to reflect such an enormous rate of
failures? Through the research conducted at the school in this study, there was an area of
weakness in Algebra.
Educators are now faced with finding ways to differentiate their lessons and
finding new ways of assessing their students. Traditional tests tend to reveal only
whether the student can recognize, recall or “plug in” what was learned out of context
(DeCastro-Ambrosetti & Cho, 2005). The GPS provides an authentic assessment for
each unit in the math curriculum. The authentic assessment is a performance task or
performance assessment that culminates everything that was taught in the unit. Students
sometimes struggle with this type of assessment. The struggle is because of the depth of
Algebra and because of the method in which the assessment must be performed. With
performance assessments, students are not being assessment traditionally. It requires
critical thinking in order to derive at a solution. Performance measures have the potential
for increased validity because the performance tasks are themselves demonstrations of
important learning goals rather than indirect indicators of achievement (Moon et al,
2002). By using any type of an authentic assessment, students will go beyond finding the
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 4
one right answer but will require the student to create a product that demonstrates their
knowledge or skills.
The GPS for the eighth grade curriculum consists of seven units. For each unit,
the state provides performance tasks that allow the students to show their understanding
of their learning. Some tasks are very difficult and can be modified to fit the needs of the
students. The length of the performance task depends on the unit aligned to it. Some
units are very lengthy while some of them are not. Since many students struggle with the
Algebra domain, this study will focus on unit seven of the curriculum: System of
Equations. At the completion of the unit, students should be able to write an appropriate
system of linear equations and inequalities, solve systems graphically and algebraically,
and interpret solutions. Since the implementation of the GPS, this unit has proven to be
the most difficult in the eighth grade. Within this study, a group of students were given a
performance task on unit seven to determine if there was an increase in student
achievement in comparison to students who did not do a performance task.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
Using authentic assessment to increase student achievement is a type of social
constructivism. Social constructivism, developed by Lev Vygotsky, is a highly effective
method of teaching from which all students can benefit. Vygotsky believed in social
interaction and that it was an integral part of learning (Powell & Kalina, 2009)
One of Vygotsky’s main theories is cooperative learning. According to
Vygotsky, cooperative learning is an integral part of creating a deeper understanding.
With the concept of cooperative learning, using authentic assessments gives the students
an opportunity to take ownership of their learning. When students master completion of
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 5
projects or activities in a group, the internalization of knowledge occurs for each
individual at a different rate according to their own experience (Powell et al., 2009).
Scaffolding was also utilized by Vygotsky. Scaffolding is an assisted learning
process that supports the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), or achieving to the next
level of understanding, of each student from the assistance of teachers, peers, or other
adults. During authentic assessments, students can use other students as peer helpers in
collaborative tasks. Students can be paired using their learning styles or strengths in the
areas of the concepts that are being taught. The students will use each other to help
understand the task given and provide feedback to the teacher through work samples.
Through performance tasks, students will be presented with multiple teaching strategies
and will be given the opportunity to demonstrate what has been learned.
The Conceptual Framework of LaGrange College Education Department (2010)
consists of three tenets: Enthusiastic Engagement in Learning, Exemplary Professional
Teaching Practices and Caring and Supportive Classrooms and Learning Communities.
This study focused on tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching Practices, under
Cluster 2.3, Assessment Skills. The cluster states that the candidates understand and use
formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure continuous intellectual,
social, and physical development of students, how students learn, develop and how to
provide diverse learning opportunities. The candidate will involve students in selfassessments that help them become aware of their strengths and needs and that encourage
them to set personal goals for learning. The candidate will also monitor and adjust
strategies in response to student feedback (LaGrange College Education Department,
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 6
2010). With the use of authentic assessments, all students will benefit from taking
ownership of their and demonstrating their learning.
The Conceptual Framework is aligned with the six domains of the Georgia
Framework for Teaching, five elements of NCATE 2000 Standard 1 for Initial Programs,
ten INTASC principle for beginning teachers and five NBPTS core propositions for
experienced teachers. This study will focus on domain four and five of Georgia
Framework for Teaching: Assessment and Planning and Instruction, element 1D of
NCATE: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates, principle four of INTASC: the
teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’
development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills, and principle
eight: the teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to
evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the
learner, and proposition three of NBPTS: Teachers are responsible for managing and
monitoring student learning (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010).
Focus Questions
For many years, students were assessed using traditional methods such as paper
and pencil tests. As time evolved, so did the learning styles of students and instruction in
the classroom. Educators are looking for new ways to assess and differentiate the
learning environment and raise the achievement of middle school math students. Through
the research question: Do authentic assessments increase student achievement, this study
will explore the following focus questions:
1. Will the use of an authentic assessment increase student achievement when
measured in a traditional method?
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 7
2. How were the feelings and attitudes of students impacted by the use of the
authentic assessment?
3. How effective was the use of authentic assessments to convince school leaders to
implement as a summative assessment?
Overview of Methodology
In this this study, there was a comparison of two heterogeneous groups of
students, using an authentic assessment, to a heterogeneous group of students that did not
use an authentic assessment. The authentic assessment was a performance task that the
subjects completed with a partner. The data collected were used to demonstrate whether
the performance task increased student achievement and how it impacted the
organizational structure of the school. This study took place at a middle school in the
southeastern part of a county in Georgia. The subjects for this study included eighth
grade students in the fourth and fifth period math classes. The principal, member of the
School Improvement Leadership Team (SILT), and the math teachers served as the
participants. The data collection methods used in this study were pre- and post- test,
surveys and interviews.
The research design for this study was modeled after an action research design.
This design focuses on planning, acting, observing and reflecting of implementing a type
of authentic assessment as an alternate way of measuring achievement. The quantitative
data, pre-test and post-test, were analyzed using t-test and the surveys were analyzed
using a Chi Square. The qualitative data, interviews, were coded for themes.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 8
Human as Researcher
I have taught eighth grade in a middle school for four years. For the 2010-2011
school year, I taught five math classes which include three co-taught classes and two
regular math classes. I thought that I could help raise student achievement with the use of
authentic assessments because I felt that my strengths were demonstrated in the area of
mathematics with a focus on the Algebra domain. I felt that the students that I taught
transcend the traditional methods of assessing. Using authentic assessment, students may
be able to grasp concepts better than when they attempt to guess at one answer or
correctly guess the answer of a multiple choice question. I believed that once students
truly understood a concept and could apply it in a real world scenario then they could
master any type of assessment whether it was authentic or traditional. There were a few
assumptions that I feared which included teachers expressing that students should be
assessed the same way the standardized assessments are given.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Authentic assessments are used to measure the mastery of skills through designs
created by the teacher based on the learning styles of the student. Through this study, an
authentic assessment, through the use of a performance task, was used to measure the
increase of achievement of students. Through research, evidence was collected to
determine how the implementation of an authentic assessment had an effect on the
outcome of student achievement. Research evidence will also include the perception of
the study and how implementation of it impacted the school.
State assessment programs are the devices that legislatures, school administrators,
and the general public use to gauge school performance and success (Madeja, 2004).
Teachers are accustomed to looking at previous CRCT scores of students and finding out
the varying levels of understanding of the students for the current school year. Teachers
can and will use the outcomes to differentiate instruction and form flexible groups based
on the learning styles of the students.
Eighth grade is a pivotal year for students; they are required to pass the math and
reading section of the CRCT for promotion to the ninth grade. With so much emphasis
placed on the test, the instruction of the curriculum can easily be driven by the CRCT.
There’s a fear of sacrificing success on state tests if classroom assessment formats and
task vary from the formats used in the state assessment program (Moon et al., 2002).
Educators are looking for new ways to raise the achievement bar so that these students
are not left behind academically and to ensure that students are mastering the standards.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 10
Use of Authentic Assessment
Are the tests an accurate reflection of a level of intelligence or merely a reflection
of what a student can recall or know (Cole, Hulley, & Quarles, 2009)? The CRCT
requires that a student scores an 800 or above in order to meet the requirements of the
state and allow promotion to the ninth grade. In comparison to a traditional weighted
test, this means that the student mastered 51.7% of the content. This does not show
mastery of standards in comparison to how students are assessed in the classroom. While
the use of high stakes testing has focused teacher planning on specified, agreed upon state
level standards, exclusive use of traditional assessments, often in the form of pencil and
paper multiple choice tests, have been judged to have negative effects in the middle
school classroom (Moon, Brighton, Callahan, & Robinson, 2005). If an assessment is
going to be used by an agency to show that children are making progress toward certain
standards, the instrument must assess behaviors that are linked to those standards
(Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Brookshire, 2006). Using the notion of performance
assessment, middle school students can work on tasks of value to a particular community,
yielding a truer audience for authentic feedback (Moon et al, 2002).
The use of differentiated instruction and assessment has changed the structure and
atmosphere in the classroom. By differentiating the instruction, the teacher is able to
meet the needs of all students. Even though differentiated instruction is evident in many
middle schools classrooms, there still is a lack of authentic assessments. Differentiated
products, such as authentic assessments, challenge students at all levels to make
decisions, be responsible for their own learning, as well as affording them opportunities
to demonstrate what they know through products that are representative of their unique
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 11
learning preferences, interests and strengths (Anderson, 2007). If equitable achievement
is our goal, we must have authentic assessments that are reflective of our community’s
expectations and meaningful to our students and to us (Peters, 2007).
Performance tasks used as a summative assessment after a concept has been
taught helps identify what students have learned and the depth of understanding. These
types of assessments give the students a variety of ways to express their learning.
Summative assessments primarily are traditional paper and pencil tests. Students were
not able to show their learning in a differentiated way than how it was taught; this may be
a result of the format of standardized tests. Traditional assessments cannot test the extent
to which a student has mastered a body of knowledge surrounding a concept, only the
information tested in the selected items, nor can they provide rich information about the
multifaceted thinking necessary for complex problem solving (Moon et al., 2005). With
so much standardized test pressure, teachers can easily change the format of formative
and summative assessment in the classroom to more of a traditional method to try to
improve the standardized test scores. With the slow process of change, teachers will
eventually start teaching to the test instead of for the benefit of student learning. When
teachers teach to the test, time is taken from collaborative work and this limits students’
learning (Cole et al., 2009). The art of assessing becomes a drill of fact and recall.
Students and teachers are more focused on getting the one right answer than gathering
learned information. Therefore, an implementation of a performance task can be put in
place to ensure learning and raise achievement rather than using drill and practice of
traditional assessment. Instead of dwelling on what schoolchildren cannot do, as defined
by abstract standardized test with dubious connection to reality, educators are trying to
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 12
get a firmer grasp of what pupils can do, on tasks that do have some meaningful
connection to the real world (Sacks, 1999). Standardized assessment models may not be
the best answers or “quick fixes” for improving instruction and raising student
achievement (Madeja, 2004).
There is evidence that the use of an alternative assessment can positively impact
child outcomes (Grisham-Brown et al., 2006). To implement an authentic assessment in
the classroom, teachers need to develop engaging activities and assignments. To actively
engage students in their own learning, tasks need to be designed around “real-life”
situations that require students to make connections and forge relationships between prior
knowledge and skills (Moon et al., 2002). Students are more apt to become involved in
learning when they can relate to an assignment. There should be options on how to
produce a performance task whether it is with the use of technology or creating a handson product. Choice should be given on how the students will work on it. Students should
be able to work individually or in groups, either by choice or flexible groups.
After the concept has been taught, formative assessments given, and groupings
selected, it is then necessary to assign a performance task. Using the notions of authentic
assessment, middle school students can work on tasks of value to particular community,
yielding a truer audience for authentic feedback (Moon et al., 2002). Along with the
tasks, students need to be given a rubric. A rubric is used as a guide to ensure that the
student is aware of what is required and needed for the given task. It also gives the
teacher an opportunity to give quality feedback. Each individual is assessed using
established criteria (rubric) by the teacher assessing student’s mastery of the knowledge
and skills outline within the lesson or unit (Anderson, 2007).
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 13
The completion of a performance task can be done in many ways. Teachers can
choose to have students work on it solely in the classroom, at home or both. Teachers
frequently introduced the assessments during class but required the bulk of the work to be
done outside of class time (Moon et al., 2002). With this method, teachers will not lose
instructional time and focus more on the curriculum. Time can still be spent on asking
questions pertaining to the task. In classrooms where differentiated authentic
assessments are implemented, teachers serve as facilitators, rather than directors of
learning, and the learning process is seen by students as important and linked to skills
used in the real world (Moon et al., 2002). Students use the rubric as a primary guide and
the teacher as secondary source in developing the product from the authentic assessment.
The use of the rubric is done to give students the opportunity to think outside the box and
to produce evidence of learning in an authentic way.
According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, recalling facts is at the lower end of the
spectrum of critical thinking skills (Cole et al., 2009). If students in the middle school
classroom need to think critically, then there must be an assessment that measures
accurately in regards to critical thinking skills. Traditional assessments cannot test the
extent to which a student has mastered a body of knowledge surrounding a concept, only
the information tested in the selected items, nor can they provide rich information about
the multifaceted thinking necessary for complex problem solving (Moon et al., 2005).
These assessments are merely plug and guess format. Standardized test methods are not
requiring the student to think critically, only to recall facts. Even the format in which a
standardized test is given reflects on how assessment is driven in the classroom.
Standardized assessments are administered with the same directions, time limits, response
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 14
format and questions (Anderson, 2007). The format continues to limit students to their
ability to show what they know or able to do. Koh and Luke (2009) reported on studies
that examined the intellectual quality of teachers’ assignments in mathematics and
writing at Grades 3, 6, and 8 in Chicago schools. They found that students who received
assignments requiring more challenging intellectual work achieved greater than average
gains on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in reading and mathematics, and demonstrated
higher performance in reading, mathematics, and writing on the Illinois Goals
Assessment Program.
With the use of authentic assessment, students are going beyond recalling; they
become engaged in the learning process. They begin to take ownership in their learning
and are held accountable through the use of rubrics. Evidence is provided to suggest that
with proper development and implementation, teachers can successfully use authentic
assessments in their classrooms to measure academic standards, while not foregoing the
requirements of preparing students for success on mandated standardized assessments
(Moon et al., 2002). The use of a performance based instrument can result in positive
outcomes for children (Meisels, Jablon, Marsden, Dichtelmiller, & Dorfman, 2001).
However, Ryan (2006) reported that in the end, the children will learn and profit from
performance assessments probably to the same extent they did using traditional methods
of assessment.
Feelings and Attitudes of Students
Authentic assessment appears to be best suited for meeting the educational need
of students with diverse learning styles (DeCastro-Ambrosetti et al, 2005). Differentiated
instruction will also allow students to feel engaged with the curriculum because it makes
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 15
sure that the content and instruction match readiness levels, interests, and learning styles
(Danzi, Reul, & Smith, 2008). With so many classrooms focused on differentiated
instruction, authentic assessments ties in well with continuing to differentiate the
assessment process. The implementation of performance tasks in the classroom can be
considered successful by the data that is collected. Data can include evaluations, rubrics,
observations and surveys. The opinions, feelings and attitudes of the students can also
give teachers an idea of how effective the authentic assessment was to their learning.
There may be a difference of opinion because it is something new and it is not the
traditional way of assessing students. Teachers need to explain the advantages of
performance tasks and show examples of exemplary work. Teachers should evaluate
how the tasks will be used, how much time will be spent on instruction.
In a study on the development of authentic assessment, conducted by Moon et al,
(2005), there was evidence that showed that the use of authentic assessments were
beneficial in the classroom. The teachers felt that the first important step was to assign
the work to be completed outside of the classroom. They felt that this would be better
because it would not change the classroom instruction and routines. After the initial
introduction, teachers basically left students to do independent work. Performance
standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on instruction (Cole et al, 2009). The
curriculum is very rigorous in the eighth grade and it is mandatory for teachers to cover
all of the standards, in addition to the other requirements that must be met. In order for
authentic assessment to be successful, teachers must ensure that time is spent on
classroom instruction. Before a product assessment is given, there must be a clear
understanding of what is expected and the grading process must be clear. Each
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 16
individual is assessed using established criteria, typically a rubric, by the teacher
assessing student’s mastery of the knowledge and skills outline within the lesson or unit
(Anderson, 2007). The purpose of the product (regardless of its format) is for students to
recall what they have learned in the lesson or unit (Anderson, 2007).
Traditional assessments are commonly used in the math classrooms because they
tend to be geared more towards the assessment of standardized test which students are
assessed with a multiple choice format. Since the pressure of school making AYP and
receiving of federal funds, teachers will assess students the same as the state assess
students. With the introduction of authentic assessment to show student achievement,
teachers may feel that multiple choice assessments will prepare the students for a
standardized test. There was resistance from teachers who were willing to take risks with
their test scores (Sacks, 1999). Teachers feel that with the pressure that is upon them
why implement authentic assessments if there is no assurance that it will work. In an
opposing view, Wolf (2007) reported that regular assessment focuses the efforts of both
educators and students on important material that needs to be mastered.
Middle school teachers and students generally expressed positive responses about
the differentiated authentic assessments (Moon et al, 2005). Surveys have shown that
students who have used authentic assessments found them to be very helpful and
interesting. Students responded with: it was fun and engaging; it gave us a voice in own
work; it allows us to show what we have learned in the class using our own words and it
being one of the most meaningful assignments ever completed (DeCastro-Ambrosetti &
Cho, 2005). The chance for students to take ownership of their work gives them a sense
of accountability. A study conducted by Baglieri and Knopf (2004) reported that students
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 17
did enjoy having a choice on the assessments, and they knew which test option was right
for them. Students’ perceptions of enhanced enjoyment of their learning corresponded
with improved learning outcomes (Meyers & Nulty, 2009). The use of authentic
assessments will allow teachers to see the creative side of the student and teachers can
prepare future assessments that will be of interest to the students.
Although the students and teachers agreed upon the positive response to
differentiated authentic assessments, teachers were mixed about the likelihood of future
use of the new assessment approach (Moon et al., 2002).
The future of education is constantly taking different routes. Educators are
encouraged to use researched-based methods and strategies in the classroom to improve
student achievement. Even though the new ideas are accepted, there are still teachers
who are wary of moving out of their comfort zone to try new assessment practices. If the
main focus was not on the standardized test scores, there may be a different approach on
the teaching in the classroom. The less heed paid to test scores, the more attention was
paid to the process of learning, the more the students understood (Sacks, 1999).
The Change Process
Change within any setting can be easy or difficult depending on the perspective of
the individuals involved. The process of implementing change at an organizational level
clearly is challenging (Zins & Illback, 1995). Within the school setting, there are many
innovations being implemented in the classroom and school setting. This often causes a
ripple effect within the organization. Whatever change is brought to an area of an
organization has an impact on the organization as a whole.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 18
When implementing new strategies, innovations, and methods in the classroom,
there needs to be support from all staff and faculty. Their opinions and concerns should
be addressed before the change process takes place. There should be major involvement
of school leaders because they serve as a liaison between the teachers and the innovation.
A schedule of the change will allow the process of transition to occur smoothly if at all
possible.
The first step in implementation in the school is for the issue to be addressed with
all parties involved. This can be done during professional development, department
meetings or team meetings. The issue at hand must be delivered with excitement and
positivity. When new changes come, people are reluctant sometimes to buy into it. This
is usually because teachers are overwhelmed with what all is required of them to do.
There is a constant change of what new methods and strategies that works in the
classroom. By the time they are getting familiar with one concept, it is eliminated and
something else is introduced. It can be hard to see if methods really work because there
really is not enough time given to see if it is effective. In order for the change process to
work, there are a few important factors that need to be considered.
The first factor is the leadership in the school. Leadership can be the
administration, counselors and team leaders. The role of the leaders is to make sure that
there is a clear and consistent understanding to all staff. The leadership team must be in
full support of the implementation in order for it to be received successfully by those that
rely on their opinion and advice. When implementing the new methods, the leaders
should be involved in organizing, informing, motivating, delegating and mentoring
(George, White, & Schlaffer, 2007).
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 19
Another factor that needs to be considered is teams. Teams can be by grade level,
department and office staff. Teams are important during the implementation process
because they give a sense of belonging when it comes to sharing ideas or concerns. It
also gives those involved a small group setting. This may allow people to speak more
openly about the pros and cons of the change process. For administrators and teachers,
the need to step up and raise serious questions about the way we are doing things now has
never been more urgent and more appropriate (Mai, 2004). Teams need to feel to be
aware that there will be support on the new change and not simply something else added
to the plate. There is a leader on each team which serves and a mediator between the
team and the administration.
After everyone involved in the change process has become aware of what lies
ahead, there needs to be a school wide agreement (George et al, 2007). All of the
expectations and rules must be clear and there should be a consensus on the proper
protocol and procedures. Data can be used as a resource to support what is being
implemented. The data serves as a foundation to why there needs to be a new change.
One of the hardest jobs to assume in an organization, particularly an organization that
takes pride in the ways it presently accomplished its goals, it to cast a critical eye
specifically on those operating practices that define “the way we do things around here”
(Mai, 2004). That is why it is critical that the leaders in the school push support and
unity during the change process. There will be some members that are accustomed to
doing thing the old way and will be reluctant to change because it may be something else
that will be presented and required to implement in a couple of years.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 20
The change process must be evident in the classrooms as well. The tone of a class
is set by the teacher. Whatever the change may be, the teacher should show enthusiasm
because the students are able to decipher if there is full support. Change initiatives that
concentrate significant energy on this activity have the greatest chance of success (Zins &
Illback, 1995). Teachers should make commitments to support the change. There should
be a positive behavior being modeled so that the students will know what is expected.
The last two factors that should be considered are resources and restructuring.
Time is an essential part in the change process. There should be allocated time in which
the faculty and staff are trained. During this time, there should be time spent on the
effectiveness of the change. All parties affected by the change must work together to
develop a clear vision of where the process is proceeding, recognizing that formulation of
a plan is a developmental process (Zins & Illback, 1995). One way for the change
process to be successful is for each person to take an active role in the implementation of
the change. This can be done by interest or teams. Once an individual takes on a role,
then he/she is more ample to become a positive role model. There should be annual
revisions of the school’s handbooks to reflect the school wide agreements (George et al,
2007).
If there is a constant reminder of the change, there should be an easy effort to
continue to push for a successful change.
The process of implementing change at an organizational level is challenging
(Zins & Illback, 1995). The challenge can be for a variety of reasons and many factors
involved. Implementing authentic assessments can be a difficult task because it is not
considered the normal way of assessing. If teachers get good results on the state’s
measure through traditional assessments, then they are not willing to examine whether
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 21
there’s a better way (Sacks, 1999). Teachers feel that if it is not broken then why fix it.
The only problem with that is standardized tests does not fully measure the achievement
of the student or what that student really knows. It is merely showing what they can
recall and not the depth of their learning. Teachers cannot take a measure like the state
test and apply it to the individual children as an absolute measure of what they are
capable of doing (Sacks, 1999). Arguments can be made on whether the use of authentic
or traditional assessments increases student achievement. The most likely assessment
model to ensure alignment between assessment and curriculum ‘‘is an authentic
assessment approach coupled with a criterion-referenced measure for accountability, but
administered within a natural context’’ (Grisham-Brown as cited by Cook, 2004).
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The action research design originates from the work of a social psychologist by
the name of Kurt Lewin. Lewin describes the design as a spiral of steps: Planning,
Acting, Observing and Reflecting. Action research is an active partnership between
researchers and the researched where educational evaluation is a collaborative project
where research is not done on others but done with others (Banfield & Cayago-Gicain,
2006).
Evaluation research design is an approach used by the researcher to evaluate a
program that has been or is going to be implemented. Evaluations of implementations
are essential because they help identify problems with program implementation before
the program ends, so that changes in the programs or interventions can still have an
impact (Paulsen & Dailey, 2002).
To use action research design and the evaluation research design was appropriate
in this study. Using authentic assessments to raise achievement involves implementation
in the classroom. Through the implementation, the program must be evaluated for
validity. All participants play a role in the acceptance and change process in the school.
Within this study, the use of an authentic assessment was used to show if student
achievement was gained when measured by a traditional assessment. The measurement
of assessment consisted of using pre-test and post-test data of the individuals in the
treatment and control groups. Surveys were given to the subjects after the study for their
perception of the impact of the authentic assessment. Members of the administration and
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 23
the eighth grade math teachers were interviewed for their opinion on the implementation
of using authentic assessment as a measure of achievement in the math classroom.
Setting
This study took place at a middle school in the eastern part of Coweta County. In
this area of the county, at the time of this study, about 65% of adults were married and
the median family income was about $68,750. As of 2000, the makeup included 94.9%
Caucasian, 4.9% African American and less than 1% of other minorities. The middle
school in this study serves grades sixth through eighth with a population of 925 students.
The makeup of these students include 73% Caucasian, 17% African American, 5%
Hispanic, and 3% Multi-Racial. Of these students, 27% of students receive free or
reduced lunch, while 9% are in the special education program.
This setting was chosen because it is the place of my employment. Permission to
conduct the study was granted by the school principal and the superintendent of the
county school system. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of
LaGrange College.
Subjects and Participants
My fourth and fifth period math classes were used as the subjects and
representatives of the eighth graders at the school. These two classes were purposively
chosen for the study because they represent a typical heterogeneous group of middle
school students. There were a total of 53 students; 27 students in the fourth period class
and 26 students in the fifth period class. The makeup of all 53 students include 32
African American, 35 White, 3 Hispanic, 2 Asian and 1 Multi-Racial. The student ages
range from 13-15 years old with 30 males and 23 females. The fourth period class served
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 24
as the control group. The students in this class were not exposed to a performance task
but with an individual problem solving word problem. The fifth period math class was
the treatment group. The students in this class were given a performance task and
assigned a partner. The participants in this study were the principal, math teachers and
members SILT. The principal and staff were selected because of their position of
leadership and years of experience. The math teachers were selected because their
content and their perspectives on the change process.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
For each focus question, data were collected to answer the overall research
question. Table 3.1 below gives a more detailed description of the data collection
methods used to answer each focus question, how the data were analyzed and why.
Table 3.1 Data Shell
Focus Question
Literature Sources
Will the use of an
authentic assessment
increase student
achievement when
measured in a
traditional method?
Moon, Callahan,
Brighton, Tomlinson
(2002)
Anderson (2007)
Cole, Hulley& Quarles
(2009)
How were the
feelings and attitudes
of students impacted
by the use of the
authentic assessment?
How effective was
the use of authentic
assessments used to
convince school
leaders to implement
as a summative
assessment?
Type:
Method, Data,
Validity
Method:
Pre/Post test
Data:
Interval
Validity:
Content
How these data are
analyzed
Rationale
Quantitative:
Independent T-test
Dependent T-test
Effect size r
Cohen’s d
To determine if
there are
significant
differences
between groups
Quantitative:
Chi-Square
Cronbach’s Alpha
Significance of
survey questions
Significance of
survey questions
Moon, Callahan,
Robinson (2005)
Method:
Survey
Anderson (2007)
Data:
Ordinal
De-Castro-Ambrosetti&
Cho, Grace (2005)
Validity:
Construct
Zins & Illback (1995)
Method:
Survey,
interview
Quantitative:
Chi-Square
Cronbach’s Alpha
Data:
Ordinal
Qualitative
Qualitative:
coded for themes
George, White &
Schlaffer (2007)
Mai (2004)
Validity:
Construct
Qualitative
Looking for
categorical and
repeating data
that form patterns
of behaviors
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 25
At the beginning of the study, the subjects were given a traditional multiple
choice diagnostic assessment of unit seven of the GPS. This test served as the pre-test.
The scores for the diagnostic test were measured as a percentage; how many questions
answered correctly out of how many questions were given. After the pre-test, the
subjects were taught the standards in the unit seven outlined by the GPS. As a
summative assessment, the treatment group was given a performance task along with a
rubric to show evidence of learning. The task involved each student working with one
partner. They were given examples of cell phone companies and their cell phone plans
and asked to find out which plan was cheaper and at what point will both the cell phone
plans have an equal billing. The task included creating a table of input and output values,
graphing the equations for each company and finding the solution to the system. The
control group was given a various word problems to complete individually. The
treatment group used three instructional days to complete the task. At the end of each
day, each student evaluated themselves and their partner. The evaluation included
cooperation, use of time, helpfulness and effort. On the last day of the task, a class
discussion was done in which students expressed how they felt about the task. After all
the tasks had been turned in, the post-test was given to both groups on the same day.
After the performance task, the treatment group completed a survey (See
Appendix A) about their attitudes and feelings towards authentic assessment. The five
question survey used Likert scale responses that ranged from strongly agree (1) to
strongly disagree (5).
Once the implementation of the performance task had taken place, interviews and
a survey with the participants occurred. The principal and math teachers were
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 26
interviewed (see Appendix B and C, respectively, for interview questions) while
members of SILT were surveyed (see Appendix D). The interviews and surveys were
coded for recurring, dominate and emergent themes. The methods were used to see how
effective was the implementation used to determine if performance task should be used as
a summative assessment.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias
Focus question one focused on whether the implementation of an authentic
assessment increased student achievement. Students were assessed using a pre- and posttest to show if there were any gains in understanding after the performance task was
given. The pre-test was a diagnostic assessment administered by the county in which it
gave the students an overview of unit seven. The post-test was the same assessment
given after the implementation of the performance task.
The interval scale of measurement of the data used from the assessments showed
the percentage the students’ scored from a scale of zero to one hundred. Content validity
was used in choosing the appropriate pre- and post-test. This form of evidence tries to
establish that a test’s items satisfactorily reflect the content the test is supposed to
represent (Popham, 2003). The validity of the data is influenced by the content used in
the research process. The content of the data gathering methods included five multiple
choice questions. The post-test was the same as the pre-test. It contained the same
amount of questions and answer choices.
To measure the reliability, the quality of the test and its consistency, an analysis
of the data was done. A test-retest correlation was used on the dependent t-test because
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 27
the pre- and post- tests were the same and to examine whether the test was reliable over
time.
In order to acknowledge bias, the subjects completed a self-evaluation and were
evaluated by their partner and the teacher based on participation and effort during the
performance task. Where peer assessment is used for the purposes of summative
assessment it is important for reasons of equity to moderate the results. Group members
may be unconsciously biased either for or against themselves and may even deliberately
try to subvert the peer assessment process to increase their own grade (Bushell, 2006).
The purpose of focus question two was to see how the attitudes and feelings of the
treatment group were impacted after the performance task was given. The data gathering
method used for focus question two was a survey given to the treatment group. The
ordinal scale of measurement, using a Likert scale, was used to show the measurement of
the level of agreement or disagreement for the treatment group. Construct validity of the
data was used because there was a focus on the feelings and attitudes of the subjects
involved in the study. Construct validity examines how well the measuring tool reflects
an underlying construct (Salkind, 2010). To test the reliability of the survey, a
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure the consistency of the student responses after the
performance task.
The data gathering methods for focus question three, effectiveness of the change
process to convince stakeholders to implement authentic assessments as a summative
assessment were a survey and interviews. The qualitative interview data was done with
the principal and math teachers. The quantitative survey data was with members of
SILT. A Cronbach’s Alpha was performed to ensure the reliability of the survey.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 28
Ensuring dependability of this study included providing a transcript of the interviews,
selecting an adequate number of participants, maintaining organized raw data and
allowing time for data to be completed and analyzed. When addressing dependability,
the processes within the study should be reported in detail, thereby enabling a future
researcher to repeat the work, if not necessarily to gain the same results (Shenton, 2004).
Transcripts and analysis of the interviews were made available for the participants to help
eliminate bias in the study.
Equity
The study was done to make sure that it was equitable to all subjects and
participants involved. Efforts were made that questions within the survey and interviews
were not biased and addressed the purpose of the study. All responses to the questions
and statements were based on opinions of the subjects and participants. The pre- and
post-test was reviewed by numerous math teachers and school leaders to ensure validity
and offensiveness. The quality of the teacher was also considered. The quality of the
researcher to conduct the study was supported by years of teaching experience, education
and certification levels. Assess to high quality teachers is one of the key factors at the
school level that influences student achievement (Skrla, McKenazie & Scheurich, 2009).
Analysis of Data
For focus question one, students were assessed using a pre- and post- test. The
quantitative data were analyzed using t test. A dependent t-test was used to determine if
there was a significant different between the mean of the pre- and post-test of the
treatment. This was done with the control group as well. A t test for dependent means
indicates that a single group of the same subjects is being studied under two conditions
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 29
(Salkind, 2010). An independent t-test was used to determine if there was a significant
difference between the means of the pre-test of the control group and the treatment group.
The same test was also done using the means of the post-test. A t test for independent
means indicates if there is a difference between the groups that are independent of one
another (Salkind, 2010). The null hypothesis was set at a significance level of .05. An
analysis of the effect size was used to measure the magnitude of the treatment. The effect
size of the independent t-test was measured using Cohen’s d and an effect size r for the
dependent t-test.
The student survey used for focus question two and the participant survey for
focus question three were analyzed using a Chi Square. A Chi Square is a nonparametric
test that allows you to determine if what you observe in a distribution of frequencies
would be what you would expect to occur by chance (Salkind, 2010). To measure the
level of significance of the questions, the significance was reported p < .05, p < .01, p <
.001. A Cronbach’s Alpha was done on the surveys to calculate the relationship between
all questions. The score for each item is correlated with the total score for each
participant and was then compared to the variability present for all individual item scores.
This was done to make sure that each question measured what it was intended to
measure.
For focus question three, the interviews were coded for recurring, dominate and
emerging themes. The data was organized by similarity and patterns of behaviors of the
responses.
The consensual validation for this study was approved by the LaGrange College
Initial Review Board and the Education Department. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 30
review process “consensual validation,’ an agreement among competent others that the
description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic are right. The epistemological
validation is supported by the research in chapter two. Denzin and Lincoln (1998)
describe the cycling back to your literature review as ‘epistemological validation,’ a place
where you convince the reader that you have remained consistent with the theoretical
perspectives you used in the review of the literature.
The credibility of this study was supported by multiple data sources and fairness.
These sources included books, scholarly journal articles, surveys and interviews. Eisner
(1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence
comes together to form a compelling whole. Fairness was evident with opposing views
presented in the literature and data analysis. . To ensure a rightness of fit, great care has
been taken to ensure precision and accuracy for this study.
Transferability can be applied to this study because it can be replicated by others
and easily be used for future research. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘referential
adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others will increase because of your
research. Sources were cited, tables and figures added, and surveys and interview
questions were included.
This study was transformational through its catalytic validity. Catalytic validity is
the degree to which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your participants,
subjects or school (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998).
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 31
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The analysis results that are displayed in chapter four are listed by focus
questions. Quantitative data are discussed first followed by the qualitative data to assist
in answering the three focus questions. The quantitative data will be displayed through
tables embedded within the chapter. These data includes a dependent and independent ttest, a Cronbach’s Alpha and a Chi-square.
To answer focus question one, will the use of an authentic assessment increase
student achievement, the treatment and control groups were given a pre- and post- test.
The treatment group consisted of 26 students and the control group had 27 students. To
analyze the data, t tests were performed. A dependent t-test was performed to compare
the means of the pre- and post- test and to determine if were any significance between the
differences in the scores for the treatment and control group. The tables below show the
results of the dependent t-test for the post test given for the control and treatment group.
Table 4.1 – Dependent t-test Statistic Pre- and Post- test of Control Group
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Control Group
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
t(26) = 2.93, p< .05
Pre-Test
Post-test
47.41
373.79
27
-0.01
0
26
-2.93
0
1.71
0.01
2.06
64.44
533.33
27
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 32
With the control group, the mean for pre-test was 47.41 and the mean for the posttest was 64.44, showing an increase in the average test score from pre-test to post-test.
The results of the dependent t-test for the control group show that T(26) = 2.93, p<.05.
This means that the obtained value, 2.93, was greater than the critical value of 1.71.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the pre-test and post-test
scores must be rejected because there is a significant difference. The effect size was
measured by the Effect Size r and revealed a medium effect size set at a .37 level.
Table 4.2 – Dependent t-test Statistic Pre- and Post- test of Treatment Group
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Pre-Test
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Post-Test
53.08
862.15
26
0.06
0
25
-2.43
0.01
1.71
0.02
2.06
69.23
359.38
26
t(25) = 2.43, p < .05
With the treatment group, the mean for pre-test was 53.71 and the mean for the
post-test was 69.23, showing an increase in the average test score from pre to post-test.
The results of the dependent t-test for the treatment group show that T(25) = 2.43, p<.05.
This means that the obtained value, 2.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.71.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the pre-test and post-test
scores must be rejected because there is a significant difference. The effect size was
measured by the Effect Size r and revealed a medium effect size set at a .31 level.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 33
To determine the reliability of the dependent t test, a test-retest was conducted
using the pre- and post-test of the control group and the pre- and post-test of the treatment
group. The purpose of the test was to know whether the test was reliable over time
(Salkind, 2010). The Pearson’s Coefficient was used to show the relationship between
the pre- and the post- test from both groups. The results of the dependent t-test for the
control group resulted in r = .01. The results of the dependent t-test for the treatment
group resulted in r = .06. This showed that there is a weak or no relationship between
the pre- and post- test for both groups. Since the pre-test and post-test were the same,
this could possible contribute to weak relationship and low coefficient.
Both groups showed significance in the difference of the pre- and post- test with
the control group showing a greater significance. The control group had a 17.03 gain
while the treatment group had a 16.15 gain.
Independent t-tests were performed to compare the means of the two groups pretest and post-test scores. The tables below show the results of the independent t-test for
the groups.
Table 4.3 - Independent t-test statistic Pre-test of Control and Treatment
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Pre-Test
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
t(43) = .83, p>.05
47.41
373.79
27
0
43
-0.83
0.21
1.68
0.41
2.02
Pre-Test
53.08
862.15
26
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 34
For the pre-test, the mean for the control group was 47.41 and the mean for the
treatment group was 53.08. The results of the independent t-test show that T(43) = .83,
p>.05. This means that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value of 1.68.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the pre-test scores between
the groups must be accepted because there no significant difference. The effect size was
measured using Cohen’s d which resulted in a medium effect size at a .23 level.
Table 4.4 – Independent t-test statistic Control and Treatment Post-test
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Post-test
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Post-Test
64.44
533.33
27
0
50
-0.83
0.21
1.68
0.41
2.01
69.23
359.38
26
t(50) = .83, p<.05
For the post-test, the mean for the control group was 64.44 and the mean for the
treatment group was 69.23. The results of the independent t-test show that T(50) = .83,
p>.05. This means that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value of 1.68.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the post-test scores between
the groups must be accepted because there no significant difference. The effect size was
measured using Cohen’s d. The results showed a medium effect size at a .23 level.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 35
To answer focus questions number two, how have the use of an authentic
assessment impacted the feelings and attitudes of the students, the treatment group was
given a survey. The survey focused on how the students felt about doing assessments
other than the traditional paper and pencil assessment. A common theme among all
students was that they enjoy doing hands-on activities to show understanding of concepts.
To analyze the survey, the chi-square statistic was calculated to compare what was
observed on the survey to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2010). The table
below shows the results of the chi-square test of the treatment group.
Table 4.5 – Chi-Square of Survey for Treatment Group
Survey Items
n=5
Survey Question
χ2
Item 1
Item 2
I learn best by doing hands-on activities
My attitude towards learning math increased with
the use of the performance task
Item 3
I enjoy doing an authentic assessment more than
doing a traditional paper and pencil test.
Item 4
I feel challenged when I am given a performance
assessment.
Item 5
I feel I can apply what I have learned when given a
performance task rather than a paper and pencil
test
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
18.23**
14.77*
20.92***
6.69
16.31**
The chi-square statistic revealed several survey items was significant when p<.05,
.01 and .001. The results for the survey highlighted that question 3 was greatly
significant, meaning that there were a high percentage of students that answered a certain
way on this question. Question 4 was not significant at all, which means that there was
no significant difference on these questions between what was observed in the answer
and what would have been expected to occur by chance.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 36
To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the survey given
to the students, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. The
purpose of this test was to compare the score for each test item with the total score for
each student in order to make sure the test items measured only what they were intended
to measure (Salkind, 2000). For the survey of the treatment group, the Cronbach’s Alpha
was α = .66. This calculation showed a moderate level of reliability using the results of
the Cronbach’s Alpha test. Also on the survey, the students were asked, “In the eighth
grade, you are required to pass the CRCT. Would you rather take the CRCT or do a
cumulative authentic assessment for promotion to the 9th grade? Responses included 14
for an authentic assessment and 12 for the CRCT. The results of the responses align with
the results of the survey questions.
To answer focus question number three, how effective was the use of authentic
assessments used to convince school leaders to implement as a summative assessment,
members of the school leadership team were surveyed and members of the math
department and the principal were interviewed. Ten of the fifteen surveys that were
given out at the school were returned. The years of experience for those surveyed ranged
from 6-20 years. The chi-square test statistic was calculated to compare what was
observed on the surveys to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2000). The table
below shows the results of the chi-square test for the faculty survey.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 37
Table 4.6 – Chi-Square for Faculty Survey
Survey Items n=4
Item 1
Survey Question
Curriculum frameworks allow integration of research based practices in
classroom assessment.
Item 2
Performance standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on
instruction
Item 3
Staff development is provided for use of assessment to improve test scores
Item 4
Students are provided opportunities for demonstrating knowledge beyond
recall through authentic assessment.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
χ2
11
15*
19**
15*
The chi-square statistic results showed that several survey items were significant
when p<.05, .01 and .001. The results for the faculty survey highlighted that question 2,3
and 4 were weak significantly, meaning that there were a low percentage of faculty
members that answered a certain way on this question. Question 1 was not significant at
all, which means that there was no significant difference on these questions between what
was observed in the answer and what would have been expected to occur by chance.
To determine the internal consistency reliability of the item on the survey given to
the faculty, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. The
purpose of this test was to compare the score for each test item with the total score for
each student in order to make sure the test items measured only what they were intended
to measure (Salkind, 2000). The computations gave a Cronbach’s Alpha of α= .33.
The faculty survey also contained two open-ended questions. Question five
asked, “Do you think traditional assessments or authentic assessments would better
prepare students for standardized test”? Four out of the ten surveyed answered authentic
assessment. Teacher 1, with 11-20 years of experience, stated, “If everyone was
following the scope & sequence and preparing adequate traditional and authentic
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 38
assessment, then it would prepare student better. Teacher 3, with 6-10 years of
experience, stated “Traditional assessments due to all of the standardized assessments
that must be passed or met. There were some that felt that both would help students.
Teacher 4 felt that traditional assessment should be summative or CRCT practice while
authentic assessments should be formative and to improve critical thinking. Teacher 5
stated, “I think that traditional assessments may prepare students for standardized tests
but authentic assessments help to develop students’ understanding of the concepts.
Overall, the common theme was that both are necessary to raise student achievement but
traditional assessments prepare students for standardized test.
Question six asked, “Do you think that the curriculum is driven by test scores”?
Three out of the ten surveyed answered yes. Teacher 2, with 11-20 years of experience,
stated “I think everything is driven by test scores including teacher pay, job security etc.”
Teacher 3 stated “Curriculum is not really, however teaching practices are driven by
scores.” The common theme for this question was that teachers tend to teach to what and
how the students are being assessed.
An interview was conducted with members of the math department. Out of
twelve members, eight were available for an interview. This interview focused on
assessment in the classroom and what type showed the greatest measure of student
achievement. Question 1 of the interview asked, “What differentiated instructional
strategies are being used in your classroom”? All of the teachers responded that use
differentiated instructional strategies in the classroom such as tiered assignments, choice
boards, and individualized instruction. Question 2 asked, “How are your students
assessed”? Quizzes and test were the most given answers. Three of the teachers used
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 39
observation in the classroom as quick way of assessing students. Question 3 asked,
“How often do you give a summative assessment”? At the end of each unit was a
cohesive answer for the group. Question 4 asked, “How do students feel about the
assessment that you give”? Teacher 7 stated, “Students never like test; however, they
seem over assessed”. Teacher 2 stated, “Most say they are easy because it covers exactly
what I taught”. Teacher 5 stated, “I don’t know”. Question 5 asked, “Do students have
an option on how they are assessed? The teachers unanimously stated that students did
not have an option on summative assessments and that they are assessed using traditional
testing methods. Question 6 asked, “Have you used an authentic assessment as a
summative assessment”? All of the teachers stated yes. The most commonly used in the
classroom are projects and performance task, with the use of rubrics. Question 8 asked,
“Does your grade level share assessment”? The teachers responded yes. Teacher 7
stated, “We share them but that does not mean that we all end up giving the same
assessment. Question 8 asked, “What do you think drives the curriculum”? Half of the
teachers responded that it was the CRCT. Teacher 3 responded that teacher knowledge,
repetition and explaining why math works drive the curriculum. Teacher 2 felt that it was
other states’ curriculum. Question 9 asked, “Do you think the implementation of an
authentic assessment as a summative assessment will improve test scores”? All of the
math teachers, except one, stated that they felt that the implementation of authentic
assessments will improve test scores. Math teacher 6 stated “I feel it is hard to get the
students to complete independently. Many students cannot handle application of
concepts independently and time prohibits that involved of an assessment.” Other
teachers felt the same way concerning the time. Teacher 5 stated, “I don’t feel that it
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 40
should be used as the only source to measure student knowledge”. Teacher 2 stated,
“The one’s that usually score low on test don’t have much motivation on projects either”.
A common theme was that the scope and sequence does not allow enough time to
implement enough authentic assessments. Teacher 7 felt that if authentic assessments
were implemented across the grade levels, then eventually it would improve student
achievement and test scores.
The interview with the principal focused on the use of authentic assessments in
the classroom and the change process in the school. Question 1 asked, “What is the
typical type of assessment given in the classroom”? He was very knowledgeable of the
different types of assessment being used in the classroom. He noted that the use of
formative assessment is increased greatly. These included but not limited to tickets out
the door, warm-ups and teacher observation. Question 2 asked, “Is there evidence of
authentic assessment being used in the classroom”? He stated “Yes, I have noticed that
teachers are using it more than in the past. Teachers are using more performance task
and projects not only to engage students in the learning process but to raise student
achievement”. Question 3 asked, “How do you feel about traditional assessments”? He
commented that they are quicker and easier to grade for the teacher. He also noted that
because of standardized testing that it is important that we expose students to that type of
testing method. Question 4 asked, “Do you think differentiated instruction and
assessment increases student achievement”? Excitedly, he replied yes!! He stated,
“Differentiated instruction and assessment involves the student in the learning process
and engages students. The use of technology allows for the teacher and student to be
creative in the classroom”. Question 5 asked, “What do you think drives the
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 41
curriculum”? Without hesitation, he said standardized testing. He stated “Standardized
testing is tied to federal funding. The curriculum is written and aligned to these test.
Therefore; teachers tend to teach to the test”. Question 6 asked, “How can schools and
teachers increase the time spent in school to optimize learning for the students”? He
answered with one word: technology. The principal felt that technology is the key to
raising the bar in all areas concerning education. He stated that promethean boards,
smart boards, CPS units and computer labs are vital in increasing student engagement and
achievement. Question 7 asked, “How has assessment changed instruction over the past
20 years”? Over the last 20 years, he stated that assessment has changed tremendously.
He stated, “There is more accountability now with NCLB so teachers tend to teach to the
test”. Question 8 asked, “Do you foresee authentic assessment to be more or less
prominent in our school than what they are today”? He answered that authentic
assessments will be more prominent in the classroom because the increase of
differentiated instruction, technology and assessment changes. He stated that classes will
have higher expectations of teachers and of students. Students will do more application
with hands-on activities or with technology. Even though he felt that standardized testing
drives the curriculum, because of the funding that is tied to it, he felt that authentic
assessments can still raise student achievement. Effective teacher training on the use and
implementation of authentic assessments is crucial in the success raising student
achievement in the classroom.
As the leader of the school, the principal is vital in the change process within the
school organization. With over 30 years of experience, he has been very influential in the
lives of many educators. Question 9 asked, “When making a change in the school, what
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 42
approaches do you use to gain buy-in from the faculty”? He said, “You have to have
buy-in to make a change, and in order to get buy-in, you have to have something that is
going to work. It is important to show that the change you are going to make has proven
results. Once you get an idea, you have to get buy-in, and that will equal the desired
change.” Question 10 asked, “What causes change in the school to be successful or
failures”?
He replied, “Tradition is often a barrier to change.” He spoke on when people
have done things a certain way for so long then it is difficult for change to happen. He
noted that building a strong leadership team within the school contributes to the success
of change.
In implementing authentic assessment in the classroom, he said that more needs
to be done in the classroom to increase student achievement and not relying totally on
traditional assessments as a measure of achievement.
There were some similarities between the quantitative and qualitative data
reported in this action research study. The quantitative data showed authentic assessment
as being significant in raising student achievement. However, the qualitative data show
that there is some significance of using authentic assessment but not at the cost of using a
summative assessment. Both data sources will be further analyzed in Chapter Five in as
well as recommendations for further research on this topic.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 43
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In Chapter 5, the results of the research project were analyzed and discussed more
thoroughly. The analysis results are listed by focus questions followed by discussion and
implication of the results. The chapter concludes with how the study the impacted school
improvement and the recommendations for future research
Analysis
Focus question one asked if the use of an authentic assessment increased student
achievement. The data were collected from pre-test and post-test of the control and
treatment group. The data were analyzed using an independent t-test of the pre-test and
post-test. A dependent t-test was performed on the pre-test and post-test of the control
group and the experiment group. The results of the independent t-test of the pre-test of
the control and treatment groups showed that the obtained value, .83, was less than the
critical value of 1.86 when p>.05. This means that the null hypothesis was accepted and
there was no significant difference between the scores of the groups before the beginning
of the research project. The results of the independent t-test of the post-test of the control
and treatment groups showed that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value
of 1.68 when p>.05. This meant that the null hypothesis was accepted and there was no
significant difference between the scores of the groups at the end of the research project.
For the independent t-test for the control and treatment group, the effect size showed a
medium size of .23 which means that both groups tend to be very similar and over
entirely. There is no difference between the two distributions of scores.
The results of the dependent t-test of the pre-test of the control group showed that
the obtained value, 2.93 was greater than the critical value of 1.71 when p<.05. This
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 44
means the null hypothesis was rejected because there was a significant difference in the
scores of the control group from the pre-test to the post-test. The results of the dependent
t-test of the post-test of the treatment group shoed the obtained value, 2.41, was greater
than the critical value of 1.71 when p<.05. This means that the null hypothesis was
rejected because there was a significant difference in the scores of the treatment group
from the pre-test to the post-test. For the dependent t-test, the effect size measured
medium for both groups. For the control group, the effect size was r =.37 and r =.31 for
the treatment group. This means that both groups tend to be very similar and over
entirely. There is no difference between the two distributions of scores.
To determine the reliability of the test, a test-retest correlation was performed.
This method was used because the same test was used for the pre- and post- test. The
results of the dependent t-test for the control group resulted in r = .01 and r = .06 for the
treatment group. This means that was weak or no relationship correlation between the
scores of the pre-test and post-test given to both groups.
To establish content validity, the test items were created by teachers
knowledgeable of the content and reviewed by school leaders within the county. The test
showed that it measured what was supposed to be measured because there was a
significant increase in the mean of the control and treatment group. The significance was
important because the research project measured if authentic assessment increased
student achievement. The overall results of the research showed significant increase
within the treatment group. The results also showed that there was a greater increase in
the scores of the students in the control group than the scores within the treatment group.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 45
The results of the research for focus question one is parallel and supported by the
evidence found in the literature on authentic assessment increasing student achievement.
Moon et al. (2002) reported results that suggest that authentic assessment can be used in
middle school classrooms for accurate assessment of students’ success in achieving
academic learning standards. Moon et al. (2005) reported that teachers can successfully
use authentic assessments to measure academic standards identified for the content areas.
Focus question two asked how was the attitudes and feelings impacted by the use
of an authentic assessment. The data were collected using student surveys. The data
were analyzed using a chi square. The chi square result of item 1 was χ2(4)= 18.23, p<.05.
This means that the student responses were moderately significant. The raw data showed
that the majority of the students enjoy doing hands on activities. The chi square result of
item 2 was χ2(4)= 14.77, p<.05. This means that the student responses show a low level of
significant. The raw data showed that the over half of students were either neutral or
disagreed with the belief that that their attitude towards learning increased after the use of
the performance task. The chi square result of item 3 was χ2(4)= 20.92, p<.05. This
means that student responses showed a strong significance. The raw data showed that
most students agreed that they enjoy doing an authentic assessment instead of a
traditional paper and pencil test. The chi square result of item 4 was χ2(4)= 6.69, p>.05.
This means that the student responses showed no significance. The raw data revealed
that the students were split between agreeing and disagreeing with the belief they feel
challenged when an authentic assessment is used. The chi square result of item 5 was
χ2(4)= 16.31, p<.05. This means that the student responses were moderately significant.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 46
The raw data revealed that majority of the students felt that they can apply what they
have learned better using an authentic assessment rather than a traditional assessment.
To test the reliability of the survey, a Cronbach’s Alpha was performed. The
results showed α = .66. This means that the survey was a reliable source of data. The
validity of the survey was measured by showing that authentic assessment impacted the
attitudes and feelings of the students. The results from the data showed significance
between using authentic assessments and student attitude and feelings. With support of
the literature, Anderson (2007) reported on the basis of student achievement data and
attitudes toward reading that implementation of differentiated instructional strategies had
been an effective approach toward successfully increasing reading achievement. The
research supports the results of the using authentic assessment rather than traditional
assessment for enjoyment and being able to apply what was learned. The study done by
DeCastro-Ambrosetti and Cho (2005) reported that students responded that they were
able to show what they had learned and not spit back what had been heard in class. The
students also felt that traditional assessments do not fully allow them to show what they
have learned. Moon et al. (2005) reported that there was a positive response to
differentiated authentic assessment. The students in the study felt that rubrics are helpful
because they serve as a guideline in completing the authentic assessment.
Focus question three asked how effective was the study in implementing authentic
assessments as summative assessment within the school organization. The data were
collected through a survey from leaders within the school and interviews with math
teachers and the principal. The survey data were analyzed using a chi square and the
interviews were coded for emergent and recurring themes.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 47
The survey items consisted of statements using a Likert scale. The results showed
significant results. Item 1 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 11, p>.05. This means that the
item showed no significance. Looking at the raw data, faculty members either agreed or
were neutral on the belief that the curriculum frameworks allow integration of research
based practices in classroom assessment. Item 2 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 15,
p<.05. This means that the faculty responses were significant. The raw data showed that
the faculty members agreed that performance standards and assessment affects time
spend on instruction. Item 3 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 19, p<.05. This means that
the item show moderately significant. The raw data showed that the majority of the
faculty felt that staff development is not provided for the use of assessments to increase
test scores. Item 4 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 15, p<.05. This means that the faculty
responses were significant. The raw data showed that the faculty members agreed
students are provided opportunities to demonstrate learning through authentic assessment.
The results from the Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .33 showed that the survey was a relatively
small source of reliable data. The overall results of the teacher survey showed that
authentic assessment is useful in the classroom but with pressure of standardized test
scores it is hard to implement. Cole et al. (2009) reported that performance standards and
assessment criteria affect time spend on instruction. With limitations on time, teachers
often find other ways of making authentic assessments a part of instruction. Moon et al.
(2002) reported that most teachers introduced the assessments during class but required
the bulk of the work to be done outside of class time.
After members of the math department were interviewed, the result was positive
but with hesitation on using authentic assessment as a summative assessment. The
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 48
common theme among the teachers was that individualized instruction and assessment
are used in the classroom.
They agreed that authentic assessment can help raise test
scores but instructional time and the traditional standardized testing methods were a
problem. The use of the authentic assessment were great in the classroom but not for
preparation for standardized test. Unlike authentic assessment, Chapman and King
(2005) reported that standardized assessments are administered with the same directions,
time limits, response formats and questions. The teachers felt that authentic assessments
give students a variety of ways to demonstrate learning and understanding. Sacks (1999)
reported that when students use traditional assessments, they are only asked a small
fragment of what they know and in way that they may be able to tell what they know.
The interview with the principal resulted in a need for more authentic assessment
in the classroom. He commented that the use of authentic assessment in the classroom
because it allows students to be creative and it give them the opportunity to be investors
in their learning. DeCastro-Ambrosett and Cho (2005) supports this statement by
reporting that authentic assessments places the responsibility of learning on the students
and provided the opportunity for them to engage in activities that embrace their various
learning styles and multiple intelligences. He expressed that with the use of technology
and proper guidelines authentic assessments can be successful in showing evidence of
learning. He noted that most teachers still use traditional assessments because it is
familiar and the pressure of standardized test. Sacks (1999) stated that there was
resistance from teachers who are unwilling to take risks with their test scores. This
supports what the some teachers said in the interviews. With the so much pressure on
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 49
standardized testing, they will they have to teach to the test with the same type of testing
methods, format and questioning style.
The principal acknowledged that the implementing change within the school
organization can be a hard transition. Zins and Illback (1995) reported that the process of
implementing change at an organizational level clearly is challenging. Because things
have been done a “certain way” for so long, it is hard to implement change when others
feel that there isn’t a need for a change. The principal stated that the in order for
transition to be successful there must be a buy-in from the faculty. Mai (2004) states that
a learning organization is one that actively works to improve itself by casting present
practice under critical scrutiny and by seeking new and better ways of doing things. As
with the teachers, the principal agreed that authentic assessments in the classroom are
engaging, creative and shows evidence of the student’s learning. However, both parties
stated that it should be the sole assessment used in the classroom. They agreed that they
will be better used at the end of units, chapters etc. The final thoughts of the principal
were that we are in an age of technology and hands-on in the classroom. With effective
training, teachers can use authentic assessment in the classroom but as long as there is
NCLB there will still be a need for traditional assessment.
Discussion
The results of the research on using authentic assessment showed positive and
significant results. The treatment group showed improvement from the beginning to the
end of the study. In comparison to the control group, there was improvement as well.
Consequently, the control group showed a greater significance. With the immersion of
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 50
the 21st century classroom, it is ideal for students to demonstrate learning and
understanding through a variety of assessments. Authentic assessments allows students
to show evidence of their learning rather than recognizing, recalling or plugging in what
was learned into a traditional assessment. The research findings show that authentic
assessment does raise student achievement and engages and motivates the student to learn
and take responsibility of the learning process.
The results of the surveys showed that there was consensus that authentic
assessments are important to the student and teachers. The students in the treatment
group enjoyed the performance task and would prefer it over a traditional assessment. As
for the teachers, authentic assessments are very successful when time and proper
instructions are allowed.
The results of the interviews showed that the study proved that authentic
assessments should be implemented in the classroom to raise student achievement but
traditional assessment should continue as well. The results showed that the math teachers
and principal found that authentic assessments that are more useful as formative
assessment rather than summative assessments. The study presents finding that authentic
assessments are useful but traditional assessments are necessary because of standardized
testing.
The credibility of the study came from the results and outcome from the use of the
multiple data sources. A pre-test was given at the beginning of the study to the control
and treatment groups. This was done to show that there was no significance difference in
the performance on the pre-test. A post-test was given after the implementation of the
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 51
study to show if the research project worked. The study was made fair by presenting the
opposing view that authentic assessment does not raise student achievement. The
opposing viewpoint was proven valid because the control group made a more of a gain
than the treatment group. The interview with principal and teachers supported the
argument that authentic assessment can help but not necessary raise student achievement
but offers diverse ways showing evidence of learning.
Implication
The subjects within the research study were a typical heterogeneous group of
students that represented a sample size within the school. When using authentic
assessments in the classroom, modification may be done to meet the varying learning
levels in the classroom. If this is done, then this study can be used with a larger
population. However, the response to the research project showed that the use of time
and the pressure of standardized test served as a hesitation on implementing authentic
assessments as a summative assessment.
Referential adequacy was achieved through the interviews with the teachers and
principal. They supported the quantitative data that authentic assessment can but do not
necessary raise student achievement. It engages the student and allowed for
differentiated instruction in the classroom. With the GPS rigorous math curriculum,
authentic assessments are becoming more frequent in the classroom. Teachers within the
math content area may find this study useful and be able to replicate.
This study transformed the students in the treatment and control group which
showed catalytic validity. The treatment group was hesitant about the authentic
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 52
assessment given to them. Because of the difficulty of the unit, many felt that they were
not prepared to demonstrate understanding of the concepts taught. After groups were
formed and the rubric explained, the students were at ease. Over the course of the
performance task, the students expressed excitement through verbal and written
evaluations. At the conclusion of the performance task, they asked if this assessment
could replace the regular test given at the end of a unit. As for the control group, they
were disappointed that they were not able to do the performance task. Many stated that
would have been better than doing word problems.
As a teacher, this study transformed me in a variety of ways. Initially, I thought
that the treatment group was going to have a difficult time and I would have to walk them
through it step by step. I have never been so wrong. Once I explained what we were
doing, how it should be done and to use their partner as support, the students gained
ownership of the performance task. The assignment counted as a group grade so each
student responsible for their part of the task. I watched as my students became teachers
to their peers. Often, it felt like I was listening to myself. It was at that moment that I
realized that if you give students an opportunity and trust them with it, then they will
show you what they know and are able to do. My lesson learned was never to assume
students are not capable when you haven’t allowed them to show capability.
Impact on School Improvement
The impact of research made on school improvement showed little progression.
Even though authentic assessments are useful in the classroom, reality forces teachers to
resist implementing as summative assessments. Standardized testing is at the forefront of
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 53
federal funding, AYP and instruction. As long as standardized testing is a pivotal
measurement of student achievement, teachers will continue to teach to the test. As
education evolved, differentiated instruction and assessment have been encouraged in the
classroom. In theory, this provides engaging and interactive classrooms but when the
accountability of the school rest upon standardized test, teachers will continue to assess
using traditional methods.
Recommendation for Future Research
Further research is needed to determine if authentic assessment raises student
achievement. For better results, the study should be done during a full school year.
Along with the length of the study, there are a few things that I would have done
differently. I would have interviewed random students in addition to the survey. More
survey questions would have been added pertaining to their interest and grade average in
math. At the end of each unit, the students would have completed a performance task and
a traditional assessment. This would allow me to see if the student mastered the
standards and is able to apply what was learned through the task.
The next step to extend this study is to include all math classes across each grade
level. Math teachers can collaborate and develop common authentic assessments and
rubrics to ensure consistency. It takes buy in from all stakeholders in order for
innovation to be successful. Teachers’ instructional methods must be for the gaining of
knowing and understanding and not for teaching to the test. When students know that it
is required to show and prove what they have learned instead of guessing answers or
bubbling in an answer, then they will take more responsibility and pride in their learning.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 54
References
Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students. Preventing
School Failure, 51(3), 49-54.
Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. (2004). Normalizing differences in inclusive teaching. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525-529.
Banfield, G., & Cayago-Gicain, M.S. (2006). Qualitative approaches to educational
evaluation: A regional conference-workshop. International Education Journal,
7(4), 510-513.
Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 91-108.
Chapman, C. & King, R. (2005). Differentiated assessment strategies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Cole, H., Hulley, K., & Quarles, P. (2009). Does assessment have to drive the
curriculum? Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved from ERIC Database
Cook, R. J. (2004). Embedding assessment of young children into routines of inclusive
settings: A systematic planning approach. Young Exceptional Children, 7, 2–11.
Danzi, J., Reul, K., & Smith, R. (2008, April 1). Improving student motivation in mixed
ability classrooms using differentiated instruction. Online Submission,
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. & Cho, G. (2005). Synergism in learning: A critical
reflection of authentic assessment. The High School Journal, 89 (1), 57-62.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 55
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York: Teachers
College Press
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
George, M.P., White, G.P., & Schlaffer, J.J. (2007). Implementing school-wide
behavior change: Lessons from the field. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 4149.
Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Brookshire, R. (2006). Using authentic assessment to
evidence children's progress toward early learning standards. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 34(1), 45-51, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). The Conceptual Framework.
LaGrange, GA
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 56
Madeja, S. S. (2004). Alternative assessment strategies for schools. Arts Education
Policy Review, 105(5), 3.
Mai, R., (2004). Leadership for school improvement: Cues from organizational
learning and renewal efforts. The Educational Forum, 68, 221-221.
Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A. (2001).
The work sampling system (4th ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Rebus Inc.
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.
Moon, T., Brighton, C., Callahan, C.M., & Tomlison, C.A. (2002). Development of
differentiated performance assessment tasks for middle school classrooms.
(Report No. RM02160). Storrs, CT: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement
Moon, T., Brighton, C., Callahan, C. M., & Robinson, A. (2005). Development of
authentic assessments for the middle school classrooms. The Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 16 (2/3), 119-133.
Paulsen, C.A. & Dailey, D. (2006). A Guide for Education Personnel: Evaluating a
Program or Intervention. Retrieved from EMSTAC website:
http://www.emstac.org/resources/extras.htm
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 57
Peters, G. (2007). Structural and curricular design: What changes when an essential
school commits to exhibitions. Horace, 23(1), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.
Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing
tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
Ryan, T. G. (2006). Performance assessment: Critics, criticism, and controversy.
International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 97-104. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
Wolf, P. J. (2007). Academic improvement through regular assessment. Peabody
Journal of Education, 82(4), 690-702.
Zins, J.E. & Illback, R.J., (1995). Consulting to facilitate planned organizational change
in schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
17(2&3), 109-117.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 58
Appendix A
Student Attitude Survey
Read each item carefully and circle your response using the Likert scale below.
1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
4
5
1. I learn best by doing hands-on activities.
1
2
3
2. My attitude towards learning math increased with the use of authentic assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I enjoy doing authentic assessment more than doing a traditional paper and pencil
test.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I feel challenged when I am given an authentic assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
If necessary, use the back to complete the two following questions.
5. In the eighth grade, you are required to pass the CRCT. Would you rather take
the CRCT or do a cumulative authentic assessment for promotion?
1> CRCT or 2> Authentic Assessment
Circle one
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 59
Appendix B
Interview Questions for the Principal
1.
What is the typical type of assessment given?
2.
Is there evidence of authentic assessments being used in the classroom?
3.
How do you feel about traditional assessments (ex. Multiple choice,
paper/pencil)?
4.
Do you think that differentiated instruction increases student achievement?
5.
What do you think drives the curriculum?
6.
How can schools and teachers increase the time spent in school to optimize
learning for the students?
7.
How assessment has changed instruction in the past 20 years?
8.
Looking in the future, do you foresee authentic assessment to be more or less
prominent in our schools than what they are today?
9.
When making a change in the school, what approaches do you use to gain buy-in
from the faculty?
10.
What causes innovations in the school to be successful or failures?
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 60
Appendix C
Interview Questions for the Math Teachers
1. What differentiated instructional strategies are being used in your classroom?
2. How do you assess your students?
3. How often do you give a summative assessment?
4. How do students feel about the assessments that you give?
5. Do students have an option on how they are assessed?
6. Have you used an authentic assessment as a summative assessment?
7. Does your grade level share assessments?
8. What do you think drives the curriculum?
9. Do you think the implementation of authentic assessment will improve student
achievement?
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 61
Appendix D
SILT Survey
Position
Teacher________ 1-5_____
Years of Experience
6-10_____
Administrative________1-5_____
11-20_____
6-10_____
11-20_____
20+_______
20+_______
Read each item carefully and circle your response using the Likert scale below.
1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree
3=Neutral
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
1. Curriculum frameworks allow integration of research based best practices in
classroom assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
2. Performance standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on instruction.
1
2
3
4
5
3. Staff development is provided for use of assessment to improve test scores.
1
2
3
4
5
4. Students are provided opportunities for demonstrating knowledge beyond recall
through authentic assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
If necessary, use the back to complete the two following questions.
5. In your opinion, do you think traditional assessments or authentic assessments
would better prepare students for standardized test?
6. In your opinion, do you think that the curriculum is driven by test scores?
Modified from
Cole, H., Hulley, K., & Quarles, P. (2009). Does Assessment Have to Drive the Curriculum? Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved from ERIC Database