Is it time to stop talking about authentic assessment?

ABSTRACT

Authentic assessment is a widely discussed concept in higher education, but it has a problem: the concept has become so all-encompassing that its meaning is now unclear. The notion has been expanded and diluted. For example, adding social justice to the definition or positioning exams as authentic, adds to the contradictions inherent within in the term. We argue for a more critical stance regarding the existing claims related to authentic assessment to ensure that the field remains evidence informed. From a position where we wholeheartedly believe in the aims and approaches of the authentic assessment movement, we conclude that for the sake of coherence and clarity, we should stop using the term ‘authentic assessment’ and instead turn our attention to focus on the component characteristics.

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment
• authentic
• evidence
• terminology

Higher education has experienced constant change against a backdrop of substantial shifts in politics, policy, society, and economy. Yet, the concept of authentic assessment has survived and thrived in higher education for over three decades (with early examples including Herrington and Herrington 1998; Cumming and Maxwell 1999). Authentic assessment exists across different international settings, including Indonesia (Ibrahim, Malik, and Avianti 2023), Norway (Dahlback et al. 2020), Ireland (Dixon 2022), Canada (Hobbins et al. 2021) and especially, according to McArthur (2023), in the UK and Australia. Despite its popularity, authentic assessment has a problem. Ask a room of 50 colleagues what authentic assessment is, and you will likely get 50 different responses. Anecdotally, this point is visible on social media and audible in corridor conversations, but this struggle with articulation is visible in the literature too (see Jopp 2020; Schriebl, Müller, and Robin 2023).

Over time, authentic assessment has been referred to as a buzzword (McArthur 2023; Schriebl, Müller, and Robin 2023; Shaffer and Resnick 1999). This paper explores and problematises the idea of authentic assessment. It considers how we might avoid the terminology becoming a distraction to the important matter of creating effective, inclusive, and relevant assessment. Our positionality is relevant to what follows: Lydia has long advocated for authentic assessment through personal practice as an educator, while James recently undertook an action research project to understand the meaning of authentic assessment within his team. We were motivated to write this paper because of an increasing belief that the lexicon of this space is becoming a distraction from worthy aims.

The problem of definition

The problems of defining authentic assessment have been widely noted (see, e.g. McArthur 2023; Schriebl, Müller, and Robin 2023; Vu and Dall’Alba 2014). Dishon suggests authentic is ‘a vague and contestable term’ (2020, 168). Authors portraying the concept have created long-lists, models, or multi-dimensional conceptualisations to articulate what ‘authentic’ means (see, e.g. Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown 2014; Villarroel et al. 2018; Wiggins 1990). Commonly identified features include: a high level of real-world relevance or sometimes future career relevance; complexity and higher-level cognitive challenge built into the task; opportunity for collaboration within the assessment; embedded opportunity for meaningful reflection; the presentation of ill-structured tasks; and opportunities for choice in format or focus (Wiggins 1990; Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown 2014; Rennert-Ariev 2005).

The fundamental principles of authentic assessment are then developed further, with the addition of methods of learning or support that should accompany the assessment approach. Descriptions of authentic assessment sometimes point to the importance of facilities and environments which are recognisable to stakeholders, be them virtual (see, e.g. Al-Nakhle 2022) or physical (see, e.g. Ghosh 2017); they sometimes highlight the need for access to real experts and practitioners (Rennert-Ariev 2005); they often necessitate opportunities for feedback when undertaking an assessment task (Wiggins, 1990); and sometimes there is emphasis on students creating a product or performance oriented to a specific audience (Colthorpe et al. 2021; Jessop 2019).

Whilst there is a broad consensus within the literature that authentic assessment should have worth beyond the academy, there are points of difference in published definitions; some emphasise only the need for skills for work or the real world, whereas more encompassing definitions recognise the value of an authenticity towards discipline practices (Jessop, 2019) or societal challenges and injustice (McArthur 2023; Jamil et al. 2020). Through a more philosophical or ontological lens there is also an emphasis on using authentic assessment approaches to enable students to develop in line with their own intrinsic drivers and to grow as people (Dishon 2020; Vu and Dall’Alba 2014). Given this complexity it is perhaps unsurprising that published papers take time to define the term explicitly and extensively before it can be applied. The term ‘authentic assessment’ lacks a single and clear meaning.

An authentic assessment movement

Authentic assessment promises many benefits; Jopp (2020) noted that there is a consensus building about what those benefits are. Authentic approaches are associated with enhanced student learning outcomes and personal development, such as communication skills and self-confidence (Wake et al. 2023). Authentic approaches are perceived to act as an inclusive form of assessment specifically through the in-built opportunities for choice, diverse materials, and diverse approaches to accommodations (Nieminen 2022). Inclusivity might also come from a focus on themes in assessment which challenge the hegemony of dominant ideas (Forsyth and Evans 2019). Dixon (2022) suggests that authentic assessments create interactive, enjoyable experiences for students and lecturers, and that they encourage student engagement. Then leaving no room for doubt, Brown and Sambell (2023, 5) add that with this type of assessment ‘[t]he benefits in terms of student engagement are proven … students tend to engage more deeply, and potentially achieve higher marks overall’. These compelling accounts illustrate the enthusiasm within higher education for the concept of authentic. The wave of enthusiasm can even be seen as a movement, energised by the drive to reposition the assessment landscape in accordance with authentic principles.

The enthusiasm for authentic approaches was clear to see in the period of the global COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous papers published or shared at conferences to show innovation and development (see, e.g. Sutadji et al. 2021; Miller and Konstantinou 2022). Siering (2022) suggested, in an introduction to a special edition journal publication on authentic assessment, that in this time of crisis authentic assessment remained the ‘gold standard’. And yet, despite the enthusiasm on display for authentic assessment, two studies noted that the pandemic shone a light on a tendency for higher education to separate the consideration of teaching and assessment, with many existing practices remaining unchallenged (Slade et al. 2022; Elkington et al. 2023). Moreover, Ibrahim et al. (2023) questioned the readiness of faculty to engage with the concept of authentic assessment in the pandemic context. The promise of authentic assessment was not always being realised.

Binary choices

The authentic assessment movement comes with an unintended and unnecessary risk of binary presentation. In the literature, ‘authentic’ is often described by what it is not, as if it cannot stand alone. Wiggins’ (1990) seminal paper explicitly positions authentic as a contrast to traditional forms of assessment. While this may be understandable with a concept which is new and novel, three decades on we continue with the juxtaposition definition. For example, Khan, Dong, and Manesh (2023) refer to authentic as an ‘alternate to traditional assessments’ while Sotardi and Dutton explain that authentic ‘contrasts more traditional forms of assessment, such as essays and examinations’ (2022, 4).

Helpfully, Pallant, Pallant, and Jopp are clear that authenticity is not ‘black and white’ (2022, 4). Instead, we can conceive a spectrum of authenticity (Forsyth and Evans 2019). This view fits with Arnold’s (2022) attempt to exemplify different formats for authentic assessment with ratings showing the extent to which each format fulfilled various characteristics of authentic assessment. Others too have tried to establish the degree to which specific assessment formats are authentic (Stankov 2024; Colthorpe et al. 2021).

If we subscribe to ‘authentic’ as being a multi-dimensional concept, with a list of features which are present to a greater or lesser extent, then assessments are less likely to be just traditional or just authentic. Traditional formats can be made more authentic for example, by adding real-world-ness through scenarios, through careful inclusion of complexity to stretch and challenge students, and, by allowing students to draw on their experiences and views alongside any recall (Moore 2018). Exams may be made more authentic by attending to particular factors before, during and after an examination or test (Villarroel et al. 2020).

Although nudging traditional practices to become more authentic may be one way in which the binary positioning of assessments can be challenged, the ends of the spectrum still exist, and the process of making an exam more authentic can still be undertaken in a way which simply tries to take something perceived as sub-optimal and traditional and move it to being something more valued. Villarroel et al. make changes to exams to make them more authentic in a bid to make some progress because ‘tests are so widely used in higher education’ (2020, 10); this position seems to concede that given traditional approaches are so prevalent, there is a need to work with them to move them along to spectrum as best we can.

Authentic assessment is presented as being inherently for good and as having laudable aims, indeed Cumming and Maxwell (1999) say the concept is like motherhood and apple-pie. Through this narrative, we may be inadvertently positioning assessment practices into two camps, with the traditional element perceived, by inference, as being less. This is especially difficult when faculty may not always be able to enact their teaching and assessment practice in a way that they would choose, due to factors which include scale and resource constraints as well as requirements of professional bodies (Norton et al. 2010).

While literature talks of either two extremes (traditional vs authentic), or a scale of authenticity, we must consider the possibility that we are operating in a false dichotomy. Traditional assessment, with the right positionality, can be authentic. For example, if we accept that authenticity includes a dimension related to the discipline (Schriebl, Müller, and Robin 2023; Watkins et al. 2012) and the traditions therein, then authenticity and tradition are not, conceptually, always opposite. And, if an examination tests and provides learning which is like the real world, then arguably it could also be categorised as authentic (Stankov 2024). When papers set out to show that specific formats are authentic, yet these are the very designs that are highlighted as being, by definition, not authentic, we find ourselves in a very confused field.

The challenge of perspective

A further challenge with the term authentic is that of perspective. Two students on any given course may see different professional futures; we know for example, that science graduates do not all go into careers in science. We live and work in diverse societies with wide-ranging values; people have different priorities. Whilst perfect authenticity may involve choice so that students can fashion assessments to their needs, preferences, and values, this may not always be possible; with this in mind claims of authenticity may be made for a visible section of the student community while the needs of others are simply not reflected. This dilemma of perspective is addressed by Forsyth and Evans (2019, 749) when they ask, ‘whose authenticity we value?’

Authenticity must be recognised by both educator and student (Gulikers et al. 2008), and stakeholders such as employers; it is not an objective concept, it exists only through interpretation. Experience, culture, demographic, education, and emotions all combine to shape interpretations of relevance (Schriebl, Müller, and Robin 2023). Increases in the pace of change in society, widening socio-economic gaps, and the challenges experienced by upcoming generations of learners, means that convergence in perspective around what an authentic assessment even is, may simply become ever more difficult to reconcile.

If we accept the broader definition of authentic assessment which includes social justice or social action, the relevance challenge becomes yet more difficult. The causes and sense of injustice that people experience and prioritise will inevitably vary, and higher education has not always embraced the needs and interests of different groups in society as well as it might have (Forsyth and Evans 2019). If we prioritise social justice in assessment, in a well-intentioned manner, we must remail alert to critically question our choices about who and what is prioritised.

We acknowledge that the call for universities to engage with social justice is not universally well received or positively experienced. An analysis of the concept of ‘woke’ universities (Rzepka, Fazlagić, and Ahamed 2023) reminds us that conceptions of social justice can be associated with polarisation, imposed views, and concerns for academic freedom, as well as more positive outcomes such as increased empathy. We recognise that the reality of integrating social justice into assessment is complex, raising difficult questions around: Which issues are selected? How do different groups of students feel about the choice of issues being selected for focus? Do all students even wish to engage with this concept when they may have different personal priorities or beliefs?

An additional problem with adding social justice to the concept of authentic assessment is that it works against conceptions of authenticity which prioritise the idea that assessment may be like work, or which focus on employability. Such views of authenticity can focus on replicating practice rather than seeking to deeply and meaningfully challenge or transform practice. We do not argue against social justice as having a place in higher education, nor do we advocate for assessment which replicates the status-quo, rather we highlight that the addition of social justice to the conceptualisation of ‘authentic’ brings a further layer of complexity which is not helpful to an already overcrowded idea.

The challenge of evidence

The sector-wide emphasis on authentic assessment has inevitably brought about discussion of its benefits. By example, one such benefit is on the way that authentic assessment can help counter student cheating, be this through essay mills or now, generative artificial intelligence technologies. The argument goes that real-world complex tasks are harder to cheat, but research now begins to counter this so-called common sense take, and question whether the evidence really exists (Bretag et al. 2019; Ellis et al. 2020; Nikolic et al. 2023; Ajjawi et al. 2023).

Ellis et al (2020) shows that contract cheating sites can produce submissions for many kinds of authentic assessment, and it has also been shown that students who wish to cheat are more likely to find ways to do so regardless of the assessment format (Birks et al. 2020). The claim that academic integrity can be improved using project work and reflective tasks as they are less suitable for generative AI, is empirically refuted by Nikolic et al. (2023) who show that AI tools are now able to pass written elements in these areas.

If framed appropriately, and students can see the ‘worth beyond the classroom’, it may be that the impetus for cheating is reduced, but authentic assessment in and of itself, is not a perfect single solution for academic integrity. We call for higher education to take a more critical view of the claims for authentic assessment, particularly in an age of artificial intelligence.

Cheating is not the only space where evidence should be more closely looked at. Nieminen, Bearman, and Ajjawi (2023) conducted a literature review looking at the links between authentic assessment and digital technologies. They concluded that authentic assessment in its current guise does not prepare students effectively for the rapidly changing digital world; instead, there was an emphasis on instrumental skills. If authentic assessment is associated with ‘future’ employability, then we must consider critically whether the promise is being delivered.

The end of authentic assessment?

We have explored the concept of authentic assessment, highlighting contradictions and confusion. We have recognised that broadening the concept adds even more ambiguity and complexity. We have also shown, through exemplification, that claims made about authentic assessment need to be handled critically.

Going forward, the most radical way to respond is to stop using the term authentic assessment altogether and instead speak more clearly about the aims we seek to achieve and methods that we will employ to assess and support learners. By illustration, we might talk of assessment which is ill-structured, or which motivates students by connecting them to an audience, or which links to social action, or which embeds the development of media skills, or which replicates technical skills needed for a specific setting. Simply, by stopping using the all-encompassing term, we force ourselves to become clearer and more specific in our language and intent, and possibly less vulnerable to broad and unsubstantiated claims about the benefits.

Educational buzzwords often remain in circulation long after criticisms have been raised, so we acknowledge, however desirable, our recommendation to step-back from using the term authentic assessment would be challenging to achieve. As an alternative, and as a minimum, we actively encourage a better articulation of the term when it is in use. Whether it is in conversation with a colleague, or in formal policy documents, we would encourage users of the term authentic assessment to qualify their intended meaning promote clarity. The risk as we articulate our understandings or prioritised elements, is that we find ourselves in a pick and choose approach, which is arguably reductionist; imagine an institution that adopts authentic assessment as a policy, yet they are only including the idea of assessment for employability. To overcome this, it is important that anyone using the term authentic develops a broad understanding of the possibilities for assessment to avoid narrow conceptions, as well as a clear rationale for their particular use of the term.

An alternative way forward is for us to just acknowledge the breadth and complexity of authentic assessment as a product or process, and instead, identify authentic assessment as a pedagogic community acting as a broad church. Conceiving authentic assessment in this way imagines that different perspectives can thrive alongside each other in a shared mission to optimise the relevance, benefits, and inclusivity of assessment, while respecting higher education’s diverse disciplines, cultures, and geographies. The risk of this approach is creating or augmenting a community that looks inwards on the nuance of definitions, with little material benefit. If authentic assessment is to be defined as a coalition of care around assessment, then we would encourage a focus on getting on with the job of optimising the student and staff experience of assessment, sharing our learning, critiquing claims, and generating high quality evidence.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.