Authentic Assessment Not Proctoring

This week, I would like to share a recent (2021) article on the timely topic of remote exam proctoring by Silverman et al., entitled, "What Happens When You Close the Door on Remote Proctoring? Moving Toward Authentic Assessments with a People-Centered Approach." The authors remind us that "remote proctoring services require access to technology that not all students are guaranteed to have, can constitute an invasion of privacy for students, and can discriminate against students of color and disabled students." Other concerns include students’ lack of access to technology, test anxiety, privacy and security concerns, and accessibility needs (Langenfeld, 2020). In response to these issues, the author's university invested in faculty development to help faculty transition to authentic assessments (AA).

AA ask students to apply what they have learned on “intellectually worthy tasks” (Wiggins, 1990), and those should have “the same competencies, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, that [students] need to apply in the criterion situation in professional life” (Gulikers et al., 2004). AA can include case studies, portfolios, reflections, or projects and can help motivate students because they connect the material to real-world applications (Svinicki, 2004). Furthermore, AA can help students avoid the test anxiety and cognitive overload that often accompany traditional, timed exams (Carter et al., 2008; Dodeen, 2008).

Faculty were offered weekly assistance, which focused on course design and instructor presence, student interaction, and access and equity and culminated in a week dedicated to AA. During this week, faculty were exposed to AA readings, why they are important, and what they look like in different disciplines. Advanced options were offered that invited the participants to dig deeper into concepts such as “ungrading” (Blum, 2020), gamification, contract grading, specifications grading, and project-based learning (PBL).

References

Silverman, S., Caines, A., Casey, C., Garcia de Hurtado, B., Riviere, J., & Vecchiola, C. (2021). What happens when you close the door on remote proctoring? Moving toward authentic assessments with a people-centered approach. Educational Development in the Time of Crises, 39(3).

---

Blum, S. D. (Ed.). (2020). Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead). West Virginia University Press.

Carter, R., Williams, S., & Silverman, W. K. (2008). Cognitive and emotional facets of test anxiety in African American school children. Cognition and Emotion, 22(3), 539–551.

Dodeen, H. (2008). Assessing test-taking strategies of university students: Developing a scale and estimating its psychometric indices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 409–419.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.

Langenfeld, T. (2020). Internet-based proctored assessment: Security and fairness issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 24–27.

Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Authentic assessment: Testing in reality. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 4(100), 23–29.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(1)