Content uploaded by Verónica Villarroel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Verónica Villarroel on May 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
ISSN: 1470-3297 (Print) 1470-3300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20
Using principles of authentic assessment to
redesign written examinations and tests
Verónica Villarroel, David Boud, Susan Bloxham, Daniela Bruna & Carola
Bruna
To cite this article: Verónica Villarroel, David Boud, Susan Bloxham, Daniela Bruna & Carola
Bruna (2019): Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882
Published online: 08 Jan 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 116
View Crossmark data
Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written
examinations and tests
Verónica Villarroel
a
, David Boud
b,c,d
, Susan Bloxham
e
, Daniela Bruna
a
and Carola Bruna
f
a
Center for Research and Improvement of Education (CIME), Faculty of Psychology, Universidad del
Desarrollo, Concepción, Chile;
b
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia;
c
School of Education, University of
Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia;
d
Middlesex University, London, UK;
e
Faculty of Arts, Business and
Science, University of Cumbria, Carlisle, UK;
f
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Universidad de Concepción, Concepcion, Chile
ABSTRACT
Tests and examinations are widely used internationally. Despite
their pervasiveness, they tend to measure lower order thinking
skills in a decontextualized manner at a time when the literature
frequently argues for the benefits of a richer, authentic approach
to assessment. The focus of this paper is to improve authenticity in
test assessment methods through promoting realism, cognitive
challenge and evaluative judgement during the planning, admin-
istering and following up of assessment tasks. The article builds on
a systematic literature review, in which the main principles of
authentic assessment were outlined. In this paper, we posit how
these principles can be implemented through the three chronolo-
gical phases of the assessment process: before, during and after
the act of assessment.
KEYWORDS
Assessment; authentic
assessment (AA);
authenticity; testing
Introduction
Tests focused in knowledge reproduction are widely used at universities (Ghosh, Bowles,
Ranmuthugala, & Brooks, 2017). There is a strong testing culture in South America
(Martínez-Rizo & Mercado, 2015), South East Asia (Gitanjali, 2016) and the Middle East
(Mahmoud, 2014), as well as in other university systems (Lesage, Valcke, & Sabbe, 2013).
Proponents of testing claim that they reduce plagiarism (Richardson, 2015), increase
reliability (McColongue, 2012) and are easy to correct (McCabe & O’Connor, 2014). These
are closed-book tests, in which students are not allowed to bring materials or refer to
a textbook. They are administered in controlled conditions as timed unseen tests, in which
an invigilator is present to ensure students do not cheat (Hinton & Higson, 2017). Through
this process, students tend to become passive learners (Altay, 2014) that memorize
content rather than comprehending it (Flores, Veiga-Simao, Barros & Pereira, 2015).
Why is the emphasis on memorising information a problem? Remembering is the
lowest level of knowledge assessment (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and students
quickly forget what they memorize (Rawson, Dunlosky, & Sciartelli, 2013). In addition,
CONTACT Verónica Villarroel vvillarroel@udd.cl
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
students understand that learning is only mechanically repeating data and information
(Schell & Porter, 2018). Instead, when students use higher-order cognitive skills to
respond to an assessment, such as concluding, designing or evaluating, they gain
a deeper understanding (Entwistle, 2009), and show better stability in remembering
what was learned (Rawson et al., 2013). Although there are differences between dis-
ciplines, memorization is not the ultimate learning goal in any subject, and memorisa-
tion ill-equips students for the complex demands of life and work they face on
graduation. The achievement of deep learning may require progressively advancing
towards it, incorporating memory, analysis and transfer, in different weightings, until
students become familiar with the cognitive complexity required.
Assessment is critical in the learning process (Kearney, Perkins, & Kennedy-Clark,
2015) because it creates a backwash effect on teaching and learning activities
(Watkins, Dahlin, & Ekholm, 2005). It prompts opportunities for students to practice
higher order thinking skills. Anticipation of assessment has a strong influence on what
and how learners study, frames what students do (Boud, 2010), and drives the learning
process (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014). As a result, assessment has been reported as the most
effective way to improve of students´ achievement quality (Edström, 2008). When done
poorly, it can have the opposite effect.
Why it is necessary to incorporate authenticity in assessment?
To become a good professional, it is not only necessary to master the knowledge and
technical skills of the discipline (Guzzomi, Male, & Miller, 2015). Other competencies are
also required, such as critical thinking and problem solving, decision-making, commu-
nication, collaboration and innovation (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010). It is
difficult for tests in themselves to promote a deep approach to learning, that requires
the construction of knowledge, reflection and collaborative work, which limits the
achievement of central objectives of higher education (Endedijk & Vermunt, 2013).
Improving the assessment process can provide effective support for the development
of the skills graduates need today (Medland, 2016). One approach for making this
transition is to follow the principles of authentic assessment (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
Authentic assessment is a way to relate learning and work, creating a correspondence
between what is assessed in the university and what graduates do in settings in the
outside world (Neely & Tucker, 2012). It has an impact on the quality and depth of
learning achieved by the student and the development of higher-order cognitive skills
(Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, & Brown, 2014). It can support students’growth in personal
confidence (Martinez, O´Brien, Roberts, & Whyte, 2018) and autonomous practice
(Raymond, Homer, Smith, & Gray, 2012). Moreover, it can improve academic engage-
ment (Kearney & Perkins, 2014), motivation (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014), self-
regulation (Ling Lau, 2013), and metacognition (Vanaki & Memarian, 2009).
Method
The purpose of this article is to explore how the advantages of authenticity in assess-
ment can be applied within the ‘testing’approach to assessment, as described above. In
this way it acknowledges the need to improve rather than reject test methods, given
2V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
their dominant use in many higher education systems. It explores how the principles of
authenticity can be incorporated through the three chronological phases of the assess-
ment process: before, during and after the act of assessment in written tests.
The article focuses on the second part of a two-stage project. In stage 1, a systematic
review of the literature was undertaken to identify principles of authentic assessment
and in stage 2, reported here, the authors undertook an exploratory application of the
principles to a testing environment, identifying illustrative, and exemplar questions. In
stage 1, Villarroel, Bloxham, Bruna, Bruna, and Herrera-Seda (2018) carried out
a systematic review of 125 articles on authentic assessment published between 1988
and 2017 to identify its main characteristics as encapsulated in the literature. Thirteen
central characteristics were identified, which were grouped into three dimensions that
constitute the core of the construct: realism, cognitive challenge and authentic evalua-
tive judgement. Realism is the first principle that distinguishes authentic assessment
(Bosco & Ferns, 2014), understood as representing something that might be encoun-
tered in the world beyond university. The second principle represents cognitive chal-
lenge whereby students use higher-order cognitive skills related to using, modifying, or
rebuilding knowledge into something new (Thornburn, 2008). Thirdly, evaluative judge-
ment is a necessary capability of graduates to make decisions about the quality of work
of oneself and others. It allows students to anticipate, monitor and improve the quality
of their work and that of others (Tai, Ajjawi, Boud, Dawson, P & Panadero, 2017).
Stage 2 adopts a more expository approach. It attempts to posit how the three
dimensions of authenticity (realism, cognitive challenge and authentic evaluative judge-
ment) can be applied in a ‘testing’assessment environment. To this end, each dimension
was mapped against some phases of assessment cycle (and its elements), using
a chronological sequence presented in figure 1:
In each phase of this chronological framework, we apply the conceptual description
of each dimension of authenticity (realism, cognitive challenge and authentic evaluative
judgement) to concrete aspects of assessment design, drawing on relevant research
literature to support the arguments. Illustrative examples of the principles in practice are
provided. Whilst the exploration is not exhaustive in either scope or reference to related
studies, it is original in theorising a range of ways in which testing methods can better
reflect the essential features of authentic assessment.
Authenticity in the assessment cycle
I. Before: Planning authentic tests
1. Assessing what really matters
In authentic assessment, the validity of what is measured is fundamental. To facilitate
the adequate selection of the content, we propose three sources: the graduate profile,
course learning outcomes and professional requirements, where they exist. These three
elements improve the potential for ‘realism’in the assessment.
Graduate profile. Thegraduateprofile represents the competences or learning stan-
dards that all graduates need to demonstrate once they finish their studies. These are
often articulated at an institutional level. This set of general standards (variously
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 3
called transferable skills, generic attributes) enables course designers to determine
how their course will contribute to this profile and ensure that assessment will be
orientated to measure pertinent goals (Hart, Hammer, Collins, & Chardon, 2011). How
does each subject connect and contribute to achieving the competences of the graduate
profile?
Course learning outcomes. In any educational process, learning outcomes must be
assessed, so this is not something exclusive to authentic assessment. However, it is
necessary to emphasize the importance that educators ask themselves, what can stu-
dents do by the end of each course and course unit. Authentic assessment can be
generated by the use of a backward design methodology (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006)
which analyses course learning outcomes and identifies which assessments are neces-
sary for it to be claimed that students have met them all.
Professional requirements. Courses which lead to professions also have professional
practice requirements. These includes what competences are needed for good profes-
sional performance. It is necessary to incorporate ways of assessing competences which
will allow students to face typical problems in professional work (Maxwell, 2012). Do the
Before
(planning
authentic
test)
•Assesing what really
matters.
•Injecting realism into
tests.
•Assesing complex
thinking.
During
(administer
ing test in
authentic
way)
•Using open book
tests.
•Allowing
collaborative answer
for complex tests.
•Simulating realistic
professionals
enviroments.
After
(following
up students
achievment
with authentic
feedback
strategies)
•Having students
delevolp marking
criteria.
•Engaging students in
peer review.
•Using self-assessment in
judging student own
work.
Authentic
Assessment cycle in
written
examinations
Figure 1. Phases and elements of the implementation of the authentic assessment cycle in written
examinations.
4V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
capabilities acquired in the course allow graduates to respond to the problems or functions
needed by the profession?
An example is shown below of an item from a third year undergraduate course in
Speaking and Hearing Therapy, ‘Disorders and Intervention of the Swallowing’::
Graduation profile:
Solve speaking and hearing problems systematically drawing on evidence and relevant
knowledge.
Course learning outcomes:
Identify therapeutic objectives based on the analysis of clinical cases of patients.
Professional requirements:
Plan a functional and neuromuscular evaluation of the phonoarticulatory organs with
patients in different stages of the life cycle.
Test item:
In the functional and neuromuscular evaluation of the phonoarticulatory organs of a 6-year-
old girl, it was observed that she presents difficulty carrying food from the vestibule to the
occlusal face of the molars, therefore she carries the food to the occlusal face with her
finger. To determine the therapeutic objectives of your phonoaudiological therapy, you
must start, by identifying the muscle that needs rehabilitation to achieve a better function-
ing in this case. From the following options, select the correct one:
(a) Masetero
(b) Lateral Pterygoid
(c) Buccinator
(d) Temporary
2. Injecting realism into tests
Realism can be accomplished by presenting a real context that describes and delivers
a frame in which a problem is to be solved. Items can be drafted with rich context
simulating real-work situations that function as a proxy for professional performance
even when the course does not include assessment in a professional setting. The
information presented in the context may show more than one perspective of
a phenomenon or create limits or restrictions that must be considered in responding
to the problem.
It is not easy to create good contexts. It is a common occurence that questions can
be answered without analysing the context. In these, the context constitutes an
ornament or a frame which does not have information needed to solve the question.
Villarroel et al. (2018) showed that 47% of 4401 test items in 6 undergraduate
programs presented a context. However, in 73% of them, the information within
this context was not needed to answer the question. An example of an ‘ornament’
context followed by a well-constructed context in a biology course on the concept of
autophagy, is presented:
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 5
Ornament context. The Nobel Prize in Medicine was assigned to the biologist Oshumi
for his discoveries of a process called autophagy. Describe the autophagy process and
comment on its implications for health.
Well-constructed context. Andrea and Luis are parents for the first time. Andrea had
a complication so she had to be taken to the operating room immediately after delivery.
Because of this, she has not been able to breastfeed the baby. The father is very worried,
despite the fact that the doctor has told him that this is not a problem for the baby if s/he
does not receive nutrients from outside sources during the first hours of life.
–Explain to the father the biological mechanism that allows the baby to support its
metabolic requirements.
–After being breastfed, analyse the changes to the metabolism of this newborn.
3. Assessing complex thinking
It is possible to identify three thinking skill levels (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The first
is related to memory skills (recognition or understanding); the second involves analytical
skills for information management (comparing, relating, contrasting, interpreting); and
the third compromises transfer skills (judging, deciding, criticizing, suggesting, design-
ing, innovating). Authentic assessment privileges the measurement of transfer skills,
where the emphasis is on ‘why’students learn that content (Avery, Freeman, &
Carmichael, 2012), which corresponds to the ‘cognitive challenge’principle. This princi-
ple seeks that students use knowledge for something, either to ‘manage’it by perform-
ing cognitive activities related to analysis, comparison or solving a problem.
Alternatively, they use it to display a professional performance that involves high-
order skills, such as evaluating, designing or criticizing. An example of the three levels
from neuroscience is described below:
Level 1: Memory Skills
Guillermo had a car accident. His frontal dorsal lateral cortex and ventral hypothalamus
were destroyed. Draw and label the sagittal section of the brain, labelling at least 10
damaged structures.
Level 2: Analytical Skills
Guillermo had a car accident. He has damaged structures of the cerebral cortex. The mother
listens to the doctor state: ‘it is necessary to administer, externally, substances such as:
insulin, dopamine, leptin, peptides . . . to regulate it’. Infer the areas of the cerebral cortex
that have been damaged, based on the medical indications.
Level 3: Transfer Skills
Guillermo had a car accident. His frontal dorsal lateral cortex and ventral hypothalamus
were destroyed. Evaluate severity, explaining three possible consequences according to the
damaged structures. Also, suggest one strategy that allows you to improve the quality of his
future life, compensating for the effects of the accident.
Multiple-choice questions can be designed in an authentic way (Douglas, Wilson, &
Ennis, 2012) if they require students to undertake decision-making or problem-solving in
6V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
a contextualized situation and to justify the option chosen through constructed
responses. This new format is more complex and students will take longer. They may
score lower because they are not used to these demands. In particular, students who
may have learned that success is obtained through memorization (Jensen, McDaniel,
Woodard, & Kummer, 2014). Students may need to be aided in making such a transition.
II. During: Administering tests
Sitting for a formal test is a stressful event, uncommon in the world outside educational
institutions (Brown, Bull, & Pendlebury, 2013). Tests induce anxiety, affecting self-esteem
and self-perceptions as learners, especially if they have previously had bad experiences
(Harlen, 2005). In contrast, assessment practices, such as problem-based assignments or
project work, are perceived by students to be fairer and more effective (Pereira, Flores, &
Barros, 2017). How can tests include these benefits of performance-based tasks? Three
strategies are proposed that respond to the principle of ‘realism’, because they link the
assessment situation with the external world:
(1) Using open-book tests. Students report feeling less anxious and more confident on
open-book tests (Betts, Elder, Hartley, & Trueman, 2009). And, in addition, cogni-
tive sciences propose that human cognition is extended beyond the individual
mind, encompassing other people, symbolic meanings, environment and arte-
facts. A mind limited only to what we can remember at a certain time, is not
a good preparation for modern life, especially, considering that in workplaces
there is access to internet, books and other people to fulfil tasks.
(2) Allowing collaborative answers for complex tests. Learning is built together with
others and in interaction. The concept of the zone of proximal development
explains the difference between the individual performance in a given task and
the performance achieved when the same task is carried out with someone more
capable (Wass, Harland, & Mercer, 2011). Consequently, students with low indivi-
dual marks obtain higher marks in group tests, also displaying more active
learning than in individual tests (Almond, 2009). The level of commitment
between members is a factor in achieving a high-performance and learning
gains (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Forming small groups and offering
asufficiently complex task that requires dialogue and discussion can help pro-
mote this (Davies, 2009). Students learn more from having to argue for what they
thought was the right answer and listening to others’reasons (Zhang, Ding, &
Mazur, 2017)
(3) Simulating realistic professional environments. Authentic assessment can have
positive outcomes on student engagement and motivation in the learning pro-
cess (Nicol et al., 2014). It is likely that one reason students perform better is that
such tasks help develop their professional identity (Huxham, Campbell, &
Westwood, 2012). Therefore, it is important that the conduct of tests emulates
workplace´s conditions, for example: sending the test via e-mail and requesting
students send their answers in the same way at a stipulated time (O´Moore, &
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 7
Baldock, 2007) and responding to the test on their laptop in the classroom (not
only paper and pencil tests). The following is an example of authentic test
administration:
The written test is performed in pairs with open books. The case is sent the previous day by
e-mail, without the associated questions. Then, the questions are delivered in the classroom
and students can also work outside of it with their materials.
III. After: Following up
Feedback is important in any assessment, being one of the most powerful influences on
students´ learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). To make a feedback process authentic it is
necessary to include evaluative judgement activities that prepare students for what they
will have to do in the world beyond higher education (Tai et al., 2017), that is identify
how to judge good work and apply this to their own work and that of others. It helps
them to achieve knowledge, skills and predispositions that underpin lifelong learning
activities, promoting the development of autonomy (Carter, Sidebotham, Creedy,
Fenwick, & Gamble, 2015) and reflective practice (Tait-McCutcheon, Drake, & Sherley,
2011). Three strategies are proposed:
(1) Having students develop marking criteria. Students can jointly construct criteria for
marking using their own resources. The act of co-creating marking criteria
engages students in a deep understanding of knowledge (O’donovan, Price, &
Rust, 2008), because they must go back to study, review and look for information
to create the guideline. Teachers can analyse the students’criteria and select the
better descriptions when rewriting the final rubric.
(2) Engaging students in peer review. Authentic feedback processes improve stu-
dents’ability to judge others´ work, as this is what is required in workplaces, thus
developing evaluative judgment (Tai et al., 2017). Kearney and Perkins (2014)
reported that 82% of their students considered seeing others’work in the process
of peer marking promoted better learning. In this context, peer review can be
carried out when two peers collaboratively mark another student’s
anonymous test, judging their performance in the test. In these settings, a final
grade may incorporate teacher assessment and students´ co-assessment (Tai
et al., 2017).
(3) Using self-assessment in judging students’own work. Assessment can be more
authentic when students are involved in dialogue and collaboration with their
teachers in feedback processes (Bloxham & West, 2004). Kearney et al. (2015)
point out that in the first undergraduate year, students can self-assess, judge,
mark and defend their own answers in a test in conversation with the teacher.
Students develop an active role in constructing meaning with their teacher
through an intersubjective relationship, exchanging and negotiating points of
view (Lipnevich, Berg, & Smith, 2016; López-Pastor & Sicilia-Camacho, 2017). The
following is an example of authentic feedback:
8V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
In the class after the test, students define marking criteria in pairs. Each group presents to
the class, and together they identify the main indicators and their description for three
different levels of performance. Using those indicators, students review their own work and
make qualitative comments about its strengths and weaknesses. Grades can be generated
from weighting the teacher’s evaluation of the test and the students´ comments.
Conclusion
Higher education must assess critical competences needed for solving realistic and con-
textualized problems using high-order skills in order that students become good profes-
sionals and citizens. As tests are so widely used in higher education, this paper proposes
changes to make them more authentic at three moments: planning, administering and
follow up. While it may be desirable to lessen the overall weighting of tests in assessment
regimes, and develop multiple forms of assessment, we have shown that some progress can
be made towards designing tests that draw on the key dimensions of authentic assessment,
and thus promote deep approaches to learning, more meaningful and engaging experience
for students, and better preparation for the demands of work and life. Making assessment
more authentic is a challenging process and will not occur without educational leadership
and a desire to ensure that courses serve the needs of students beyond graduation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Verónica Villarroel has PhD in Psychology. She works as a teacher and researcher at the Faculty of
Psychology in Universidad del Desarrollo in Chile. She is the Director of The Center for Research
and Improvement of Education (CIME), of the same Faculty and university.
David Boud has a PhD in Education. He has been involved in the research of higher education
topics, for more than 30 years. He is an Emeritus Professor of the School of Education in
the University of Technology, Sydney. He is also the founder, and Director, of the Centre for
Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, of the University of Deakin in Melbourne, Australia.
Susan Bloxham has a PhD in Educational Research. She is currently an Emeritus Professor in the
Faculty of Arts, Business and Science and the Research Institute for Professional Learning in
Education (RIPLE) following her retirement from the post of Director of the centre in the
University of Cumbria, England.
Daniela Bruna has a PhD in Psychology. She works as a teacher and researcher at the Faculty of
Psychology of Universidad del Desarrollo in Chile. And, also research in the Center for Research
and Improvement of Education (CIME), which belongs to the same faculty.
Carola Bruna has a PhD in Biological Sciences. She works as a teacher and researcher of the
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department, of the Faculty of Biological Sciencies, in
Universidad de Concepción, Chile.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 9
ORCID
Verónica Villarroel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3000-2248
Daniela Bruna http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-2959
References
Almond, R. J. (2009). Group assessment: Comparing group and individual undergraduate module
marks. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,34, 141–148.
Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher
Education,19, 138–155.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Ashford-Rowe,K.,Herrington,J.,&Brown,C.(2014). Establishing the critical elements that
determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,39, 205–222.
Avery, P. G., Freeman, C., & Carmichael, D. (2012). Developing authentic instruction in the social
studies. Journal of Research in Education,12,50–56.
Betts, L., Elder, T. J., Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (2009). Does correction for guessing reduce students’
performance on multiple-choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes? Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education,34,1–15.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: Marking peer assessment as
a medium for developing students´ conceptions of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education,14,20–30.
Bosco, A. M., & Ferns, S. (2014). Embedding of authentic assessment in work- integrated learning
curriculum. Asia- Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education,15, 281–290.
Boud, D. (2010). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in
Continuing Education,22, 151–167.
Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Oxford:
Routledge.
Carter, A., Sidebotham, M., Creedy, D., Fenwick, J., & Gamble, J. (2015). Strengthening partnership:
The involvement of health care providers in the evaluation of authentic assessment within
midwifery undergraduate education. Nurse Education in Practice,15, 327–332.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as form of assessment: Common problems and recommended
solutions. Higher Education,58, 563–584.
Douglas, M., Wilson, J., & Ennis, S. (2012). Multiple-choice question test. A convenient, flexible and
effective learning tool? A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,49,
111–121.
Edstrom, K. (2008). Was doing course evaluations as if learning matters most. Higher Education
Research and Development,27,95–106.
Endedijk, M. D., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Relations between student teachers’learning patterns and
their concrete learning activities. Studies in Educational Evaluation,39,56–65.
Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Deep approaches and distinctive ways
of thinking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flores, M. A., Veiga-Simão, M. A., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness,
fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education,40, 1523–1534.
Ghosh, S., Bowles, M., Ranmuthugala, D., & Brooks, B. (2017). Authentic assessment in seafarer
education: Using literature review to investigate its validity and reliability through rubrics. WMU
J Marit Aff,15, 317–336.
Gitanjali, M. (2016). The three Rs of written assessment: The JIPMER experience. Journal of
Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics,7, 115–119.
10 V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
Guzzomi, A., Male, S., & Miller, K. (2015). Students´ responses to authentic assessment designed to
develop commitment to performing at their best. European Journal of Engineering Education,42,
1–22.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’summative practices and assessment for learning –Tensions and
synergies. Curriculum Journal,16, 207–223.
Hart, C., Hammer, S., Collins, P., & Chardon, T. (2011). The real deal: Using authentic assessment to
promote student engagement in the first and second years of a regional program. Legal
Education Review,21,97–121.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,77,
81–112.
Hinton, D. P., & Higson, H. (2017). A large-scale examination of the effectiveness of anonymous
marking in reducing group performance differences in higher education assessment. PloS one,
12, e0182711.
Huxham, M., Campbell, F., & Westwood, J. (2012). Oral versus written assessments: A test of
student performance and attitudes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,37, 125–136.
Jensen, J., McDaniel, M., Woodard, S., & Kummer, T. (2014). Teaching to the test. . . or testing to
teach: Exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understand-
ing. Educational Psychology Review,26, 306–329.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). Joining together. Group theory and group skills (10th ed.).
New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
Kearney, S., & Perkins, T. (2014). Engaging students though assessment: The success and limita-
tions of the ASPAL (Authentic self and peer-assessment for learning) model. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice,11,1–13.
Kearney, S., Perkins, T., & Kennedy-Clark, S. (2015). Using self- and peer-assessments for summative
purposes: Analysing the relative validity of the AASL (Authentic assessment for sustainable
learning) model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,41,1–14.
Lesage, E., Valcke, M., & Sabbe, E. (2013). Scoring methods for multiple choice ssessment in higher
education—Is it still a matter of number right scoring or negative marking? Studies in
Educational Evaluation,39(118–193). doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.07.001
Ling Lau, K. (2013). Chinese language teachers’perception and implementation of self-regulated
leaning-based instruction. Teacher and Teaching Education,31,56–66.
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Handbook of human and social conditions in
assessment. Spain: Routledge.
López-Pastor, V., & Sicilia- Camacho, A. (2017). Formative and shared assessment in higher educa-
tion. Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
42,77–97.
Mahmoud, F. A. (2014). A cross-cultural study of students’perceptions of assessment practices in
higher education. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues,7,
293–315.
Martinez, M., O´Brien, M., Roberts, K., & Whyte, D. (2018). Critical pedagogy an assessment in higher
education: The ideal of “authenticity”in learning. Active Learning in Higher Education,19,9–21.
Martinez-Rizo, F., & Mercado, A. (2015). Estudios sobre prácticas de evaluación en el aula: Revisión
de la literatura. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa,17,17–32. Retrieved from http://
redie.uabc.mx/vol17no1/contenido-mtnzrizo-mercado.htm
Maxwell, T. (2012). Assessment in higher education in the professions: Action research as an
authentic assessment task. Teaching In Higher Education,17, 686–696.
McCabe, A., & O’Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: The role and responsibility of the
lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education,19, 350–359.
McColongue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students´ understanding of grading complex
written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,37,
113–123.
Medland, E. (2016). Assessment in higher education: Drivers, barriers and directions for change in
the UK. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,41,81–96.
INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION AND TEACHING INTERNATIONAL 11
Neely, P., & Tucker, J. (2012). Using business simulations as authentic assessment tools. American
Journal of Business Education,5, 449–456.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education:
A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,39, 102–122.
O’donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment
standards: A nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education,13, 205–217.
O’Moore, L. M., & Baldock, T. E. (2007). Peer assessment learning sessions (PALS): An innovative
feedback technique for large engineering classes. European Journal of Engineering Education,32,
43–55.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). American management association critical skills survey
(pp. 21). Tucson: Survey.
Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Barros, A. (2017). Perceptions of Portuguese undergraduate students
about assessment: A study in five public universities. Educational Studies,43, 442–463.
Rawson, K., Dunlosky, J., & Sciartellli, S. (2013). The power of successive relearning: Improving
performance on course exams and long term retention. Educational Psychology Review,25,
523–548.
Raymond, J., Homer, C., Smith, R., & Gray, J. (2012). Learning through authentic assessment. An
evaluation of a new development in the undergraduate midwifery curriculum. Nurse
Educational and Practice,13, 471–476.
Richardson, J. T. (2015). Coursework versus examinations in end-of-module assessment:
A literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,40, 439–455.
Schell, J., & Porter, J. (2018). Applying the science of learning to classroom teaching: The critical
importance of aligning learning with testing. Journal of Food Science Education,17,36–41.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2017). Developing evaluative judgement:
Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education,76, 467–481.
Tait-McCutcheon, S., Drake, M., & Sherley, B. (2011). From direct instruction to active construction:
Teaching and learning basic facts. Mathematics Education Research Journal,23, 321–345.
Thornburn, M. (2008). Articulating a Merleau-Pontain phenomenology of physical education: The
quest for active student engagement and authentic assessment in high-stakes examination
awards. European Physical Education Review,4, 263–280.
Vanaki, Z., & Memarian, R. (2009). Professional ethics: Beyond the clinical competency. Journal
Professional Nursing,25, 285–291.
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment:
Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,43
(840–854), 2018.
Vu, T., & Dall´Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological
conceptualization. Educational Philosophy and Theory,46, 778–791.
Wass, R., Harland, T., & Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal
development. Higher Education Research & Development,30, 317–328.
Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of backwash effect of assessment:
A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong Kong and Swedish lectures. Instructional
Science,33, 283–309.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life. Educational Leadership,63,26–29.
Zhang, P., Ding, L., & Mazur, E. (2017). Peer instruction in introductory physics: A method to bring
about positive changes in students’attitudes and beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education
Research,13, 0101041–0101049.
12 V. VILLARROEL ET AL.
