Effectiveness of authentic assessment: Performances, attitudes, and prohibitive factors

Wahyu Budi  Sabtıawan; Leny  Yuanıta; Yuni Sri  Rahayu

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Wahyu Budi Sabtıawan Math. Sci. Edu. Dept., Universitas Negeri Surabaya, INDONESIA
Leny Yuanıta Math. and Sci. Faculty, Chem. Dept., Universitas Negeri Surabaya, INDONESIA
Yuni Sri Rahayu Math. and Sci. Faculty, Bio. Dept., Universitas Negeri Surabaya, INDONESIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Authentic assessment, student’s performances, attitudes, prohibitive factors

Abstract

Authentic assessment is an alternative assessment forcing students to perform like a professional in a real work-place. In other words, this type of assessment trains students to be successful-performers in professional jobs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of authentic assessment based on three elements including students’ performance, students’ attitudes, and prohibitive factors in authentic assessment implementation. The participants were 37 Indonesian students who studied in a university and enrolled in spectroscopic methods of analysis subject. To achieve the goal of the study, the researchers used a mixed methods design. The data were gained through three techniques including, observation, test, and interview. The findings informed that the learning constructed through the authentic assessment dimensions was effective to facilitate students’ performance and foster students’ attitudes positively. The prohibitive factors were the difficulty of gaining motivation and enjoyment of the students at the first meeting. The results of this study implied that the authentic assessment was able to scaffold the students to achieve what they need in the future.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of educational psychology, 94(3), 545.

Aladejana, F., & Aderibigbe, O. (2007). Science laboratory environment and academic performance. Journal of science Education and Technology, 16(6), 500-506.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers..

Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134-146.

Arikunto, S. (2011). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (2006). Affective and motivational outcomes of working in collaborative groups. Educational Psychology, 26(2), 187-208.

Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in higher education, 15(1), 101-111.

BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2018). Keadaan Ketenagakerjaan Agustus 2018 (Labor situation on August 2018). No. 92/11/Th. XXI. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/website/images/Tenaga-Kerja-Agustus-2018-ind.jpg

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.

Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin Press.

Fajardo, M. T. M., Bacarrissas, P. G., & Castro, H. G. (2019). The Effects of Interactive Science Notebook on Student Teachers' Achievement, Study Habits, Test Anxiety, and Attitudes towards Physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 16(1), 6276.

Fraser, B.J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours: Editor’s Introduction. Learning Environment Research: An International Journal, 4, 1-5.

Gardner, J., & Belland, B. R. (2012). A conceptual framework for organizing active learning experiences in biology instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 465-475.

Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational technology research and development, 52(3), 67.

Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2006). Relations between student perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approaches and learning outcome. Studies in educational evaluation, 32(4), 381-400.

Hayward, L., & Hedge, N. (2005). Travelling towards change in assessment: policy, practice and research in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 55-75.

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment? In T. Herrington and J. Herrington (Ed). Authentic learning environment in higher education, 48-60. Hersey, USA: Information Science Publishing.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 3-24.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. UK: Routledge.

Hidayati, S. N., Sabtiawan, W. B., & Subekti, H. (2017). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Otentik: Validitas teoritis dan kepraktisan. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 1(1), 2226.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.

Jones, C. A. (2005). Assessment for Learning. London: the Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Cumming, J., & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 6(2), 177-194.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1992). Models of Teaching. 4th Edition. USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Leach, L. (2012). Optional self-assessment: some tensions and dilemmas. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 137-147.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?. Educational researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into practice, 41(4), 226-232.

McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2010). Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning. 5th Edition. New South Wales: Pearson.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mertens, D. M., & Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research: Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 75-79.

Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science education, 86(4), 548-571.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.

Rule, A. C. (2006). The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1–10.

Schooler, L. J., & Anderson, J. R. (1990, July). The disruptive potential of immediate feedback. In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 702-708).

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 23-52.

Setiawan, B., & Sabtiawan, W. B. (2017, August). Fostering a student’s skill for analyzing test items through an authentic task. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1868, No. 1, p. 080002). AIP Publishing.

Woofolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in Education. 1st Edition. London: Pearson.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. London: Sage publications.