ERIC Number: EJ1484559
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2025
Pages: 13
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-0260-2938
EISSN: EISSN-1469-297X
Available Date: 0000-00-00
Authentic Assessment: From Panacea to Criticality
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v50 n3 p396-408 2025
Authentic assessment is often positioned as an educational panacea, invoked in response to a broad range of complex problems. This paper considers authentic assessment in relation to three key challenges: preparing graduates for the future, cheating, and inclusion. Despite literature supporting its potential benefits, there is limited evidence on the relationship between authentic assessment and these challenges. Through an uncritical blending of authenticity with broader educational goals, the label 'authentic assessment' risks becoming a distraction or a thought-terminating cliché, impeding deeper conversation and interrogation. We argue that authenticity should be considered as a set of aspirational principles within a broader pedagogical framework. Authenticity in assessment requires thoughtful and contextualised design, and the negotiation of trade-offs with other educational goals. The concept of authenticity, if used judiciously, can foster critical conversations and meaningful interrogation of educational practices, rather than serving as an oversimplified solution to complex problems.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A
Author Affiliations: 1Monash Education Academy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 2Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Victoria, Australia; 3Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; 4Mitch and Leslie Frazer Faculty of Education, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada; 5Office of the PVC (Learning & Teaching), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; 6Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Australia; 7Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 8Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Norway; 9Digital Learning Portfolio, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Peer reviewed
Direct link
