Volume 8, Number 1

In this issue:

From the Director:
Authenticity in Teacher Practice and Student Learning

Authentic Intellectual Work: What and Why?

Authentic Student Performance, Assessment Tasks, and Instruction

The Authentic Pedagogy in the Social Studies Project

Research/ Practice index

CAREI Home

careiweb@umn.edu
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI)
275 Peik Hall
159 Pillsbury Dr. SE
Minneapolis, MN
55455 USA
Tel: 612-624-0300
Fax: 612-625-3086

CAREI > Research/Practice Newsletter

Authentic Student Performance, Assessment Tasks, and Instruction

Patricia G. Avery, University of Minnesota

Standards, alternative assessments, criteria, rubrics, checklists, and Minnesota's High Standards—what do these terms have in common? They are all related to an effort to increase the quality of students' authentic intellectual achievement. That goal—authentic intellectual achievement—can easily get lost in the controversy over Minnesota's High Standards, also known as the Profile of Learning. But the goal of authentic intellectual achievement is precisely what gives meaning to the High Standards.

Authentic Student Performance

In the previous article, Newmann provided a strong rationale for promoting authentic intellectual achievement. Under Newmann's direction in the early 1990s, the Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools (CORS) developed scales for rating the authenticity of student performance, assessment tasks, and instruction (see sidebar for sample questions). These scales assess the degree to which instruction, assessment, and student performance reflect or promote students' construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry about issues or experiences connected to the "real world" beyond the classroom (see Table 1). As part of a major research study, Newmann and his colleagues examined over 2500 pieces of student work collected from more than 100 elementary, middle, and high school teachers. They found that most student work demonstrated a fairly low level of authenticity, that is, student work was unlikely to demonstrate analytical skills (evidence of construction of knowledge) or to use major disciplinary concepts or methods (evidence of disciplined inquiry). One of the primary reasons for the low quality of student achievement was the low quality of the tasks or assignments given to students.

Authentic Assessment Tasks

Figures 1 and 2 show two assignments given to two different eighth grade geography classes in Minnesota. The short-answer task in Figure 1 requires little more than copying information from the textbook. Students could provide all of the right answers, and yet their work would still rate low in terms of authenticity. Why? Because the task didn't require a high level of intellectual work.

Figure 3 Relationships Across Authentic Student Work, Assessment Tasks, and Instruction         Goal: Authentic Student Achievement         Authentic requires Authentic requires Authentic Instruction Assessment Tasks Student Work

Figure 3 provides a model for thinking about the relationships across authentic student achievement, student work, and assessment tasks. The "backwards" movement in the model helps to keep the focus where it belongs—on the end goal of authentic student achievement. Ideally, authentic student achievement— students constructing knowledge about significant issues using disciplinary concepts and methods—is evident in student work. Students' ability to demonstrate a high level of authentic achievement through their work is impaired, however, if they are not given tasks that require it. The performance packages developed by the Department of Children, Families, and Learning (DCFL) represent, in my view, an attempt to provide students with more authentic assessment tasks.

Some will argue that the type of task shown in Figure 2 is fine for average- and high-achieving students, but not for low-achieving students. Or that students need to complete worksheets such as the one shown in Figure 1 before tackling more complex tasks. A growing number of studies suggest otherwise. Recent work in the Chicago schools indicates that all students, regardless of achievement level, produce more authentic work when given challenging, engaging tasks, particularly those tasks that have "real world" connections (Newmann, Lopez, & Bryk, 1998). Of course, some students will require more scaffolding or support either during the assignment stage or as they accomplish a task—this is the critical role of instruction. Authentic assessments are necessary for authentic student performance, but high-quality assessments alone are not sufficient. If students are to produce authentic work, we need to give them the opportunity to do so through authentic assessments, and the support to do so through authentic instruction. Thus, as shown in Figure 3, the level of authenticity demonstrated in student work is enhanced by authentic assessment tasks in combination with authentic instruction.

Authentic Instruction

The importance of authentic instruction was particularly well illustrated in a study I conducted in 1998 (Avery, 1999). Five 11^th grade U.S. History teachers (12 classes) were observed while preparing students for the same authentic assessment task on immigration. Class instruction was rated in terms of authenticity—the degree to which students were constructing knowledge, engaged in disciplinary inquiry, and making connections between class and the world beyond the classroom. Observers noted instruction that ranged from very low to very high in terms of authenticity. For example, in one class the teacher began by asking students where they or their families had emigrated from prior to coming to the United States. Several students volunteered responses, to which the teacher responded with brief acknowledgments, such as "oh, I didn't know that," and "that's very interesting." The teacher then stated that the class was going to watch a video on immigration to the United States at the beginning of the 20^th century. After the 35-minute video, the teacher asked if the students had any comments about what they had seen. A few muffled comments were heard, such as "[the video] was okay." The teacher then instructed the students to look at a chart in their textbooks showing the number of immigrants coming to the United States between 1900 and 1920. Students were asked from which country the highest number of immigrants had come, but the class ended before all of the students had found the page in their textbooks.

In another class, the teacher had assigned students the previous day to find out when their families had come to the United States, and from which countries the families had emigrated. When students arrived for class, they were instructed to record their findings on a table the teacher had drawn on the chalkboard. When all students had an opportunity to record their findings, the teacher directed them to "look at the data" and see if they observed any patterns. In this class, over half of the students were recent immigrants (the same was true in the first class as well). The teacher invited students to share part of their "immigration story" with a student sitting next to them, after which two students volunteered to share their brief stories with the whole class. The teacher showed the same video on immigration that was shown in the first class, but prefaced it by telling students to think about how their class data (information collected for the table on the chalkboard and immigration stories) compared with the information provided in the video. After the video, the teacher asked students to compare the class data with the data from the video, and wrote "similarities" and "differences" in two columns on the chalkboard. One of the students noted that most of the immigrants in the early 1900s were from Europe, whereas the class data indicated that recent immigrants were from other parts of the world. The teacher reminded students of the limitations of their class data, and directed them to a chart in their textbook that showed immigration patterns over the course of the 20^th century. The student's "hypothesis" was supported by national data. Toward the end of class, the teacher asked students if they could make any "generalizations" about the reasons people immigrate to the United States.

Observers were struck by the differences in instruction between the two teachers. The teachers were teaching in the same school to the same population of students. They used the same instructional materials, and would later have their students complete the same authentic assessment task. Presumably, the teachers had access to the same instructional resources. But there was a significant difference in the authenticity of their instruction. The second teacher had students analyze data they had collected, and used the language of inquiry (terms such as "data," "hypotheses," "generalizations") throughout class. The first teacher made a modest attempt to "hook" the students by asking the countries from which they or their families had emigrated. But the information was treated as "interesting tidbits" as opposed to data to be investigated. The second teacher's instruction was rated higher in terms of authenticity, and not surprisingly, the students in the second class demonstrated a higher level of authentic student performance on the assessment task than did the students in the first class.¹

Students' work on the immigration task was also collected from all 12 classes and rated in terms of the CORS scales for authentic student work. The results showed that the authenticity of instruction accounted for 40% of the differences in student performance. In other words, the higher the level of authentic instruction, the higher the level of student performance. This held true regardless of a student's gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or grade point average.

Summary:

• Students are unlikely to demonstrate authentic intellectual performance if they are not given authentic tasks.

• Studies indicate that most assessment tasks given to students rate low in terms of authenticity.

• The level of a task's authenticity is strongly related to the level of students' authentic intellectual performance.

• Authentic instruction in combination with authentic assessment tasks provides support for high quality student performance.

Putting Research Into Practice

Although the scales created by CORS for rating the authenticity of instruction, assessment tasks, and student performance were developed as research tools, I saw them as potential tools for professional development. In the series of seminars described in the next article, the CORS scales were used as a framework for thinking about the nature of authentic instruction, assessment tasks, and student work. Over the course of nine months, 33 secondary social studies teachers found that the CORS scales gave them a common language and reference point for critiquing instruction and assessment tasks. Through their discussions, a better understanding of the relationship between Minnesota's High Standards and authentic assessment emerged.

References

Avery, P.G. (1999). Authentic instruction and assessment. Social Education, 65(6), 368-373.

Newmann, F.M., Secada, W.G. & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards and scoring. Madison, WI: Document Service, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Newmann, F.M. & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F.M., Lopez, G. & Bryk, A.S. (1998). The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

¹Observers noticed that classes rating higher in terms of instructional authenticity were almost always led by teachers with good classroom management and organizational skills. Teachers with good management skills did not necessarily demonstrate a high level of authentic instruction, but it was virtually impossible to achieve a high level of instruction when the teacher exhibited poor management skills. In the classes described in this article, the first teacher spent 10 minutes at the beginning of class dealing with organizational issues, while the second teacher began class almost immediately.