You are here:

Authentic Assessment and the Internet: Contributions within Knowledge Networks
PROCEEDINGS

, Curtin University of Technology, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper identifies the importance of assessment for student learning, especially ‘authentic assessment’. While recognising that authenticity can be judged against the alignment of assessment with learning goals, and of assessment with real-life activities, the paper asserts a new element: the degree to which the Internet is part of the everyday lives of most university students. Thus, a third form of authenticity emerges when assessment is aligned with students’ use of the Internet for simultaneous informal and formal learning, and the nature of the Internet as a place of active knowledge networking, involving co-creation of information and knowledgeable content (a consequence of the emergence of Web 2.0). The paper argues that developments in assessment using the Internet will only be authentic if they take account of the way the Internet functions outside of higher education, rather than seeing it as an educational technology divorced from its own authenticity.

Citation

Allen, M. (2009). Authentic Assessment and the Internet: Contributions within Knowledge Networks. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1505-1510). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 6, 2023 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Arend, B. (2007). Course assessment practices and student learning strategies in online courses. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks 11 (4).
  2. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32 (3), 47–364.
  3. Birch, D. And Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: engaging English second language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology; 23 (3), 291-306.
  4. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. NY: Peter Lang.
  5. Bruns, A. And Bahnisch, M. (2009). Social Media: Tools for User-generated Content. Brisbane: Smart Services CRC, Queensland University of Technology.
  6. Buchan, J.F. And Swann, M. (2007). A bridge too far or a bridge to the future? A case study in online assessment at Charles Sturt University. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 23 (3), 408-434.
  7. Clegg, K. And Bryan, C. (2006). Reflections, rationales and realities. In C.Bryan and K.Clegg (Eds), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp.216-227). Oxford: Routledge.
  8. Darling-Hammond, L. And Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (5-6), 523-546.
  9. Deuze, M. (2007). Convergence culture in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies; 10 (2), 243-263.
  10. Fitzgerald, R. And Steele, J. (2008). Digital Learning Communities. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
  11. Franklin, T. And van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for Content for learning and teaching in higher education. Gibbs, G. (2006a). Why assessment is changing. In C.Bryan and K.Clegg (Eds), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp.1-22). Oxford: Routledge.
  12. Greenhow, C. And Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology. 34 (2), 119-140.
  13. Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45 (2), 183-192.
  14. Gulikers, J.T.M, Bastiaens, T.J., and Kirschner, P.A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (3), 67-86.
  15. Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., and Oliver, R. (2006). A model of authentic activities for online learning. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in Online Education: implications for theory and practice (pp. 91-103). Oxford: Routledge.
  16. Hiltz, S.R. (2004). Learning Without Limits Via Computer Networks. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
  17. Jones, C and Asensio, M. (2002). Designs for networked lLearning in higher education: a phenomographic investigation of practitioners’ accounts of design. In Steeples, C. And Jones, C. (Eds), Networked Learning: perspectives and issues (pp.253278).
  18. Luders, M. (2008). Conceptualizing personal media. New Media and Society.10 (5), 683–702.
  19. Mason, R. (2001). E-learning: what have we learnt? In C.Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning using learning technology, Proceedings of the 9th International, Symposium Herriot-Watt University (pp.27-34). Edinbugh, Scotland: The Oxford Centre for
  20. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality By Design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  21. Pollanen, M. (2007). Improving learner motivation with online assignments. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 3 (2).
  22. Richardson, W. (2003). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwen Press.
  23. Snyder, B.R. (1971). The Hidden Curriculum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Torrance, H. (1995). Evaluating Authentic Assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  25. Van den Burgh, V., Mortelmans, D., Spooren, P., Van Petegem, P., Gijbels, D, and Vanthournout, G. (2006). New assessment modes within project-based education– the stakeholders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 345–368.
  26. Walker, D.J., Topping, K. And Rodrigues, S. (2008). Student reflections on formative e-assessment: expectations and perceptions. Learning, Media and Technology, 33 (2), 221-234.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides