mark veon - lagrange college | programs/ed.s. … · web viewof lagrange college education ......

AUTHENTIC ASSESSEMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include

proprietary or classified information.

________________________________________________________________________Lakeisha C. Robinson

Certificate of Approval:

______________________________ _________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.Co-Project Advisor Co-Project AdvisorEducation Department Education Department

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

A project submitted

by

Lakeisha C. Robinson

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 19, 2011

iii.

Abstract

Traditional assessment methods are one of the instruments used in the classroom

to measure student achievement. However; these methods do not allow students to truly

show understanding of standards. In addition to traditional testing, authentic assessments

are used to demonstrate and show evidence of learning. This study was conducted in a

middle school math classroom and showed how the use of an authentic assessment

impacted the achievement of students and the organization of the school. Data were

collected using pre- and post -test, surveys and interviews. The analysis of the study

showed that authentic assessments provide opportunities to demonstrate understanding

and is a valuable assessment in the classroom.

iv.

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...iii

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv

List of Tables……….......………………………………………………………………....v

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………1Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1Significance of the Problem……………………………………………………….2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………4Focus Questions……………………………………………………………….….6 Overview of Methodology………………………………………………………..7Human as Researcher……………………………………………………………..8

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………....9Use of Authentic Assessment………….………………………………………...10Feelings and Attitudes of Students………………………………………………14The Change Process……….……………………………………………………..17

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………22Research Design………………………………………………………………….22Setting…..………………………………………………………………………..23Subjects and Participants……...………………………………………………....23Procedure and Data Collection Methods………………………………………...24Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias...………………………………….26Equity…………………………………………………………………………….28Analysis of Data………………………………………………………………….28

Chapter 4: Results...……...………………………………………………………………31

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………….…...…….43Analysis….…………………………………………………………..……….…..43Discussion……………………………………………………………..………....49Implications……………………………………………………………………....51Impact on School Improvement………..……………………………………...…52Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………….…53

References……………..………………………………………………………………....54

Appendixes…………………………………………………………..…………………..58

v.

List of Tables

Tables

3.1 Data Shell………………………………………………………………...24

4.1 Dependent Pre/Post of Control Group…………………………………...36

4.2 Dependent Pre/Post of Treatment Group……………………………...…37

4.3 Independent Pre/Pre ………………….………………………………….38

4.4 Independent Post/Post…………………………………………………....39

4.5 Chi-Square Student survey………………………………………………40

4.6 Chi-Square Faculty Survey………………………………………………42

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

A typical eighth grade math classroom consists of a heterogeneous group of

students and each student has his or her own way of obtaining knowledge and learning

information. However, generations ago many teachers delivered instruction in the form

of lectures and assessed their students using traditional methods such as paper pencil

tests. With the change of time and the curriculum, schools have advocated for authentic

assessments. Authentic assessments engage students in real world tasks and scenario-

based problem solving (Moon, Brighton, Callahan & Tomlinson, 2002). Authentic

assessments include projects, choice boards, performance tasks, and other forms of

differentiated assessment. Students are given choices on how to demonstrate their

comprehension of concepts and apply what they have learned in ways that deviated from

the traditional methods previously used. Authentic assessments open the minds of the

learners and allow for control and accountability of their creativity. Students are engaged

and teachers are helping to meet the learning style of each child.

Each year as the school year approached spring, the determining factor of whether

eighth grade students were promoted to high school was dependent upon a passing score

on the Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) in April. The high stakes testing

has become the focal point for evaluating student learning, with nearly all of the

evaluative efforts dominated by the use of traditional objective assessment (Moon et al.,

2002). The CRCT consists of four domains and are weighed accordingly: Algebra 50%,

Numbers and Operations 22%, Data Analysis and Probability 17% and Geometry 12%.

With the pressure of making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), many teachers are resorting


to the once traditional teaching methods and teaching to the test. Even though

standardized test are traditional in the multiple choice format, it does not mean that

educators need to use the same method to achieve student mastery. Teachers and

administrators indicate that the pressure associated with standardized testing forces them

to compromise their ideals about good teaching and affects their performance, behavior,

and/or attitudes towards school (Moon et al., 2002). This traditional way of assessing has

not allowed students to fully demonstrate learning. Authentic assessments provide

evidence of what students are able to do within the content and show the level of

achievement. When students are given an authentic assessment, rubrics serve as a guide

in preparing exemplary work. When rubrics are provided, it lets students know what is

expected of them. As with traditional assessments, there can be an element of surprise

because the goal is not only to get the right answer. By using performance assessments

and rubrics as goal setters, students are able to enable themselves to increase their

learning and achievement.

The purpose of this study is to answer the following research question: Do the use

of authentic assessments increase student achievement?

Significance of the Problem

The creation of state standards to guide student learning has clarified goals, and in

cases where standards are well designed, has usefully upgraded expectations for

knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 2010). In the fall of 2007, Georgia

implemented the new Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) for the eighth grade.

Students were doing more algebra than they had ever done previously in middle school.

The state implemented standards into the middle school curriculum that were once


standards introduced in high school. Students and teachers were slowly learning and

gathering the new information daily. Everything seemed to be going in the right

direction until the results of the CRCT of Spring 2008 for the county arrived. Nearly

fifty percent of the eighth grades students failed. These students included regular,

students with disabilities (SWD) and gifted students. As the frustration of trying to figure

out what happened, the state released their results. It is nearly the same; all stakeholders

involved were left perplexed. What caused the results to reflect such an enormous rate of

failures? Through the research conducted at the school in this study, there was an area of

weakness in Algebra.

Educators are now faced with finding ways to differentiate their lessons and

finding new ways of assessing their students. Traditional tests tend to reveal only

whether the student can recognize, recall or “plug in” what was learned out of context

(DeCastro-Ambrosetti & Cho, 2005). The GPS provides an authentic assessment for

each unit in the math curriculum. The authentic assessment is a performance task or

performance assessment that culminates everything that was taught in the unit. Students

sometimes struggle with this type of assessment. The struggle is because of the depth of

Algebra and because of the method in which the assessment must be performed. With

performance assessments, students are not being assessment traditionally. It requires

critical thinking in order to derive at a solution. Performance measures have the potential

for increased validity because the performance tasks are themselves demonstrations of

important learning goals rather than indirect indicators of achievement (Moon et al,

2002). By using any type of an authentic assessment, students will go beyond finding the


one right answer but will require the student to create a product that demonstrates their

knowledge or skills.

The GPS for the eighth grade curriculum consists of seven units. For each unit,

the state provides performance tasks that allow the students to show their understanding

of their learning. Some tasks are very difficult and can be modified to fit the needs of the

students. The length of the performance task depends on the unit aligned to it. Some

units are very lengthy while some of them are not. Since many students struggle with the

Algebra domain, this study will focus on unit seven of the curriculum: System of

Equations. At the completion of the unit, students should be able to write an appropriate

system of linear equations and inequalities, solve systems graphically and algebraically,

and interpret solutions. Since the implementation of the GPS, this unit has proven to be

the most difficult in the eighth grade. Within this study, a group of students were given a

performance task on unit seven to determine if there was an increase in student

achievement in comparison to students who did not do a performance task.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

Using authentic assessment to increase student achievement is a type of social

constructivism. Social constructivism, developed by Lev Vygotsky, is a highly effective

method of teaching from which all students can benefit. Vygotsky believed in social

interaction and that it was an integral part of learning (Powell & Kalina, 2009)

One of Vygotsky’s main theories is cooperative learning. According to

Vygotsky, cooperative learning is an integral part of creating a deeper understanding.

With the concept of cooperative learning, using authentic assessments gives the students

an opportunity to take ownership of their learning. When students master completion of


projects or activities in a group, the internalization of knowledge occurs for each

individual at a different rate according to their own experience (Powell et al., 2009).

Scaffolding was also utilized by Vygotsky. Scaffolding is an assisted learning

process that supports the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), or achieving to the next

level of understanding, of each student from the assistance of teachers, peers, or other

adults. During authentic assessments, students can use other students as peer helpers in

collaborative tasks. Students can be paired using their learning styles or strengths in the

areas of the concepts that are being taught. The students will use each other to help

understand the task given and provide feedback to the teacher through work samples.

Through performance tasks, students will be presented with multiple teaching strategies

and will be given the opportunity to demonstrate what has been learned.

The Conceptual Framework of LaGrange College Education Department (2010)

consists of three tenets: Enthusiastic Engagement in Learning, Exemplary Professional

Teaching Practices and Caring and Supportive Classrooms and Learning Communities.

This study focused on tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching Practices, under

Cluster 2.3, Assessment Skills. The cluster states that the candidates understand and use

formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure continuous intellectual,

social, and physical development of students, how students learn, develop and how to

provide diverse learning opportunities. The candidate will involve students in self-

assessments that help them become aware of their strengths and needs and that encourage

them to set personal goals for learning. The candidate will also monitor and adjust

strategies in response to student feedback (LaGrange College Education Department,


2010). With the use of authentic assessments, all students will benefit from taking

ownership of their and demonstrating their learning.

The Conceptual Framework is aligned with the six domains of the Georgia

Framework for Teaching, five elements of NCATE 2000 Standard 1 for Initial Programs,

ten INTASC principle for beginning teachers and five NBPTS core propositions for

experienced teachers. This study will focus on domain four and five of Georgia

Framework for Teaching: Assessment and Planning and Instruction, element 1D of

NCATE: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates, principle four of INTASC: the

teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’

development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills, and principle

eight: the teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to

evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the

learner, and proposition three of NBPTS: Teachers are responsible for managing and

monitoring student learning (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010).

Focus Questions

For many years, students were assessed using traditional methods such as paper

and pencil tests. As time evolved, so did the learning styles of students and instruction in

the classroom. Educators are looking for new ways to assess and differentiate the

learning environment and raise the achievement of middle school math students. Through

the research question: Do authentic assessments increase student achievement, this study

will explore the following focus questions:

1. Will the use of an authentic assessment increase student achievement when

measured in a traditional method?


2. How were the feelings and attitudes of students impacted by the use of the

authentic assessment?

3. How effective was the use of authentic assessments to convince school leaders to

implement as a summative assessment?

Overview of Methodology

In this this study, there was a comparison of two heterogeneous groups of

students, using an authentic assessment, to a heterogeneous group of students that did not

use an authentic assessment. The authentic assessment was a performance task that the

subjects completed with a partner. The data collected were used to demonstrate whether

the performance task increased student achievement and how it impacted the

organizational structure of the school. This study took place at a middle school in the

southeastern part of a county in Georgia. The subjects for this study included eighth

grade students in the fourth and fifth period math classes. The principal, member of the

School Improvement Leadership Team (SILT), and the math teachers served as the

participants. The data collection methods used in this study were pre- and post- test,

surveys and interviews.

The research design for this study was modeled after an action research design.

This design focuses on planning, acting, observing and reflecting of implementing a type

of authentic assessment as an alternate way of measuring achievement. The quantitative

data, pre-test and post-test, were analyzed using t-test and the surveys were analyzed

using a Chi Square. The qualitative data, interviews, were coded for themes.


Human as Researcher

I have taught eighth grade in a middle school for four years. For the 2010-2011

school year, I taught five math classes which include three co-taught classes and two

regular math classes. I thought that I could help raise student achievement with the use of

authentic assessments because I felt that my strengths were demonstrated in the area of

mathematics with a focus on the Algebra domain. I felt that the students that I taught

transcend the traditional methods of assessing. Using authentic assessment, students may

be able to grasp concepts better than when they attempt to guess at one answer or

correctly guess the answer of a multiple choice question. I believed that once students

truly understood a concept and could apply it in a real world scenario then they could

master any type of assessment whether it was authentic or traditional. There were a few

assumptions that I feared which included teachers expressing that students should be

assessed the same way the standardized assessments are given.


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Authentic assessments are used to measure the mastery of skills through designs

created by the teacher based on the learning styles of the student. Through this study, an

authentic assessment, through the use of a performance task, was used to measure the

increase of achievement of students. Through research, evidence was collected to

determine how the implementation of an authentic assessment had an effect on the

outcome of student achievement. Research evidence will also include the perception of

the study and how implementation of it impacted the school.

State assessment programs are the devices that legislatures, school administrators,

and the general public use to gauge school performance and success (Madeja, 2004).

Teachers are accustomed to looking at previous CRCT scores of students and finding out

the varying levels of understanding of the students for the current school year. Teachers

can and will use the outcomes to differentiate instruction and form flexible groups based

on the learning styles of the students.

Eighth grade is a pivotal year for students; they are required to pass the math and

reading section of the CRCT for promotion to the ninth grade. With so much emphasis

placed on the test, the instruction of the curriculum can easily be driven by the CRCT.

There’s a fear of sacrificing success on state tests if classroom assessment formats and

task vary from the formats used in the state assessment program (Moon et al., 2002).

Educators are looking for new ways to raise the achievement bar so that these students

are not left behind academically and to ensure that students are mastering the standards.


Use of Authentic Assessment

Are the tests an accurate reflection of a level of intelligence or merely a reflection

of what a student can recall or know (Cole, Hulley, & Quarles, 2009)? The CRCT

requires that a student scores an 800 or above in order to meet the requirements of the

state and allow promotion to the ninth grade. In comparison to a traditional weighted

test, this means that the student mastered 51.7% of the content. This does not show

mastery of standards in comparison to how students are assessed in the classroom. While

the use of high stakes testing has focused teacher planning on specified, agreed upon state

level standards, exclusive use of traditional assessments, often in the form of pencil and

paper multiple choice tests, have been judged to have negative effects in the middle

school classroom (Moon, Brighton, Callahan, & Robinson, 2005). If an assessment is

going to be used by an agency to show that children are making progress toward certain

standards, the instrument must assess behaviors that are linked to those standards

(Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Brookshire, 2006). Using the notion of performance

assessment, middle school students can work on tasks of value to a particular community,

yielding a truer audience for authentic feedback (Moon et al, 2002).

The use of differentiated instruction and assessment has changed the structure and

atmosphere in the classroom. By differentiating the instruction, the teacher is able to

meet the needs of all students. Even though differentiated instruction is evident in many

middle schools classrooms, there still is a lack of authentic assessments. Differentiated

products, such as authentic assessments, challenge students at all levels to make

decisions, be responsible for their own learning, as well as affording them opportunities

to demonstrate what they know through products that are representative of their unique


learning preferences, interests and strengths (Anderson, 2007). If equitable achievement

is our goal, we must have authentic assessments that are reflective of our community’s

expectations and meaningful to our students and to us (Peters, 2007).

Performance tasks used as a summative assessment after a concept has been

taught helps identify what students have learned and the depth of understanding. These

types of assessments give the students a variety of ways to express their learning.

Summative assessments primarily are traditional paper and pencil tests. Students were

not able to show their learning in a differentiated way than how it was taught; this may be

a result of the format of standardized tests. Traditional assessments cannot test the extent

to which a student has mastered a body of knowledge surrounding a concept, only the

information tested in the selected items, nor can they provide rich information about the

multifaceted thinking necessary for complex problem solving (Moon et al., 2005). With

so much standardized test pressure, teachers can easily change the format of formative

and summative assessment in the classroom to more of a traditional method to try to

improve the standardized test scores. With the slow process of change, teachers will

eventually start teaching to the test instead of for the benefit of student learning. When

teachers teach to the test, time is taken from collaborative work and this limits students’

learning (Cole et al., 2009). The art of assessing becomes a drill of fact and recall.

Students and teachers are more focused on getting the one right answer than gathering

learned information. Therefore, an implementation of a performance task can be put in

place to ensure learning and raise achievement rather than using drill and practice of

traditional assessment. Instead of dwelling on what schoolchildren cannot do, as defined

by abstract standardized test with dubious connection to reality, educators are trying to


get a firmer grasp of what pupils can do, on tasks that do have some meaningful

connection to the real world (Sacks, 1999). Standardized assessment models may not be

the best answers or “quick fixes” for improving instruction and raising student

achievement (Madeja, 2004).

There is evidence that the use of an alternative assessment can positively impact

child outcomes (Grisham-Brown et al., 2006). To implement an authentic assessment in

the classroom, teachers need to develop engaging activities and assignments. To actively

engage students in their own learning, tasks need to be designed around “real-life”

situations that require students to make connections and forge relationships between prior

knowledge and skills (Moon et al., 2002). Students are more apt to become involved in

learning when they can relate to an assignment. There should be options on how to

produce a performance task whether it is with the use of technology or creating a hands-

on product. Choice should be given on how the students will work on it. Students should

be able to work individually or in groups, either by choice or flexible groups.

After the concept has been taught, formative assessments given, and groupings

selected, it is then necessary to assign a performance task. Using the notions of authentic

assessment, middle school students can work on tasks of value to particular community,

yielding a truer audience for authentic feedback (Moon et al., 2002). Along with the

tasks, students need to be given a rubric. A rubric is used as a guide to ensure that the

student is aware of what is required and needed for the given task. It also gives the

teacher an opportunity to give quality feedback. Each individual is assessed using

established criteria (rubric) by the teacher assessing student’s mastery of the knowledge

and skills outline within the lesson or unit (Anderson, 2007).


The completion of a performance task can be done in many ways. Teachers can

choose to have students work on it solely in the classroom, at home or both. Teachers

frequently introduced the assessments during class but required the bulk of the work to be

done outside of class time (Moon et al., 2002). With this method, teachers will not lose

instructional time and focus more on the curriculum. Time can still be spent on asking

questions pertaining to the task. In classrooms where differentiated authentic

assessments are implemented, teachers serve as facilitators, rather than directors of

learning, and the learning process is seen by students as important and linked to skills

used in the real world (Moon et al., 2002). Students use the rubric as a primary guide and

the teacher as secondary source in developing the product from the authentic assessment.

The use of the rubric is done to give students the opportunity to think outside the box and

to produce evidence of learning in an authentic way.

According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, recalling facts is at the lower end of the

spectrum of critical thinking skills (Cole et al., 2009). If students in the middle school

classroom need to think critically, then there must be an assessment that measures

accurately in regards to critical thinking skills. Traditional assessments cannot test the

extent to which a student has mastered a body of knowledge surrounding a concept, only

the information tested in the selected items, nor can they provide rich information about

the multifaceted thinking necessary for complex problem solving (Moon et al., 2005).

These assessments are merely plug and guess format. Standardized test methods are not

requiring the student to think critically, only to recall facts. Even the format in which a

standardized test is given reflects on how assessment is driven in the classroom.

Standardized assessments are administered with the same directions, time limits, response


format and questions (Anderson, 2007). The format continues to limit students to their

ability to show what they know or able to do. Koh and Luke (2009) reported on studies

that examined the intellectual quality of teachers’ assignments in mathematics and

writing at Grades 3, 6, and 8 in Chicago schools. They found that students who received

assignments requiring more challenging intellectual work achieved greater than average

gains on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in reading and mathematics, and demonstrated

higher performance in reading, mathematics, and writing on the Illinois Goals

Assessment Program.

With the use of authentic assessment, students are going beyond recalling; they

become engaged in the learning process. They begin to take ownership in their learning

and are held accountable through the use of rubrics. Evidence is provided to suggest that

with proper development and implementation, teachers can successfully use authentic

assessments in their classrooms to measure academic standards, while not foregoing the

requirements of preparing students for success on mandated standardized assessments

(Moon et al., 2002). The use of a performance based instrument can result in positive

outcomes for children (Meisels, Jablon, Marsden, Dichtelmiller, & Dorfman, 2001).

However, Ryan (2006) reported that in the end, the children will learn and profit from

performance assessments probably to the same extent they did using traditional methods

of assessment.

Feelings and Attitudes of Students

Authentic assessment appears to be best suited for meeting the educational need

of students with diverse learning styles (DeCastro-Ambrosetti et al, 2005). Differentiated

instruction will also allow students to feel engaged with the curriculum because it makes


sure that the content and instruction match readiness levels, interests, and learning styles

(Danzi, Reul, & Smith, 2008). With so many classrooms focused on differentiated

instruction, authentic assessments ties in well with continuing to differentiate the

assessment process. The implementation of performance tasks in the classroom can be

considered successful by the data that is collected. Data can include evaluations, rubrics,

observations and surveys. The opinions, feelings and attitudes of the students can also

give teachers an idea of how effective the authentic assessment was to their learning.

There may be a difference of opinion because it is something new and it is not the

traditional way of assessing students. Teachers need to explain the advantages of

performance tasks and show examples of exemplary work. Teachers should evaluate

how the tasks will be used, how much time will be spent on instruction.

In a study on the development of authentic assessment, conducted by Moon et al,

(2005), there was evidence that showed that the use of authentic assessments were

beneficial in the classroom. The teachers felt that the first important step was to assign

the work to be completed outside of the classroom. They felt that this would be better

because it would not change the classroom instruction and routines. After the initial

introduction, teachers basically left students to do independent work. Performance

standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on instruction (Cole et al, 2009). The

curriculum is very rigorous in the eighth grade and it is mandatory for teachers to cover

all of the standards, in addition to the other requirements that must be met. In order for

authentic assessment to be successful, teachers must ensure that time is spent on

classroom instruction. Before a product assessment is given, there must be a clear

understanding of what is expected and the grading process must be clear. Each


individual is assessed using established criteria, typically a rubric, by the teacher

assessing student’s mastery of the knowledge and skills outline within the lesson or unit

(Anderson, 2007). The purpose of the product (regardless of its format) is for students to

recall what they have learned in the lesson or unit (Anderson, 2007).

Traditional assessments are commonly used in the math classrooms because they

tend to be geared more towards the assessment of standardized test which students are

assessed with a multiple choice format. Since the pressure of school making AYP and

receiving of federal funds, teachers will assess students the same as the state assess

students. With the introduction of authentic assessment to show student achievement,

teachers may feel that multiple choice assessments will prepare the students for a

standardized test. There was resistance from teachers who were willing to take risks with

their test scores (Sacks, 1999). Teachers feel that with the pressure that is upon them

why implement authentic assessments if there is no assurance that it will work. In an

opposing view, Wolf (2007) reported that regular assessment focuses the efforts of both

educators and students on important material that needs to be mastered.

Middle school teachers and students generally expressed positive responses about

the differentiated authentic assessments (Moon et al, 2005). Surveys have shown that

students who have used authentic assessments found them to be very helpful and

interesting. Students responded with: it was fun and engaging; it gave us a voice in own

work; it allows us to show what we have learned in the class using our own words and it

being one of the most meaningful assignments ever completed (DeCastro-Ambrosetti &

Cho, 2005). The chance for students to take ownership of their work gives them a sense

of accountability. A study conducted by Baglieri and Knopf (2004) reported that students


did enjoy having a choice on the assessments, and they knew which test option was right

for them. Students’ perceptions of enhanced enjoyment of their learning corresponded

with improved learning outcomes (Meyers & Nulty, 2009). The use of authentic

assessments will allow teachers to see the creative side of the student and teachers can

prepare future assessments that will be of interest to the students.

Although the students and teachers agreed upon the positive response to

differentiated authentic assessments, teachers were mixed about the likelihood of future

use of the new assessment approach (Moon et al., 2002).

The future of education is constantly taking different routes. Educators are

encouraged to use researched-based methods and strategies in the classroom to improve

student achievement. Even though the new ideas are accepted, there are still teachers

who are wary of moving out of their comfort zone to try new assessment practices. If the

main focus was not on the standardized test scores, there may be a different approach on

the teaching in the classroom. The less heed paid to test scores, the more attention was

paid to the process of learning, the more the students understood (Sacks, 1999).

The Change Process

Change within any setting can be easy or difficult depending on the perspective of

the individuals involved. The process of implementing change at an organizational level

clearly is challenging (Zins & Illback, 1995). Within the school setting, there are many

innovations being implemented in the classroom and school setting. This often causes a

ripple effect within the organization. Whatever change is brought to an area of an

organization has an impact on the organization as a whole.


When implementing new strategies, innovations, and methods in the classroom,

there needs to be support from all staff and faculty. Their opinions and concerns should

be addressed before the change process takes place. There should be major involvement

of school leaders because they serve as a liaison between the teachers and the innovation.

A schedule of the change will allow the process of transition to occur smoothly if at all

possible.

The first step in implementation in the school is for the issue to be addressed with

all parties involved. This can be done during professional development, department

meetings or team meetings. The issue at hand must be delivered with excitement and

positivity. When new changes come, people are reluctant sometimes to buy into it. This

is usually because teachers are overwhelmed with what all is required of them to do.

There is a constant change of what new methods and strategies that works in the

classroom. By the time they are getting familiar with one concept, it is eliminated and

something else is introduced. It can be hard to see if methods really work because there

really is not enough time given to see if it is effective. In order for the change process to

work, there are a few important factors that need to be considered.

The first factor is the leadership in the school. Leadership can be the

administration, counselors and team leaders. The role of the leaders is to make sure that

there is a clear and consistent understanding to all staff. The leadership team must be in

full support of the implementation in order for it to be received successfully by those that

rely on their opinion and advice. When implementing the new methods, the leaders

should be involved in organizing, informing, motivating, delegating and mentoring

(George, White, & Schlaffer, 2007).


Another factor that needs to be considered is teams. Teams can be by grade level,

department and office staff. Teams are important during the implementation process

because they give a sense of belonging when it comes to sharing ideas or concerns. It

also gives those involved a small group setting. This may allow people to speak more

openly about the pros and cons of the change process. For administrators and teachers,

the need to step up and raise serious questions about the way we are doing things now has

never been more urgent and more appropriate (Mai, 2004). Teams need to feel to be

aware that there will be support on the new change and not simply something else added

to the plate. There is a leader on each team which serves and a mediator between the

team and the administration.

After everyone involved in the change process has become aware of what lies

ahead, there needs to be a school wide agreement (George et al, 2007). All of the

expectations and rules must be clear and there should be a consensus on the proper

protocol and procedures. Data can be used as a resource to support what is being

implemented. The data serves as a foundation to why there needs to be a new change.

One of the hardest jobs to assume in an organization, particularly an organization that

takes pride in the ways it presently accomplished its goals, it to cast a critical eye

specifically on those operating practices that define “the way we do things around here”

(Mai, 2004). That is why it is critical that the leaders in the school push support and

unity during the change process. There will be some members that are accustomed to

doing thing the old way and will be reluctant to change because it may be something else

that will be presented and required to implement in a couple of years.


The change process must be evident in the classrooms as well. The tone of a class

is set by the teacher. Whatever the change may be, the teacher should show enthusiasm

because the students are able to decipher if there is full support. Change initiatives that

concentrate significant energy on this activity have the greatest chance of success (Zins &

Illback, 1995). Teachers should make commitments to support the change. There should

be a positive behavior being modeled so that the students will know what is expected.

The last two factors that should be considered are resources and restructuring.

Time is an essential part in the change process. There should be allocated time in which

the faculty and staff are trained. During this time, there should be time spent on the

effectiveness of the change. All parties affected by the change must work together to

develop a clear vision of where the process is proceeding, recognizing that formulation of

a plan is a developmental process (Zins & Illback, 1995). One way for the change

process to be successful is for each person to take an active role in the implementation of

the change. This can be done by interest or teams. Once an individual takes on a role,

then he/she is more ample to become a positive role model. There should be annual

revisions of the school’s handbooks to reflect the school wide agreements (George et al,

2007). If there is a constant reminder of the change, there should be an easy effort to

continue to push for a successful change.

The process of implementing change at an organizational level is challenging

(Zins & Illback, 1995). The challenge can be for a variety of reasons and many factors

involved. Implementing authentic assessments can be a difficult task because it is not

considered the normal way of assessing. If teachers get good results on the state’s

measure through traditional assessments, then they are not willing to examine whether


there’s a better way (Sacks, 1999). Teachers feel that if it is not broken then why fix it.

The only problem with that is standardized tests does not fully measure the achievement

of the student or what that student really knows. It is merely showing what they can

recall and not the depth of their learning. Teachers cannot take a measure like the state

test and apply it to the individual children as an absolute measure of what they are

capable of doing (Sacks, 1999). Arguments can be made on whether the use of authentic

or traditional assessments increases student achievement. The most likely assessment

model to ensure alignment between assessment and curriculum ‘‘is an authentic

assessment approach coupled with a criterion-referenced measure for accountability, but

administered within a natural context’’ (Grisham-Brown as cited by Cook, 2004).


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The action research design originates from the work of a social psychologist by

the name of Kurt Lewin. Lewin describes the design as a spiral of steps: Planning,

Acting, Observing and Reflecting. Action research is an active partnership between

researchers and the researched where educational evaluation is a collaborative project

where research is not done on others but done with others (Banfield & Cayago-Gicain,

2006).

Evaluation research design is an approach used by the researcher to evaluate a

program that has been or is going to be implemented. Evaluations of implementations

are essential because they help identify problems with program implementation before

the program ends, so that changes in the programs or interventions can still have an

impact (Paulsen & Dailey, 2002).

To use action research design and the evaluation research design was appropriate

in this study. Using authentic assessments to raise achievement involves implementation

in the classroom. Through the implementation, the program must be evaluated for

validity. All participants play a role in the acceptance and change process in the school.

Within this study, the use of an authentic assessment was used to show if student

achievement was gained when measured by a traditional assessment. The measurement

of assessment consisted of using pre-test and post-test data of the individuals in the

treatment and control groups. Surveys were given to the subjects after the study for their

perception of the impact of the authentic assessment. Members of the administration and


the eighth grade math teachers were interviewed for their opinion on the implementation

of using authentic assessment as a measure of achievement in the math classroom.

Setting

This study took place at a middle school in the eastern part of Coweta County. In

this area of the county, at the time of this study, about 65% of adults were married and

the median family income was about $68,750. As of 2000, the makeup included 94.9%

Caucasian, 4.9% African American and less than 1% of other minorities. The middle

school in this study serves grades sixth through eighth with a population of 925 students.

The makeup of these students include 73% Caucasian, 17% African American, 5%

Hispanic, and 3% Multi-Racial. Of these students, 27% of students receive free or

reduced lunch, while 9% are in the special education program.

This setting was chosen because it is the place of my employment. Permission to

conduct the study was granted by the school principal and the superintendent of the

county school system. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of

LaGrange College.

Subjects and Participants

My fourth and fifth period math classes were used as the subjects and

representatives of the eighth graders at the school. These two classes were purposively

chosen for the study because they represent a typical heterogeneous group of middle

school students. There were a total of 53 students; 27 students in the fourth period class

and 26 students in the fifth period class. The makeup of all 53 students include 32

African American, 35 White, 3 Hispanic, 2 Asian and 1 Multi-Racial. The student ages

range from 13-15 years old with 30 males and 23 females. The fourth period class served


as the control group. The students in this class were not exposed to a performance task

but with an individual problem solving word problem. The fifth period math class was

the treatment group. The students in this class were given a performance task and

assigned a partner. The participants in this study were the principal, math teachers and

members SILT. The principal and staff were selected because of their position of

leadership and years of experience. The math teachers were selected because their

content and their perspectives on the change process.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

For each focus question, data were collected to answer the overall research

question. Table 3.1 below gives a more detailed description of the data collection

methods used to answer each focus question, how the data were analyzed and why.

Table 3.1 Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources Type:Method, Data, Validity

How these data are analyzed

Rationale

Will the use of an authentic assessment increase student achievement when measured in a traditional method?

Moon, Callahan, Brighton, Tomlinson (2002)

Anderson (2007)

Cole, Hulley& Quarles (2009)

Method:Pre/Post testData:IntervalValidity:Content

Quantitative:Independent T-testDependent T-testEffect size rCohen’s d

To determine if there are significant differences between groups

How were the feelings and attitudes of students impacted by the use of the authentic assessment?

Moon, Callahan, Robinson (2005)

Anderson (2007)

De-Castro-Ambrosetti& Cho, Grace (2005)

Method:SurveyData:OrdinalValidity:Construct

Quantitative:Chi-SquareCronbach’s Alpha

Significance of survey questions

How effective was the use of authentic assessments used to convince school leaders to implement as a summative assessment?

Zins & Illback (1995)

George, White & Schlaffer (2007)

Mai (2004)

Method:Survey, interviewData:OrdinalQualitative

Validity:Construct

Quantitative:Chi-SquareCronbach’s Alpha

Qualitative:coded for themes

Significance of survey questions

QualitativeLooking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors


At the beginning of the study, the subjects were given a traditional multiple

choice diagnostic assessment of unit seven of the GPS. This test served as the pre-test.

The scores for the diagnostic test were measured as a percentage; how many questions

answered correctly out of how many questions were given. After the pre-test, the

subjects were taught the standards in the unit seven outlined by the GPS. As a

summative assessment, the treatment group was given a performance task along with a

rubric to show evidence of learning. The task involved each student working with one

partner. They were given examples of cell phone companies and their cell phone plans

and asked to find out which plan was cheaper and at what point will both the cell phone

plans have an equal billing. The task included creating a table of input and output values,

graphing the equations for each company and finding the solution to the system. The

control group was given a various word problems to complete individually. The

treatment group used three instructional days to complete the task. At the end of each

day, each student evaluated themselves and their partner. The evaluation included

cooperation, use of time, helpfulness and effort. On the last day of the task, a class

discussion was done in which students expressed how they felt about the task. After all

the tasks had been turned in, the post-test was given to both groups on the same day.

After the performance task, the treatment group completed a survey (See

Appendix A) about their attitudes and feelings towards authentic assessment. The five

question survey used Likert scale responses that ranged from strongly agree (1) to

strongly disagree (5).

Once the implementation of the performance task had taken place, interviews and

a survey with the participants occurred. The principal and math teachers were


interviewed (see Appendix B and C, respectively, for interview questions) while

members of SILT were surveyed (see Appendix D). The interviews and surveys were

coded for recurring, dominate and emergent themes. The methods were used to see how

effective was the implementation used to determine if performance task should be used as

a summative assessment.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

Focus question one focused on whether the implementation of an authentic

assessment increased student achievement. Students were assessed using a pre- and post-

test to show if there were any gains in understanding after the performance task was

given. The pre-test was a diagnostic assessment administered by the county in which it

gave the students an overview of unit seven. The post-test was the same assessment

given after the implementation of the performance task.

The interval scale of measurement of the data used from the assessments showed

the percentage the students’ scored from a scale of zero to one hundred. Content validity

was used in choosing the appropriate pre- and post-test. This form of evidence tries to

establish that a test’s items satisfactorily reflect the content the test is supposed to

represent (Popham, 2003). The validity of the data is influenced by the content used in

the research process. The content of the data gathering methods included five multiple

choice questions. The post-test was the same as the pre-test. It contained the same

amount of questions and answer choices.

To measure the reliability, the quality of the test and its consistency, an analysis

of the data was done. A test-retest correlation was used on the dependent t-test because


the pre- and post- tests were the same and to examine whether the test was reliable over

time.

In order to acknowledge bias, the subjects completed a self-evaluation and were

evaluated by their partner and the teacher based on participation and effort during the

performance task. Where peer assessment is used for the purposes of summative

assessment it is important for reasons of equity to moderate the results. Group members

may be unconsciously biased either for or against themselves and may even deliberately

try to subvert the peer assessment process to increase their own grade (Bushell, 2006).

The purpose of focus question two was to see how the attitudes and feelings of the

treatment group were impacted after the performance task was given. The data gathering

method used for focus question two was a survey given to the treatment group. The

ordinal scale of measurement, using a Likert scale, was used to show the measurement of

the level of agreement or disagreement for the treatment group. Construct validity of the

data was used because there was a focus on the feelings and attitudes of the subjects

involved in the study. Construct validity examines how well the measuring tool reflects

an underlying construct (Salkind, 2010). To test the reliability of the survey, a

Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure the consistency of the student responses after the

performance task.

The data gathering methods for focus question three, effectiveness of the change

process to convince stakeholders to implement authentic assessments as a summative

assessment were a survey and interviews. The qualitative interview data was done with

the principal and math teachers. The quantitative survey data was with members of

SILT. A Cronbach’s Alpha was performed to ensure the reliability of the survey.


Ensuring dependability of this study included providing a transcript of the interviews,

selecting an adequate number of participants, maintaining organized raw data and

allowing time for data to be completed and analyzed. When addressing dependability,

the processes within the study should be reported in detail, thereby enabling a future

researcher to repeat the work, if not necessarily to gain the same results (Shenton, 2004).

Transcripts and analysis of the interviews were made available for the participants to help

eliminate bias in the study.

Equity

The study was done to make sure that it was equitable to all subjects and

participants involved. Efforts were made that questions within the survey and interviews

were not biased and addressed the purpose of the study. All responses to the questions

and statements were based on opinions of the subjects and participants. The pre- and

post-test was reviewed by numerous math teachers and school leaders to ensure validity

and offensiveness. The quality of the teacher was also considered. The quality of the

researcher to conduct the study was supported by years of teaching experience, education

and certification levels. Assess to high quality teachers is one of the key factors at the

school level that influences student achievement (Skrla, McKenazie & Scheurich, 2009).

Analysis of Data

For focus question one, students were assessed using a pre- and post- test. The

quantitative data were analyzed using t test. A dependent t-test was used to determine if

there was a significant different between the mean of the pre- and post-test of the

treatment. This was done with the control group as well. A t test for dependent means

indicates that a single group of the same subjects is being studied under two conditions


(Salkind, 2010). An independent t-test was used to determine if there was a significant

difference between the means of the pre-test of the control group and the treatment group.

The same test was also done using the means of the post-test. A t test for independent

means indicates if there is a difference between the groups that are independent of one

another (Salkind, 2010). The null hypothesis was set at a significance level of .05. An

analysis of the effect size was used to measure the magnitude of the treatment. The effect

size of the independent t-test was measured using Cohen’s d and an effect size r for the

dependent t-test.

The student survey used for focus question two and the participant survey for

focus question three were analyzed using a Chi Square. A Chi Square is a nonparametric

test that allows you to determine if what you observe in a distribution of frequencies

would be what you would expect to occur by chance (Salkind, 2010). To measure the

level of significance of the questions, the significance was reported p < .05, p < .01, p

< .001. A Cronbach’s Alpha was done on the surveys to calculate the relationship

between all questions. The score for each item is correlated with the total score for each

participant and was then compared to the variability present for all individual item scores.

This was done to make sure that each question measured what it was intended to

measure.

For focus question three, the interviews were coded for recurring, dominate and

emerging themes. The data was organized by similarity and patterns of behaviors of the

responses.

The consensual validation for this study was approved by the LaGrange College

Initial Review Board and the Education Department. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty


review process “consensual validation,’ an agreement among competent others that the

description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic are right. The epistemological

validation is supported by the research in chapter two. Denzin and Lincoln (1998)

describe the cycling back to your literature review as ‘epistemological validation,’ a place

where you convince the reader that you have remained consistent with the theoretical

perspectives you used in the review of the literature.

The credibility of this study was supported by multiple data sources and fairness.

These sources included books, scholarly journal articles, surveys and interviews. Eisner

(1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence

comes together to form a compelling whole. Fairness was evident with opposing views

presented in the literature and data analysis. . To ensure a rightness of fit, great care has

been taken to ensure precision and accuracy for this study.

Transferability can be applied to this study because it can be replicated by others

and easily be used for future research. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘referential

adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others will increase because of your

research. Sources were cited, tables and figures added, and surveys and interview

questions were included.

This study was transformational through its catalytic validity. Catalytic validity is

the degree to which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your participants,

subjects or school (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998).


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The analysis results that are displayed in chapter four are listed by focus

questions. Quantitative data are discussed first followed by the qualitative data to assist

in answering the three focus questions. The quantitative data will be displayed through

tables embedded within the chapter. These data includes a dependent and independent t-

test, a Cronbach’s Alpha and a Chi-square.

To answer focus question one, will the use of an authentic assessment increase

student achievement, the treatment and control groups were given a pre- and post- test.

The treatment group consisted of 26 students and the control group had 27 students. To

analyze the data, t tests were performed. A dependent t-test was performed to compare

the means of the pre- and post- test and to determine if were any significance between the

differences in the scores for the treatment and control group. The tables below show the

results of the dependent t-test for the post test given for the control and treatment group.

Table 4.1 – Dependent t-test Statistic Pre- and Post- test of Control Group

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Control Group Pre-Test Post-testMean 47.41 64.44Variance 373.79 533.33Observations 27 27Pearson Correlation -0.01Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 26t Stat -2.93P(T<=t) one-tail 0t Critical one-tail 1.71P(T<=t) two-tail 0.01t Critical two-tail 2.06t(26) = 2.93, p< .05


With the control group, the mean for pre-test was 47.41 and the mean for the post-

test was 64.44, showing an increase in the average test score from pre-test to post-test.

The results of the dependent t-test for the control group show that T(26) = 2.93, p<.05.

This means that the obtained value, 2.93, was greater than the critical value of 1.71.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the pre-test and post-test

scores must be rejected because there is a significant difference. The effect size was

measured by the Effect Size r and revealed a medium effect size set at a .37 level.

Table 4.2 – Dependent t-test Statistic Pre- and Post- test of Treatment Group

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Pre-Test Post-TestMean 53.08 69.23Variance 862.15 359.38Observations 26 26Pearson Correlation 0.06Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 25t Stat -2.43P(T<=t) one-tail 0.01t Critical one-tail 1.71P(T<=t) two-tail 0.02t Critical two-tail 2.06t(25) = 2.43, p < .05

With the treatment group, the mean for pre-test was 53.71 and the mean for the

post-test was 69.23, showing an increase in the average test score from pre to post-test.

The results of the dependent t-test for the treatment group show that T(25) = 2.43, p<.05.

This means that the obtained value, 2.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.71.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the pre-test and post-test

scores must be rejected because there is a significant difference. The effect size was

measured by the Effect Size r and revealed a medium effect size set at a .31 level.


To determine the reliability of the dependent t test, a test-retest was conducted

using the pre- and post-test of the control group and the pre- and post-test of the treatment

group. The purpose of the test was to know whether the test was reliable over time

(Salkind, 2010). The Pearson’s Coefficient was used to show the relationship between

the pre- and the post- test from both groups. The results of the dependent t-test for the

control group resulted in r = .01. The results of the dependent t-test for the treatment

group resulted in r = .06. This showed that there is a weak or no relationship between

the pre- and post- test for both groups. Since the pre-test and post-test were the same,

this could possible contribute to weak relationship and low coefficient.

Both groups showed significance in the difference of the pre- and post- test with

the control group showing a greater significance. The control group had a 17.03 gain

while the treatment group had a 16.15 gain.

Independent t-tests were performed to compare the means of the two groups pre-

test and post-test scores. The tables below show the results of the independent t-test for

the groups.

Table 4.3 - Independent t-test statistic Pre-test of Control and Treatment

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Pre-Test Pre-TestMean 47.41 53.08Variance 373.79 862.15Observations 27 26Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 43t Stat -0.83P(T<=t) one-tail 0.21t Critical one-tail 1.68P(T<=t) two-tail 0.41t Critical two-tail 2.02t(43) = .83, p>.05


For the pre-test, the mean for the control group was 47.41 and the mean for the

treatment group was 53.08. The results of the independent t-test show that T(43) = .83,

p>.05. This means that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value of 1.68.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the pre-test scores between

the groups must be accepted because there no significant difference. The effect size was

measured using Cohen’s d which resulted in a medium effect size at a .23 level.

Table 4.4 – Independent t-test statistic Control and Treatment Post-test

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Post-test Post-TestMean 64.44 69.23Variance 533.33 359.38Observations 27 26Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 50t Stat -0.83P(T<=t) one-tail 0.21t Critical one-tail 1.68P(T<=t) two-tail 0.41t Critical two-tail 2.01t(50) = .83, p<.05

For the post-test, the mean for the control group was 64.44 and the mean for the

treatment group was 69.23. The results of the independent t-test show that T(50) = .83,

p>.05. This means that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value of 1.68.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the post-test scores between

the groups must be accepted because there no significant difference. The effect size was

measured using Cohen’s d. The results showed a medium effect size at a .23 level.


To answer focus questions number two, how have the use of an authentic

assessment impacted the feelings and attitudes of the students, the treatment group was

given a survey. The survey focused on how the students felt about doing assessments

other than the traditional paper and pencil assessment. A common theme among all

students was that they enjoy doing hands-on activities to show understanding of concepts.

To analyze the survey, the chi-square statistic was calculated to compare what was

observed on the survey to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2010). The table

below shows the results of the chi-square test of the treatment group.

Table 4.5 – Chi-Square of Survey for Treatment Group

Survey Itemsn=5

Survey Question χ2

Item 1 I learn best by doing hands-on activities 18.23**Item 2 My attitude towards learning math increased with

the use of the performance task14.77*

Item 3 I enjoy doing an authentic assessment more than doing a traditional paper and pencil test.

20.92***

Item 4 I feel challenged when I am given a performance assessment.

6.69

Item 5 I feel I can apply what I have learned when given a performance task rather than a paper and pencil

test

16.31**

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The chi-square statistic revealed several survey items was significant when p<.05,

.01 and .001. The results for the survey highlighted that question 3 was greatly

significant, meaning that there were a high percentage of students that answered a certain

way on this question. Question 4 was not significant at all, which means that there was

no significant difference on these questions between what was observed in the answer

and what would have been expected to occur by chance.


To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the survey given

to the students, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. The

purpose of this test was to compare the score for each test item with the total score for

each student in order to make sure the test items measured only what they were intended

to measure (Salkind, 2000). For the survey of the treatment group, the Cronbach’s Alpha

was α = .66. This calculation showed a moderate level of reliability using the results of

the Cronbach’s Alpha test. Also on the survey, the students were asked, “In the eighth

grade, you are required to pass the CRCT. Would you rather take the CRCT or do a

cumulative authentic assessment for promotion to the 9th grade? Responses included 14

for an authentic assessment and 12 for the CRCT. The results of the responses align with

the results of the survey questions.

To answer focus question number three, how effective was the use of authentic

assessments used to convince school leaders to implement as a summative assessment,

members of the school leadership team were surveyed and members of the math

department and the principal were interviewed. Ten of the fifteen surveys that were

given out at the school were returned. The years of experience for those surveyed ranged

from 6-20 years. The chi-square test statistic was calculated to compare what was

observed on the surveys to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2000). The table

below shows the results of the chi-square test for the faculty survey.


Table 4.6 – Chi-Square for Faculty Survey

Survey Items n=4 Survey Question χ2

Item 1 Curriculum frameworks allow integration of research based practices in classroom assessment.

11

Item 2 Performance standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on instruction

15*

Item 3 Staff development is provided for use of assessment to improve test scores 19**Item 4 Students are provided opportunities for demonstrating knowledge beyond

recall through authentic assessment.15*

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The chi-square statistic results showed that several survey items were significant

when p<.05, .01 and .001. The results for the faculty survey highlighted that question 2,3

and 4 were weak significantly, meaning that there were a low percentage of faculty

members that answered a certain way on this question. Question 1 was not significant at

all, which means that there was no significant difference on these questions between what

was observed in the answer and what would have been expected to occur by chance.

To determine the internal consistency reliability of the item on the survey given to

the faculty, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses. The

purpose of this test was to compare the score for each test item with the total score for

each student in order to make sure the test items measured only what they were intended

to measure (Salkind, 2000). The computations gave a Cronbach’s Alpha of α= .33.

The faculty survey also contained two open-ended questions. Question five

asked, “Do you think traditional assessments or authentic assessments would better

prepare students for standardized test”? Four out of the ten surveyed answered authentic

assessment. Teacher 1, with 11-20 years of experience, stated, “If everyone was

following the scope & sequence and preparing adequate traditional and authentic


assessment, then it would prepare student better. Teacher 3, with 6-10 years of

experience, stated “Traditional assessments due to all of the standardized assessments

that must be passed or met. There were some that felt that both would help students.

Teacher 4 felt that traditional assessment should be summative or CRCT practice while

authentic assessments should be formative and to improve critical thinking. Teacher 5

stated, “I think that traditional assessments may prepare students for standardized tests

but authentic assessments help to develop students’ understanding of the concepts.

Overall, the common theme was that both are necessary to raise student achievement but

traditional assessments prepare students for standardized test.

Question six asked, “Do you think that the curriculum is driven by test scores”?

Three out of the ten surveyed answered yes. Teacher 2, with 11-20 years of experience,

stated “I think everything is driven by test scores including teacher pay, job security etc.”

Teacher 3 stated “Curriculum is not really, however teaching practices are driven by

scores.” The common theme for this question was that teachers tend to teach to what and

how the students are being assessed.

An interview was conducted with members of the math department. Out of

twelve members, eight were available for an interview. This interview focused on

assessment in the classroom and what type showed the greatest measure of student

achievement. Question 1 of the interview asked, “What differentiated instructional

strategies are being used in your classroom”? All of the teachers responded that use

differentiated instructional strategies in the classroom such as tiered assignments, choice

boards, and individualized instruction. Question 2 asked, “How are your students

assessed”? Quizzes and test were the most given answers. Three of the teachers used


observation in the classroom as quick way of assessing students. Question 3 asked,

“How often do you give a summative assessment”? At the end of each unit was a

cohesive answer for the group. Question 4 asked, “How do students feel about the

assessment that you give”? Teacher 7 stated, “Students never like test; however, they

seem over assessed”. Teacher 2 stated, “Most say they are easy because it covers exactly

what I taught”. Teacher 5 stated, “I don’t know”. Question 5 asked, “Do students have

an option on how they are assessed? The teachers unanimously stated that students did

not have an option on summative assessments and that they are assessed using traditional

testing methods. Question 6 asked, “Have you used an authentic assessment as a

summative assessment”? All of the teachers stated yes. The most commonly used in the

classroom are projects and performance task, with the use of rubrics. Question 8 asked,

“Does your grade level share assessment”? The teachers responded yes. Teacher 7

stated, “We share them but that does not mean that we all end up giving the same

assessment. Question 8 asked, “What do you think drives the curriculum”? Half of the

teachers responded that it was the CRCT. Teacher 3 responded that teacher knowledge,

repetition and explaining why math works drive the curriculum. Teacher 2 felt that it was

other states’ curriculum. Question 9 asked, “Do you think the implementation of an

authentic assessment as a summative assessment will improve test scores”? All of the

math teachers, except one, stated that they felt that the implementation of authentic

assessments will improve test scores. Math teacher 6 stated “I feel it is hard to get the

students to complete independently. Many students cannot handle application of

concepts independently and time prohibits that involved of an assessment.” Other

teachers felt the same way concerning the time. Teacher 5 stated, “I don’t feel that it


should be used as the only source to measure student knowledge”. Teacher 2 stated,

“The one’s that usually score low on test don’t have much motivation on projects either”.

A common theme was that the scope and sequence does not allow enough time to

implement enough authentic assessments. Teacher 7 felt that if authentic assessments

were implemented across the grade levels, then eventually it would improve student

achievement and test scores.

The interview with the principal focused on the use of authentic assessments in

the classroom and the change process in the school. Question 1 asked, “What is the

typical type of assessment given in the classroom”? He was very knowledgeable of the

different types of assessment being used in the classroom. He noted that the use of

formative assessment is increased greatly. These included but not limited to tickets out

the door, warm-ups and teacher observation. Question 2 asked, “Is there evidence of

authentic assessment being used in the classroom”? He stated “Yes, I have noticed that

teachers are using it more than in the past. Teachers are using more performance task

and projects not only to engage students in the learning process but to raise student

achievement”. Question 3 asked, “How do you feel about traditional assessments”? He

commented that they are quicker and easier to grade for the teacher. He also noted that

because of standardized testing that it is important that we expose students to that type of

testing method. Question 4 asked, “Do you think differentiated instruction and

assessment increases student achievement”? Excitedly, he replied yes!! He stated,

“Differentiated instruction and assessment involves the student in the learning process

and engages students. The use of technology allows for the teacher and student to be

creative in the classroom”. Question 5 asked, “What do you think drives the


curriculum”? Without hesitation, he said standardized testing. He stated “Standardized

testing is tied to federal funding. The curriculum is written and aligned to these test.

Therefore; teachers tend to teach to the test”. Question 6 asked, “How can schools and

teachers increase the time spent in school to optimize learning for the students”? He

answered with one word: technology. The principal felt that technology is the key to

raising the bar in all areas concerning education. He stated that promethean boards,

smart boards, CPS units and computer labs are vital in increasing student engagement and

achievement. Question 7 asked, “How has assessment changed instruction over the past

20 years”? Over the last 20 years, he stated that assessment has changed tremendously.

He stated, “There is more accountability now with NCLB so teachers tend to teach to the

test”. Question 8 asked, “Do you foresee authentic assessment to be more or less

prominent in our school than what they are today”? He answered that authentic

assessments will be more prominent in the classroom because the increase of

differentiated instruction, technology and assessment changes. He stated that classes will

have higher expectations of teachers and of students. Students will do more application

with hands-on activities or with technology. Even though he felt that standardized testing

drives the curriculum, because of the funding that is tied to it, he felt that authentic

assessments can still raise student achievement. Effective teacher training on the use and

implementation of authentic assessments is crucial in the success raising student

achievement in the classroom.

As the leader of the school, the principal is vital in the change process within the

school organization. With over 30 years of experience, he has been very influential in the

lives of many educators. Question 9 asked, “When making a change in the school, what


approaches do you use to gain buy-in from the faculty”? He said, “You have to have

buy-in to make a change, and in order to get buy-in, you have to have something that is

going to work. It is important to show that the change you are going to make has proven

results. Once you get an idea, you have to get buy-in, and that will equal the desired

change.” Question 10 asked, “What causes change in the school to be successful or

failures”? He replied, “Tradition is often a barrier to change.” He spoke on when people

have done things a certain way for so long then it is difficult for change to happen. He

noted that building a strong leadership team within the school contributes to the success

of change.

In implementing authentic assessment in the classroom, he said that more needs

to be done in the classroom to increase student achievement and not relying totally on

traditional assessments as a measure of achievement.

There were some similarities between the quantitative and qualitative data

reported in this action research study. The quantitative data showed authentic assessment

as being significant in raising student achievement. However, the qualitative data show

that there is some significance of using authentic assessment but not at the cost of using a

summative assessment. Both data sources will be further analyzed in Chapter Five in as

well as recommendations for further research on this topic.


CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

In Chapter 5, the results of the research project were analyzed and discussed more

thoroughly. The analysis results are listed by focus questions followed by discussion and

implication of the results. The chapter concludes with how the study the impacted school

improvement and the recommendations for future research

Analysis

Focus question one asked if the use of an authentic assessment increased student

achievement. The data were collected from pre-test and post-test of the control and

treatment group. The data were analyzed using an independent t-test of the pre-test and

post-test. A dependent t-test was performed on the pre-test and post-test of the control

group and the experiment group. The results of the independent t-test of the pre-test of

the control and treatment groups showed that the obtained value, .83, was less than the

critical value of 1.86 when p>.05. This means that the null hypothesis was accepted and

there was no significant difference between the scores of the groups before the beginning

of the research project. The results of the independent t-test of the post-test of the control

and treatment groups showed that the obtained value, .83, was less than the critical value

of 1.68 when p>.05. This meant that the null hypothesis was accepted and there was no

significant difference between the scores of the groups at the end of the research project.

For the independent t-test for the control and treatment group, the effect size showed a

medium size of .23 which means that both groups tend to be very similar and over

entirely. There is no difference between the two distributions of scores.

The results of the dependent t-test of the pre-test of the control group showed that

the obtained value, 2.93 was greater than the critical value of 1.71 when p<.05. This


means the null hypothesis was rejected because there was a significant difference in the

scores of the control group from the pre-test to the post-test. The results of the dependent

t-test of the post-test of the treatment group shoed the obtained value, 2.41, was greater

than the critical value of 1.71 when p<.05. This means that the null hypothesis was

rejected because there was a significant difference in the scores of the treatment group

from the pre-test to the post-test. For the dependent t-test, the effect size measured

medium for both groups. For the control group, the effect size was r =.37 and r =.31 for

the treatment group. This means that both groups tend to be very similar and over

entirely. There is no difference between the two distributions of scores.

To determine the reliability of the test, a test-retest correlation was performed.

This method was used because the same test was used for the pre- and post- test. The

results of the dependent t-test for the control group resulted in r = .01 and r = .06 for the

treatment group. This means that was weak or no relationship correlation between the

scores of the pre-test and post-test given to both groups.

To establish content validity, the test items were created by teachers

knowledgeable of the content and reviewed by school leaders within the county. The test

showed that it measured what was supposed to be measured because there was a

significant increase in the mean of the control and treatment group. The significance was

important because the research project measured if authentic assessment increased

student achievement. The overall results of the research showed significant increase

within the treatment group. The results also showed that there was a greater increase in

the scores of the students in the control group than the scores within the treatment group.


The results of the research for focus question one is parallel and supported by the

evidence found in the literature on authentic assessment increasing student achievement.

Moon et al. (2002) reported results that suggest that authentic assessment can be used in

middle school classrooms for accurate assessment of students’ success in achieving

academic learning standards. Moon et al. (2005) reported that teachers can successfully

use authentic assessments to measure academic standards identified for the content areas.

Focus question two asked how was the attitudes and feelings impacted by the use

of an authentic assessment. The data were collected using student surveys. The data

were analyzed using a chi square. The chi square result of item 1 was χ2(4)= 18.23, p<.05.

This means that the student responses were moderately significant. The raw data showed

that the majority of the students enjoy doing hands on activities. The chi square result of

item 2 was χ2(4)= 14.77, p<.05. This means that the student responses show a low level of

significant. The raw data showed that the over half of students were either neutral or

disagreed with the belief that that their attitude towards learning increased after the use of

the performance task. The chi square result of item 3 was χ2(4)= 20.92, p<.05. This

means that student responses showed a strong significance. The raw data showed that

most students agreed that they enjoy doing an authentic assessment instead of a

traditional paper and pencil test. The chi square result of item 4 was χ2(4)= 6.69, p>.05.

This means that the student responses showed no significance. The raw data revealed

that the students were split between agreeing and disagreeing with the belief they feel

challenged when an authentic assessment is used. The chi square result of item 5 was

χ2(4)= 16.31, p<.05. This means that the student responses were moderately significant.


The raw data revealed that majority of the students felt that they can apply what they

have learned better using an authentic assessment rather than a traditional assessment.

To test the reliability of the survey, a Cronbach’s Alpha was performed. The

results showed α = .66. This means that the survey was a reliable source of data. The

validity of the survey was measured by showing that authentic assessment impacted the

attitudes and feelings of the students. The results from the data showed significance

between using authentic assessments and student attitude and feelings. With support of

the literature, Anderson (2007) reported on the basis of student achievement data and

attitudes toward reading that implementation of differentiated instructional strategies had

been an effective approach toward successfully increasing reading achievement. The

research supports the results of the using authentic assessment rather than traditional

assessment for enjoyment and being able to apply what was learned. The study done by

DeCastro-Ambrosetti and Cho (2005) reported that students responded that they were

able to show what they had learned and not spit back what had been heard in class. The

students also felt that traditional assessments do not fully allow them to show what they

have learned. Moon et al. (2005) reported that there was a positive response to

differentiated authentic assessment. The students in the study felt that rubrics are helpful

because they serve as a guideline in completing the authentic assessment.

Focus question three asked how effective was the study in implementing authentic

assessments as summative assessment within the school organization. The data were

collected through a survey from leaders within the school and interviews with math

teachers and the principal. The survey data were analyzed using a chi square and the

interviews were coded for emergent and recurring themes.


The survey items consisted of statements using a Likert scale. The results showed

significant results. Item 1 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 11, p>.05. This means that the

item showed no significance. Looking at the raw data, faculty members either agreed or

were neutral on the belief that the curriculum frameworks allow integration of research

based practices in classroom assessment. Item 2 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 15,

p<.05. This means that the faculty responses were significant. The raw data showed that

the faculty members agreed that performance standards and assessment affects time

spend on instruction. Item 3 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 19, p<.05. This means that

the item show moderately significant. The raw data showed that the majority of the

faculty felt that staff development is not provided for the use of assessments to increase

test scores. Item 4 had a chi square result of χ2(4)= 15, p<.05. This means that the faculty

responses were significant. The raw data showed that the faculty members agreed

students are provided opportunities to demonstrate learning through authentic assessment.

The results from the Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .33 showed that the survey was a relatively

small source of reliable data. The overall results of the teacher survey showed that

authentic assessment is useful in the classroom but with pressure of standardized test

scores it is hard to implement. Cole et al. (2009) reported that performance standards and

assessment criteria affect time spend on instruction. With limitations on time, teachers

often find other ways of making authentic assessments a part of instruction. Moon et al.

(2002) reported that most teachers introduced the assessments during class but required

the bulk of the work to be done outside of class time.

After members of the math department were interviewed, the result was positive

but with hesitation on using authentic assessment as a summative assessment. The


common theme among the teachers was that individualized instruction and assessment

are used in the classroom. They agreed that authentic assessment can help raise test

scores but instructional time and the traditional standardized testing methods were a

problem. The use of the authentic assessment were great in the classroom but not for

preparation for standardized test. Unlike authentic assessment, Chapman and King

(2005) reported that standardized assessments are administered with the same directions,

time limits, response formats and questions. The teachers felt that authentic assessments

give students a variety of ways to demonstrate learning and understanding. Sacks (1999)

reported that when students use traditional assessments, they are only asked a small

fragment of what they know and in way that they may be able to tell what they know.

The interview with the principal resulted in a need for more authentic assessment

in the classroom. He commented that the use of authentic assessment in the classroom

because it allows students to be creative and it give them the opportunity to be investors

in their learning. DeCastro-Ambrosett and Cho (2005) supports this statement by

reporting that authentic assessments places the responsibility of learning on the students

and provided the opportunity for them to engage in activities that embrace their various

learning styles and multiple intelligences. He expressed that with the use of technology

and proper guidelines authentic assessments can be successful in showing evidence of

learning. He noted that most teachers still use traditional assessments because it is

familiar and the pressure of standardized test. Sacks (1999) stated that there was

resistance from teachers who are unwilling to take risks with their test scores. This

supports what the some teachers said in the interviews. With the so much pressure on


standardized testing, they will they have to teach to the test with the same type of testing

methods, format and questioning style.

The principal acknowledged that the implementing change within the school

organization can be a hard transition. Zins and Illback (1995) reported that the process of

implementing change at an organizational level clearly is challenging. Because things

have been done a “certain way” for so long, it is hard to implement change when others

feel that there isn’t a need for a change. The principal stated that the in order for

transition to be successful there must be a buy-in from the faculty. Mai (2004) states that

a learning organization is one that actively works to improve itself by casting present

practice under critical scrutiny and by seeking new and better ways of doing things. As

with the teachers, the principal agreed that authentic assessments in the classroom are

engaging, creative and shows evidence of the student’s learning. However, both parties

stated that it should be the sole assessment used in the classroom. They agreed that they

will be better used at the end of units, chapters etc. The final thoughts of the principal

were that we are in an age of technology and hands-on in the classroom. With effective

training, teachers can use authentic assessment in the classroom but as long as there is

NCLB there will still be a need for traditional assessment.

Discussion

The results of the research on using authentic assessment showed positive and

significant results. The treatment group showed improvement from the beginning to the

end of the study. In comparison to the control group, there was improvement as well.

Consequently, the control group showed a greater significance. With the immersion of


the 21st century classroom, it is ideal for students to demonstrate learning and

understanding through a variety of assessments. Authentic assessments allows students

to show evidence of their learning rather than recognizing, recalling or plugging in what

was learned into a traditional assessment. The research findings show that authentic

assessment does raise student achievement and engages and motivates the student to learn

and take responsibility of the learning process.

The results of the surveys showed that there was consensus that authentic

assessments are important to the student and teachers. The students in the treatment

group enjoyed the performance task and would prefer it over a traditional assessment. As

for the teachers, authentic assessments are very successful when time and proper

instructions are allowed.

The results of the interviews showed that the study proved that authentic

assessments should be implemented in the classroom to raise student achievement but

traditional assessment should continue as well. The results showed that the math teachers

and principal found that authentic assessments that are more useful as formative

assessment rather than summative assessments. The study presents finding that authentic

assessments are useful but traditional assessments are necessary because of standardized

testing.

The credibility of the study came from the results and outcome from the use of the

multiple data sources. A pre-test was given at the beginning of the study to the control

and treatment groups. This was done to show that there was no significance difference in

the performance on the pre-test. A post-test was given after the implementation of the


study to show if the research project worked. The study was made fair by presenting the

opposing view that authentic assessment does not raise student achievement. The

opposing viewpoint was proven valid because the control group made a more of a gain

than the treatment group. The interview with principal and teachers supported the

argument that authentic assessment can help but not necessary raise student achievement

but offers diverse ways showing evidence of learning.

Implication

The subjects within the research study were a typical heterogeneous group of

students that represented a sample size within the school. When using authentic

assessments in the classroom, modification may be done to meet the varying learning

levels in the classroom. If this is done, then this study can be used with a larger

population. However, the response to the research project showed that the use of time

and the pressure of standardized test served as a hesitation on implementing authentic

assessments as a summative assessment.

Referential adequacy was achieved through the interviews with the teachers and

principal. They supported the quantitative data that authentic assessment can but do not

necessary raise student achievement. It engages the student and allowed for

differentiated instruction in the classroom. With the GPS rigorous math curriculum,

authentic assessments are becoming more frequent in the classroom. Teachers within the

math content area may find this study useful and be able to replicate.

This study transformed the students in the treatment and control group which

showed catalytic validity. The treatment group was hesitant about the authentic


assessment given to them. Because of the difficulty of the unit, many felt that they were

not prepared to demonstrate understanding of the concepts taught. After groups were

formed and the rubric explained, the students were at ease. Over the course of the

performance task, the students expressed excitement through verbal and written

evaluations. At the conclusion of the performance task, they asked if this assessment

could replace the regular test given at the end of a unit. As for the control group, they

were disappointed that they were not able to do the performance task. Many stated that

would have been better than doing word problems.

As a teacher, this study transformed me in a variety of ways. Initially, I thought

that the treatment group was going to have a difficult time and I would have to walk them

through it step by step. I have never been so wrong. Once I explained what we were

doing, how it should be done and to use their partner as support, the students gained

ownership of the performance task. The assignment counted as a group grade so each

student responsible for their part of the task. I watched as my students became teachers

to their peers. Often, it felt like I was listening to myself. It was at that moment that I

realized that if you give students an opportunity and trust them with it, then they will

show you what they know and are able to do. My lesson learned was never to assume

students are not capable when you haven’t allowed them to show capability.

Impact on School Improvement

The impact of research made on school improvement showed little progression.

Even though authentic assessments are useful in the classroom, reality forces teachers to

resist implementing as summative assessments. Standardized testing is at the forefront of


federal funding, AYP and instruction. As long as standardized testing is a pivotal

measurement of student achievement, teachers will continue to teach to the test. As

education evolved, differentiated instruction and assessment have been encouraged in the

classroom. In theory, this provides engaging and interactive classrooms but when the

accountability of the school rest upon standardized test, teachers will continue to assess

using traditional methods.

Recommendation for Future Research

Further research is needed to determine if authentic assessment raises student

achievement. For better results, the study should be done during a full school year.

Along with the length of the study, there are a few things that I would have done

differently. I would have interviewed random students in addition to the survey. More

survey questions would have been added pertaining to their interest and grade average in

math. At the end of each unit, the students would have completed a performance task and

a traditional assessment. This would allow me to see if the student mastered the

standards and is able to apply what was learned through the task.

The next step to extend this study is to include all math classes across each grade

level. Math teachers can collaborate and develop common authentic assessments and

rubrics to ensure consistency. It takes buy in from all stakeholders in order for

innovation to be successful. Teachers’ instructional methods must be for the gaining of

knowing and understanding and not for teaching to the test. When students know that it

is required to show and prove what they have learned instead of guessing answers or

bubbling in an answer, then they will take more responsibility and pride in their learning.


References

Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students. Preventing

School Failure, 51(3), 49-54.

Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. (2004). Normalizing differences in inclusive teaching. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525-529.

Banfield, G., & Cayago-Gicain, M.S. (2006). Qualitative approaches to educational

evaluation: A regional conference-workshop. International Education Journal,

7(4), 510-513.

Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 91-108.

Chapman, C. & King, R. (2005). Differentiated assessment strategies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Cole, H., Hulley, K., & Quarles, P. (2009). Does assessment have to drive the

curriculum? Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved from ERIC Database

Cook, R. J. (2004). Embedding assessment of young children into routines of inclusive

settings: A systematic planning approach. Young Exceptional Children, 7, 2–11.

Danzi, J., Reul, K., & Smith, R. (2008, April 1). Improving student motivation in mixed

ability classrooms using differentiated instruction. Online Submission,

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. & Cho, G. (2005). Synergism in learning: A critical

reflection of authentic assessment. The High School Journal, 89 (1), 57-62.


Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York: Teachers

College Press

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

George, M.P., White, G.P., & Schlaffer, J.J. (2007). Implementing school-wide

behavior change: Lessons from the field. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 41-

49.

Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Brookshire, R. (2006). Using authentic assessment to

evidence children's progress toward early learning standards. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 34(1), 45-51, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In

N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories

and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in singapore

schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291-318.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). The Conceptual Framework.

LaGrange, GA


Madeja, S. S. (2004). Alternative assessment strategies for schools. Arts Education

Policy Review, 105(5), 3.

Mai, R., (2004). Leadership for school improvement: Cues from organizational

learning and renewal efforts. The Educational Forum, 68, 221-221.

Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A. (2001).

The work sampling system (4th ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Rebus Inc.

Meyers, N. M., & Nulty, D. D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles

to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students' approaches to

thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

34(5), 565-577.

Moon, T., Brighton, C., Callahan, C.M., & Tomlison, C.A. (2002). Development

of differentiated performance assessment tasks for middle school classrooms.

(Report No. RM02160). Storrs, CT: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

Moon, T., Brighton, C., Callahan, C. M., & Robinson, A. (2005). Development of

authentic assessments for the middle school classrooms. The Journal of

Secondary Gifted Education, 16 (2/3), 119-133.

Paulsen, C.A. & Dailey, D. (2006). A Guide for Education Personnel: Evaluating a

Program or Intervention. Retrieved from EMSTAC website:

http://www.emstac.org/resources/extras.htm


Peters, G. (2007). Structural and curricular design: What changes when an essential

school commits to exhibitions. Horace, 23(1), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).

Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing

tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Ryan, T. G. (2006). Performance assessment: Critics, criticism, and controversy.

International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 97-104. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd

Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Wolf, P. J. (2007). Academic improvement through regular assessment. Peabody

Journal of Education, 82(4), 690-702.

Zins, J.E. & Illback, R.J., (1995). Consulting to facilitate planned organizational change

in schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,

17(2&3), 109-117.


Appendix A

Student Attitude Survey

Read each item carefully and circle your response using the Likert scale below.

1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

1. I learn best by doing hands-on activities.

1 2 3 4 5

2. My attitude towards learning math increased with the use of authentic assessment.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I enjoy doing authentic assessment more than doing a traditional paper and pencil

test.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel challenged when I am given an authentic assessment.

1 2 3 4 5

If necessary, use the back to complete the two following questions.

5. In the eighth grade, you are required to pass the CRCT. Would you rather take

the CRCT or do a cumulative authentic assessment for promotion? Circle one

1> CRCT or 2> Authentic Assessment


Appendix B

Interview Questions for the Principal

1. What is the typical type of assessment given?

2. Is there evidence of authentic assessments being used in the classroom?

3. How do you feel about traditional assessments (ex. Multiple choice, paper/pencil)?

4. Do you think that differentiated instruction increases student achievement?

5. What do you think drives the curriculum?

6. How can schools and teachers increase the time spent in school to optimize learning for the students?

7. How assessment has changed instruction in the past 20 years?

8. Looking in the future, do you foresee authentic assessment to be more or less prominent in our schools than what they are today?

9. When making a change in the school, what approaches do you use to gain buy-in from the faculty?

10. What causes innovations in the school to be successful or failures?


Appendix C

Interview Questions for the Math Teachers

1. What differentiated instructional strategies are being used in your classroom?

2. How do you assess your students?

3. How often do you give a summative assessment?

4. How do students feel about the assessments that you give?

5. Do students have an option on how they are assessed?

6. Have you used an authentic assessment as a summative assessment?

7. Does your grade level share assessments?

8. What do you think drives the curriculum?

9. Do you think the implementation of authentic assessment will improve student

achievement?


Appendix D

SILT Survey

Position Years of Experience

Teacher________ 1-5_____ 6-10_____ 11-20_____ 20+_______

Administrative________1-5_____ 6-10_____ 11-20_____ 20+_______

Read each item carefully and circle your response using the Likert scale below.

1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

1. Curriculum frameworks allow integration of research based best practices in classroom assessment.1 2 3 4 5

2. Performance standards and assessment criteria affect time spent on instruction.1 2 3 4 5

3. Staff development is provided for use of assessment to improve test scores. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Students are provided opportunities for demonstrating knowledge beyond recall through authentic assessment.1 2 3 4 5

If necessary, use the back to complete the two following questions.

5. In your opinion, do you think traditional assessments or authentic assessments would better prepare students for standardized test?

6. In your opinion, do you think that the curriculum is driven by test scores?

Modified from Cole, H., Hulley, K., & Quarles, P. (2009). Does Assessment Have to Drive the Curriculum? Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved from ERIC Database

mark veon - lagrange college | programs/ed.s. … · web viewof lagrange college education ......

Documents