Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spence-Brown, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The eye of the beholder: authenticity in an embedded assessment task

Robyn Spence-Brown

Monash University, robyn.spencebrown{at}arts.monash.edu.au

Authenticity is now firmly established as a central concern in test design and test validation (Bachman, 1990). However, there is disagreement about what authenticity is and about the degree of authenticity that can realistically be achieved. This article explores the theoretical and practical issues surrounding authenticity in course-based assessment, drawing on data from a university-level Japanese language course in Australia. It examines a teaching and assessment activity based around interviewing native speakers outside the classroom, which was designed to optimize authenticity. Using tapes that students made of the interview for assessment and retrospective interviews, the study examines various dimensions of authenticity and reveals a wide diversity in individual experiences. The article argues that the addition of an assessment dimension fundamentally changes the nature of a task, and thus compromises authenticity. It further suggests that authenticity must be viewed in terms of the implementation of an activity, not its design, and examines the various factors that affect the degree of authenticity experienced by individual students. The implications of this diversity for the validity of the activity are discussed.

Language Testing, Vol. 18, No. 4, 463-481 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/026553220101800408


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Language TestingHome page
L. He and Y. Dai
A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion
Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 370 - 401.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
P. Rea-Dickins
Understanding teachers as agents of assessment
Language Testing, July 1, 2004; 21(3): 249 - 258.
[PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
A. Cumming, L. Grant, P. Mulcahy-Ernt, and D. E. Powers
A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL
Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 107 - 145.
[Abstract] [PDF]