Ministry of higher and secondary special educaion of the republic of uzbekistan

3.1 General information of authentic assessment of writing.
Since assessment is an indispensable part of education, curriculum makers, educators and teachers have engaged in an ongoing discussion of how to address student performance. A variety of assessments including both short-term and long-term ones can be applied during or at the end of the learning process. Among such types, authentic assessment is a prominent approach. This paper is going to advocate authentic assessments as it fosters students' growth and teachers' pedagogical strategies. In addition, it helps to reach the goals of educational practices through the authenticity of equity and innovation when students actively seek their own ways to appreciate what they have learnt. Particularly, in a writing skills class, learners can take this opportunity to improve step by step their own proficiency in the use of written words. The paper, hence, discusses how authentic assessment can be applied to develop college students' writing through classroom observation and a set of semi-structured interviews. The result of the study revealed that using authentic assessment is an effective strategy for enhancing students’ interest in writing process and writing task fulfillment. Students would find it easier to become skillful writers at their English levels. The study, therefore, recommends more uses of authentic assessment in teaching writing skills as well as in teaching and learning the English language in general.
Most teachers are busy at the end of the semester grading students’ written tests, calculating their overall scores, and reporting or posting their final evaluations on the university website. All the information should be highly accurate, but the dilemma is that whether such numbers and types of assessments would reveal precisely the students’ capacities or not. What did the students value in a course? Such a question could hardly be answered. A teacher may feel rather stressful because, to some extent, the accountability of teaching is judged based on such percentages of success or failure. Do all the teachers and students join an educational journey and have to finish it with a number of scores? So what should be a real motive for teaching and learning? Some of the students, who engaged in learning activities enthusiastically, got shocked when they did not get the scores they expected. Others were distressed after knowing that they failed the English subject for the first, second, or third times. How do we value teaching and learning in education without a collection of data from multiple-choice tests? Perspectives from positivism, initiated by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, support experimental evaluations in scientific methods and notice the truth for understanding phenomena in the world (Moon, 2014). However, when being applied in educational achievement, a testing system or experimentation of assessment following positivism does not reflect multidimensional expressions of human capacities. The benefits of assessing teaching and students’ learning are undeniable. Yet, only by pushing students to do well on tests such as multiple choices and written forms is not always the right way of supporting students' growth. There should be better ways to understand the students' needs and help them grow rather than making conclusions about their high or low-level achievement. As Dr. Suneetha (2014) claimed, “In order to be effective, educational reforms must be tied to the development of an enhanced curriculum that incorporates authentic assessment practices” (p.1). This type of assessment has become popular in some areas of academic subjects. It helps to increase the authenticity of evaluation and students’ motivation in performing their tasks in real life contexts (Wiggins, 1990; Puppin, 2007). In other words, authentic assessment can be an approach that the teacher uses to examine his/her students' knowledge and encourage them to apply what they have learned in authentic settings. Students would not be much worried about the final result as they have various, even enjoyable, ways to express their understanding of lessons. Brown (2004) proposed six types of authentic assessment: performance assessment, portfolio assessment, self-assessment, journal, conference and interview, and teacher observation. In English language teaching, Idham et al. (2015) emphasizes that learning should meet students’ need so that they would be able to apply their knowledge into their own lives. Thus, final outcome, or final evaluation, accordingly encompasses authenticity which, as Gulikers (2006) refines, involves authentic task, physical context, social context, assessment result, and assessment criteria. Teaching productive skills, like writing skills, should embrace those crucial factors. Indeed, helping learners to be competent at writing is a challenging task for teachers of English as this requires effective instructions and long endeavor (Aziz & Yusoff, 2016; Barkaoui, 2007).
Hence, this paper not only advocates authentic assessment in education but also offers English teachers viable strategies in writing skill classes. The study aims to reach the goal of constructive pedagogy that leads language learners to a real world of experience and application. Writing would, no longer, be a difficult subject; instead, it would be an opportunity for students to express their inspiration in papers through their favorite topics. Teachers' assessment would correlate with students' interests and unique capacities; consequently, the final results, like scores or critical evaluations, reveal both successful teaching and learning outcome. The main research question that guides the study is: How does authentic assessment affect students’ writing skill development?
In America, since the legislation of No Child Left Behind came into effect, teachers and students endure the pressure of mandated standardized tests that change what to teach, how to teach, and how to know students’ mastery (Brown & Knowles, 2007). The Common Core State Standards, according to Noguera (2013), fail to reinvent education as they ignore other factors such as poverty which affects students’ academic achievement. When computer-based exams only place students at the center of scoring on multiple, given choices, authentic measures, as Wiggins (1993) asserted, focus on “engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively” (p. 229). For many years since the era of school reforms started, educators and teachers have been looking for alternatives to standardized tests. Authentic assessment was born with the demands of viable educational practices in terms of student-centered pedagogy, and real life approach of teaching and learning. In other words, authentic assessment serves to reach the goals of education as it supports cognitive development, stimulates learning autonomy and advocates the authenticity of equity and innovation in education. Swaffield (2011) defined that “authentic assessment refers to the assessment of learning that is conducted through ‘real world’ tasks requiring students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in meaningful contexts” (p. 434). For example, students report the findings of their research, submit an article or short story for publication, or create an art product. In some cases, authentic assessment is associated with performance assessment when students present knowledge in the form of a performance task. First of all, authentic assessment pertains to cognitive theories that specify the mental components and the process of knowledge acquisition (Eryaman & Gence, 2010). Regarding brain-based learning, Jensen (1996) emphasized that “we need to allow for more variety and reality in our learning contexts” (p. 167). He elucidated scientific evidence of mental functions that the brain is sensitive to emotional changes and problem-solving issues. The limbic system helps us to decide which content is essential and the cerebrum, or neocortex, enables us to dissect different meanings (Jensen, 1996). Thus, when leaning activities are more connected with personal interests, students will find it easier to get the desired knowledge.
Challenging tasks also make the brains work better as students can reach the level of critical thinking and acquire problem-solving skills. This analysis is consistent with Newmann and Archbald’s (1992) proposal of authentic achievement that is “to cultivate the kind of higherorder thinking and problem-solving capacities useful both to individuals and to the society. The mastery gained in school is likely to transfer more readily to life beyond school” (as cited in Cumming & Maxwell, 1999, p. 179). Assessment, therefore, should be accurate or genuine for students to obtain authentic achievement. With his renowned theory of "Multiple Intelligences," Gardner (1999) focused on "the determination of which intelligence is favored when an individual has a choice" (p. 31). This idea put forth changes in curriculum and assessment that are compatible with students' strengths and weaknesses. Gardner strongly recommended the report of the portfolio that describes a student’s intellectual process including progress, efforts or some needed supports for better performance. In this sense, assessment closely relates to real life situations and connects school with parents and community. Secondly, authentic assessment encourages learner’s autonomy through self-awareness and self-reflection. Education is crucial for a person to be able to live and work meaningfully. Hence, learning is not ended with the completion of different evaluations. Knowledge and skills presented at school should go beyond institutions and transform into a treasure that learners possess during their later lives. With appropriate types of authentic tasks, students become aware of their educational targets and strive to reach their expected destinations. Combining Heidegger’s concept of “being-in-the-world”, Thuy and Gloria (2013) recommended that authentic assessment stimulates students “to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions, while promoting reflexivity about their own ways of knowing, acting and being” (p. 10). Accordingly, assessment not only helps students know about their actual abilities but also empowers them in the mode of being fully human. Moreover, it urges students to reexamine their prior knowledge and construct their new ways of understanding. This action, as similarly defined in constructivist theory, is an active construction of meanings from experience (Eryaman & Gence, 2010). Today the application of technology can help to create the contexts of authentic experience on which students base to get deep meanings through analytical comprehension. A rubric is another useful tool for evaluating students’ capacities, as students can get involved in the process of assessment. Ashford-Rowe, Herrington and Brown (2014) propose that metacognition including critical reflection and self-evaluation should be a component of authentic assessment. When students have opportunities to rethink what they think, they would value the results of evaluation instead of worrying about high or low scores. Hence, Dewey (1904) clarified that the role of expert or supervisor is to get a student “to judge his own work critically, to find out for himself in what respects he has succeeded and in what failed, and to find the probable reasons for both failure and success” (p. 335). In this sense, students become responsible for their learning approach and have intrinsic motivation for making a change. They will also be able to get feedback from the teacher and other peers in order to make appropriate adjustment of attention and effort. By engaging in the process of authentic assessment, students can maintain social relationships through constructive communication.
3.2. Criteria of writing assessment.
There are some demands of wrting assessment. The following are the characteristics of authentic assessments as described in Bean (1993) and Svinicki (2004).

• 
  Resemble real-world tasks and activities
  
• 
  Can be structured as written or oral assessments completed individually, in pairs, or in groups
  
• 
  Often presented as ill-structured problems with no right answers
  
• 
  Ask students to communicate their knowledge orally or in writing to a specific audience and for specific purpose
  

Usually ask students to address professional or lay audiences. Almost 25 years ago, I wrote a widely-read and discussed paper that was entitled: “A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment” that was published in the Phi Delta Kappan. I believe the phrase was my coining, made when I worked with Ted Sizer at the Coalition of Essential Schools, as a way of describing ‘true’ tests as opposed to merely academic and unrealistic school tests. I first used the phrase in print in an article for Educational Leadership entitled “Teaching to the (Authentic) Test” in the April 1989 issue.
(My colleague from the Advisory Board of the Coalition of Essential Schools, Fred Newmann, was the first to use the phrase in a book, a pamphlet for NASSP in 1988 entitled Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic academic achievement in secondary schools. His work in the Chicago public schools provided significant findings about the power of working this way.)
So, it has been with some interest (and occasional eye-rolling, as befits an old guy who has been through this many times before) that I have followed a lengthy back and forth argument in social media recently as to the meaning of ‘authentic’ and, especially, the idea of ‘authentic assessment’ in mathematics.
The debate – especially in math – has to do with a simple question: does ‘authentic’ assessment mean the same thing as ‘hands-on’ or ‘real-world’ assessment? (I’ll speak to those terms momentarily). In other words, in math does the aim of so-called “authentic” assessment rule in or rule out the use of ‘pure’ math problems in such assessments?
A number of math teachers resist the idea of authentic assessment because to them it inherently excludes the idea of assessing pure mathematical ability. (Dan Meyer cheekily refers to ‘fake-world’ math as a way of pushing the point effectively.) Put the other way around, many people are defining ‘authentic’ as ‘hands-on’ and practical. In which case, pure math problems are ruled out. Authentic tests are representative challenges within a given discipline. They are designed to emphasize realistic (but fair) complexity; they stress depth more than breadth. In doing so, they must necessarily involve somewhat ambiguous, ill-structured tasks or problems.
Notice that I implicitly addressed mathematics here by referring to ‘ill-structured tasks or problems.’ More generally, I referred to “representative challenges within a discipline.” And notice that I do not say that it must be hands-on or real-world work. It certainly CAN be hands-on but it need not be. This line of argument was intentional on my part, given the issue discussed above.
In short, I was writing already mindful of the critique I, too, had heard from teachers of mathematics, logic, language, cosmology and other ‘pure’ as opposed to ‘applied’ sciences in response to early drafts of my article. So, I crafted the definition deliberately to ensure that ‘authentic’ was NOT conflated with ‘hands-on’ or ‘real-world’ tasks.
While I don’t think there are universally-accepted definitions of ‘real-world’ and ‘hands-on’ the similarities and differences seem straightforward enough to me.
A ‘hands-on’ task, as the phrase suggests, is to be distinguished from a merely paper-and-pencil exam-like task. You build stuff; you create works; you get your hands dirty; you perform. (Note therefore, that ‘performance assessment’ is not quite the same as ‘authentic assessment’).
In robotics, life-saving, and business courses we regularly see students create and use learning as a demonstration of (practical as well as theoretical) understanding.
A ‘real-world’ task is slightly different. There may or may not be mere writing or a hands-on task, but the assessment is meant to focus on the impact of one’s work in real or realistic contexts. A real-world task requires students to deal with the messiness of real or simulated settings, purposes, and audience (as opposed to a simplified and “clean” academic task to no audience but the teacher-evaluator).
So, a real-world task might ask the student to apply for a real or simulated job, perform for the local community, raise funds and grow a business as part of a business class, make simulated travel reservations in French to a native French speaker on the phone, etc.
Characteristics Of Authentic Assessment
Authentic assessments –
A. Structure & Logistics
1. Are more appropriately public; involve an audience, panel, etc.
2. Do not rely on unrealistic and arbitrary time constraints
3. Offer known, not secret, questions or tasks.
4. Are not one-shot – more like portfolios or a season of games
5. Involve some collaboration with others
6. Recur – and are worth retaking
7. Make feedback to students so central that school structures and policies are modified to support them
B. Intellectual Design Features
1. Are “essential” – not contrived or arbitrary just to shake out a grade
2. Are enabling, pointing the student toward more sophisticated and important use of skills and knowledge
3. Are contextualized and complex, not atomized into isolated objectives
4. Involve the students’ own research
5. Assess student habits and repertories, not mere recall or plug-in.
6. Are representative challenges of a field or subject
7. Are engaging and educational
8. Involve somewhat ambiguous (ill-structures) tasks or problems
C. Grading and Scoring
1. Involve criteria that assess essentials, not merely what is easily scores
2. Are not graded on a curve, but in reference to legitimate performance standards or benchmarks
3. Involve transparent, de-mystified expectations
4. Make self-assessment part of the assessment
Use a multi-faceted analytic trait scoring system instead of one holistic or aggregate grade
6. Reflect coherent and stable school standards
D. Fairness
1. identify (perhaps hidden) strengths [not just reveal deficits]
2. Strike a balance between honoring achievement while mindful of fortunate prior experience or training [that can make the assessment invalid]
3. Minimize needless, unfair, and demoralizing comparisons of students to one another
4. Allow appropriate room for student styles and interests [ – some element of choice]
5. Can be attempted by all students via available scaffolding or prompting as needed [with such prompting reflected in the ultimate scoring]
6. Have perceived value to the students being assessed.
I trust that this at least clarifies some of the ideas and resolves the current dispute, at least from my perspective. Happy to hear from those of you with questions, concerns, or counter-definitions and counter-examples.