Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-94dtm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T01:38:17.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authentic Versus Traditional Assessment: An Empirical Study Investigating the Difference in Seafarer Students' Academic Achievement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2020

Samrat Ghosh Open the ORCID record for Samrat Ghosh [Opens in a new window] ,
Benjamin Brooks ,
Dev Ranmuthugala  and
Marcus Bowles
Samrat Ghosh*
Affiliation:
(National Centre for Ports and Shipping, University of Tasmania Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia)
Benjamin Brooks
Affiliation:
(National Centre for Ports and Shipping, UTAS - Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia)
Dev Ranmuthugala
Affiliation:
(National Centre for Ports and Shipping, University of Tasmania Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia)
Marcus Bowles
Affiliation:
(School of Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia)
*
(E-mail: sghosh@utas.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Past research showed that traditional assessment methods that required seafarer students to construct responses based on memorisation and analysing information presented in absence of real-world contexts (e.g. oral examinations and multiple-choice questions) disengaged the students from learning. Memorising information is a lower-order cognitive ability, failure in which led to errors and low academic achievement for students. Authentic assessment methods require students to construct responses through the critical analysis of information presented in real-world contexts. Hence, this research investigated the difference in seafarer students' academic achievement (measured through scores obtained in assessment) in authentic assessment as compared with traditional assessment. Two separate and independent student groups (the ‘control’ group and ‘treatment’ group) were used for a selected unit of learning delivered at the Australian Maritime College within the Bachelor of Nautical Science degree program. Because some past researchers had defined and implemented traditional assessment methods as a single-occasion assessment, this project implemented the assessment in a summative format, as opposed to authentic assessments implemented during student preparation. Analysis of student scores revealed that the authentically assessed students were guided towards significantly higher academic achievement.

Keywords

Authentic assessmentTraditional assessmentFormativeSummativeAcademic achievement
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 797 - 812
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abeywickrama, P. (2012). Rethinking traditional assessment concepts in classroom-based assessment. The CATESOL Journal, 23(1), 205–214.Google Scholar
AMC (Australian Maritime College). (2011). Report on the Review of the National Centre for Ports & Shipping: Deck Officer Courses. Tasmania: AMC.Google Scholar
AMC (Australian Maritime College) Business Unit Manager. (2018). Costs and Pricing. Confidential and controlled document copy. Tasmania: AMC.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R., and Shiffrin, R. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In: Spence, K., and Spence, J. (eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 89–195.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions. New York: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. doi: 10.1080/02602930600679050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brawley, N. (2009). Authentic assessment vs traditional assessment: A comparative study. Honours thesis, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC.Google Scholar
Clark, R. A. (2014). Correlation study: The effect of student-teacher rapport on high school student performance rate. Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.Google Scholar
Coe, R. (2002). It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. London: University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. (2003). Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
Emad, G., and Roth, W. M. (2007). Evaluating the competencies of seafarers: Challenges in current practice. In: Pelton, T., Reis, G., and Moore, K. (eds.). Proceedings of the University of Victoria Faculty of Education Research Conference - Connections '07. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, 71–76.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., and Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200. doi: 10.1177/001698629203600405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulikers, J. T. M. (2006). Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder: Beliefs and perceptions of authentic assessment and the influence on student learning. Doctoral dissertation, Open Universiteit Nederland, Limburg, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2002). International Safety Management (ISM) Code and Revised Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code. London: IMO.Google Scholar
Joughin, G., Dawson, P., and Boud, D. (2017). Improving assessment tasks through addressing our unconscious limits to change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1221–1232. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1257689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, B., and Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment and ESL: On the Yellow Big Road to the Withered of Oz. Manitoba: Peguis.Google Scholar
Leon, S., and Elias, M. (1998). A comparison of portfolio, performance, and traditional assessment in the middle school. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 21(2), 21–37. doi: 10.1080/10848959.1998.11670118.Google Scholar
Maltby, A., and Mackie, S. (2009). Virtual learning environments – help or hindrance for the ‘disengaged’ student? ALT-J, 17(1), 49–62. doi:10.1080/09687760802657577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maringa, M. T. H. (2015). Assessment of quality of training and education of seafarers in South Africa and Ghana. Master's thesis, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. (2006). Authentic assessment toolbox. Retrieved from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm#looklikeGoogle Scholar
Neely, P., and Tucker, J. (2012). Using business simulations as authentic assessment tools. American Journal of Business Education, 5(4), 449–456.Google Scholar
Prasad, R. (2011). The role of collaborative learning in promoting safety in shipboard machinery spaces. Doctoral dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.Google Scholar
Quartuch, M. J. (2011). Is authentic enough? Authentic assessment and civic engagement. Master's thesis, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.Google Scholar
Richards-Perry, G. D. (2011). Student perceptions of engagement in schools: A Deweyan analysis of authenticity in high school classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Rothblum, A. M. (2000). Human error and marine safety. Proceedings of the Maritime Human Factors Conference. Linthicum: Maryland, USA, p1–10.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., and Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422. doi:10.1002/tea.10029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/research/study/review_of_project_based_learning_2000Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713. doi:10.1177/003172171109200721.Google Scholar
Yuen, K. F., Loh, H. S., Zhou, Q., and Wong, Y. D. (2018). Determinants of job satisfaction and performance of seafarers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 110, 1–12.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. and Zheng, Y. (2018). Feedback as an assessment for learning tool: How useful can it be? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1120–1132. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1434481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar