How Do Course-Based Assessments Change in The Shift to Emergency Remote Teaching? Sustainable Assessment Strategies Through an Authenticity Lens

The shift from face-to-face (F2F) to emergency remote teaching (ERT) in response to COVID-19 has presented concerns for assessment in student learning. This study presents the comparison of a health science curriculum in F2F and ERT settings regarding assessments (count, type, authenticity) using our Authentic Assessment Tool and institutionally standardized course syllabi. Five hundred and seventeen assessments in 61 courses in ERT were inventoried (count, type) and subsequently categorized as 1 (low), 2 (moderate), or 3 (high) on core authenticity characteristics: realism, cognitive challenge, evaluative judgement criteria and feedback. These data were compared to a recent curriculum-wide F2F scan (457 assessments in 62 courses). Results show in the shift to ERT, the total number of both tests and assignments increased with a greater proportion of marks comprised of assignments (44% ERT versus 37% F2F). Curriculum-wide authenticity scores were similar (1.8 ± 0.4 ERT versus 1.8 ± 0.6 F2F), although this trend was because nearly an equal proportion of courses increased and decreased authenticity. The largest number of courses (n=30) making improvements on individual characteristics of authenticity did so regarding the dimension feedback. This work presents modest yet actionable items to achieve authenticity for consideration in assessment design as institutions begin to produce and consider policies regarding course structure and assessment design in the post-COVID educational context.