Re-Introducing Authentic Assessment in Classroom Assessment Courses: Finding Its Place in the 21st Century

Abstract

The need to move away from traditional assessments, as well as the need to contextualize assessment with interesting, real-life, and authentic tasks, should be considered as a crucial element in 21st-century education. This need has become more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even more so with the emergence of generative AI models such as ChatGPT. Authentic assessment holds the potential to do so, even though not a lot of emphasis has been placed on it during the last two decades. This study therefore examined (a) teachers’ beliefs about authentic assessment, (b) their self-efficacy in designing authentic tasks, and (c) their intention to adopt these practices after completing a graduate-level classroom-assessment course through a mixed-methods design.

1. Introduction

In 2020, educational systems worldwide experienced a major disruption brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, compelling them to adjust many of their practices (Panayides et al., 2024; Papanastasiou & Solomonidou, 2023). Among these adaptations, a significant proportion of the changes dealt with online learning and online assessments. However, an even more profound disruption to educational systems occurred towards the end of 2022, when the generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) language model, ChatGPT 5.0, became widely available to the public. The emergence of ChatGPT, along with the availability and use of digital technologies, such as smartphones in everyday life (Nieminen et al., 2023), altered the landscape of teaching and learning profoundly. Suddenly, educators and students have a freely available tool that goes beyond searching for “facts” on Google. They now have a tool to write essays, programming codes, and other types of assignments for them, which are a tiny fraction of the capabilities of ChatGPT and other similar AI models. As a result, educators from all educational sectors, from primary schools to higher education, need to reconsider their teaching and assessment practices.

Long before the creation of ChatGPT, several studies on human learning and performance had documented that conventional assessments struggle to validly measure students’ higher-order thinking skills or their abilities to perform real-world tasks (Boddy et al., 2003; Shepard, 2000). These shortcomings were further compounded by the fact that traditional paper and pencil tests typically emphasized the reproduction of factual and procedural knowledge (Koh et al., 2012). Additional challenges of conventional assessments include the discord between school teaching and real-world demands, as well as the discrepancy between school assessment processes and workplace tasks (Achieve, 2006).

This misalignment underscores the significance of situated learning, a theoretical framework firmly rooted in constructivism that emphasizes the contextual nature of knowledge acquisition. Situated learning posits that learning is most effective when it occurs in authentic contexts that mirror the environments in which the knowledge will ultimately be applied (Pitri, 2004; Bridges et al., 2016). Unlike traditional classroom practices that often isolate knowledge from its practical use, situated learning involves participation in meaningful activities that reflect real-world practices, thereby fostering the development of applicable skills and deeper conceptual understanding. Situated learning approaches challenge the validity of decontextualized assessments by highlighting the importance of learning as a social and interactive process embedded within specific cultural and professional settings. Consequently, integrating situated learning principles into assessment design can bridge the gap between academic instruction and the competencies required in contemporary social settings.

In order to align assessment methods with the skills required for the students’ future, a shift towards authentic assessment has been advocated for (Newmann & Associates, 1996; Nieminen et al., 2023). As Koh et al. (2012) argue, this focus on meaningful and engaged learning inherently demands a transition from conventional assessments to those that are authentic and contextually relevant. Therefore, it becomes evident that equipping teachers with the necessary supports and resources for designing and implementing authentic assessments is of critical importance.

Authentic Assessment

The term authentic academic achievement was first coined by Archbald and Newmann (1988), while the term authentic assessment, or “true test”, was first mentioned by Wiggins (1989). Both terms, although not necessarily interchangeable, were devised in an attempt to move away from the standardized testing movement and its consequences. However, to some extent, the definition of authentic assessment still remains elusive. Frey et al. (2012), for example, failed to identify any commonly agreed-upon definition of authentic assessment. As stated by the authors, although most research papers emphasize the “realistic” component of such assessments and their relationship with the real world, the “authenticity” component of the definition is not enough to define authentic assessments adequately.

Wiggins (1998) attempted to clarify the concept of authentic assessments by defining six standards for authentic assessment. To start with, according to Wiggins, authentic assessment should be realistic in its format so that the assessment tasks replicate real-world tasks and situations. Second, authentic assessments should require judgment and innovation so that the student can solve unstructured problems to which no single set routine or procedure exists. Third, authentic assessments should “Ask the student to ‘do’ the subject” or apply their knowledge and skills instead of reciting or restating knowledge, or replicating demonstrations that have already been taught in schools. Fourth, authentic assessments should have transparency in predetermining the context in which the evaluation will take place, by simulating the contexts in which adults are ‘tested’ in their work, personal, or civic life by using good judgment. Fifth, authentic assessments should be multidisciplinary in nature as they assess the student’s ability to combine a repertoire of skills and knowledge to complete sometimes multidisciplinary complex tasks. Finally, authentic assessments should enable the utilization of feedback and other resources before the final submission, thus allowing for appropriate opportunities to rehearse, practice, consult resources, and receive feedback before submitting the final product.

More recently, Mirzaei et al. (2024) examined students’ perceptions of assessment authenticity by drawing upon the shared principles found across established authentic assessment frameworks. These frameworks consistently emphasize several core features of these assessments. First, they highlight the significance of realism, whereby assessment tasks should mirror professional contexts and simulate tasks typically encountered in real-world work environments. Second, they advocate for the generation of authentic outputs, such as tangible products, performances, or presentations, that reflect meaningful application of knowledge and skills. Third, a key element involves the use of evaluative criteria grounded in real-world standards, ensuring that assessment judgments reflect workplace expectations. This evaluative process also integrates self-reflection and formative feedback as essential components, thereby supporting deeper learning and professional development. However, as Mirzaei et al. (2024) pointed out, authenticity in assessment is inherently subjective, as perceptions of what constitutes an authentic task may differ between students and educators. These findings underscore the complexities involved in defining and operationalizing authentic assessment, particularly in practice-based settings where stakeholder perspectives and assessor reliability vary significantly.

Authentic assessments have many advantages. More specifically, when aligned with authentic teaching practices (Achieve, 2006; Linn et al., 2002), authentic assessments can foster the development of higher-order thinking skills, deepen learning (Sokhanvar et al., 2021), and equip students with professional skills and thought processes. Additionally, they provide students with insights into the relevance of their learning to professional practice (Lizzio & Wilson, 2004). Moreover, authentic assessment has the potential to enhance students’ development of self-confidence and foster greater independence in their learning practices (Martinez et al., 2018). In addition, it can contribute to increased academic engagement and motivation, which correlate with academic achievement (Michaelides et al., 2019a, 2019b), while also promoting the advancement of self-regulatory skills and metacognitive awareness (Villarroel et al., 2020).

Mirzaei et al. (2024) highlight additional advantages of authentic assessment, particularly its capacity to support both construct and consequential validity. In this regard, authentic assessment—by engaging students in meaningful, real-world tasks—provides a more valid representation of their actual abilities compared to some traditional assessments that rely on abstract or decontextualized exercises. Therefore, by aligning assessment practices with real-world contexts and meaningful learning goals, authentic assessment is more likely to yield positive educational outcomes while minimizing negative side effects.

Despite its pedagogical advantages, implementing authentic assessment presents several challenges for educators. Research indicates that teachers often encounter difficulties even before initiating the assessment process, including a lack of standardized frameworks and limited institutional support. While many educators employ diverse forms of authentic assessment to enhance student learning—complementing strategies such as systematic documentation and comprehensive reading—there remains an absence of clearly defined guidelines to inform and standardize practice (Abdul et al., 2020). This ambiguity can hinder the consistent and effective integration of authentic assessment into classroom instruction, underscoring the need for professional development and clearer policy direction. To address these challenges, targeted professional development is essential, enabling educators to deepen their understanding of authentic assessment and refine their practices. A critical first step in this process involves assessing and building upon teachers’ existing knowledge and experiences, thereby ensuring that training is relevant, responsive, and grounded in actual classroom realities.

However, the extent to which teachers view an assessment as authentically aligned with real-world learning can vary considerably, particularly when the concept of authentic assessment is not clearly defined or consistently operationalized within teacher training programs. If the authenticity of an assessment is defined by the extent to which it reflects real-world professional practice (Gulikers et al., 2004), then its impact on learning is closely tied to how individual teachers interpret the alignment between such assessments and their own classroom practices. In this regard, authentic assessments have the potential to influence student learning at a deeper level, extending beyond superficial task completion to foster meaningful engagement and critical thinking (Fischer et al., 2023). In turn, such knowledge and learning can shape teachers’ attitudes towards the adoption of the relevant practices (Trikoilis & Papanastasiou, 2021). Consequently, it is imperative for institutions of higher education not only to expose teachers to authentic assessments but also to provide them with knowledge and opportunities to cultivate the higher-order thinking skills required to design and implement such innovative assessments (Wald & Harland, 2021). This dual focus ensures that teachers can both appreciate the pedagogical value of authentic assessment and translate it into practice in ways that are contextually relevant and intellectually demanding.

Within this framework, this study aims to investigate teachers’ perspectives on authentic assessment, measure their self-reported abilities in developing such assessments, and assess their willingness to implement these practices in school settings. More specifically, the research questions for the current study are the following:

-

What are the beliefs that teachers hold about authentic assessment following the completion of a graduate-level university course on classroom assessment, and in what ways do these beliefs vary according to the educational level at which they teach?

-

How do these teachers rate their skills in developing authentic assessments after the completion of their master’s level classroom assessment course, and how well can they create such assessments?

-

To what extent are teachers inclined to implement authentic assessment practices in school contexts, and how does this inclination vary across the different educational levels in which they teach?

The issues addressed by the current study will contribute to our understanding of teachers’ reported attitudes, beliefs, and use of authentic assessment, thereby informing our efforts to provide targeted support towards their intentions to implement authentic assessments effectively in their classrooms.

2. Context of the Study

The Greek educational system is centralized by the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs, and Sports, encompassing three main levels: primary, secondary, and higher education. Education is compulsory from ages 4 to 15, starting with kindergarten and continuing through primary school and lower secondary school. Upper secondary education, although optional, is common and includes both general and vocational tracks, typically lasting three years. The Greek educational system places significant emphasis on examinations beginning at the secondary level. Admission to higher education institutions, primarily universities, is highly competitive and determined by performance in the nationally administered Panhellenic Examinations.

For several years, preschool assessment policies in Greece were shaped by the evaluative norms of primary education, thereby adopting traditional methods, techniques, and tools primarily oriented toward declarative and monitoring functions. This trend emerged largely due to a lack of both theoretical grounding and practical application frameworks (Doliopoulou & Gourgiotou, 2008). In a related study, Sakellariou et al. (2019) examined the assessment practices employed by current and prospective kindergarten teachers in the region of Epirus and at the University of Ioannina. The study revealed that while prospective teachers demonstrated a more favorable disposition toward the use of alternative assessment methods in early childhood education, they encountered significant challenges in implementing these approaches effectively.

In Greece, student assessment at the lower secondary education level relies exclusively on teacher-led evaluations, with no incorporation of external examinations, in contrast to international assessment models (Vlachou, 2018). Vlachou’s (2018) study aimed to explore the various functions of classroom assessment, as well as the underlying principles guiding assessment practices intended to support student learning and inform science achievement reporting. The findings indicated that, although assessment practices addressed both formative and summative purposes, there was a predominant emphasis on summative assessment. Consequently, assessment data were not effectively utilized to close the learning loop and fulfill the objectives of formative assessment. While some formative assessment strategies were employed—suggesting a potential to support learning—these were largely teacher-centered, with minimal student involvement in the assessment process. Finally, Chiou et al. (2025) found that secondary education teachers in Greece employed a combination of traditional and alternative assessment methods, with a clear preference for traditional approaches.

3. Methods

A total of 1460 teachers from Greece participated in this study. This sample represents 78.92% of the students enrolled in the various sections of an online master’s level Classroom Assessment course who had signed the informed consent form for participating in the study. The average age of the participants was 31.15 years (SD = 6.56), with ages ranging from 22 to 54 years old. The majority of the sample were female students, accounting for 89.63% of the participants. Regarding their professional backgrounds, 14.97% of the participants taught at the pre-primary level, 34.84% at the primary level, and 26.97% at the secondary school level. An additional 23.22% were employed outside of the typical school system. All participants were enrolled in various sections of a Classroom Assessment course, which was a required component of their teacher education program. Moreover, a subset of 56 students was also selected from two sections of the course in order to qualitatively evaluate their submitted assignments.

3.1. Course Structure

Although taught by different instructors, the course maintained standardized content and instructional methods under the course coordinator’s supervision to ensure consistency in teaching quality. All instructors followed uniform guidelines, attended shared virtual seminars, and used identical assignments, exams, and grading rubrics, ensuring a consistent learning experience.

The course introduced pre-service teachers to classroom-based test development. The first part focused on traditional assessment, including item-writing for paper-and-pencil tests. This foundational content was essential, as assessment courses are not typically required in Greek undergraduate teacher education programs. The second part of the course focused on the topic of authentic assessment, motivated by the push for the development of 21st-century skills. Students were tasked with preparing an authentic assessment and a corresponding rubric on a topic of their choice. This was a novel component, as authentic assessment is not commonly covered in other assessment courses in Greece or Cyprus, nor is it typically utilized in Greek schools. Consequently, many students struggled with understanding and distinguishing what constitutes an authentic assessment. For the purpose of this course, a specific emphasis was placed on the criterion of real-world relevance by requiring that the authentic assessments have a target audience beyond the teacher. The rationale behind this differentiation was the belief that students are more likely to produce higher-quality work when they know their efforts will impact a broader audience in the real world.

3.2. Data Collection Instruments

Data were collected using two questionnaires and a final course assignment requiring students to design an authentic assessment. The first questionnaire, the Authentic Assessment Inventory (AAI) (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996), was adapted to the Greek context to examine respondents’ practices and perceptions regarding authentic assessment. The AAI originally comprised six sections: (1) interest in authentic assessment (Items 1–2), (2) related practices (Items 3–6), (3) concerns (Items 7–8), (4) collaboration with colleagues (Items 9–11), (5) student involvement (Items 12–13), and (6) uses of authentic evaluation (Items 14–15). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale indicating levels of agreement.

The AAI statements were independently translated into Greek by two researchers. The translations were compared, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion to produce a final version. The instrument was then pilot tested with eight students to confirm the clarity and accuracy of the translation.

The second questionnaire comprised six self-assessment items based on Wiggins’ (1989) six characteristics of authentic assessment. Teachers rated their perceived competence in designing tasks that were: (a) Realistic, (b) Cognitively Demanding, (c) Applicable, (d) Transparent, (e) Multidisciplinary, and (f) Formative. Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

3.3. Data Analyses

For the statistical analysis of the AAI, a factor analysis was conducted using SPSS 25, employing the Maximum Likelihood (ML) extraction method with Varimax rotation. The number of factors was fixed at six, consistent with the original questionnaire’s structure, and to maintain comparability with prior work. The ML method was selected to assess the solution’s goodness of fit. Sampling adequacy was verified using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure, while Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Following factor extraction, internal consistency was evaluated for each factor. Additionally, a series of ANOVAs was performed to examine potential differences in responses based on the educational level at which participants were taught.

In parallel, a qualitative analysis was conducted on authentic assessment tasks submitted by students from two course sections (N = 56). The analysis was guided by Wiggins’ (1989) six characteristics of authentic assessment: (a) realistic, (b) higher-order cognitive requirement, (c) applicable, (d) transparent, (e) multidisciplinary, and (f) formative. Each submission was systematically reviewed, and instances reflecting these characteristics were identified and coded. The data were then analyzed thematically to detect patterns and evaluate the extent to which the tasks embodied each of Wiggins’ criteria. This process involved iterative comparison and interpretation to assess the depth and breadth of authentic features across submissions.

4. Results

Table 1. Self-reported skills in authentic assessment development by educational level taught.

		Mean				SD
	Total	Pre-Primary	Primary	Secondary	Total	Pre-Primary	Primary	Secondary	F	p-Value
Skills
Realistic	4.06	4.21	4.08	4.03	0.79	0.78	0.75	0.83	3.471	0.031
Require judgment and innovation	3.82	3.81	3.86	3.87	0.83	0.85	0.78	0.85	0.474	0.622
Should apply knowledge and skills	4.07	4.13	4.06	4.10	0.76	0.77	0.74	0.74	0.766	0.465
Transparency in context	4.12	4.01	4.15	4.15	0.78	0.81	0.74	0.77	2.860	0.058
Multidisciplinary	4.11	4.29	4.11	4.09	0.77	0.69	0.75	0.75	5.308	0.005
Enable the utilization of feedback and other resources	4.05	3.97	4.03	4.11	0.79	0.87	0.75	0.76	2.417	0.090
% of future assessments that will be authentic	56.25	68.52	56.31	49.27	21.69	18.45	20.41	22.04	54.172	0.000

presents teachers’ self-reported skills in developing authentic assessments. Overall, following course completion, participants reported adequate competence across the six assessed characteristics. On a five-point scale, mean scores for five of the six characteristics exceeded 4. The lowest-rated area was the ability to design assessments requiring judgment and innovation (M = 3.82, SD = 0.83).

Beyond the overall means, a series of ANOVAs was performed to determine whether there were differences in the teachers’ responses based on the educational level at which they taught. Of the six skills assessed, two showed statistically significant variation by educational level: the ability to design Realistic assessments (F = 3.471, p = 0.031, η²_p = 0.007), although it had a quite small effect size, and Multidisciplinary assessments (F = 5.308, p = 0.050, η²_p = 0.011), which also had a small effect size. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment revealed statistically significant differences in perceived skill for the Realistic assessment design between pre-primary and secondary teachers (p = 0.026). For the Multidisciplinary criterion, differences emerged between pre-primary and primary (p = 0.012), and between pre-primary and secondary teachers (p = 0.007).

A similar analysis was performed to determine the willingness of the teachers to employ authentic assessment practices in their teaching by educational level taught, by asking them to indicate the yearly percentage of their assessments that they plan to base on authentic assessment. Overall, the average percentage equaled 56.25% (SD = 21.70). The ANOVA for this analysis was also statistically significant (F = 52.172, p = 0.000, η²_p = 0.099), with a large effect size, and with all post hoc comparisons being statistically significant. So, overall, pre-primary teachers indicated that they planned to have 68.52% of their yearly assessments to be authentic. Primary teachers responded with 56.31% and secondary school teachers with 49.27%.

At a second stage, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the adapted Authentic Assessment Inventory that was administered to the teachers. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy equaled 0.832, which was closer to the range between good and great, based on Kaiser’s (1974) recommendations for yielding distinct and reliable patterns. Moreover, Barlett’s test of sphericity with an approximate chi-square of 6947.70 (df = 105) was statistically significant (p < 0.001), which also indicated that the factor analysis was appropriate for the current dataset.

The EFA produced six factors (See

Table 2. Rotated factor matrix of the AAI.

	Factor
	Teacher Collaboration	AA Practices	Student Involvement in AA	Interest in AA	AA Feedback	Concerns About AA
I share teaching strategies for authentic assessment with other teachers.	0.948	0.087	0.135	0.118	0.093	−0.056
I share my assessment strategies with other teachers.	0.858	0.115	0.125	0.128	0.125	0.000
I talk to other teachers about authentic assessments.	0.758	0.216	0.098	0.110	0.080	0.007
By using authentic assessment, I am able to compare student performance to a standard.	0.128	0.765	0.152	0.196	0.184	−0.034
By using authentic assessment approaches, I am able to clearly define the levels of student performance.	0.139	0.491	0.070	0.316	0.115	−0.188
By using authentic assessment, I am able to inform students about scoring criteria before judging.	0.077	0.473	0.283	0.127	0.242	0.079
Before using an authentic assessment, I am able to organize with other colleagues a rubric for rating.	0.301	0.469	0.219	0.212	0.087	−0.045
By using authentic assessment, I am able to ask students to rate their own performance.	0.176	0.192	0.799	0.119	0.194	0.043
By using authentic assessment, I am able to ask students to rate each other’s performance.	0.134	0.194	0.781	0.065	0.138	0.046
I want to use authentic assessments more effectively.	0.136	0.246	0.078	0.755	0.148	−0.051
I want to use authentic assessments in my class.	0.180	0.268	0.124	0.721	0.175	−0.116
By using authentic assessment, I am able to give students feedback about their performance.	0.159	0.217	0.289	0.190	0.898	−0.010
By using authentic assessment, I am able to give parents feedback about their child’s performance.	0.174	0.369	0.155	0.235	0.593	−0.077
I feel concerned about the time required to use authentic assessments.	−0.005	−0.059	0.022	0.000	0.009	0.900
I find authentic assessments difficult to use.	−0.018	−0.022	0.040	−0.099	−0.033	0.551

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

). The first factor, labeled as Teacher Collaboration, was composed of three items. The second factor, labeled as AA practices, was composed of four items. The third factor, which was composed of two items, was labeled as Student involvement in AA. The fourth factor, composed of two items, was labeled as Interest in AA, while the fifth factor, also composed of two items, was labeled as AA feedback. Finally, the last factor, which was also composed of two items, was labeled as Concerns about AA.

Based on the factor analysis presented above, six new variables were created by calculating the average of the teacher responses for each factor. Overall, the most positive responses were related to the factors of Interest in AA ($\overline{x}$ = 4.39, SD = 0.67), and AA Feedback, which was related to their self-reported ability to give student and parents feedback based on AA ($\overline{x}$ = 4.23, SD = 0.69). ANOVAs were also performed for these factors to determine whether the teachers responded to the questionnaire differently based on whether they were pre-primary, primary, or secondary school teachers (see

Table 3. Average responses and ANOVA results on AAI factors by level of teaching.

		Mean				SD			F	Sig
	Total	Pre-Primary	Primary	Secondary	Total	Pre-Primary	Primary	Secondary
Teacher Collaboration	3.66	3.71	3.65	3.65	0.95	0.95	0.94	0.96	0.294	0.745
AA Practices	3.95	3.95	3.94	3.98	0.63	0.66	0.62	0.63	0.432	0.649
Student Involvement	3.75	3.47	3.81	3.82	0.91	1.04	0.85	0.88	11.703	0.000
AA Interest	4.39	4.43	4.42	4.33	0.67	0.67	0.66	0.69	1.892	0.151
AA Feedback	4.23	4.24	4.24	4.22	0.69	0.68	0.68	0.72	0.152	0.859
AA Concerns	2.65	2.28	2.76	2.71	0.91	0.83	0.88	0.93	20.721	0.000

). The factors to which statistically significant differences were identified, based on the level at which the teachers taught, were those of Student Involvement in AA (F = 11.703, p = 0.000) and AA Concerns (F = 20.721, p = 0.000). A post hoc analysis on these two variables identified that statistically significant differences occurred between all three levels of teaching. In all cases, the pre-primary teachers were the ones who had the lowest level of endorsement of these factors, while the secondary school teachers were the ones with the maximum amount of endorsement.

In addition to the quantitative analyses, a qualitative data analysis was conducted on the authentic assessment assignments submitted by 56 teachers from two randomly selected course sections. A typological approach (Stapley et al., 2022) was used to categorize the assignments based on shared features, enabling an evaluation of how effectively teachers applied their knowledge of authentic assessment across different educational levels (pre-primary, elementary, middle, and high school).

Table 4. Quality characteristics of the AAs based on educational level.

	Pre-Primary Teachers (N = 9)		Primary School Teachers (N = 23)		Secondary School Teachers
					Lower Secondary School Teachers (N = 18)		Upper Secondary School Teachers (N = 6)
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Realistic	9	100	23	100	18	100	4	66.7
Requires judgment and innovation	9	100	19	82.6	12	66.7	4	66.7
Applying knowledge and skills	6	66.7	17	73.9	12	66.7	4	66.7
Transparent	-	-	9	39.1	5	27.7	2	33.3
Multidisciplinary	9	100	21	91.3	17	94.4	4	66.7
Enable the utilization of feedback	8	88.9	17	73.9	16	88.8	4	66.7

presents the extent to which the six criteria for Authentic Assessment were incorporated in the course assignments, and how those differed by education level. The analysis revealed varying degrees of adherence to these criteria across educational levels, reflecting differences in pedagogical orientation and developmental expectations.

Based on the results of the analysis, every teacher, irrespective of the educational level at which they taught, integrated realistic elements into their AA tasks. This finding reveals that all teachers, irrespective of the level at which they taught, incorporate realistic elements in their AA tasks within the AA framework. In addition, the results of the typological analysis revealed distinct interpretations of the ‘Realistic’ criterion of AA across different educational levels. Pre-primary teachers primarily associated this characteristic with activities involving young children’s three-dimensional constructions and artistic expressions. Primary school teachers linked it to students creating comics and engaging in practical activities, like managing transactions in a school bazaar. At the lower secondary school level, ‘Realistic’ was predominantly understood as students presenting projects using PowerPoint and writing school newsletter articles. For upper secondary school teachers, it referred to advanced skills, such as article writing and employing statistical analyses in student work.

The criterion of AA requiring judgment and innovation was found to be less commonly integrated into assignments as the school level at which the teachers taught increased. For instance, in the context of pre-primary education, every assignment (100%) incorporated this characteristic, primarily focusing on acclimating young children to fundamental societal practices, such as understanding and observing traffic regulations. As the educational level increased to primary school, the prevalence of this trait in assignments slightly decreased, with 82.6% of the teachers incorporating it. Here, the emphasis shifted to fostering students’ ability to formulate suggestions concerning shifts in attitudes towards daily life issues, with a notable example being the conservation of water. At the lower and upper secondary school levels, the incorporation of judgment and innovation in assignments further declined to 66.7%. In these settings, assignments frequently involved students creating posters aimed at addressing and proposing solutions to problems pertinent to their school environment and the wider local community. Finally, in the upper secondary school context, this trait was predominantly channeled into the application of academic subjects. This involved leveraging disciplines such as mathematics, exemplified through areas like exponential functions and statistics, to aid in the study and interpretation of scientific phenomena. Additionally, the upper secondary school authentic assessments often extended to encompass critical societal issues, tackling themes such as racism and xenophobia.

The inclusion of the authentic assessment criterion of application of knowledge and skills in the assessments exhibited uniformity across different educational levels, with the occurrence ranging from 66.7% to 73.9%. This consistency suggests a widespread pedagogical focus on the practical implementation of knowledge and skills in authentic assessment (AA) across various educational settings. From the typological analysis, it was observed that in pre-primary education, the application of knowledge and skills predominantly involved activities like categorization, engaging with shapes conceptually, and enhancing the oral speech abilities of young children. In the context of primary education, this qualitative element was primarily associated with the topics of basic arithmetic and geometry, as well as with their capacity to articulate opinions backed by evidence. Moving to secondary school, the focus shifted towards more advanced skills. Here, the application of knowledge and skills entailed a comprehensive assessment in the grammar and syntax of both modern and ancient Greek, etymology, diverse text composition, and in-depth conceptual analysis and documentation. At the upper secondary school level, the emphasis was on assessing students’ skills in statistical analysis, conducting research, and essay writing.

Transparency in Authentic Assessment (AA) was notably low among the assignments of pre-primary educators and less common in secondary education, with only 27.7% of lower secondary school and 33.3% of higher secondary school teachers incorporating it in their assignments. The typological analysis revealed specific practices regarding the Transparency criterion. Among primary school teachers, 9 out of 21 included the rubric in their AA. Of those, three communicated the rubric to students from the start, four used it for their own evaluation of student work, and two provided it to students for self-evaluation. Regarding the middle school assessments, 5 out of 18 teachers created assessments in which the rubric had to be used; however, only three of them had designed the assessments to have the rubric shared with the students initially, while the remaining two used it themselves. Regarding the high school assessments, only 2 out of 6 teachers created assessments that communicated the rubric to students from the beginning. Additionally, a significant number of primary (8 out of 14) and upper secondary school teachers (10 out of 14) did not include criteria for the structure and content of creative assignments in their rubrics. The upper secondary school educators predominantly used traditional assessment criteria in their rubrics.

The integration of the Multidisciplinary criterion in Authentic Assessment (AA) was included in the majority of the assessments, universal across all educational levels, with the least occurrence (66.7%) observed among upper secondary school teachers. This widespread inclusion suggests a general acceptance of Multidisciplinary approaches in AA. From the typological analysis, it emerged that in pre-primary education, the Multidisciplinary quality of the assessments involved children gathering information from various sources, aided by parents and their teachers. In primary and lower secondary schools, this element primarily involved students using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) throughout different project phases. This included tasks like performing research through surveys and presenting their work in class or through other venues. The assessments created by the upper secondary school teachers utilized a broader array of multidisciplinary tools, including ICT, videos, songs, role-playing games, and short films.

The prevalence of enabling feedback utilization in Authentic Assessment (AA) tasks also varied across the educational levels they were prepared for. It was notably high among pre-primary and lower secondary school assessments, with approximately 88.9% incorporating this aspect. In contrast, the rate was moderately lower among primary and upper secondary school assessments, at about 73.9% and 66.7%, respectively. These differences suggest that while the importance of feedback in AA is broadly acknowledged, its practical application is uneven across educational stages, indicating a potential need for focused strategies to enhance its consistent integration. According to the typological analysis results, in the pre-primary settings, the ability to enable feedback utilization involved discussions between infants, their parents, and their teachers, occurring both after the presentation of the children’s work and following visits to informal learning environments. For primary school teachers, this process entailed discussions between students and teachers after similar activities. This pattern was also observed in secondary school settings, where feedback discussions followed the presentation of student work and educational visits. These findings highlight a common thread in the approach to feedback across different educational levels, emphasizing interactive and reflective discussions as a key component of the feedback process in AA.

5. Discussion

Due to the changing landscape of teaching and assessment, in addition to the demands of the 21st century, the roles of students and teachers have been redefined. Therefore, the need to move away from traditional forms of assessment is essential. Given teachers’ important role as central agents in the enactment and long-term sustainability of pedagogical reform initiatives (Datnow, 2020), investigating teachers’ views on authentic assessment is crucial for fostering innovation in education and teaching. Educators frequently demonstrate resistance to reforming their assessment practices, largely because such changes require significant investments of time, effort, and cognitive resources (Deneen & Boud, 2014; Fletcher et al., 2022). However, the results of this study have shown that the aforementioned teachers’ beliefs, self-reported skills, and intentions to use authentic assessment were rather strong at all educational levels. According to the results of the study, the two factors that all teachers were most positive about were related to their interest in using authentic assessment in their teaching, and with the view that applying authentic assessments will enable them to give feedback both to students and parents. Providing students with continuous feedback based on well-defined quality standards and the alignment of their performance with those standards are fundamental features of authentic assessment practices (Villarroel et al., 2024).

The educational level at which teachers worked influenced their responses to authentic assessment. Pre-primary teachers were least likely to endorse statements related to Student Involvement in AA and AA Concerns. This is understandable given that pre-primary educators in Greece are not formally required to implement assessment processes, making self- or peer-assessment less relevant. At the same time, they reported fewer concerns about the time or complexity involved in authentic assessment, likely because their learner-centered, constructivist teaching context naturally aligns with authentic practices. In contrast, secondary teachers, operating under greater curricular pressure and traditional assessment mandates, viewed authentic assessment as more time-consuming and difficult to implement.

Findings also revealed a variation in teachers’ willingness to apply authentic assessment. Pre-primary teachers showed the highest inclination, while secondary teachers reported the least. This discrepancy may stem from Greece’s centralized educational system, where teachers are expected to implement prescribed curricula with limited autonomy (Mavrogiorgos, 2008; Dakopoulou, 2008). Innovation, including alternative assessment methods, is often seen as a deviation from official practice and carries professional risk (Giallousi, 2019). This institutional constraint diminishes both teacher agency and student engagement in authentic learning.

Self-assessment data indicated that teachers across multiple levels felt least confident in designing tasks requiring Judgment and Innovation. Significant differences also emerged for the Realistic and Multidisciplinary criteria, with pre-primary teachers reporting greater confidence than their secondary-level counterparts. This may be attributed to differences in teacher training: pre-primary education programs tend to emphasize pedagogical and constructivist principles, while secondary programs often prioritize subject-matter expertise and traditional assessments.

Qualitative analysis of the assignments revealed that 100% of teachers from pre-primary to lower secondary school incorporated realism in their tasks, indicating a strong alignment with real-world learning goals. Upper secondary school assignments, however, showed a notable decline in realism, likely reflecting a shift toward abstract academic content. Similarly, Judgment and Innovation declined steadily from pre-primary to secondary levels, suggesting a reduced emphasis on higher-order thinking in upper-level assessments. This trend runs counter to the increasing importance of creative and critical skills in contemporary society and highlights the need to reframe assessment to better cultivate these capacities.

Furthermore, while the practical application of knowledge was generally evident, adherence to Transparency—i.e., clarity about assessment criteria and expectations—was low across all levels, especially in upper secondary school. This gap may hinder student understanding and motivation. As Rankin and Prasad (2024) argue, fostering deep learning requires student agency, choice, and relevance. To support more authentic practice, educators should reflect on how tasks relate to real-world issues, integrate student voice, promote collaboration, and contribute to learners’ intellectual, personal, and social development.

Finally, triangulation of self-reported skills and assignment content revealed inconsistencies. Despite expressing low confidence in designing tasks that foster Judgment and Innovation, many teachers successfully integrated this element into their assignments. Conversely, although most reported confidence in creating Transparent assessments, the actual tasks showed limited evidence of clear evaluative criteria. These discrepancies underscore the importance of combining attitudinal and performance-based data to accurately assess teacher development and instructional practice.

6. Implications for Practice

From a practical perspective, the findings from this study have several important implications that can enhance teacher education in higher education. First of all, the results of the current study strengthen the evidence that points to the need for including assessment courses in teacher education programs in higher education that also cover the topic of authentic assessment. What is even more important, though, is exposing students at the higher education level to authentic assessments, both within the context of assessment courses and also within the content knowledge courses of their teacher education programs. Without learning about authentic assessment and without gaining such experiences and exposure, it is less likely that teachers will understand the full potential of authentic assessment in order to try to utilize it in their practice. In the same way, school students will be less likely to understand the importance of their schoolwork if it does not include direct links to the real world through authentic tasks and assessments.

Learning about the principles of authentic assessment has been shown to diminish transmissive conceptions of teaching, while fostering a pedagogical shift toward facilitating conceptual change in students (Villarroel et al., 2024). Such training supports the evolution of teachers’ beliefs about both teaching and assessment, aligning them more closely with approaches that emphasize learning as a dynamic, student-centered process. Furthermore, it encourages the design and implementation of assessment instruments that are contextually relevant, cognitively demanding, and oriented toward formative feedback and learner growth. As Krstovic (2014) characteristically stated, “the less established the boundary between the classroom and life, the more students realize that their education can have an impact on what happens inside and outside their school” (p. 416). However, teachers also need to have the leniency and time to apply such practices in a constructivist context in the same way as pre-primary teachers do.

This study’s findings reiterate the importance of approaching the topic of authentic assessment differentially based on the various educational levels of the teachers or teacher candidates. Due to the distinct variations that have been identified in the skills and willingness to apply authentic assessments in the classroom, teacher educators in higher education need to differentiate their teaching to adapt to the needs and unique challenges that teachers in the various educational levels may face when trying to utilize authentic assessments. For example, secondary school teachers, who showed less willingness to use authentic assessments, may need additional support and encouragement to integrate these forms of assessments into their teaching practices. Overall, attention must be paid not only to fostering teachers’ skills and their confidence levels, but also to understanding and addressing the unique contexts and needs of teachers based on the educational levels they teach. This comprehensive approach can lead to more effective teaching practices and ultimately enhance the learning outcomes for students across all levels.