--- source_url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01588-9 ingested: 2026-05-07 updated: 2026-08-03 (full-text upgrade) sha256: fa2a2e2551cd777f3bc71deabe3250b1b3b1e52e59f8d0137932a6872ea4c108 --- Higher Education https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01588-9 Designing for authentic assessment: a scoping review Ying Zhan1 · David Boud2,3 · Zilu Du4 Received: 20 December 2024 / Accepted: 10 November 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract Authentic assessment has been adopted in higher education for decades, and its values in promoting learning and enhancing students’ employability have been acknowledged. However, until recently, authentic assessment has mainly focused on replicating the tasks and performance standards typically found in the workplace. To maximise its educational potential, it is necessary to obtain a richer understanding of claims for authentic assessment in its various forms by reviewing its variety of assessment designs. This paper provides a scoping review of empirical studies identified as authentic assessments from 2000 to 2024. It characterises authentic assessment design and discusses the design challenges considering the evolving understanding of authenticity in assessment from broader perspectives of students and society. It concludes with a proposed design model to accommodate changing views of authenticity in assessment. Keywords Authentic assessment · Assessment design · Student agency · Social collaboration Ying Zhan zhanying@eduhk.hk David Boud david.boud@deakin.edu.au Zilu Du zdu@eduhk.hk Department of Curriculum and Instruction and Analytics\Assessment Research Centre, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong Higher Education Introduction Authentic assessment (AA) has been a valued and established practice in higher educa- tion for over three decades (Gravett, 2025). It was initially proposed at the beginning of the 1990s as a counterbalance to standardised tests in US secondary schools, which could directly “examine student performance on worthy intellectual tasks” (Wiggins, 1990, p.1). In higher education, AA began to be taken up in the late 1990s with a focus on the relevance of academic outcomes to the workplace (Seagraves et al., 1996). Joughin (1998) argued that authenticity in assessment should reflect the extent to which assessment replicates the con- text of professional practice or real life. Such conceptualisation of AA emphasises construc- tive alignment between what students are assessed on and what they need for their future work environments (Ajjawi et al., 2020; McCune et al., 2023). Recently, the prevailing view of AA as a mere replication of workplace or real-life tasks has been critically analysed and challenged in higher education (Ajjawi et al., 2024; McAr- thur, 2023). Ajjawi et al. (2020) argue that it is no longer meaningful to discuss AA as a singular idea; instead, it should encompass various forms of authenticity that reflect dif- ferent contexts and purposes. By recognising different kinds of authenticity –contextual, task, and personal– educators can create assessment practices that are more meaningful and resonate with students. This shift not only enhances the relevance of assessments but also empowers students to engage more deeply with their learning experiences. More radically, McArthur (2023) contends that authentic assessment should enable students to influence the future and transform society instead of being limited to existing real-world tasks. AA must address pressing social issues, equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to societal transformation. Recent discussions on authenticity in assessment suggest that AA is not a fixed con- cept but rather operates along a multi-dimensional spectrum. To enhance the effectiveness of AA, researchers and educators should focus on identifying and carefully designing the specific elements that contribute to greater authenticity. However, there are a few review papers scrutinising AA design. To the authors’ best knowledge, only Villarroel et al. (2018) systematically reviewed the characteristics of AA design. However, their review covered the literature from 1988 to 2015, which is nearly a decade old, and their focus was primarily on professional authenticity (McArthur, 2023; Quinlan et al., 2025). Given the evolving land- scape of education, it is essential to investigate whether recent AA designs extend beyond professional authenticity. Without a comprehensive understanding of AA design, there is a risk that AA could devolve into mere marketing jargon (Vallis, 2025) or an educational buzzword (McArthur, 2023). Therefore, this scoping review aimed to explore how the exist- ing empirical studies, ranging from 2000 to 2024, design AA to assess students. The review results would provide researchers and educators with valuable insights and a foundation for creating impactful AA designs for a changing world in higher education. Characteristics of AA in and beyond workplaces This paper critically reviewed the existing frameworks for AA characteristics by identifying the common design elements and enriching them considering the perspectives of students and broader society. Three frameworks for AA characteristics are often mentioned in the Higher Education literature. Gulikers et al. (2004) introduced a five-dimensional framework, which includes assessment task, physical context, social context, assessment result, and assessment criteria. Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014) proposed a framework with eight key elements: challenge, product, transfer, metacognition, accuracy, fidelity, feedback, and collaboration. More recently, Villarroel et al. (2018) identified 13 characteristics of AA, categorised into three key components: realism, cognitive challenge, and evaluative judgement. The commonalities of these frameworks lie in the establishment of authenticity in assessment tasks, cognitive challenges and the use of assessment criteria and feedback. However, the frameworks mentioned above may not adequately capture the evolving understanding of authenticity in assessment. Firstly, these frameworks typically reflect the present world but struggle to anticipate the future, given societal changes and the rapid advancement of AI technologies. Second, realism is for teachers or external parties but resides outside students’ experience in these frameworks. To make it real for students, assessment should encourage students to express their real thoughts, feelings and ideas rather than just conforming to expected answers or standards set by teachers or industry partners (Vu & Dali’Alba, 2014). Last but not least, these frameworks fail to consider the complex and entangled social relations that influence AA. Accordingly, this paper proposes a six-dimensional framework for AA characteristics in and beyond workplaces, consisting of authenticity in assessment, cognitive challenges, assessment criteria, feedback, student agency and social collaboration (see Fig. 1). The differences between this framework and the existing frameworks lie in three aspects. First, Fig. 1 Design elements of AA in and beyond workplaces Higher Education this framework enriches the meaning of authenticity, which is beyond ‘realism’ (Villarroel et al., 2018), fidelity (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014) or ‘physical context’ (Gulikers et al., 2004). Authenticity in assessment has multiple meanings, including assessment authenticity, professional authenticity, digital authenticity, self-authenticity, and social authenticity. Second, this framework underscores the design of student agency, which enables students to integrate their knowledge, actions and identity across various practices (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014). The design of student agency can be achieved through student choices or autonomy (Quinlan et al., 2024) and self-reflection (Ajjawi et al., 2020). Third, this framework highlights that social collaboration among students, between teachers and students, and between students and third-party partners, could help students construct the meaning and value of AA, foster their greater ownership of AA and develop stronger connections with the community (Ajjawi et al., 2024; Fawns, 2024; Gravett, 2025). This review A scoping review was undertaken to investigate AA design in higher education. To ensure the rigour of the review, the authors followed the framework by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), including the following steps: identification of the research question and relevant studies, study selection, charting data, and summarising the results. Paper searching and screening To specify the search strategy, the PCC framework (Pollock et al., 2023) (i.e., population, concept, and context) was used as a guide to ensure alignment with the review objective (Table 1). Three data sources (i.e., Web of Science, ERIC, and Education Source Ultimate) were searched using the designed search string. In the literature, “authentic instruction”, “alterna- tive assessment”, “performance assessment”, “authentic tasks” and “assessment authentic- ity” are often used to denote “AA” (Murphy et al., 2017; Villarroel et al., 2018; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2024), therefore these terms were included in the searching string. The complete searching strings were illustrated as follows. (“authentic assessment” OR “authentic intellectual work” OR “authentic instruction” OR “alternative assessment” OR “performance assessment” OR “authentic tasks” OR “assessment authenticity”) AND (“higher education” OR “university” OR “under- graduate” OR “postgraduate” OR “college”) NOT (“kindergarten” OR “early child- hood” OR “primary school” OR “middle school” OR “high school” OR “secondary education” OR “secondary school”). Table 1 PCC framework applied Category Determinants in this review Population Undergraduate and postgraduate students in higher education institutions Concept Design of authentic assessment tasks or activities Context Higher education, including universities and colleges across different regions and disciplines; in classroom settings Higher Education The time range of searching was from January 2000 to June 2024. In total, five hundred and eighty-three full-text papers in English published in refereed journals were obtained after removing duplicates from different data sources. Five hundred and eighty-three full-text papers were then imported to Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016), an online systematic review management platform that supports collaborative screening. The screening process was conducted in two stages: title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. In the first stage, the first and third authors independently screened the titles and abstracts to identify papers relevant to authentic assessment and higher education context, leading to one hundred and seventy-three articles for full-text screening. During the full-text screening, five predefined exclusion criteria based on the PCC framework were used to ensure the relevance of the included studies: (1) non-empir- ical papers (n = 35); (2) less focus on authentic assessment (n = 26); (3) in work-based set- tings rather than classrooms (n = 29); (4) insufficient descriptive information on assessment design (n = 46). Discrepancies between the two coders were resolved through discussion. Finally, thirty-seven papers were deemed eligible for further analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the entire process as a PRISMA flowchart (Moher et al., 2009). Data analysis The descriptive information of the selected papers was first extracted, including publica- tion year, country/region, research methods, sample size, and courses/programs involved. The authors then analysed how AA was designed in 37 studies. To achieve this, the authors employed the previously discussed six-dimensional framework of AA design to systemati- cally code and determine whether and how the current studies incorporated these design elements. The number of studies which mentioned specific design elements was calculated. Fig. 2 PRISMA flow chart of this review paper Higher Education Each study was coded by the first and third authors to ensure coding reliability. The inter- rater reliability was 0.81, and a consensus was reached after discussing all the disagreements. Overview of the selected papers There was continuing research attention on AA, with 2019 as the peak publication year (n = 7). Empirical studies tended to occur more frequently in Western contexts (n = 27) than in Eastern ones (n = 10), with the most publications from Australia (n = 11). AA was found in various disciplines such as pre-service teacher education, biology, business, accounting, nursing and chemistry. Pre-service teacher education was the most investigated discipline (n = 12). More than half of the courses (n = 25) were vocational ones. Sample sizes varied widely, ranging from 5 to 493 participants, with only 29% of the studies including 100 or more participants. Various research methods were mentioned. 49% of the studies adopted a mixed-methods approach, 43% used a qualitative approach, and 8% employed a quantita- tive approach. AA design Authenticity in assessment This review highlights how the understanding of authenticity in assessments has evolved from a primary focus on workplaces and assessment performance to a broader focus that includes students and societal needs, although there are still only a few studies on this broader perspective. Most studies (n = 22) situated assessment tasks within professional scenarios aligned with students’ future career environments. For instance, in medical courses, assessment tasks were conducted through simulations of natural hospital settings and based on actual patient cases (e.g., Henderson et al., 2021; Marriott, 2007; Way et al., 2021). In teacher education courses, students were presented with primary and secondary school environments (e.g., Ozan, 2019; Uluçınar & Dinç, 2021). In addition to professional authenticity, twelve studies considered the reflection of students’ actual abilities by design- ing assessments, such as portfolios, projects, concept maps, flashcards and experiments, as alternatives to traditional assessments (e.g., Kaya, 2008; Colbran et al., 2017). Nine studies considered students’ personal experiences and their knowledge and per- spectives when designing AA. A portfolio was used to understand the learning and changes in learners as well as stimulate student engagement and self-reflection (e.g., Chang, 2001; Yielder & Moir, 2016; Silveira et al., 2017). Other forms of assessment like filmmaking, business reports, podcasts, projects, self-assessment and peer assessment were employed to increase students’ self-awareness, boost their well-being and formulate their professional identity (e.g., Kearney & Perkins, 2014; Wiewiora & Kowalkiewicz, 2019). Six studies presented an authentic digital world that students may encounter in their lives and studies, such as Twitter, podcasts, YouTube, Wiki and learning management systems. For example, Cacchione (2015) used Twitter, a popular social media platform, to create a context to assess real language use. Only 3 studies (Asgarova et al., 2023; Forsyth & Evans, 2019; Spanjaard et al., 2023) addressed social issues such as active citizenship, sustainability, social aware- Higher Education ness, responsibility and ethics, which helped to assess students’ knowledge and skills neces- sary to contribute to societal transformation. This review also indicated that authenticity in assessment is not always expressed as a singular idea but as multiple meanings, despite a limited number of relevant studies. Sil- veira et al. (2017) used process portfolios to collect student products at various stages of learning to ensure the authenticity of students’ assessment performance. Meanwhile, they emphasised the reflexive practice of students to make the assessment task authentic to them- selves. In the study of Way et al. (2021), professional authenticity is intertwined with digital authenticity in AA design. The learning management system was the platform for the par- ticipants’ daily learning, while the problem to be solved was a real business management task in a workplace incident. Forsyth and Evans (2019) considered the diverse cultural back- grounds of students, engaging them in approaching an organisation they were passionate about and negotiating a history-based task that would benefit the selected community group. In the study of Wakefield et al. (2023), authenticity in assessment was reflected in learner- generated podcasts, which emphasised both the digital world created by social media and students’ active engagement and well-being. Cognitive challenges AA aims for students to go beyond reproducing disjointed and superficial information, encouraging them to achieve a deeper understanding, construct new knowledge, application of knowledge to real situations and develop 21st -century skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and communication (Villarroel et al., 2018; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2024). Therefore, cognitive challenges in AA were classified into knowledge construction, profes- sional skills and 21st -century skills. Twenty-nine studies assessed students’ knowledge construction. For example, Peng et al. (2017) assessed students’ programming knowledge, such as concepts, syntax, and semantics, in the project. Sabtiawan et al. (2019) evaluated how students applied their chemistry knowledge in their presentation tasks. Twenty-two studies assess students’ professional skills, which students may need in their future careers. For example, Marriott (2007) designed case-based assignments to evaluate clinical skills in undergraduate pharmacy students. Uluçınar and Dinç (2021) developed mini-projects for prospective teachers in special education to cultivate their communication skills with students who have special learning needs and their relatives. Twenty-nine studies assessed students’ 21st -century skills, which include critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, creative thinking, digital literacy, time management, leadership, reflection, and decision-making skills. Among these, critical thinking skills (n = 17), communication skills (n = 13) and problem-solving skills (n = 7) were the top three skills assessed. For example, Way et al. (2021) asked students to participate in an online mimetic simulation, which assessed their problem-solving and communication skills. In another instance, Maniram (2022) focused on assessing the critical thinking skills of first-year students in hospitality financial management through online reflective logs. Digital literacy is considered a crucial 21st -century skill due to the social transformation brought about by the rapid development of technology (Nieminen et al., 2023; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2024). However, only five studies focused on enhancing students’ digital literacy in their AA design. For example, Janse van Rensburg et al. (2022) fostered students’ digital creativity by enabling them to use digital tools and technologies to express their financial ideas. Higher Education Assessment rubric Villarroel et al. (2018) proposed that evaluative judgement is essential for students to build through participating in AA. Students should understand acceptable standards of perfor- mance and develop their life-long capability to assess and regulate their learning and per- formance. Assessment rubrics could be useful to develop students’ evaluative judgement by illustrating the expected standards. However, not all the studies explicitly mentioned their assessment rubric design. Twenty-two studies stated the use of assessment rubrics. For example, Tan et al. (2022) provided rubrics which included content and communica- tion domains in alignment with the module learning outcomes. Only Chang (2001), Kaya (2008), and Kearney and Perkins (2014) reported that rubrics were developed through the collaboration between teachers and students. Seven studies shared the assessment rubrics with students before they started their AA tasks. Among them, only Scott and Unsworth (2018) and Asgarova et al. (2023) specifically mentioned that they shared the rubrics by providing guiding questions and assignment guidance sheets. When examining the users of assessment criteria for judgement, only seven studies mentioned that students were asses- sors through self and peer assessment (e.g., Kearney, 2014; Wakefield et al., 2023). This finding implies that students, in most cases, were passive users of assessment rubrics. Feedback Feedback plays a very important role in fostering students’ evaluative judgement (Carless & Boud, 2018). In AA design, Villarroel et al. (2018) proposed three types of feedback, namely formative feedback, summative feedback and sustainable feedback. Twenty-three studies adopted formative feedback to inform students of their learning progress, includ- ing continuous feedback embedded in portfolios (e.g., Chang, 2001), feedback on draft assignments (e.g., Colbran et al., 2017), group discussions (e.g., Kaya, 2008), workshops or tutorial activities (e.g., Allen et al., 2014), online feedback (e.g., Peng et al., 2017), peer assessment (e.g., Hussain & Al Saadi, 2019) and self-assessment (e.g., Morales & Fernán- dez, 2019). Twelve studies used summative feedback to explain marking decisions and ensure quality. For example, Henderson et al. (2021) utilised online oral vivas to evaluate nursing students’ learning performance in an emergency nursing unit, followed by a critical feedback discussion between the assessor and the students to calibrate their understanding of their competence levels and the achievement of desired standards. Only four studies used sustainable feedback to empower students to become sustainable assessors and self-directed life-long learners. For example, Kearney and Perkins (2014) used self-assessment and peer assessment to engage pre-service teachers in the assessment of lesson plans and develop their evaluative judgment for future teaching. Student agency Students need to actively engage in AA to integrate their knowledge, actions and iden- tity across various practices (Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014; Quinlan et al., 2025). Student agency involves having the autonomy to set personal goals, make choices about how to learn and engage in self-directed learning. By providing opportunities for autonomy, educators can create an environment where students feel empowered to take control of their learning in Higher Education AA, leading to deeper engagement and more meaningful educational experiences. How- ever, only eight studies gave students choices in what, how, when and where they take AA. For example, Colbran et al. (2017) allowed students to create digital flashcards on a chosen topic and type of flashcard, either individually or with self-selected partners. For another instance, in the study of Spanjaard et al. (2023), students have the autonomy to choose the book theme and the digital tool most relevant to their skill sets to make a digital story. Compared to student choices, the design of self-reflection practices has received more attention. Eighteen studies reported that self-reflection practices were embedded in AA to help students assess their understanding, identify strengths and areas for improvement and set goals for future learning. Self-reflection was done through journals (e.g., Allen et al., 2014; Maniram & Maistry, 2018), portfolios (e.g., Chang, 2001; Yielder & Moir, 2016) or guided reflection questions or prompts (e.g., Diller & Phelps, 2008). However, only Maniram (2022) informed students of the purposes and merits of online collective reflection to activate students’ awareness of the value of reflective practices. In most cases, self-reflection was conducted as an assigned learning task. In some cases, self-reflection was even rewarded by grades (e.g., Allen et al., 2014; Wakefield et al., 2024). Social collaboration Social collaboration is a key expectation in AA because it is shaped by intricate and inter- connected social relationships (Ajjawi et al., 2024; Boud & Bearman, 2024; Gravett, 2025; Timperley & Schick, 2025). To evaluate the extent to which social collaboration is inte- grated into the design of AA, this review first categorises AA tasks into two distinct types: individual tasks and group tasks. Eighteen studies used AA as individual tasks, while sixteen studies implemented it as group tasks. For instance, Scott and Unsworth (2018) designed a digital viva for individual students. In contrast, Jopp (2019) facilitated collaboration among students in groups of three or four to design and plan a walking tour using Google Maps. Additionally, three studies incorporated both group and individual tasks within their AA frameworks. For example, Colbrane et al. (2017) offered students the choice to work either individually or within self-selected teams. Asgarova et al. (2023) required students to com- plete individual tasks initially, followed by collaborative work with their peers on an in- depth sustainability project. Most studies (n = 28) offered social collaboration opportunities in AA design. Sixteen studies mentioned peer assessment and peer discussion as major strategies to facilitate peer collaboration. For example, Hussain and Al Saadi (2019) made use of face-to-face and online discussions, and WhatsApp group sharing to facilitate peer interaction during their e-book-making process. Janse van Rensburg et al. (2022) designed peer review during the process of making digital creative outputs in accounting courses. Sixteen studies considered the collaboration between teachers and students. Among these studies, the roles of teachers in collaboration were often described as feedback givers (e.g., Peng et al., 2017), monitors (e.g., Allen et al., 2014) and facilitators (e.g., Forsyth & Evans, 2019), which empowered them and might create a power imbalance in collaboration. Only three studies designed equitable collaboration between teachers and students to show mat- tering (Gravett et al., 2024). For example, in the study of Chang (2001), teachers regularly talked with students about their growth and reflection demonstrated by their portfolios. In the study of Kearney and Pekins (2014), students and teachers collaboratively develop Higher Education marking criteria to engage students from the outset of the assessment process and allow them to play active roles in the assessment process. Only five studies made students’ connections with industry partners and community stakeholders. For example, Jopp (2019) required students to collaborate with the industry professionals at Tourism Melbourne to design a walking tour. Uluçınar and Dinç (2021) provided opportunities for students and teachers to communicate with individuals who have special educational needs or their relatives when they did mini-projects relating to special education. Discussion Authenticity in assessment Ajjawi et al. (2020) contended that discussion about authenticity in assessment should encompass various forms corresponding to different contexts and outcomes. However, this review shows that, so far, there are a very limited number of studies that equate authentic- ity with anything beyond assessment tasks that are akin to workplace activities. As a result, studies to date restrict the types of AA, potentially overlooking other valuable contexts and formats that could also be relevant and meaningful in assessing student learning. Ajjawi et al. (2024) suggested that prioritising the replication of workplace and graduate employ- ability could pose challenges when evaluating non-vocational courses or those only loosely connected to specific professions. Only three studies in this scoping review considered social authenticity in AA design, which highlights a critical gap in understanding how edu- cational experiences can empower learners to effect meaningful social change. Rapid and emergent technological developments, such as generative AI, have brought unpredictable futures for students (Bearman et al., 2023), and it is essential for AA to adapt in order to remain relevant (Vallis, 2025). This necessitates a focus on the capabilities students will require to navigate an increasingly digital world, where technology serves not only as a tool for enhancing assessment but also shapes their future employment and digital identities beyond university (Nieminen et al., 2023). Therefore, AA should align with human capabilities for the digital age, such as critical digital literacies (Nieminen et al., 2023), which are underexplored in the current literature. Furthermore, it is crucial to develop a diverse range of adaptable strategies and methods that incorporate emerging tech- nologies and various learning pathways in specific contexts to effectively craft AA (Elking- ton & Chesterton, 2025). AA foster a sense of relevance and applicability, enabling students to appreciate the value of assessment for their future aspirations and professional trajectories. However, the cur- rent design of AA often falls short in providing sustainable feedback that can significantly enhance such a sense of relevance and applicability. While formative feedback plays a vital role in facilitating immediate improvements in student performance, its efficacy is inher- ently limited if the insights gained are not transferable to future situations. Sustainable feed- back, as articulated by Villarroel et al. (2018) and Boud and Soler (2016), focuses on the importance of students’ evaluative judgement, reflection and application of knowledge over time. Therefore, educators should design feedback that emphasises the learning process and self-regulation. This approach fosters deeper understanding, personal growth, and the Higher Education ability to make independent judgments, preparing students for more challenging learning environments after graduation (Boud & Soler, 2016). There are clearly several challenges in how authenticity in assessment is typically per- ceived. In this scoping review, some studies considered multiple interpretations of authen- ticity when designing AA (e.g., Forsyth & Evans, 2019; Silveira et al., 2017; Wakefield et al., 2023; Way et al., 2021). To effectively apply AA across different disciplines, communi- ties, and the digital landscape, educators need to think over an important question: how AA can be designed to accommodate multiple interpretations and diverse knowledge systems, acknowledging that perceptions of authenticity can vary greatly? (Ajjawi et al., 2024). Student agentic roles There is a perspective shift from educators or future employers to students in highlight- ing the meaning of authenticity for students and promoting students’ active engagement (Ajjawi et al., 2024; McArthur, 2023). However, this scoping review shows that students’ voices are often ignored in the design of AA. Close examination of authenticity in assess- ment revealed educators’ or researchers’ expectations instead of students’ interpretation of what was authentic to them. The absence of students’ voices was further demonstrated in the assessment rubric design in the selected studies. Only three studies (i.e., Chang, 2001; Kaya, 2008; Kearney & Perkins, 2014) involved students in the process of rubric making. Only seven studies indicated that students acted as assessors through self and peer assessments. This suggests that, in general, students tended to be passive users of assessment rubrics. AA has the potential to foster meaningful student engagement that leads to valuable out- comes like employability, social change, specialised knowledge, or personal development, provided that students are offered choices or autonomy in AA tasks (Quinlan et al., 2025). However, choice is not typically a defining feature of AA (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014; Vil- larroel et al., 2018). In this scoping review, eight studies allowed students to have autonomy in deciding the content of tasks, partners, output formats and type of technology used. Kaya (2008) and Kearney and Perkins (2014) allowed students to decide who the assessors were and what criteria to use to assess their work. Educators should provide students with options and encourage them to consider how to effectively leverage their choices in AA, particularly regarding students’ selection of assessors and assessment criteria, to advance their personal objectives (Quinlan et al., 2025). Compared to student choices, researchers have paid more attention to the design of self- reflection to stimulate the development of students’ self-concepts, personal and professional identities, as well as transformative agency (Nieminen & Boud, 2025). The findings of this scoping review revealed that self-reflection was usually assigned to students as a part of assessment without discussing the value of self-reflection with them, except for Maniram (2022). In some cases, it was even graded (e.g., Allen et al., 2014; Wakefield et al., 2024). Reflection is highly valued across many professions; however, when integrated into assess- ments, it may inadvertently encourage inauthentic behaviors such as cheating or exaggeration (Birden & Usherwood, 2013). Self-reflection can become performative, focused on impress- ing teachers rather than fostering genuine learning. If students view self-reflection in such a way, they are more likely to adopt an instrumental approach to it (Ajjawi et al., 2020, 2024). Moreover, current research reveals an imbalance in the design of student choices and self- reflection in AA tasks. These two design elements mutually influence students’ AA experiences. Higher Education When students are afforded greater choices, they tend to behave in a self-determined and autonomous manner, which subsequently fosters genuine engagement in self-reflection (Chambers & Broadbent, 2025). In turn, self-reflection can further enhance students’ autonomy and decision-making in their learning processes. Allowing students to explore their interests and reflect deeply on their assessment performance can enhance their meaningful engagement in AA. Relational connections From a relational stance, AA should be “a mode of caring, collaboration and connection” (Gravett, 2025, p.614). Peer learning and collaboration were identified as frequently used strategies to strengthen relational connections. Boud and Bearman (2024) suggest that trust serves as the cornerstone of productive educational relationships. To foster effective peer collaboration, allowing students the autonomy to select their trusted partners could signifi- cantly enhance collaborative outcomes. Gravett (2025) argues that AA should be something that matters for students. Mattering involves caring and the necessity to acknowledge and address students’ varied experiences and contextual practices (Gravett & Ajjawi, 2022). This scoping review reveals a clear power imbalance in teacher-student interactions, where teachers often dominate and position themselves as authoritative figures. Such dynamics can hardly develop students’ feelings of mattering, care or joy. Connecting students with industry partners and community stakeholders is essential to empower them in defining their societal roles and gaining recognition for their contribu- tions (McArthur, 2023). However, only five studies encouraged students’ interactions with industry partners and community stakeholders. Therefore, in future AA design, educators could provide more structured opportunities for students to engage in collaborative projects with workplace or community partners (Ajjawi et al., 2024). In doing so, partnerships with real-world partners and community stakeholders can be established, advancing a broader mission of societal transformation. Implications for the design of AA This scoping review examines the design challenges considering the broader perspectives of both students and society. These challenges are characterised by a predominance of professional authenticity, students’ passive roles and a lack of caring and connections. To address these challenges, a learning-oriented and collaborative design framework for AA is proposed to emphasise relevance, collaboration and students’ meaningful engagement (see Fig. 3). It is a cyclical and recursive process which involves four steps. The framework begins with Step 1: Deciding assessment goals and focus, where educa- tors and students collaboratively negotiate the purpose and authenticity of the assessment. Critical conversations should be encouraged between students and their important others, such as institutions, educators, industry professionals and even wider society (Fawns et al., 2024). Such conversation ensures that the designed assessment tasks align with real-world expectations, academic objectives and students’ needs. A key consideration is the trade-off between authenticity and feasibility, balancing the complexity of real-world tasks with the practical constraints of the learning environment (Ajjawi et al., 2024). By involving stu- Higher Education Fig. 3 A learning-oriented and collaborative design framework for AA dents in this process, the assessment goals become more transparent and meaningful for students, fostering their sense of ownership and motivation. In Step 2: Creating assessment context and task, the focus shifts to designing an assess- ment that mirrors real-world scenarios while being cognitively challenging and relevant to students’ learning journeys. Educators craft a real assessment scenario that simulates authentic professional, digital or societal contexts, enabling students to apply their knowl- edge and skills in practical settings. In Step 3: Designing assessment criteria and student engagement, the framework emphasises transparency and collaboration to ensure students are active participants in their assessment process. Educators and students co-design assessment criteria or share them openly, making expectations clear and fostering a shared understanding of what constitutes success. This process includes embedding dialogues for caring, collaboration, and connections, where students feel supported and valued as co-creators of their learning journey (Gravett, 2025). Engaging students in judgement activities, such as peer assessment or self-evaluation, further enhances their ability to critically evaluate their own work and that of others, promoting metacognitive skills and a deeper understanding of quality standards. This step ensures that assessment is not just a top-down process but a collaborative and empowering experience. Step 4: Planning feedback and students’ self-reflection focuses on fostering growth and transformation through meaningful feedback and reflection. Educators design learning- and future-oriented feedback practices that extend beyond grading to offer actionable insights, guiding students on how to improve and apply their learning in future contexts. Addition- ally, devising self-reflection activities in a transformative way encourages students to criti- cally analyse their performance, set personal learning goals, and develop their authentic self and relation to others (Nieminen & Boud, 2025). Higher Education Limitations of review A key limitation of this scoping review is the overrepresentation of studies from Western contexts, which may reduce the applicability of findings to other cultural or geographi- cal settings. This bias likely stems from the use of specific search engines and the focus on English-only articles, potentially excluding valuable insights from non-Western or non- English-speaking regions. Future reviews could improve diversity by expanding search criteria and including multilingual or region-specific databases. Additionally, the analysis mainly focused on the design aspects of the studies, without examining research method- ologies or assessing study quality. Future reviews could strengthen findings by applying established appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of selected papers. Finally, the reported AA designs in the papers were taken at face value, which aligns with the goal of identifying and categorising design elements. The next step would be to analyse whether specific AA designs lead to desired outcomes. Conclusion The discussion on authenticity in assessment highlights the need to expand beyond pro- fessional contexts to include diverse forms of authenticity tailored to various outcomes. No matter which meaning of authenticity is interpreted, the key to the design of AA is the partnership among students, teachers, industry partners and community stakeholders. The goal of AA design is to engage students meaningfully in learning, preparing them for the unpredictable challenges of post-graduation work, learning, and social development. This scoping review has developed a learning-oriented and collaborative framework to guide future research and practical applications, advancing AA initiatives. Author contribution Ying Zhan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing original draft, Review and Editing. David Boud: Conceptualization, Review and Editing. Zilu Du: Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Review & Editing. Funding No funding information. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​ t​t​p​:​/​​/​c​r​e​a​​t​i​v​e​c​o​​m​m​o​n​​s​.​o​r​g​​/​l​i​c​e​​n​s​e​s​/​b​​y​-​n​c​​-​n​d​/​4​.​0​/. Higher Education