# Authenticity Framework Reference

> Adapted from the external "AI Assessment Evaluator" skill. No upstream text copied verbatim.
> Based on Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner (2004), "A Five-Dimensional Framework for Authentic Assessment."

## Gulikers 5DF Scoring Rubric

Score each of the five dimensions from 1 to 5. Scores reflect the degree to which the assessment mirrors the professional context the course is preparing students for.

### Dimension 1: Real-World Task (RWT)

To what degree does the task mirror actual professional practice in this discipline?

| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Pure recall or recognition exercise; no connection to professional work |
| 2 | Stylistically resembles professional work but tests isolated knowledge |
| 3 | Asks students to apply knowledge in a professional-adjacent scenario |
| 4 | Task is directly analogous to a real professional deliverable (brief, diagnosis, plan, negotiation) |
| 5 | Task IS a professional deliverable (clinical encounter, live negotiation, filed document, real client case) |

### Dimension 2: Physical Context (PHC)

Does the assessment context (tools, environment, constraints) match the professional context?

| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Artificial test environment with no professional tool access |
| 2 | Online environment with general internet access but no discipline-specific tools |
| 3 | Students use discipline-relevant resources (databases, statutes, professional software) |
| 4 | Students work in a professional-adjacent environment (clinic, studio, courtroom simulation) |
| 5 | Students work in the actual professional environment with professional constraints |

### Dimension 3: Social Context (SOC)

Does the assessment replicate the social relationships and accountability structures of professional work?

| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Individual, private, no audience or stakeholder |
| 2 | Individual work submitted to an instructor for a grade |
| 3 | Work shared with peers or involves peer feedback |
| 4 | Work presented to a panel, simulated client, or external evaluator |
| 5 | Work directly involves real clients, community partners, or professional peers with real stakes |

### Dimension 4: Assessment Form (AF)

Does the assessment format match how professionals demonstrate competence in this discipline?

| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Selected-response (multiple choice, true/false) -- no professional format |
| 2 | Short answer or structured response -- partial correspondence |
| 3 | Extended writing, presentation, or lab report -- discipline-relevant format |
| 4 | Professional deliverable format (brief, memo, diagnostic report, defense) |
| 5 | Format IS the professional format with professional conventions enforced |

### Dimension 5: Criteria and Standards (CRI)

Are the performance criteria and standards aligned with professional expectations, not just course grading?

| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | No rubric; graded on correctness alone |
| 2 | Rubric exists but criteria are generic (organization, grammar, effort) |
| 3 | Rubric criteria reference course learning outcomes |
| 4 | Rubric criteria reference disciplinary standards and professional quality levels |
| 5 | Criteria are sourced from or reviewed by practitioners; align with licensure, bar, or professional standards |

### Interpreting the 5DF Score

Authenticity Index = sum(scores across 5 dimensions) / 25.

| Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 0.80-1.00 | High authenticity: task mirrors professional practice; AI substitution produces output a practitioner would notice as generic |
| 0.60-0.79 | Moderate authenticity: professional framing present; AI can mimic the format but not the context-specific content |
| 0.40-0.59 | Low-moderate authenticity: task has academic structure, weak professional anchoring; AI performs adequately |
| 0.20-0.39 | Low authenticity: test-like format with thin professional framing; AI fully substitutable |
| 0.00-0.19 | Minimal authenticity: pure recall or recognition; no professional grounding |

The Authenticity Index is labeled "within-course diagnostic, not cross-course comparable" in all reports.


## Lane Integration

The 5DF score and lane classification interact:

- Lane 1 + High 5DF (>=0.60): strong anchor; security property + authentic task design; lowest substitutability risk
- Lane 1 + Low 5DF (<0.40): security exists (proctoring, oral) but task design is artificial; students are secured but not assessed on professional performance
- Lane 2 + High 5DF (>=0.60): no security property but high task authenticity; AI can attempt it but produces a generic artifact that a contextually-aware evaluator notices
- Lane 2 + Low 5DF (<0.40): fully substitutable; recommend re-laning + redesign


## Discipline Calibration

Authenticity scoring is discipline-sensitive. Apply these calibration notes when judging:

**Law**: Professional deliverables are briefs, memos, contracts, oral arguments, deposition summaries, client letters, and negotiation outcomes. RWT=5 requires actual client, courtroom, or clinic context. Moot courts and simulations score RWT=4. Essay exams on legal doctrine score RWT=2-3.

**Quantitative disciplines (STEM, Business analytics)**: RWT=5 requires real data sets and real stakeholders. RWT=4 allows synthetic but professionally realistic data with professional reporting format. Problem sets with correct-answer grading score RWT=1-2.

**Clinical and health disciplines**: RWT=5 requires real patients or clinical encounters. RWT=4 allows standardized patients in simulated clinical environments. Case study with paper-based diagnosis scores RWT=3.

**Management and project management**: RWT=5 requires real organizational context. RWT=4 allows simulated organizational cases with realistic constraints (budget, stakeholders, timeline). Generic analysis essays score RWT=2.

**Writing-intensive disciplines (English, Communication)**: RWT reflects the intended professional output (journalist, technical writer, publicist). RWT=4-5 when the task is published, submitted to a real outlet, or reviewed by a practitioner audience.

When discipline is not clear from the course code, infer from the course name and CLOs in `course-config.json`. If discipline is unknown, apply a neutral calibration (do not inflate RWT scores).
