Unlike formative learning assessment, in a summative assessment, the students must be fully engaged with the material at this phase and can use it in a non-directive fashion. Assessment learning principles stress the need for learning to be demonstrated in a 'real life' context and to apply those principles. Writing an essay about the gospel stories or explaining how the lessons of the various gospels might be useful in their own lives is two examples of how authentic assessment might take place in a religion classroom in a summative fashion. The advantages of Grajczonek's process of authentic assessment are that it takes into consideration different learning styles. if, during the assessment for learning phase, students have difficulty visualizing the difference between the gospel narratives, a teacher might make a list of all of the various components of the gospels and then 'check' which gospels have that particular feature or not in the form of a chart. Continually monitoring student progress also enables teachers to review what students know and do not know, so they can backtrack and reinforce critical concepts that are necessary to 'scaffold' upon, to prepare students to learn the later concepts that are build upon a foundational concept.

However, some teachers might protest that the authentic assessment process is time-consuming and is simply not feasible in an overcrowded classroom. They argue that students in a mainstream curriculum should also be flexible enough to adapt to different learning strategies and styles and cannot assume that the class will be cater to their needs, in all instances. Students must grapple with the need for standardized tests and formulaic demonstrations of knowledge, and an authentic classroom's emphasis on creativity might not give them adequate preparation.

Proponents argue that authentic assessment can get students excited about learning, because students are encouraged to have such an investment in the learning process. Students are given...

They are encouraged to be self-conscious about how they learn best, and what excites and interests them. But the process is not entirely solipsistic, as the students are still talking with their classmates, and also engaging in discussion about how their peers feel about the lesson.
Authentic assessment, particularly its summative assessment of learning, has proven somewhat controversial: some might argue that it is so experiential in nature it does not really teach the 'nuts and bolts' of what must be learned. A student might be able to design an experiment that intrigues him, but not be able to explain the elementary laws of physic. A student might write a good essay about his or her feelings about religion, but not fully understand the historical principles of the gospel stories that were the focus of the unit. Some objective, comparative means of assessment is likely required and pure authentic assessment is so specifically tailored to a specific group it can be difficult to compare results to outside classrooms. It can even be difficult for the teacher to compare classes from year-to-year, if the methods of instruction vary wildly.

Still, in the modern world, it is essential that students learn to think more creatively and interactively: the world is constantly changing, and teachers can at best prepare students for learning, not prepare them for every fact and system they must learn in the future. Using some forms of authentic assessment seems valuable, so long as the discipline of learning some necessary facts, schemas, and principles are not eschewed.

Reference

Grajczonek, J. (2007). An authentic approach to assessment in the religion program. In M. Ryan & J. Grajczonek (Eds.). An inspired tradition: Religious education in Catholic primary schools today. Brisbane: Lumino Press.