ASSESSMENT FOR INCLUSION

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Bringing together international authors to examine how diversity and inclusion

impact assessment in higher education, this book provides educators with the
knowledge and understanding required to transform practices so that they are
more equitable and inclusive of diverse learners.
Assessment drives learning and determines who succeeds. Assessment for Inclusion
in Higher Education is written to ensure that no student is unfairly or unnecessarily
disadvantaged by the design or delivery of assessment. The chapters are structured
according to three themes: 1) macro contexts of assessment for inclusion: societal
and cultural perspectives; 2) meso contexts of assessment for inclusion: institutional
and community perspectives; and 3) micro contexts of assessment for inclusion:
educators, students, and interpersonal perspectives. These three levels are used to
identify new ways of mobilising the sector towards assessment for inclusion in a
systematic and scholarly way.
This book is essential reading for those in higher education who design and
deliver assessment, as well as researchers and postgraduate students exploring
assessment, equity, and inclusive pedagogy.

Rola Ajjawi is Professor of Educational Research at the Centre for Research in

Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia, where she has
led an extensive programme of research into student failure and success, with
particular interest in equity, feedback, and learning cultures.

Joanna Tai is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Assessment
and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia. She researches student expe-
riences of learning and assessment from university to the workplace, including
feedback and assessment literacy, evaluative judgement, and peer learning.
David Boud is Alfred Deakin Professor and Foundation Director of the Centre
for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University, Australia.
He is also Emeritus Professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Pro-
fessor of Work and Learning at Middlesex University. His current work is in the
areas of assessment for learning in higher education, academic formation, and
workplace learning.

Trina Jorre de St Jorre is Honorary Fellow at the Centre for Research in

Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, and Student Experience
Portfolio Manager at the University of New England. Her research and practice
is focused on continual improvement of the student experience, with particular
interest in graduate employability and student achievement.
ASSESSMENT
FOR INCLUSION
IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Promoting Equity and Social
Justice in Assessment

Edited by Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai, David Boud,

and Trina Jorre de St Jorre
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai,
David Boud and Trina Jorre de St Jorre; individual chapters,
the contributors
The right of Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai, David Boud and
Trina Jorre de St Jorre to be identified as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com,
has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ajjawi, Rola, editor. | Tai, Joanna, editor. | Boud, David,
editor. | De St. Jorre, Trina Jorre, editor.
Title: Assessment for inclusion in higher education : promoting equity
and social justice in assessment / Edited by Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai,
David Boud, and Trina Jorre de St Jorre.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022043883 | ISBN 9781032275031 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781032274942 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003293101 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Educational tests and measurements--Evaluation. |
Inclusive education. | Education, Higher--Evaluation. | Educational
equalization. | Social justice and education. | Multicultural education.
Classification: LCC LB3051 .A7668 2023 | DDC 371.2601/3--dc23/
eng/20220930
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022043883

ISBN: 978-1-032-27503-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-27494-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-29310-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101

Typeset in Bembo
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
CONTENTS

List of figures and tables viii

List of contributors ix

Introduction1
Rola Ajjawi

SECTION I
Macro contexts of assessment for inclusion:
Societal and cultural perspectives 7

1 Promoting equity and social justice through

assessment for inclusion 9
Joanna Tai, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, and Trina Jorre de St Jorre

2 Ref lections on assessment for social justice and assessment

for inclusion 19
Jan McArthur

3 Why crip assessment? Critical disability studies theories

to advance assessment for inclusion 30
Neera R. Jain

4 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment: Knowledge,

knowing and the relational 41
Jessamy Gleeson and Gabrielle Fletcher
vi Contents

5 What can decolonisation of curriculum tell us about

inclusive assessment? 52
Sarah Lambert, Johanna Funk, and Taskeen Adam

6 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 63

Juuso Henrik Nieminen

7 Ontological assessment decisions in teaching and learning 74

Ben Whitburn and Matthew Krehl Edward Thomas

SECTION II
Meso contexts of assessment for inclusion: Institutional
and community perspectives 85

8 Inclusive assessment: Recognising difference through

communities of praxis 87
Penny Jane Burke

9 Inclusive assessment and Australian higher education policy 98

Matt Brett and Andrew Harvey

10 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity: Validity as a goal

and a mediating concept 110
Phillip Dawson

11 Student equity in the age of AI-enabled assessment:

Towards a politics of inclusion 120
Bret Stephenson and Andrew Harvey

12 Opportunities and limitations of accommodations and

accessibility in higher education assessment 131
Christopher Johnstone, Leanne R. Ketterlin Geller,
and Martha Thurlow

13 More than assessment task design: Promoting equity

for students from low socio-economic status backgrounds 142
Trina Jorre de St Jorre and David Boud

14 Assessing employability skills: How are current assessment

practices “fair” for international students? 153
Thanh Pham
 Contents vii

SECTION III
Micro contexts of assessment for inclusion:
Educators, students, and interpersonal perspectives 165

15 How do we assess for “success”? Challenging assumptions

of success in the pursuit of inclusive assessment 167
Sarah O’Shea and Janine Delahunty

16 Inclusive and exclusive assessment: Exploring the experiences

of mature-aged students in regional and remote Australia 178
Nicole Crawford, Sherridan Emery, and Allen Baird

17 Normalising alternative assessment approaches for inclusion 189

Roseanna Bourke

18 Student choice of assessment methods: How can this

approach become more mainstream and equitable? 199
Geraldine O’Neill

19 “How to look at it differently”: Negotiating more inclusive

assessment design with student partners 211
Joanne Dargusch, Lois Harris, and Margaret Bearman

20 Addressing inequity: Students’ recommendations on how

to make assessment more inclusive 222
Shannon Krattli, Daniella Prezioso, and Mollie Dollinger

21 Moving forward: Mainstreaming assessment for inclusion

in curricula 231
Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, Joanna Tai,
and Trina Jorre de St Jorre

Index238
FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures
16.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems 180
18.1 A process for implementing choice of assessment methods 205

Tables
5.1 Culturally Inclusive Assessment model 56
9.1 Equity and inclusion references in assessment policies
of select Victorian universities 103
15.1 Equity factors 169
19.1 Workshop student participants 214
19.2 Analysis focus and related codes 215
19.3 Proposed changes to assessment 216
20.1 Overview of protocols A and B 224
CONTRIBUTORS

Taskeen Adam is Associate Manager at Open Development & Education, a

Senior Research Lead at EdTech Hub and a Research Associate at the University
of Johannesburg. She specialises in tech-supported teacher professional
development, virtual learning environments, justice-oriented open education,
Massive Open Online Courses, and decolonising EdTech.

Rola Ajjawi is Professor of Educational Research at the Centre for Research in

Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia where she has
led an extensive programme of research into student failure and success, with
particular interest in equity, feedback and learning cultures.

Allen Baird is language and study-skills adviser to international students at

TasTAFE. He previously worked at the University of Tasmania as a teaching
academic, and student adviser, on pre-degree (enabling) programmes.

Margaret Bearman is Professor with the Centre for Research in Assessment

and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Australia. Her current
research investigates feedback, assessment, and digital learning in higher and
professional education, with particular interests in sociomateriality and clinical
contexts.

David Boud is Alfred Deakin Professor and Foundation Director of the Centre
for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning at Deakin University, Australia.
He is also Emeritus Professor at the University of Technology Sydney and
Professor of Work and Learning at Middlesex University. His current work is
in the areas of assessment for learning in higher education, academic formation,
and workplace learning.
x Contributors

Roseanna Bourke is Professor of Learning and Assessment at Massey University,

Aotearoa New Zealand, and her research focuses on assessment, applied professional
ethics, informal and everyday learning, and children’s rights and capabilities.

Matt Brett is Director of Academic Governance and Standards at Deakin

University. He has a longstanding commitment to student equity spanning roles
in research, policy and practice. He has been involved in over $1m of externally
funded competitive research grants, convened the 2011 National Summit on the
Mental Health of Tertiary Students, and co-edited Student Equity in Australian
Higher Education: 25 Years of A Fair Chance For All’.

Penny Jane Burke is Professor and Global Innovation Chair of Equity and
Director, Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education, University
of Newcastle, Australia. Widely published across the field, Professor Burke is
co-editor of the Bloomsbury Gender and Education book series and Global
Chair of Social Innovation, University of Bath. She has served as an expert
member of the Australian government’s Equity in Higher Education Panel and
Equity in Research & Innovation Panel.

Nicole Crawford is Senior Research Fellow at the National Centre for Student
Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, Australia. Her research focuses
on equity and inclusion in higher education, enabling education, and student and
staff mental wellbeing.

Joanne Dargusch is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Research in Equity and
Advancement of Teaching and Education, Central Queensland University,
Australia. Her current work includes research in the areas of assessment, equity
and participation in higher education and school contexts, and assessment in
initial teacher education.

Phillip Dawson is Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Research
in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia. He researches
higher education assessment, with a focus on feedback and cheating.

Janine Delahunty is Honorary Fellow, Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities,

University of Wollongong and Adjunct Fellow, National Centre for Student
Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University. Her research is equity-focused,
motivated by how participation and success can be improved for diverse students,
with a recent focus on students from regional and remote areas.

Mollie Dollinger is Senior Lecturer of Learning Futures at Deakin University.

Her research interests include student equity, students as partners, and work-
integrated learning.
 Contributors xi

Sherridan Emery is Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania in Australia

who is engaged in educational evaluation and research. She is an early career
researcher exploring intersections between culture, wellbeing, and education.

Gabrielle Fletcher is a Gundungurra Traditional Custodian from the Blue

Mountains of New South Wales, Australia and Professor and Director of the
National Indigenous Knowledges Education and Innovation (NIKERI)
Institute, Deakin University, Australia. Her current work focuses on Indigenous
narrativity, relationality, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems.

Johanna Funk completed her PhD in Open Educational Practices with Indigenous
Workforce development. She is applying what she learnt to her work as a research
active lecturer in cultural knowledges in the College of Indigenous Futures,
Education and Arts at CDU on Larrakia Country, Australia’s Northern Territory.

Jessamy Gleeson is a First Nations woman, and an Associate Director (Teaching

and Learning) at the National Indigenous Knowledges Education and Innovation
(NIKERI) Institute, Deakin University, Australia. Jessamy’s current research
considers impacts of trauma and use of power in academic and activist spaces.

Lois Harris is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and the Arts at Central
Queensland University, Australia and is affiliated with CQU’s Centre for
Research in Equity and Advancement of Teaching and Education. Her current
research includes work relating to assessment, educational equity, and student
engagement in both compulsory and higher education settings.

Andrew Harvey is Professor of Education at Griffith University and Director of

the Pathways in Place programme, Logan. He is lead editor of Student Equity in
Australian Higher Education.

Neera R. Jain is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Health Education
Scholarship at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Canada.
She researches ableism and disability inclusion, particularly throughout the
trajectory of medical training and practice.

Christopher Johnstone is Associate Professor of Comparative and International

Development Education at the University of Minnesota and serves as Director of
Graduate Studies for the Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and
Development. His research focuses on inclusive education in global contexts as
well as internationalisation of higher education.

Trina Jorre de St Jorre is Honorary Fellow at the Centre for Research in

Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, and Student Experience
Portfolio Manager at University of New England. Her research and practice is
xii Contributors

focussed on continual improvement of the student experience, with particular

interest in graduate employability and student achievement.

Leanne R. Ketterlin Geller is Professor in the department of Education Policy

and Leadership in the Simmons School of Education and Human Development.
She holds the Texas Instruments Endowed Chair in Education and is also the
director of Research in Mathematics Education unit. Her research focuses on
inclusive classroom assessment practices in mathematics education to support
teachers’ decision-making.

Shannon Krattli is an international student undertaking Honours of Nutrition

Science at Deakin University, Australia. Her research interests are biochemical
metabolism and chronic diseases. She co-authored a paper with Cancer Council
Victoria that is to be published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Sarah Lambert is Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in

Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia. Working
remotely on Dja Dja Wurrung country (north of Melbourne), she pursues a body
of collaborative international research into social justice in higher education with
an interest in critical digital pedagogy.

Jan McArthur is Senior Lecturer in Education and Social Justice in the

Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University, UK. Her research
focuses on assessment for social justice and rethinking authentic assessment.

Juuso Henrik Nieminen is Assistant Professor at the Academic Unit of Social

Contexts and Policies of Education, University of Hong Kong, and Honorary
Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning,
Deakin University, Australia. His current research focuses on student experiences
of assessment and feedback, student formation and inclusive assessment.

Geraldine O’Neill is Associate Professor and educational developer in the UCD

Teaching & Learning Unit, University College Dublin, Ireland. She has led and
researched many national and institutional inclusive assessment and feedback
projects. She is recently receiving a national research fellowship for work on
assessing work-integrated learning.

Sarah O’Shea is Professor at Curtin University. She is a nationally and

internationally recognised educator and researcher who has worked across the
Higher, Vocational, and Adult education sectors for nearly 30 years. She has held
numerous university leadership positions, which have directly informed changes
across the Australian higher education sector, particularly in the field of student
access and participation.
 Contributors xiii

Thanh Pham is Senior Lecturer in Education at Monash University in Australia.

Her research interests are in higher education, graduate employability, and
internationalisation. She is currently researching how international graduates in
different contexts negotiate their employability and developing employability
teaching programmes at Monash University.

Daniella Prezioso is a student partner, studying Bachelor of Nutrition Science

(Dietetics Pathway) at Deakin University, Australia, who also graduated from
2020 Deakin Accelerate Program in Disability, Diversity, and Inclusion with
distinctions. She endeavours to advocate and create positive change within tertiary
education systems, to facilitate equitable opportunities for diverse students.

Bret Stephenson is Senior Research Fellow within the Data and Analytics
(Advanced Analytics) team at La Trobe University, Australia. His work pursues
a programme of research and practice in the areas of student equity, success, and
retention, and the ethical application of data analytics throughout the university.

Joanna Tai is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Assessment and
Digital Learning, Deakin University Australia. She researches student experiences
of learning and assessment from university to the workplace, including feedback
and assessment literacy, evaluative judgement, and peer learning.

Matthew Krehl Edward Thomas is Senior Lecturer in Pedagogy and Curriculum

and the Academic Director of Professional Practice at Deakin University, Australia.
Matthew lectures in teaching and curriculum and trains postgraduate researchers.
In addition, he works internationally leading humanitarian projects through
global immersion programmes. He is a former schoolteacher with a background
in leadership, strategy, and negotiation. Matthew’s research explores time, human
rights, initial teacher education and surveillance capitalism.

Martha Thurlow is Senior Research Associate at the National Center on

Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Dr. Thurlow’s career has
emphasised the need to ensure accessible curricula and assessments for students
with disabilities, including inclusive education, with the goal of enabling students
to leave school ready for post-school success.

Ben Whitburn is Associate Professor of Education at the Southampton Education

School, University of Southampton, England. Ben teaches inclusive education, in
relation to knowing and relating to difference, interpreting evidence in context,
inclusive curriculum and assessment design, as well as applying frameworks of
inclusive pedagogy. As a disabled scholar, Ben conducts collaborative conceptually
driven research which is orientated toward heightening educational equity, through
emphasising diverse experiences and agencies.
INTRODUCTION
Rola Ajjawi

Assessment occupies an important position in higher education. In addition to

recognising student achievement, it influences student learning and creates sig-
nificant work (including bureaucratic and emotion work) for students and staff
and therefore, requires scrutiny. Assessment plays a key role in high stakes con-
sequential decisions that can limit or enhance students’ choices and directions.
Its key non-negotiable feature is determining whether students have met the
declared learning outcomes of their courses. Other features, such as particular
deadlines or methods of assessment, may be of practical importance, but they are
less central to the crucial decision. Not all students may be able to meet the key
requirement under the same conditions or with the same time constraints as oth-
ers, however. Assessment may therefore exclude students who can successfully
meet the necessary learning outcomes.
The central unifying value position of this book is that assessment should
not disadvantage students because of characteristics or abilities extraneous to
the outcomes being judged. While all students must meet the core standards,
they may not all be able to do so in the same ways or in the same circumstances.
They should therefore not be penalised for reasons beyond their ability to do
so. Assessment for inclusion as we discuss in this book seeks to ensure diverse
students are not disadvantaged through assessment practices.
We, like our students, have unique careers, personal attributes, and capa-
bilities, that constitute our achievements at work and outside of it. What we
produce as part of our work is judged in similar ways to others, but it is also
personalised based on our career trajectories, opportunities, roles, and so on.
However, in current assessment regimes, students are treated as mostly homog-
enous, under the erroneous operationalisation of reliability as sameness, fairness
or even equivalence. Authors in this book systematically show that assessment
based on apparently identical tasks or identical conditions can systematically

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-1
2 Rola Ajjawi

discriminate, whether, for example, against students with disabilities, or those

from low socio-economic backgrounds. Instead, they suggest that the values of
equity and social justice should undergird assessment practices throughout.
This book is a result of an international research symposium hosted by the
Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin
University, Melbourne Australia in October 2021. International experts were
invited in the areas of assessment; critical disability studies; social justice, equity,
and inclusion; and higher education more generally. The authors in this collec-
tion are students, researchers, teachers, equity practitioners, and leaders in higher
education. Contributors to the symposium and this volume come from: Australia,
New Zealand, UK, USA, South Africa, Hong Kong, Finland, and Ireland.
The chapters here seek to disrupt some taken for granted notions of assess-
ment. They contend that assessment should recognise diversity in student learn-
ing, and endeavour to ensure that no student is discriminated against by virtue
of features other than their ability to meet appropriate standards.
The book is divided into three sections. These relate to the levels at which
considerations about assessment are framed. Assessment is a social practice and
therefore involves the complex interplay between individual, relationship, com-
munity, and societal factors. To affect sustainable change and mainstream assess-
ment for inclusion such that inclusion becomes an everyday consideration of
assessment, we need to pay attention to each level:

1. Macro contexts of assessment for inclusion: societal and cultural perspectives;

2. Meso contexts of assessment for inclusion: institutional and community
perspectives; and
3. Micro contexts of assessment for inclusion: educators, students, and inter-
personal perspectives.

Section I orients us to a diverse range of theoretical concepts and tools that

might help us to conceptualise assessment for inclusion. Each chapter challenges
assumptions about assessment seeking to disrupt the taken for granted or norms
of practice. The focus then shifts from the procedures of assessment (e.g. fairness)
to also include outcomes of assessment that are inclusive and just.

1. Joanna Tai, Rola Ajjawi, Trina Jorre de St Jorre, and David Boud – the
editors – outline the ways in which assessment can exclude students, offering
a conceptualisation of assessment for inclusion and arguing that assessment
needs to be reconsidered to ensure that students are judged on legitimate
criteria.
2. Jan McArthur draws parallels between her theorisation of social justice –
a broader orientation to assessment – and assessment for inclusion, argu-
ing that both share the same commitment to problematise, challenge and
rethink taken-for-granted assessment practices, and assumed guarantees of
quality and fairness.
 Introduction 3

3. Neera Jain takes up assessment for inclusion through the lens of critical
disability theory arguing against minor change, seeking instead to disrupt
notions of what is regarded as normal. A crip theory lens calls on assessment
for inclusion to design from disability and considers how the lived experi-
ence of disability can productively inform assessment.
4. Jessamy Gleeson and Gabrielle Fletcher introduce Indigenous perspectives
to trouble assessment and Western ways of knowing arguing for the contin-
ued expansion and development of the cultural interface such that required
structural conditions of assessment can enable collaboration and diverse
standpoints for all.
5. Sarah Lambert, Johanna Funk, and Taskeen Adam argue that the decolo-
nisation of education is necessary for assessment for inclusion to flourish.
The authors propose three dimensions: justice-as-content, justice-as-process, and
justice-as-pedagogy that would prompt the design of assessment for inclusion.
6. Juuso Nieminen critiques the prevalent approaches to promoting inclusion in
assessment, namely those of individual accommodation and universal design
from the point of view of their procedural focus. He argues that assessment
for inclusion needs to look beyond the institution towards authentically
engaging with society through a critical, political stance.
7. Ben Whitburn and Matthew Krehl Edward Thomas adopt an ontologi-
cal framework to assessment for inclusion, rather than the procedural, and
encourage paying attention to the implications of diversity in educational
design. They critique the notion that time manifests equally, reminding us
of the uneven temporal distributions of assessment.

Section II orients us to specific facets of assessment for inclusion that necessitate

reflexivity, accountability, and care. These chapters focus on what communi-
ties and/or institutions can and should do to foster more equity in assessment
through policy, ethical, legal, and validity frameworks.

8. Penny Jane Burke highlights how unequal power relations and taken-for-
granted values and practices shape assessment, which makes inclusivity an
ongoing challenge. She introduces the concept of “Communities of Praxis”
as a framework to engage with these challenges and work collaboratively
towards developing possibilities for inclusive assessment.
9. Matt Brett and Andrew Harvey through an analysis of the higher educa-
tion assessment policy landscape, identify misalignments and advocate for
stronger institutional accountability, monitoring, and regulation as well as
education for all staff on the legislative requirements and moral imperatives
of inclusion.
10. Phillip Dawson argues that to be more inclusive in assessment we need to
re-think cheating, anti-cheating approaches, and inclusion in terms of how
they influence validity. If dominant assessment practices entrench exclusion,
they are as much of a threat to validity as cheating is.
4 Rola Ajjawi

11. Bret Stephenson and Andrew Harvey examine several examples of Artificial
Intelligence-enabled assessment and explore the ways in which each may
produce inequitable or exclusionary outcomes for students. They show that
technological solutions to equity and inclusion are often of limited value.
12. Christopher Johnstone, Leanne Ketterlin Geller, and Martha Thurlow:
track the historical landscape of Universal Design in higher education in
the United States. They propose a dialectical approach that considers both
accommodations and universal design of assessment as separate approaches
that are complementary but also could be influential to one another.
13. Trina Jorre de St Jorre and David Boud critique the ways in which assessment
treats students as if they were homogenous and highlight that assessment for
inclusion should provide equal opportunities for students to succeed but it
also needs to be equally meaningful to them.
14. Thanh Pham critiques how current assessment practices which focus on
employability skills disadvantage international students due to taken for
granted assumptions about communication and behaviours. The chapter
calls for legitimatising marginalised knowledge in assessment for inclusion.

Section III orients us to practice-based approaches to making assessment more

inclusive. These chapters foreground research and scholarship that influences
changes in curricula and draw recommendations for improving inclusion and
equity in assessment as well as warning of potential pitfalls.

15. Sarah O’Shea and Janine Delahunty critique limited notions of success
(as simply passing) through empirical research with first in family students.
Participant rarely focused on grades alone. They show that assessment for
inclusion should reflect varied and relevant notions of success – through
de-emphasising grades and engaging students as partners in design.
16. Nicole Crawford, Sherridan Emery, and Allen Baird draw on 51 interviews
conducted with regional and remote students to show how the multiple eco-
systems of the university serve to exclude students in assessment. Assessment
for inclusion should value and draw upon the numerous assets and expertise
of students.
17. Roseanna Bourke, through a case study of self-assessment from her own
practice, shows that alternative assessment designs are necessary for assess-
ment for inclusion. Whilst these may not be popular initially, they can lead
to a greater focus on learning.
18. Geraldine O’Neill showcases her program of research in assessment choice,
highlighting the challenge of introducing multiple assessment methods for
staff and students, and offering a 7-step process on how to design, imple-
ment, and evaluate this approach in practice.
19. Joanne Dargusch, Lois Harris and Margaret Bearman adopt a students-
as-partners approach to change assessment practices towards greater inclu-
sion for students with disabilities. To achieve more inclusive assessment,
 Introduction 5

they argue, universities must overcome a tendency to generalise about stu-

dent needs and provide many more opportunities to include diverse student
voices in assessment design.
20. Shannon Krattli, Daniella Prezioso and Mollie Dollinger also present a
students-as-partners project exploring how assessment could be more inclu-
sive and equitable to diverse students. They recommend empathetic relation-
ships between staff and students; ensuring assessment materials are consistent
and clear; and that learning resources are located in one place at the begin-
ning of the course unit. This chapter is co-authored and co-researched with
students.

Finally, in Chapter 21, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, Joanna Tai, and Trina Jorre de
St Jorre – the editors – close the book with concluding remarks and ways for-
ward, identifying common refrains that persist throughout the chapters, across
their various perspectives and foci.
We hope this book prompts all those who are part of the higher education
sector to engage in more critical conversations about assessment and reflection on
its purposes and designs towards inclusion and social justice, and to make it valid
for all students. We also hope that it speaks to academics and professional staff
responsible for the design and delivery of assessment to prompt ethical reflexiv-
ity, collaboration, and compassion. We hope that any students who are reading
this book can draw on ideas presented here to improve their own assessment
experiences, to get involved as partners and to advocate for others. And finally,
we hope that researchers expand their ways of knowing when researching assess-
ment – taking stronger theoretical understandings and applying critical lenses to
assessment. The editors would like to thank all the authors for their generosity
and careful scholarship in developing their chapters and engaging in open peer
review and revisions.
SECTION I

Macro contexts
of assessment for
inclusion: Societal and
cultural perspectives
1
PROMOTING EQUITY AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE THROUGH ASSESSMENT
FOR INCLUSION
Joanna Tai, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud,
and Trina Jorre de St Jorre

Assessment in higher education is inescapable; it assures competence, drives

learning, and shapes learners. It is something that students must undertake if they
wish to succeed and graduate. While they might be able to evade other aspects
of the higher education experience, they cannot escape assessment (Boud 1995).
However, while all students might be required to participate in assessment, their
experiences of assessment may differ significantly, particularly if they are from
non-traditional backgrounds (Tai et al. 2022b).
In the move from elite to widespread higher education, the diversity of students
has increased (Marginson 2016). Different students come with different goals and
aspirations: some are primarily career focused, others wish to learn to change
the world, yet others want to keep their options open. Thus, equity of opportu-
nity within higher education is important to ensure its purpose is being fulfilled.
Efforts to promote equity and social justice have focused mainly on entry and par-
ticipation and have been successful in increasing the proportion of equity students
entering higher education (Department of Education Skills and Employment
2020a). However, evidence suggests that equity students are not as successful as
“traditional” students in terms of completion and employment (Department of
Education Skills and Employment 2020b; Li and Carroll 2019; Tomaszewski et al.
2019). Given we accept diverse students into universities, it is a moral obliga-
tion that universities do not act directly or indirectly to disadvantage those it has
enrolled (Burke, Crozier, and Misiaszek 2016). This is not just about avoiding
discrimination: universities must value the full range of characteristics of their
students, which contributes to the rich fabric of the social and academic world.
Assessments are purposefully developed to judge students’ capabilities based
on educational criteria and standards represented by explicit learning outcomes.
By its very nature, assessment excludes challenges and discomforts. It needs to
discriminate between those who have and who have not met the appropriate

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-3
10 J. Tai et al.

outcomes at the requisite level. Underperformance in assessment is frequently

positioned as a problem of the student and attributed to student diversity and/or
background characteristics. However, the assessment might also be inequitable
and therefore excludes students inappropriately. This requires a shift in the way
we think about assessment, to become more aware of the disparity in experience
and opportunity that students have in present-day assessment, and then, a shift to
better assessment systems, designs, and processes, that do have inclusion in mind.
This is important not just for reasons of justice and equity but also to ensure
assessment methods maintain their validity: institutions and their staff must be
able to evidence that assessment has done its job of determining which students
are suitably qualified to progress to the next course, or to graduate, and which
students have not sufficiently demonstrated their capabilities. Poor performance
is often assumed to be a problem with the student rather than the assessment. This
deficit framing meant that the “problem” could be resolved through student-
focused measures such as individual accommodations and/or additional support
(O’Shea et al. 2016), rather than considering what could be problematic about
the assessment. Though accommodations for assessment are required by law in
Australia and elsewhere for groups of students with protected characteristics
(principally physical disability) (Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021), this approach
ignores the potential for assessment to be made more inclusive from the outset.
This may still unintentionally exclude students for reasons other than attainment
of the outcomes being judged, which then requires alterations for potentially
multiple students. When this does occur, it calls into question the validity and
reliability of assessment for all students.
Therefore, we argue here for adopting the concept of assessment for inclusion
(Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021; Tai et al. 2022a, 2022b), which seeks to ensure
diverse students are not disadvantaged through assessment practices. We contend
that assessment should recognise diversity in student learning and endeavour to
ensure that no student is discriminated against by virtue of features other than
their ability to meet appropriate standards (Tai et al. 2022a).
Moreover, assessment for inclusion necessarily recognises that:

• Diversity has many dimensions, including overlapping/intersectional qualities.

• Assessment performances and decisions are always made within specific
contexts, which has an impact on generalisability.
• There will always be new frontiers on which to make inclusive advances (i.e.
into the future, we will not only accept the present reductive categorisations
when considering something to be inclusive or not).

Positioning assessment for inclusion within

fields of research and practice
Assessment for inclusion builds on a growing consideration of equity and social
justice in higher education, and particularly, within assessment. Much of this
work has been done since widespread acknowledgement about equality has made
 Promoting equity through assessment 11

its way into national and international legislation and policy (e.g., Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 2006; Disability Discrimination Act
1992; Equality Act 2010). Early work in higher education assessment focused on
the logistics and implementation (Waterfield and West 2006). However, prior
to this, the concept of inclusion was already used frequently within the school
sector, representing initially the consideration of special needs students, and had
also already shifted to considering any student who faced barriers to participation
in education (Hockings 2010).
The term “inclusive assessment” has been defined as “the design and use of fair
and effective assessment methods and practices that enable all students to demon-
strate to their full potential what they know, understand and can do” (Hockings
2010, 34) which speaks mainly to the certification aspect of assessment, rather
than considering how assessment interacts and is entangled with curriculum and
learning and how assessment may also contribute to future learner trajectories
and identities. While a good starting place for assessment design work, a more
expansive purpose is required.
McArthur (2016) more recently introduced the concept of assessment for social
justice, which seeks to achieve the broader purposes of “justice of assessment
within higher education, and to the role of assessment in nurturing the forms of
learning that will promote greater social justice within society as a whole” (968).
She argues that considering social justice in assessment is a necessary move, since
previous ideas of justice in assessment focused on fairness of assessment proce-
dure, rather than considering if the outcomes of assessment were just. This con-
strains possibilities for inclusion, since the greater potential for societal impacts,
which are related to just outcomes of assessment, are largely ignored. McArthur
continues this discussion in Chapter 2, identifying synergies and distinguishing
the differences between assessment for social justice and assessment for inclusion.
Similarly, in this chapter, we take assessment for social justice as a broader phi-
losophy and argue that “assessment for inclusion” might be positioned at the
nexus of the procedural and outcome aspects of assessment, through which social
justice might be achieved. This is to say, we are focusing on the specific and
overall design of assessments, albeit framing assessment design more broadly than
just the task, to also consider interactional processes, policy, people, spaces, and
materials (Bearman et al. 2017).
Within the broader philosophical notions of social justice, we already see
two conceptualisations of assessment for inclusion in the literature. Nieminen
(2022) calls for “radical inclusion” of marginalised groups of students. He posi-
tions assessment for inclusion as reflexively drawing on individual accommo-
dations and inclusive assessment design. Assessment for inclusion is positioned
as “a critical and resistive approach to assessment: it recognises the prevalent
socio-cultural, -historical and -political positioning of marginalised students
in assessment and, if needed, explicitly disrupts such positioning by promoting
student agency” (5–6). Nieminen’s conceptualisation comes from a program of
research underpinned by social justice and critical theories (see also Chapter 6).
Our own positioning for assessment for inclusion is more pedagogical in flavour,
12 J. Tai et al.

seeking to mainstream assessment for inclusion for all students, by making inclu-
sion an everyday lens of assessment design. Student agency should certainly be
a key pillar of any assessment design, but we are perhaps more pragmatic. We
suggest “‘assessment for inclusion’ captures the spirit and intention that a diverse
range of students and their strengths and capabilities should be accounted for,
when designing assessment of and for learning, towards the aim of accounting for
and promoting diversity in society” (Tai et al. 2022a, 3). There is room for both
conceptualisation in overcoming the entrenched nature of structural inequality
and traditional practices in our assessment regimes.
We now turn to contemplate how inclusion should be considered. Within the
higher education literature, inclusion can refer to both disability inclusion and
social inclusion. Stentiford and Koutsouris (2021) remind us that “inclusion is an
elusive concept, intertwined with difficult to resolve tensions” (2245). Inclusion
can refer to many equity groups that are usually named in relation to disability
access (including physical disabilities, learning disabilities, and mental and phys-
ical health conditions) and widening participation initiatives (including students
from low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous peoples, and mature age
students). Thus, we adopt the word inclusion in all its meanings. While there
may be an ever-growing list of categorisations to consider when thinking about
assessment, students are not just the groups they belong to, and they may con-
sider themselves as belonging to several groups and sub-groups (Willems 2010).
Therefore, we should focus not so much on whether students are members of
any given equity group (which may be a heuristic that deflects attention from
specific structural issues), but on the underlying issues commonly represented
within these groups. That is, assessments as currently constructed do not lead to
equitable assessment processes, experiences, and outcomes.
Being “fair” in assessment might have once been about ensuring that all
students face equal – that is, the same – conditions. However, with an inclusion
and equity lens, what is considered “fair” in assessment is the subject of ongoing
discussion (O’Neill 2017; Riddell and Weedon 2006). Fairness can also depend
significantly on the perceptions of individuals. Even students themselves are
concerned that accommodations or adjustments give students with disabilities
or other conditions some kind of “unfair” advantage (Grimes et al. 2019a).
Addressing one disadvantage might be seen by a different student as inappro-
priately advantaging another. Though accommodations and adjustments are
deliberately made to construct as level a playing field as possible, they can only
respond to existing barriers or impediments which can be readily identified.
An equity and social justice focus calls on us to do more than identify barri-
ers, instead, we should design assessment proactively to enable all students to
demonstrate their learning in suitable ways without the need to reveal personal
characteristics which may not be apparent and gain reactive accommodations.
“Fairness” may then not be enacted through equal treatment – rather, it can
take advantage of and draw strengths from diverse student backgrounds, goals,
and capabilities.
 Promoting equity through assessment 13

How assessment can exclude

Contemporary assessment tends towards solo, unaided performance with few
opportunities to work with others (Lipnevich et al. 2021). Further, it removes
students from the normal resources (e.g., Internet access, the advice of colleagues)
that graduates would typically access in everyday practice. These unchallenged
limitations are likely to have more of an impact on the success of those who might
gain the most from an inclusive approach to assessment. The lack of authentic
scaffolds, those that would be available in the real world, such as use of a calcula-
tor or an Internet search engine, or even a keyboard and screen, is itself a threat
to validity (see Chapter 10).
The various assumptions we hold dear about assessment practices may prove
exclusionary. For example, the predominance of closed book exams that advan-
tages those who can recall information quickly under pressure. These may not
be characteristics necessary to demonstrate the specific outcomes being judged
(Tai et al. 2022a). Further, strict timed exams advantage students who can con-
centrate immediately, maintain focus for the duration of assessment, perform the
task quickly, and/or perform well under stress. Students who have physical or
cognitive conditions that prevent them from doing so are disadvantaged, as are
students that have not been schooled in undertaking such tasks. Rigid deadlines
disadvantage students with multiple demands on their time including caring and
work commitments, or students with fluctuating chronic medical conditions.
Ironically, the procedures, designed to afford students accommodations, are
likely to add greater burdens on time-poor students, who must usually disclose
personal information, submit additional paperwork, and demonstrate proof of
a special condition (Grimes et al. 2019b). Restrictions around time and access
to resources were traditionally thought to level the playing field by creating
equal conditions for all students to perform. However, these types of restrictions
ignore intrinsic characteristics of students as well as contextual factors outside
of assessment, and so may form actual threats to validity. Our focus on assuring
reliability through uniform conditions should not be allowed to undermine the
validity of assessment.
These and other problematic notions related to assessment design that may
lead to failure and exclusion persist for three key reasons (see Tai et al. 2022a, for
a detailed explanation). First, assessment design often draws on tradition rather
than recent evidence and scholarship. Research shows that there are entrenched
practices and fixed perspectives that perpetuate these types of assessment design
(Ashworth, Bloxham, and Pearce 2010). Second, standards such as learning out-
comes are beholden to a transparency agenda where learning outcomes can easily
become rigid, fragmented, and inflexible. This cements particular assessment
practices in place when it is the learning outcomes themselves that need to be
challenged. Third, the near-hysteria and reverence within which a specific view
of assessment security is held within the academy has flow on effects to poor
and discriminatory assessment practices. For example, remote proctored exams
14 J. Tai et al.

have been criticised as ableist due to features like eye tracking that expect to see
unobstructed neurotypical eye movements (Logan 2020).
What this brief tour through common assessment practices shows is that
educators and assessment designers need to be more critical of their assessment
practices and see them in a wider context. In turn, universities need to create
critical appraisal mechanisms of common assessment practices, and how they act
to exclude and to identify alternatives. In the next section, we identify current
practices that seek to promote inclusionary practices of assessment.

Perspectives on assessment for inclusion

Research in assessment about inclusion is growing. The many different lines of
enquiry which could be pursued under assessment for inclusion include assess-
ment design, assessment outcomes, and even broader work on the decolonisation
of curriculum (incorporating the decolonisation of assessment). However, along-
side this, we suggest that the relationship between theory and practice needs to
be challenged. Rather than holding the two in a dichotomy, a spectrum of praxis
should be considered, to suit particular aims in particular contexts. One thing
that is clear in previous work is that there is unlikely to be a single solution that
will solve all problems with inclusion, since both assessment and inclusion always
occur within a context, with particular people, involving specific interactions
(Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021; Tai et al. 2022a, 2022b).
Enactments of inclusion in assessment have so far taken two main paths:
drawing on Universal Design for Learning principles within assessment design
(termed Universal Design for Assessment, UDA (Ketterlin Geller, Johnstone,
and Thurlow 2015)), or seeking to make accommodations for individual students
(Kurth and Mellard 2006). UDA is defined as an integrated system with a broad
spectrum of possible supports to provide the best environment in which to assess
students’ capabilities (Ketterlin Geller 2005). UDA aims to support proactive
designs of assessment that allow students choice and flexibility, but these have
not been widely adopted (Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021). Meanwhile, accom-
modations tend to be personalised and take an assessment design as a given. They
typically are marginal and procedural including changes to timing, duration, or
rooms for students completing the assessment. These approaches could function
together to improve inclusion overall, as Johnstone et al. (Chapter 12) argue.
This can occur through increased adoption and formalisation of UDA through
institutional policy, strategy, and evaluation, and supporting teachers to provide
more latitude for accommodations, both in terms of who can access them, and
the types of accommodations themselves.
It is worthwhile to consider what else could be drawn upon to improve the
inclusivity of assessment. The review by Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova (2021) identi-
fied that several published inclusive assessment endeavours focused on mitigating
language-based differences. Here, students were able to negotiate or choose dif-
ferent formats of assessments, or even the language in which they completed the
 Promoting equity through assessment 15

task. The option to choose the assessment format has been perceived positively
by most students (Chapter 18; Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021). However, care-
ful consideration of how these options align with learning outcomes is neces-
sary, both within a unit/module of study, and across the entire program/course.
Consideration could also be extended to what types of capabilities students may
require beyond university and this may lead to an emphasis on, for example,
authentic assessments (Chapter 6) or assessments that encourage and celebrate
distinctiveness (Chapter 13).
A programmatic approach to assessment (Schuwirth and Van der Vleuten 2011)
is also likely to be helpful when explicitly used, to establish a shared understand-
ing of when and how learning outcomes will be assessed, across a collection of
assessments which have been subject to wider and deeper scrutiny. Programmatic
assessment design teams should involve those who know about the exclusion-
ary effects of various assessments, so that the needs of all perspectives are met.
When assessment is supported appropriately (i.e. scaffolded tasks with increasing
complexity/difficulty), this certainty may also allay anxiety, stress, and pressure
which many students report (Craddock and Mathias 2009). This may be espe-
cially important in light of the prevalence of mental health conditions amongst
students (Grimes et al. 2017).
However, to genuinely disrupt current notions of assessment, we need to look
to broader theoretical perspectives which interrogate the taken-for-grantedness
of much assessment discussion and the hegemony of ableist, positivist discourses.
Philosophical and sociological examinations of the purposes of assessment for
inclusion may help to open new ways of thinking, for example critical disability
perspectives such as Jain (Chapter 3), and Whitburn and Thomas’s ontological
perspective (Chapter 7), the decolonial approaches posed by Lambert, Funk,
and Adam (Chapter 5), Indigenous ways of knowing by Gleeson and Fletcher
(Chapter 4), or Burke’s invocation of timescapes (Chapter 8). In order to see
how assessment may have inappropriately exclusionary effects, it is useful to
have conceptual and metaphorical levers to draw sharp attention to the effects
of taken-for-granted assessment practices and ways in which alternatives might
be imagined.
Action on inclusion should not be left to individuals and their good will and
commitment. Understanding how policy at different levels shapes the way that
assessment does or does not serve inclusive purposes also sheds light on what
might be refined (Chapter 9). Meanwhile, limited regulatory and ethical frame-
works around artificial intelligence in assessment might be leading to exclusion
and bias (Chapter 11). We also need to privilege research and development with
students to understand their needs and mobilise their agency to effect change.
For example, we need to understand students’ needs and experiences in more
nuanced ways (Chapters 14–16) and as genuine partners in this endeavour of edu-
cation (Chapters 19 and 20). Finally, we need further exploration and evidence
generation in naturalistic settings to consider what works, and what does not
work, how and why, to promote inclusion (Chapters 17 and 18).
16 J. Tai et al.

Conclusion
Inclusion looks different in different contexts, for different people in different
cultures. A constant reminder that there is no “one size fits all” approach is nec-
essary to continue work in this space. Shutting down possibilities, or not explor-
ing potential avenues for inclusion too early, is likely to lead to a similar situation
to that which we find ourselves in currently: where we have settled on one
approach (accommodations and adjustments) which leaves assessment practices
unexamined and unchanged, without seeking alternative paths which may serve
more students – and indeed universities – better. Instead, what we are calling for
with the concept of assessment for inclusion is not just a pragmatic fix. By interro-
gating assessment, we begin to view the whole curriculum differently through
considering what may promote inclusion, equity, and participation. What we
hope to achieve is to open new challenges to ways in which we think about not
just assessment but higher education practices broadly, and the implications that
choices in adopting theory, designs, or practices of assessment have for diverse
learners, both now and into the future.

References
Ashworth, M., Bloxham, S., and Pearce, L. 2010. “Examining the Tension between
Academic Standards and Inclusion for Disabled Students: The Impact on Marking of
Individual Academics’ Frameworks for Assessment.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (2):
209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903062864.
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D., and Joughin, G.
2017. “How University Teachers Design Assessments: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.”
Higher Education 74 (1): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7.
Boud, D. 1995. “Assessment and Learning: Contradictory or Complementary.” In Assessment
for Learning in Higher Education, edited by Peter Knight, 35–48. London: Kogan Page.
Burke, P. J., Crozier, G., and Misiaszek, L. I. 2016. Changing Pedagogical Spaces in Higher
Education. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684000.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 2006. United Nations. https://
www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-
with-disabilities.html.
Craddock, D., and Mathias, H. 2009. “Assessment Options in Higher Education.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930801956026.
Department of Education Skills and Employment. 2020a. “2019 Section 11 Equity Groups.”
https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/resources/2019-section-11-
equity-groups.
Department of Education Skills and Employment. 2020b. “Completion Rates of Higher
Education Students – Cohort Analysis, 2005–2019.” https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-
education-statistics/resources/completion-rates-higher-education-students-cohort-
analysis-2005-2019.
Disability Discrimination Act. 1992. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.legislation.
gov.au/Details/C2018C00125.
Equality Act 2010. 2010. United Kingdom. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/
15/contents.
 Promoting equity through assessment 17

Grimes, S., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., and Buchanan, R. 2017. “Non-Disclosing
Students with Disabilities or Learning Challenges: Characteristics and Size of a
Hidden Population.” Australian Educational Researcher 44 (4–5): 425–441. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13384-017-0242-y.
Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., and Buchanan, R. 2019a. “University Student
Perspectives on Institutional Non-Disclosure of Disability and Learning Challenges:
Reasons for Staying Invisible.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 23 (6): 639–655.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507.
Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., and Buchanan, R. 2019b. “Learning Impacts
Reported by Students Living with Learning Challenges/Disability.” Studies in Higher
Education 46 (6): 1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1661986.
Hockings, C. 2010. “Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of
Research.” EvidenceNet, Higher Education Academy. www.heacademy.ac.uk/evidencenet.
Ketterlin Geller, L. R. 2005. “Knowing What All Students Know: Procedures for Develo­
ping Universal Design for Assessment.” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment
4 (2). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1649.
Ketterlin Geller, L. R., Johnstone, C. J., and Thurlow, M. L. 2015. “Universal Design of
Assessment.” In Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (Rev. ed.),
edited by Sheryl Burgstahler, 163–175. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Kurth, N., and Mellard, D. 2006. “Student Perceptions of the Accommodation Process
in Postsecondary Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 19 (1):
71–84. http://ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_19.
Li, I. W., and Carroll, D. R. 2019. “Factors Influencing Dropout and Academic
Performance: An Australian Higher Education Equity Perspective.” Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management 42 (1): 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.
2019.1649993.
Lipnevich, A., Panadero, E., Gjicali, K., and Fraile, J. 2021. “What’s on the Syllabus?
An Analysis of Assessment Criteria in First Year Courses across US and Spanish
Universities.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 33 (4): 675–699. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09357-9.
Logan, C. 2020. “Refusal, Partnership, and Countering Educational Technology’s Harms.”
Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/refusal-partnership-countering-harms/.
Marginson, S. 2016. “The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education:
Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems.” Higher Education 72 (4):
413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
Nieminen, J. H. 2022. “Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Inclusive Assessment in
Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.
2021.2021395.
O’Neill, G. 2017. “It’s Not Fair! Students and Staff Views on the Equity of the Procedures
and Outcomes of Students’ Choice of Assessment Methods.” Irish Educational Studies
36 (2): 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2017.1324805.
O’Shea, S., Lysaght, P., Roberts, J., and Harwood, V. 2016. “Shifting the Blame in
Higher Education – Social Inclusion and Deficit Discourses.” Higher Education Research
and Development 35 (2): 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087388.
Riddell, S., and Weedon, E. 2006. “What Counts as a Reasonable Adjustment? Dyslexic
Students and the Concept of Fair Assessment.” International Studies in Sociology of
Education 16 (1): 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19620210600804301.
18 J. Tai et al.

Schuwirth, L. W. T., and Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. 2011. “Programmatic Assessment:

From Assessment of Learning to Assessment for Learning.” Medical Teacher 33 (6):
478–485. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828.
Stentiford, L., and Koutsouris, G. 2021. “What Are Inclusive Pedagogies in Higher
Education? A Systematic Scoping Review.” Studies in Higher Education 46 (11):
2245–2261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M, Boud, D., Dawson, P., and Jorre de St Jorre, T. 2022a.
“Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Contemporary Strategies in Assessment
Design.” Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.
2022.2057451.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M, Dargusch, J., Dracup, M., Harris, L., and Mahoney, P.
2022b. Re-Imagining Exams: How Do Assessment Adjustments Impact on Inclusion? Perth:
National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.
au/publications/exams-assessment-adjustments-inclusion/.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
Tomaszewski, W., Perales, F., Xiang, N., and Kubler, M. 2019. Beyond Graduation: Long-
Term Socioeconomic Outcomes amongst Equity Students. https://www.ncsehe.edu.
au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Tomaszewski_UQ_Final_Accessible_9_8.pdf.
Waterfield, J., and West, B. 2006. Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: A Resource for
Change. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/
production/document/path/3/3026/Space_toolkit.pdf.
Willems, J. 2010. “The Equity Raw-Score Matrix – A Multi-Dimensional Indicator
of Potential Disadvantage in Higher Education.” Higher Education Research and
Development 29 (6): 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294361003592058.
2
REFLECTIONS ON ASSESSMENT
FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
ASSESSMENT FOR INCLUSION
Jan McArthur

Introduction
Assessment for social justice (McArthur 2016, 2018) was conceived as a broad
concept to encapsulate the multi-faceted ways in which assessment attitudes,
values, and practices can nurture greater social justice within and through
higher education. Key to the early development of assessment for social justice
was a challenge to largely procedural views of justice as fairness in assessment.
These deeply ingrained, socially embedded views emphasise fair procedures as
the foundation of just assessment: get the right procedures in place and we can
be assured that our assessment practices are fair. Such thinking underpins many
of the taken-for-granted assessment practices that are still common today:
students must do exams in a time-limited way; students should be assessed
in the same way; assignments should be submitted at the same time; students
should undertake exams at the same time and place; and the same rules should
apply to everyone (albeit with largely charitable exceptions for exceptional
circumstances).
Assessment for social justice does not disregard the importance of fair proce-
dures, nor the importance of equitable treatment and academic integrity, but it
does shift the focus from the procedures to the outcomes of social justice. The
other significant change heralded by assessment for social justice, compared with
traditional notions of assessment fairness, is that the focus encompasses all those
involved in assessment, not simply the students. For assessment to be socially just,
it must not cause injustice or misrecognition to those staff who undertake dif-
ferent assessment tasks. Injustice to assessors is becoming an increasing problem
in highly regulated higher education systems with increasing workload issues
(Shin and Jung 2014). Assessment represents an important moment in the life of
a teacher in two ways. Firstly, it can signify a moment of student achievement,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-4
20 J. McArthur

which should be a joyous event when we see some of the outcomes of our stu-
dents’ learning. Secondly, it can signify the necessity for care and commitment,
which should be joyful in its own way: this is the moment where we see what our
student does not understand, and therefore how we can continue to help them.
When staff are denied these moments of joy, it serves as a form of professional
misrecognition which is unjust. I’ll explain more about this concept of misrecog-
nition later in this chapter.
The third dimension of assessment for social justice is the relationship to
society. Higher education serves several socially important roles, including nur-
turing the professionals who will go on to work in employment/social roles, and
the citizens who will help shape the broader character of society. Assessment can,
and should, intersect with these social roles, and in assessment for social justice,
I argue that this involves enabling positive social change, not just reproducing
the status-quo. The overall purpose of assessment needs to be understood by
staff, and students, through this social lens. Social justice should shape the nature
of assessments and how students are assessed. The goal is for graduates to have
knowledge, skills, and dispositions which are orientated towards contributing to
a more just society.
Assessment for social justice is therefore both a very broad concept and one
which, in my own conceptualisation (McArthur 2018), is framed in a fairly specific
way grounded in Frankfurt School critical theory. Assessment for inclusion is a
welcome initiative to focus on the development of specific aspects of assessment for
social justice. This chapter represents both a reflection on the concept of assessment
for social justice, which I first conceived over eight years ago, and a looking for-
ward to the possibilities of understanding and practicing just and inclusive assess-
ment, which are heralded by the exciting initiative of assessment for inclusion.
These are different concepts but they serve our joint endeavour of better assessment
and a just society.

Reflecting on assessment for social justice

The term assessment for social justice clearly pays homage to the ground-
breaking work on assessment for learning, which re-shaped and re-focused our
understanding of assessment. We have much to thank the revolutionary higher
education scholars who did so much to bring an understanding of assessment’s
role at the heart of learning to wider attention and acceptance. These include:
Sadler (1987, 1989), Hounsell (2003, 2007), Boud and Falchikov (2006, 2007),
Knight (1995, 2002, 2006), McDowell and Sambell (1999), and Sambell and
McDowell (1998). Perhaps the most important contribution of all the scholarship
on assessment for learning is the positive way it re-imagined a student’s relation-
ship with the act of assessment:

Rather than vilifying students for being concerned with ‘what was on the
exam’, this interest became recognized as perfectly reasonable. The notion
 Reflections on assessment for social justice and inclusion 21

that students should study for a term and then find an exam full of tricks
and surprises was unveiled as pedagogically questionable and ethnically
unsound.
(McArthur 2018, 2)

Assessment for social justice is an idea under which different possible practices,
dispositions and beliefs can coalesce and find meaning. My original explora-
tion (McArthur 2016) provides a rationale for the concept. It was a statement of
intent: how could we think differently about assessment? I made five proposals.
Firstly, that assessment is not only about the procedure of assessing a certain
moment, but about the outcome of engagement with knowledge that lasts. Here
there are clear resonances with Boud’s (2000) sustainable assessment. Secondly,
I argued for a new way of dealing with difference which does not make charita-
ble exceptions and the assumption of a single ideal set of student circumstances.
This is the thread that is most clear in assessment for inclusion (Tai et al. 2022).
Thirdly, I challenged the idea of a perfect mark and the deceptive nature of
highly differentiated grading systems. This was a theme picked up again in my
book, under the idea of assessment honesty (McArthur 2018). Fourthly, I estab-
lished that the purposes of assessment cannot involve a disarticulation of the
social and economic realms: preparing students for life beyond the institution
means more than preparing them for work alone. Finally, I asked, who should
make assessment decisions? This question is about more than students as partners
in assessment, but rather about deep reflection on in whose interests is assessment
undertaken and how do all involved have a voice?
This first exploration of the rationale of assessment for social justice drew on
both the capabilities approach of Sen (2010) and Nussbaum (2011) and critical
theory, including the older work of Adorno (2005) and the current work of
Fraser (2003, 2007). I ended by saying:

As much as anything else, assessment for social justice is an ongoing com-

mitment to problematising issues of justice and assessment rather than the
pursuit of enduring solutions.
(McArthur 2016, 980)

I took up my own invitation when I wrote the book Assessment for Social Justice,
and other colleagues are now taking it up in a different way with Assessment for
Inclusion. My book was distinct from the original article in many ways, but most
obviously I chose to narrow my theoretical lens in order to work through the
idea, focusing much more on third generation critical theorist, Axel Honneth.
Does this mean you have to buy in to Honneth’s critical theory in order to buy in
to assessment for social justice? No, but this point does require some explanation.
In Assessment for Social Justice, I aimed to bring together what I consider the
radical pessimism of the early Frankfurt School with the contemporary work
of third generation critical theorist, Axel Honneth. I did so particularly for the
22 J. McArthur

multi-faceted understanding of social justice that Honneth offers in his work on

mutual recognition (e.g., Honneth 1996, 2004a, 2014). Honneth’s social justice
can be summarised as the interconnections between mutual recognition of our
basic existence as a human being of worth (love recognition); recognition of
our universal rights and our abilities to understand and exercise those rights as
a member of civil society (respect recognition); and recognition of the contri-
bution we each make to the social whole through our own individual skills,
dispositions or knowledge (esteem recognition). None of these can be separated
from the other, but it is through the dimension of esteem recognition that the
links to assessment can be most easily seen. Esteem recognition focuses on the
knowledge, skills or dispositions we each have as individuals and through which
we make a contribution to society as a whole: to the wellbeing of others. But
what is essential is that each individual is recognised by others for this, and that
they recognise it in themselves. In this way, individual and social wellbeing are
fundamentally intertwined.
Our students suffer misrecognition if they are not given opportunities to
develop, display, and be recognised for the traits and abilities through which
they contribute to social wellbeing; be it a more efficient form of energy or a
piece of beautiful music. Not every assessment task will do this; it is perfectly
OK to sometimes assess the building blocks of knowledge. But at some point in
their higher education experience, students must have an opportunity for this
form of recognition, and assessment is a key arena for this. This links to my
earlier point about staff misrecognition. If assessment processes are so stressful
and overwhelming that staff never get to feel recognition for their professional
expertise, the same issue of misrecognition, and hence injustice, occurs.
My intention was to demonstrate how one could take an understanding of
social justice and follow through those principles into the realm of assessment; as
such it was to act as an exemplar rather than the final word. Other scholars could
embrace assessment for social justice using a different theoretical lens, equally
committed to progressive social justice, such as the capabilities approach of Sen or
Nussbaum. One issue we may debate, however, as academics jointly committed to
social justice, is the extent to which different theoretical lenses to underpin assess-
ment for social justice offer a truly transformative possibility for higher education.
In the book on assessment for social justice, I offered five values, or ways
of thinking about the world, which should inform how we think about and
design assessment: trust, honesty, responsibility, forgiveness, and responsiveness.
Each highlights a different dimension of assessment for social justice: trusting
pedagogical relationships; honesty about all aspects of the assessment process;
opportunities for students to take responsibility for their own assessment expe-
riences; forgiveness in the sense of assessment that does not destructively punish
the errors and mistakes that are integral to the process of learning; and, a sense of
responsiveness to the world around but also what students themselves bring into
an assessment experience (McArthur 2018). These are exemplars of ways into
thinking differently about assessment: they are not a fixed, nor exclusive, list.
 Reflections on assessment for social justice and inclusion 23

The key to beginning to realise assessment for social justice is being prepared
not only to think differently, but to talk openly in different ways: to bring new
words into faculty meetings, course team meetings or even corridor chats. Words
like joy, compassion, adventure, care and kindness: all of these belong in our
assessment discussions, and in using these to demonstrate our thinking differently,
we can foster change.

New understandings of assessment for social justice

At the end of the original article on assessment for social justice, I stated that the
aim was to promote conversations about assessment. In the time since I wrote
both earlier works, my thoughts have developed and moved on. Both the arti-
cle and the book fit Connell’s (2007) just criticism that “most theoretical texts
in the social sciences are written in the global North, and most proceed on the
assumption that this does not matter” (50). Since writing those texts, I have
directly confronted the relevance of critical theory in our age of decolonisation
(McArthur 2021a). Here I argue that the Frankfurt School’s failure to explore
issues of race and colonialism (particularly the first two generations) cannot be
excused. But there are other elements of critical theory that can equip non-
Indigenous scholars with ideas and understandings that can help them, in Denzin
and Lincoln’s (2008, 8) words, be “fellow travellers of sorts” with Indigenous
scholars who share a fundamental commitment to greater social justice. One
of these, which has become more and more central to my work, is the interre-
lationship between individual and social wellbeing in Frankfurt School critical
theory, one of the few dimensions that arguably runs through all generations
(Honneth 2004b). This places critical theory as travelling on the same plane
as Indigenous philosophies with their various emphasis on self and others. The
southern African idea of Ubuntu – I am because you are – is perhaps the most
well-known expression of this. Phrased in different ways, however, the same idea
runs through Indigenous thought. Dei (2011, 4) explains “Indigenous knowledge
speaks of the inseparability and inter-dependence of selves and the collective”.
The interconnection between individual and social wellbeing has therefore
become central to my more recent work to ensure assessment for social justice is
placed within the contemporary decolonial context. For example, it framed my
work taking assessment for justice into empirical research on students’ beliefs and
experiences of assessment (part of a larger project within the Centre for Global
Higher Education1). An initial study of first year Chemistry and Engineering
students explored whether they thought the purposes of assessment were linked
to making a social contribution (McArthur 2020a). Unsurprisingly, but still dis-
appointing, I found no evidence of these students seeing such a link; however,
they did display a very strong sense of the link between assessment and learning.
Within the same project, a larger comparative and longitudinal study (McArthur
et al. 2021) also confirmed fears that realisation of the ultimate dimension of
assessment for social justice, the sense of inter-relation between individual student
24 J. McArthur

achievement and social wellbeing, will take some time and considerable cultural
change to achieve. In this study, we looked for instances where student discussions
of assessment displayed an orientation to self, discipline/profession or society. Out
of 427 interviews, we found only a handful of instances where students articu-
lated a connection between their assessment activities and broader society: and
most of these were “fleeting or tangential” (McArthur et al. 2021, 8). Of those
orientations to society that we did find, most were in South Africa, rather than
our other two locations of England and the USA, possibly reflecting the promi-
nence of social justice issues in South African everyday culture and discourse. On
the other hand, that observation makes our outcome even more disappointing:
why did not more students in South Africa see this social connection?
Two examples from this study exemplify the challenges facing assessment for
social justice. The first is demonstrated by the story of a student with the pseu-
donym Scarlet, who is going to be the focus of further research as we continue
this longitudinal project to its eighth and final year. Scarlet’s first year interview
transcript is a joy to read. It is resounding with quotes about saving the world and
making South Africa a better place. But by second year these thoughts are hard to
find. And by third year they have disappeared altogether, and Scarlet’s only con-
nection between assessment and the wider world is ensuring she gets employed
by a company. Clearly it is not for us to criticise Scarlet’s focus and ambitions,
however, if we return to the interconnection of individual and social wellbeing,
we are potentially seeing a diminution of Scarlet’s individual wellbeing as her
focus on that of others appears to diminish.
A second lesson comes from a cluster of students at another South African
university who provided many of our examples of an orientation to society.
They were part of a cohort of students who did an assessment task exploring
solutions to water shortages (at the time some parts of South Africa were experi-
encing extreme water shortages). Water shortages are closely linked to issues of
social justice, racial justice and poverty in South Africa. But these issues did not
really feature in the “fleeting or tangential” connections these students made
between their assessment and society. Nor did other students undertaking the
same assessment task make any such connection at all. The same phenomenon
was also apparent in the earlier study of first year students, where an assessment
on environmentally sustainable transport did not give rise to any statements of
connection to society (McArthur 2020a). What we learn here is that having
an assessment topic that has a social justice dimension, may not actually ensure
that students make connections between their own assessment achievements and
social wellbeing. Indeed, in this study of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
the importance of transformative curriculum and assessment design, in con-
junction with one another, becomes clear. In the very crowded curriculum
typical of these disciplines, and the assessment design which emphasises a fast
pace of moving from one assessment to another, there is little time or room for
the reflective space to consider one’s achievements that is needed for assessment
for social justice to get a foothold.
 Reflections on assessment for social justice and inclusion 25

The other direction I am taking assessment for social justice involves greater
connection with work on epistemic (in)justice. Here I would very much like to
connect the idea of assessment for social justice with Ashwin’s (2020) recent work
on reclaiming the educational purposes of higher education: namely, transform-
ative engagement with knowledge. This would then extend to consider more
issues of epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007) in an assessment context.
Finally, the implication of assessment for social justice led to my rethinking of
authentic assessment and arguing for a reframing of what authenticity means in
terms of a student as a whole person (McArthur 2020b, 2022). I challenge the con-
flation of the concepts of “real world” and “world of work” which underpins a great
deal of assessment literature. Work is, of course, an important way in which many
people achieve esteem recognition, but this is not necessarily the case and there
are other avenues. Hence, shackling assessment purely to a narrow idea of work
significantly reduces the opportunities for genuine esteem recognition. In addition,
focusing on the task, as a source of authenticity, and not the reason for doing a task
or who the student doing it is, could lead to profoundly unjust outcomes.
The term authentic assessment is very popular at the moment, and there are
some excellent examples of authentic assessment practices (e.g., Sambell and Brown
2021), but this does not deny the necessity to reflect, challenge, and rethink.
Assessment for social justice requires a socially situated approach to assessment
that is prepared to challenge the taken-for-granted and habitual practices, even
those done in good faith. It is just such a challenge that assessment for inclusion
offers, with its focus on diversity and assessment design.

The significance of assessment for inclusion

In this final section, I consider the significance of assessment for inclusion to the
broader concept of assessment for social justice. In their article on assessment for
inclusion, Tai et al. state:

Drawing on the general philosophy of assessment for social justice, and

noting the importance of outcomes, we suggest ‘assessment for inclusion’
captures the spirit and intention that a diverse range of students and their
strengths and capabilities should be accounted for, when designing assess-
ment of and for learning, towards the aim of accounting for and promoting
diversity in society. In introducing this new term, we hope to better nego-
tiate praxis: that is, joining together theory and practice, to act as a lever to
achieve change in assessment but also through assessment.
(2022, 3)

The approach of these authors is to focus on assessment design to achieve the

overall aims of assessment for justice, mindful that design is about more than
the immediate task but also includes the broader course context, and institu-
tional context (Dawson et al. 2013). In their focus on inclusion, such authors
26 J. McArthur

bring to the fore issues of student diversity and the importance of assessment
design that celebrates difference rather than disadvantages students who fall out-
side some fictional norm. The focus therefore is on students, but not in such a
way that is disarticulated from their relationships with assessors and with wider
society. Most importantly, assessment for inclusion shares the same commitment
to problematise, challenge, and rethink taken-for-granted assessment practices
and assumed guarantees of quality and fairness.
The significance of assessment for inclusion, from my perspective, is that it
demonstrates the value of an approach that focuses close-up on particular assess-
ment issues, and which nevertheless has very broad consequences for assessment
integrity, student wellbeing, and broader social justice. Assessment for social
justice was always meant to be an expansive umbrella, and none of us can do
everything all the time. This zooming in and out from broad philosophical per-
spectives to everyday practices is vital, and assessment for inclusion is an important
demonstration of how that can be done. At the same time, it demonstrates how
different lenses and normative values can be brought into a common endeavour.
Those writing on assessment for inclusion do not share a specific lens or indeed
world view: they certainly don’t adhere to the very specific way in which I used
critical theory to work through the possibilities of assessment for social justice.
This is a very good thing, and such diversity is essential.
The challenge we face, however, is to ensure diversity and a plurality of voices
rethinking assessment, without this drifting away from the core goal of thinking
through how assessment should be considered central to achieving the social jus-
tice purposes of higher education. What is important here, I believe, is not that
we all think the same, but that we understand when we are thinking differently.
When we bring our objectives and assumptions to the surface, we move the
conversation on productively and avoid the dangers of hidden forms of distortion
or domination.
Assessment for inclusion also heralds a holistic approach to both inclusion and
diversity, as such it resonates with my own work to rethink inclusion in higher
education (McArthur 2021b). But “holistic” is another one of those buzzwords
that take off in higher education discourse. The challenge in my own work and
for assessment for inclusion is to retain the integrity of what we mean by holistic.
It is a complex word and practice that is too easily peppered through academic
literature without a real examination of what it means and the implications for
practice. To think of our students holistically involves, among other things, tem-
poral, spatial, interpersonal and cultural aspects. We have to not only understand
where our students have come from but also allow them to bring those identities
into university and to flourish not because they have adapted to the prevailing
stereotype, but because they have challenged it.
Thinking differently is at the core of social justice. From a critical theory
perspective, it provides a guard against passively accepting injustices that are not
easily seen, or even hidden in plain sight. For example, the broadly accepted
social norm of past decades where women were expected to remain in the home
 Reflections on assessment for social justice and inclusion 27

and perform domestic duties was a case of injustice hidden in plain sight. Many
of the issues raised by assessment for inclusion are the same: injustice hidden in
plain sight. A clear example of this is the one already mentioned; using excep-
tional circumstances to adjust patently unjust traditional assessment systems to
make them seem inclusive.
From a critical theory perspective such as my own, the greatest harm comes
from leaving issues below the surface and unchallenged. The more open our
acknowledgement of issues and problems, and the more open our exchange of
different – even incompatible – views and solutions, the better. The strength
of assessment for inclusion is that, by focusing on a particular dimension of the
broader idea of assessment for social justice, academics can converge in one clear
place to continue this work of rethinking assessment. My hope is that others will
also take up the invitation, focusing on different dimensions that also comple-
ment, but vitally extend, the broader plane of assessment for social justice.

Conclusion
Assessment for social justice began as a challenge to ingrained assumptions about
assessment and as a commitment to realise the social justice potential of assess-
ment that was inherent in the work of early pioneers of assessment for learning.
It was a concept developed on the foundations of many other higher education
scholars, and yet it was also something that emerged in relative isolation for me
personally. The purpose was always for other scholars, researchers, and teachers
to take it up in their own ways. In assessment for inclusion, colleagues have
done just this with their focus on diversity and assessment design. The important
challenges inherent in the emerging work on assessment for inclusion more than
meet the call to action in assessment for social justice.

Note
1 See https://www.researchcghe.org/research/2015-2020/local-higher-education-
engagement/project/knowledge-curriculum-and-student-agency/

References
Adorno, T. W. 2005. Critical Models. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ashwin, P. 2020. Transforming University Education: A Manifesto. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Boud, D. 2000. “Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society.”
Studies in Continuing Education 22 (2): 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728.
Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. 2006. “Aligning Assessment with Long-term Learning.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (4): 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930600679050.
Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. 2007. “Introduction: Assessment for the Longer Term.” In
Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term, edited by David
Boud, and Nancy Falchikov, 3–25. London: Routledge.
28 J. McArthur

Connell, R. 2007. Southern Theory. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.

Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Bennett, S., and Joughin, G.
2013. “Assessment Might Dictate the Curriculum, but What Dictates Assessment?”
Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 1 (1): 107–111. https://doi.org/
10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.107.
Dei, G. J. S. 2011. “Introduction.” In Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A Reader,
edited by George J. Sefa Dei, 1–13. New York: Peter Lang.
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. 2008. “Introduction: Critical Methodologies and
Indigenous Inquiry.” In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, edited by
Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, 1–20. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Fraser, N. 2003. “Distorted Beyond All Recognition: A Rejoinder to Axel Honneth.” In
Redistribution or Recognition: A Political-Philosophical Exchange, edited by Nancy Fraser,
and Alex Honneth, 198–236. London: Verso.
Fraser, N. 2007. “Re-framing Justice in a Globalised World.” In (Mis)Recognition, Social
Inequality and Social Justice, edited by Terry Lovell, 17–35. London: Routledge.
Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Honneth, A. 1996. Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Honneth, A. 2004a. “Recognition and Justice: Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice.”
Acta Sociologica 47 (4): 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699304048668.
Honneth, A. 2004b. “A Social Pathology of Reason: On the Intellectual Legacy of
Critical Theory.” In The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, edited by Fred Rush,
336–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honneth, A. 2014. The I in We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Hounsell, D. 2003. “Student Feedback, Learning and Development.” In Higher Education
and the Lifecourse, edited by Maria Slowey, and David Watson, 67–78. Maidenhead:
Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Hounsell, D. 2007. “Towards More Sustainable Feedback to Students.” In Rethinking
Assesment in Higher Education, edited by David Boud, and Nancy Falchikov, 101–113.
London: Routledge.
Knight, P. 1995. “Introduction.” In Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, edited by
Peter Knight, 13–23. London: Kogan Page.
Knight, P. 2002. “Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in Disarray.”
Studies in Higher Education 27(3): 275–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662.
Knight, P. 2006. “The Local Practices of Assessment.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 31 (4): 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679126.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
McArthur, J. 2018. Assessment for Social Justice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
McArthur, J. 2020a. “Assessment for Social Justice: Achievement, Uncertainty and
Recognition.” In Changing Higher Education for a Changing World, edited by Claire
Callender, William Locke, and Simon Marginson, 144–156. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc.
McArthur, J. 2020b. “Student Involvement in Assessment: Involving the Whole Student
in Pursuit of Social Justice and the Social Good.” RELIEVE, 26 (1). http://doi.org/
10.7203/relieve.26.1.17089.
McArthur, J. 2021a. “Critical Theory in a Decolonial Age.” Educational Philosophy and
Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1934670.
 Reflections on assessment for social justice and inclusion 29

McArthur, J. 2021b. “The Inclusive University: A Critical Theory Perspective Using a

Recognition-Based Approach.” Social Inclusion 9 (3): 6–15. https://doi.org/10.17645/
si.v9i3.4122.
McArthur, J. 2022. “Rethinking Authentic Assessment: Work, Wellbeing and Society.”
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y.
McArthur, J., Blackie, M., Pitterson, N., and Rosewell, K. 2021. “Student Perspectives
on Assessment: Connections between Self and Society.” Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1958748.
McDowell, L., and Sambell, K. 1999. “Fitness for Purpose in the Assessment of Learning:
Students as Stakeholders.” Quality in Higher Education 5 (2): 107–123.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Sadler, D. R. 1987. “Specifying and Promulgating Achievement Standards.” Oxford
Review of Education 13: 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498870130207.
Sadler, D. R. 1989. “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems.”
Instructional Science 18 (2): 119–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714.
Sambell, K., and Brown, S. 2021. “Covid-19 Assessment Collection.” Accessed July 19,
2021. https://sally-brown.net/kay-sambell-and-sally-brown-covid-19-assessment-
collection/.
Sambell, K., and McDowell, L. 1998. “The Construction of the Hidden Curriculum:
Messages and Meanings in the Assessment of Student Learning.” Assessment and Evalua­
tion in Higher Education 23 (4): 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230406.
Sen, A. 2010. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin.
Shin, J. C., and Jung, J. 2014. “Academics Job Satisfaction and Job Stress across Countries
in the Changing Academic Environments.” Higher Education 67 (5): 603–620. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., and Jorre de St Jorre, T. 2022.
“Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Contemporary Strategies in Assessment
Design.” Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.
2022.2057451.
3
WHY CRIP ASSESSMENT? CRITICAL
DISABILITY STUDIES THEORIES
TO ADVANCE ASSESSMENT
FOR INCLUSION
Neera R. Jain

Introduction
Theory offers a strong starting place to develop assessment for inclusion. Theory
unveils current ways of thinking and doing, examines them, and identifies alter-
natives. Freire’s (2000) call to praxis for social change puts theory to work in
academic spaces. Praxis requires critical reflection on current conditions and
prompts transformative action, through theory. Theory that reveals taken for
granted power dynamics offers academic changemakers a starting place to inter-
rogate and revise practice to move towards inclusion.
In this chapter, I argue that critical disability theory is a necessary lens to
develop assessment for inclusion. Disability is frequently overlooked in liberatory
pedagogies and associated assessment theory (Kryger and Zimmerman 2020;
Waitoller and Thorius 2016). When disability is included, such as in Universal
Design for Learning research, it often fails to disrupt “the desirability of the
normate1 or normative curriculum itself ” (Baglieri 2020, 63). That is, traditional
efforts towards inclusive practice often seek to include disabled people into exist-
ing systems with minor changes. In contrast, critical disability praxis demands
fundamental transformation that disrupts notions of normalcy to create more
just worlds through and with disability. Any approach to assessment for inclu-
sion must seek to disrupt notions of normal and, therefore, requires engagement
with critical disability theory. To this end, I offer three interconnected theoret-
ical movements from critical disability studies that are necessary to problematise
and reframe assessment for inclusion: studies in ableism, crip theory, and critical
universal design. Pollinated with principles from disability justice (Sins Invalid
2019), these movements advance ways of thinking from disability that help to
develop assessment for inclusion and build its case.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-5
 Why crip assessment? 31

A critical disability studies lens begins from “the vantage point of the atypical”
(Linton 1998, 5) to identify how assessments exclude and how such exclusion could
be addressed. This way of looking assumes that disability can be desirable and
creates productive friction to imagine assessment anew (McRuer 2006). Critical
disability studies, however, does not stop with a disability-focused analysis; it goes
further by engaging intersectionality, identifying linkages across axes of margin-
alisation, and challenging normalcy (Goodley 2017; McRuer 2006). Critical dis-
ability studies theories, then, offer assessment for inclusion a lens that begins from
disabled peoples’ experiences to broadly question the assumptions built into assess-
ments and their impacts. These tools demand reaching beyond mere inclusion to
cripping (McRuer 2006), a creative disability-led approach that dismantles exclu-
sionary arrangements. In the following sections, I introduce studies in ableism,
crip theory, and critical universal design. From each theoretical move, I identify
provocative questions to advance assessment for inclusion. These critical disability
lenses aid reconsideration of factors that construct assessment practices at multiple
levels: from university structures (e.g., semester timescape, rigid assessment word-
lengths by course level), to program-level expectations (e.g., uniform assessment
across all program courses), to individual course design. Thus, readers who occupy
different university roles (leadership, learning designers, course leaders) will find
examples that activate critical disability principles within their spheres of influence.
I invite readers to activate provoking questions in their own work and bring them
to collegial discussions to spark collective contemplation.

Studies in ableism
Studies in ableism (Campbell 2009, 2017) conceptualise the foundational problem
of social exclusion as a system that continually (re)instantiates a false dis/ability
binary wherein those coded as “disabled” are excludable and those that approx-
imate hegemonic norms of physical and mental ability are privileged. Campbell
(2017) explains that this hierarchical system is formulated and upheld through
dividing practices, which she outlines as differentiation, ranking, negation, noti-
fication, and prioritisation. Scholars and activists have demonstrated that ableism
is intwined with other marginalising systems, such as white supremacy, capital-
ism, and cis/hetero/patriarchy, which inform and reproduce norms of physical
and mental ability (Annamma, Connor, and Ferri 2013; Lewis 2022). Bailey
and Mobley (2019), for example, explain that “Notions of disability inform how
theories of race were formed, and theories of racial embodiment and inferiority
(racism) formed the ways in which we conceptualize disability” (27). To undo
this damaging system of ableism, the false binary of abled/disabled must be dis-
mantled. With notions of intersectionality and co-constitution in mind, ableism
must be dismantled in concert with other marginalising forces.
The university is deeply rooted in ableist practices. Dolmage (2017) explains
that academia, figuratively and literally, maintains “steep steps” to enter, succeed
in, and exit that persist despite claims of widening participation, access, and
32 N. R. Jain

equity. In fact, Mitchell (2016) argues that maintaining ableism appears funda-
mental to the business of the academy. Assessing ability and certifying mastery
are core functions of the university as we know it. Assessment can be understood
as a chief dividing practice of academic ableism. Differentiating and ranking
students by their ability to meet markers of academic success creates insiders and
outsiders. In this sense, the notion of “assessment for inclusion” creates a paradox:
because assessment is a central feature of an ableist system it precludes inclusion.
If we want to undo damaging systems of exclusion, ought we not dispense with
assessment altogether? Are anti-ableist assessments even possible in the academy
as it currently operates? Further work to explore these questions is necessary, in
concert with a larger examination of academic ableism, to interrogate the pur-
pose and mechanisms of assessment.
Undoing academic ableism requires a reckoning with the academy’s purpose in
modern life. Studies in ableism demands, first, a critical examination of the pur-
pose of assessments and what is deemed necessary to assess. To begin, we might
consider the following questions:

• How do assessment practices create and reinforce division/hierarchies?

• Why must assessment occur and what must be assessed?

Taking this line of thinking further, an examination of how enablement and

disablement occur in assessment practices is needed.

• How does assessment (re)construct a “normal” learner in form and function?

• What assumptions underlie this construction of normality and who does it
disadvantage?
• Can assessment function in a way that does not marginalise some people? How?

If assessment must continue, careful consideration of how assessments are con-

structed, results interpreted and used, is necessary. Such an analysis may offer
clues towards what must be dismantled to approximate a more just system. Given
ableism’s grip on society, constant consideration of its operation and active resist-
ance towards it are necessary to begin to undo its power.

Crip theory
Crip theory (McRuer 2006) offers a route to rethink the academy and assess-
ment, to dismantle ableism. Building from queer theory’s foundations, crip
theory declares that disability is a desirable force to disrupt taken-for-granted
notions of ability and normality demanded by neoliberal capitalism. This poten-
tial, McRuer (2006) argues, exists when we call out, fail, or refuse to meet
ableism’s demands for compulsory ablebodiedness and mindedness. Crip the-
ory centres disability, critiques dominant formulations of it, and asserts libera-
tory ways to be and do through and with disability. The theoretical orientation
 Why crip assessment? 33

towards desiring disability, rather than seeking to normalise or erase it, calls on
us to imagine radical futures with disability that reconceptualise seemingly fixed
presents (Kafer 2013). By insisting on radically inclusive futures, possibilities for
disabled peoples’ presents expand. Never ending with a static notion of disability,
a crip theory analysis leads to interconnected critiques of debilitating ideolo-
gies (e.g., capitalism, colonialism, hetero/cis/sexism, and white supremacy) and
invokes possible worlds that lay beyond (McRuer 2006). Crip theory suggests
that in assessment we must bring forth an understanding of ability and quality
that assumes and values all kinds of bodies and minds.
A crip theory lens calls on assessment for inclusion to design from disability,
to look for ways assessment can resist compulsory ablebodiedness and mind-
edness. To do so, we must search for existing knowledge that identifies prob-
lems and possible solutions, what Johnson and McRuer (2014) call cripistemologies,
lived knowledge from the critical, social, sensory, political, and personal position
of disability. Put more simply, Lau (2021) defines cripistemologies as “ways of
knowing that are shaped by the ways disabled people inhabit a world not made
for them” (3). Seeking cripistemologies of assessment might begin with consider-
ing ways disabled people fail to fit current assessment expectations and redesign
from these “failures” (Mitchell, Snyder, and Ware 2014). Crip time and interde-
pendence offer two illustrative examples.
Crip time concerns temporality. It is built through experiences such as pain,
differing forms of cognition, communicating with sign language (and through
interpreters, assistive technology, and so on), and navigating medical and social
systems (Kafer 2013; Price 2011; Samuels 2017; Zola 1993). Disabled students reg-
ularly face university expectations that temporally misalign with their embodied
experience, resulting in what one disabled medical student described as con-
stantly “battling time” ( Jain 2020, 127). Miller (2020) exposed the power of
neoliberal temporality to marginalise students who are LGBTQ+ and disabled,
including through assessment mechanisms such as attendance, participation, and
rigid deadlines that did not account for experiences of disability and regular
experiences of anti-LGBTQ+ bias. Such assessment regimes affected students
academically and tended to limit their ability to engage in activist work and
other community spaces (Miller 2020). Crip time suggests not just a need for
more time, but an exploded concept of time that is flexibly managed, negotiated,
and experienced (Kafer 2013; Price 2011; Samuels 2017; Wood 2017).
Engaging the notion of crip time requires that assessment assumes learners
will operate on varied temporalities. Therefore, we must seek to explode notions
of linear, normative time and tempo in assessment design. Beyond those with a
formal disability label, assessments built on crip time would produce allied ben-
efits, for example, for learners who are carers, who must work, and for whom
English is not a first language. Lau (2021), for example, describes alternative
strategies built through an understanding of crip and pandemic time that move
away from time-sensitive assessments towards alternative mechanisms such as
asynchronous discussion boards, cumulative and semester-long reflective journal
34 N. R. Jain

assignments, take-home exams with prompts provided well in advance, scaf-

folded essays with incremental parts and ongoing feedback, and projects with
adjustable deadlines.
Disabled peoples’ experiences reveal the falsity of the independent, autono-
mous individual, demanding that we (re)centre interdependence as a core under-
standing of humans’ relational being, knowing, and doing in the world (Sins
Invalid 2019). A cripistempology of interdependence is built through, for exam-
ple, disabled peoples’ understanding of the self as cyborg, reliant on technology
and other non-human entities to live, communicate, perceive, and/or move, or
reliance on other humans to conduct activities of daily living and achieve access
to society (Reeve 2012; Wong 2020). Rather than understanding these experi-
ences as reflective of disabled peoples’ fundamental dependence, they highlight
an understanding of humans as always already interdependent, with some forms
socially coded as exceptional while others are made invisible. Consider our reli-
ance on family and friends, municipal garbage collection, bus drivers, super-
market workers, and smartphones as interdependent relationships we are not
often called on to recognise as fundamental forces in our lives. A cripistemology
of interdependence calls on us to see relationality as a liberating force and to
foreground the ways we are connected and reliant on each other (Mingus 2017).
Rather than prioritising knowing and doing alone, activating interdepend-
ence in assessment shifts towards knowing and doing with others, objects, and
devices. This forces re-evaluation of what is important to assess as individual
knowledge or ability, why, the benefits of imagining differently, and how to
assess in interdependent ways. Beyond disability, an orientation to interde-
pendence better reflects the realities of living and working in the world, where
knowing and doing is collaborative, with other human and non-human actors.
Engaging interdependence also aligns with many Indigenous knowledge systems,
reflecting a decolonising praxis (Waiari et al. 2021). Enacting interdependence in
assessments could include such mechanisms as cycles of peer and instructor form-
ative feedback while producing assessments, open-book and Internet-enabled
assessments that dispense with memorisation, assessment platforms with built-in
spellcheck and text to speech, and equitable negotiated role-taking in group pro-
jects that enacts collective access.
The use of intermediaries in health science education offers another example
of interdependence, wherein a disabled learner directs a nonmedical professional
to gather information without providing clinical input (Blacklock 2017; Jauregui
et al. 2020). Intermediaries are generally used when a learner cannot perform
physical or sensory tasks needed to gather clinical information. Assessment of indi-
vidual clinical competence while using an intermediary enacts interdependence in
information-gathering, while continuing to assess clinical decision-making as an
independent act. Intermediaries are not universally accepted in medical education
(e.g., McCulley v. University of Kansas School of Medicine 2014), perhaps reflect-
ing a lack of understanding of interdependence in the realm of disability and in
clinical practice more generally (Sebok-Syer et al. 2018).
 Why crip assessment? 35

A crip theory lens on assessment for inclusion re-centres disabled students and
considers how their lived experience can productively inform assessment. To
begin rethinking assessment with crip theory, we might consider the following
questions:

• How would program requirements and associated assessments shift if we

assumed disabled students can be successful learners and future professionals?
• What ways of being, doing, and knowing are brought into question
through disabled bodyminds and how can these reconceptualise traditional
assessment?
• How can assessment incorporate manifold ways of being, doing, and knowing?

Then, to shift away from ableist assessments that enforce compulsory ablebodied-
ness and mindedness, we must seek to understand disabled peoples’ work-arounds,
resistances, or failures to meet current expectations.

• How and why do learners struggle to perform (or fail) on current assessments?
• How do learners work around, or ask for exceptions to, current assessments?
How might this inform redesign?

The cripistemologies we identify become clues towards new ways to do assess-

ment and imaginative principles of re-design. In short, crip theory asks that we
embrace embodied messiness and resist standardisation in assessment for inclusion.

Critical universal design

Critical universal design offers a way towards a cripped future, not just in crip
moments or revised approaches, but in the fundamental fabric of assessment.
Originating in architecture, universal design offers a process towards design for
maximum inclusivity without the need to retrofit (Center for Universal Design
1997). The concept has since travelled beyond architecture to spaces such as edu-
cation. Arguing that universal design’s radical roots have been defanged and tech-
nicised in neoliberal times, some scholars argue for a critical notion of universal
design that re-invigorates its radical political origins (Baglieri 2020; Dolmage
2017; Hamraie 2016, 2017). Rather than reducing the process to checklists or a
static endpoint, Dolmage (2017) explains that this conception of universal design
must be an active, ongoing process, “a way to move” (116). Critical universal
design eschews the post-disability ideology that has creeped into universal design
practice, which treats disability oppression as a thing of the past and functions to
depoliticise disability (Hamraie 2016). In universities, this ideology allows dimin-
ished resourcing of the work needed to facilitate a fundamental shift away from
ableism (Dolmage 2017). Instead, critical universal design leans into disability pol-
itics while attending to intersectionality, treats disability as a valued resource for
transformation, and requires deliberate examination of who is imagined within the
36 N. R. Jain

notion of “universal” (Hamraie 2017). That is, rather than a diffused understanding
of universal, critical universal design demands attention to particularity, working
with those most marginalised in current systems to design anew. This approach to
universal design attends to root causes of disabled peoples’ marginalisation in edu-
cational environments, taking ableism seriously, in contrast to more “pragmatic”,
partial approaches that seek to de-centre disability (e.g., Tobin and Behling 2018).
Taking a critical universal design approach to assessment for inclusion would
begin prior to developing assessments. The questions posed throughout this
chapter provide productive starting points to think about the intention of assess-
ments and their impacts. Stepping back to think about what must be assessed,
why, and the potential consequences in the context of a broad conception of
the universe of potential learners, forces deliberate contemplation towards
inclusive assessment practices. The conceptualisation of potential learners must
undergo critique to ensure a bold outlook that seeks to expand the learner pro-
file and engages intersectionality. For example, this must include a broad group
of students with disabilities, including those who are also Black, Indigenous,
queer, and people of colour. From this intentionally broad base, design would
incorporate, from the earliest stages, ongoing consultation with those learners
most marginalised by current arrangements to consider pitfalls and possibilities
in assessment and build more flexible and inclusive design. Such an approach
would also require deep, ongoing work with academic staff to develop a critical
universal design habitus, recognise the historical roots of educational exclusion
and their contemporary echoes, and cultivate a critical universal design stance
towards education, including in assessment. Ensuring that the process is open-
ended would build in flexibility and ongoing review on multiple levels: within a
single class to a program, school, and university level.
Scholars from disability studies seek more inclusive assessments through prac-
tices that align with critical universal design. Their accounts focus on thoughtful
design that anticipates heterogeneous disabled students will inhabit the class-
room, infuses flexibility as a matter of course, and promotes co-construction
such that universal design is treated as a verb (Dolmage 2017). For example,
Polish (2017) engages multimodal discussions of assessments via Google doc,
in course blogs, or on paper, where students pose questions, note what they
would like to change, and indicate aspects they are excited about, offering a
route towards further assessment customisation. Others describe similar efforts
that engage with students to actively (re)formulate assessments that amplify their
strengths and interests (Castrodale 2018; Kryger and Zimmerman 2020; Lau
2021). These negotiations are conducted with all students and without the need
to substantiate or justify the desire for change. Another common strategy is to
build flexibility into set assessment modes. Castrodale (2018) designs assessment
rubrics flexible enough to account for multiple forms of engagement, allow-
ing students to choose the best mode to express their learning, from a written
essay to a podcast, video, student-instructor conference, or poster, among other
options. Bones and Evans (2021) build in dropped assignments and late passes
 Why crip assessment? 37

that may be used without negotiation, as well as a list of assessments students can
choose from. Others outline the myriad ways they assess participation beyond
speaking in class (McKinney 2016; Stanback 2015).
While our focus here is assessment, it is important to note that stories of larger-
scale implementation of critical universal design that move beyond a single course
to a program, school, or university remain thin in the literature. Though assess-
ment is a crucial site requiring change, without larger-scale attention, ableist forces
will remain central in academic environments and constrain inclusive innovation.
For example, Castrodale (2018) indicates the need to query departmental or pro-
gram grading expectations such as expected averages, curriculum prerequisites,
and reporting timelines that may impact what is possible within a classroom.
A critical universal design praxis for assessment reactivates disability politics
in design from the start. We might begin with fundamental questions about our
learning environments:

• Who are our learners? Who is missing and why?

We seek to understand ways of being, doing, and knowing that are not currently
assumed in educational design to consider how current practices might shift. To
do so, we might pursue the following lines of inquiry:

• What do learners (in particular, those with disabilities and others most mar-
ginalised by educational and social systems) tell us about how they could best
demonstrate their learning?
• How can assessments assume diverse bodies and minds from the outset?
• How will we know our assumptions are sufficiently broad?

Embracing intersectionality and crip theory, the practice is alive and iterative.
We must consider:

• How do we keep assessment for inclusion moving, as an unsettled concept?

The aim is to dismantle ableism and other co-constituting forces by centring

racialised and queer disabled people and acting continually with the aim to
include this group as an ethic of practice.

Conclusion
While developed from a disability perspective, the theoretical tools introduced
here broadly question how learners and learning have been conceptualised and
are critical to furthering assessment for inclusion. Because assessment is rooted
in hierarchies of value among minds, critical evaluation of its purpose, form,
and function is needed. Examining notions of ability, how they are coded and
produced in assessments and more broadly within educational environments, is
38 N. R. Jain

necessary to develop assessment for inclusion. This examination must unearth

the implications of ability constructions for people with disabilities, broadly
understood, in addition to (and intersecting with) other groups marginalised in
current assessment regimes. An intersectional analysis is crucial to avoid lacuna
in the development of just pedagogies of assessment. Critical disability studies
praxis seeks to undo this kind of oversight, demanding that disabled bodyminds
are centred as expected ways of being and doing in the classroom and that inter-
sectional thinking is deployed to consider experiences beyond those labelled dis-
abled, who are nonetheless disabled by educational arrangements.
If the goal of assessment is to measure students’ learning in a disciplinary area,
starting with theoretical tools from critical disability studies will propel intro-
spection on how exclusionary norms have shaped dominant notions of learning,
the requirements of a profession (and therefore what ought to be assessed), and
measurement itself. Cripping assessment is no simple task, it requires deep and
ongoing grappling. These theories build a case for cripping assessment for inclu-
sion and pave a route towards an anti-ableist approach to assessment by design,
that undoes assessment as we know it and allows students to thrive.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Missy Morton,
Professor Christine Woods, and the Imagining the Anti-ableist University pro-
ject, as well as postdoctoral fellowship funding from Waipapa Taumata Rau the
University of Auckland and the Business School’s Equity Committee, which
contributed to the completion of this chapter.

Note
1 Garland-Thomson (1997, 8) explains that the normate is “the constructed identity of
those who, by way of the bodily configurations and cultural capital they assume can
step into the position of authority and wield the power it grants them”. Similar to, and
bound up in, whiteness, the normate is a figure often made invisible that nonetheless
dominates the workings of our social worlds. Adopting Price’s (2015) argument for
bodymind, I consider the normate to include mental configurations.

References
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., and Ferri, B. 2013. “Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies
(DisCrit): Theorizing at the Intersections of Race and Dis/Ability.” Race Ethnicity and
Education 16 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511.
Baglieri, S. 2020. “Toward Inclusive Education? Focusing a Critical Lens on Universal
Design for Learning.” Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 9 (5): 42–74. http://doi.
org/10.15353/cjds.v9i5.690.
Bailey, M., and Mobley, I. A. 2019. “Work in the Intersections: A Black Feminist
Disability Framework.” Gender and Society 33 (1): 19–40. http://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243218801523.
 Why crip assessment? 39

Blacklock, B. 2017. “Use of an Intermediary as Reasonable Accommodation for Medical

Education.” Disability Compliance for Higher Education 23 (6): 7. http://doi.org/10.1002/
dhe.30380.
Bones, P. D. C., and Evans, A. 2021. “Cripping the COVID Classroom: Centering Students
through Transformative Disability-Informed Instruction.” Journal of Transformative
Learning 8 (1): 1–9.
Campbell, F. K. 2009. Contours of Ableism. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Campbell, F. K. 2017. “Queer Anti-Sociality and Disability Unbecoming: An Ableist
Relations Project?” In New Intimacies, Old Desires: Law, Culture and Queer Politics in
Neoliberal Times, edited by Oishik Sircar, and Dipika Jain, 280–315. New Delhi: Zubaan.
Castrodale, M. A. 2018. “Teaching (with) Dis/Ability and Madness.” In International
Perspectives on Teaching with Disability: Overcoming Obstacles and Enriching Lives, edited
by Michael S. Jeffress, 187–204. London: Routledge.
Center for Universal Design. 1997. The Principles of Universal Design. Raleigh, NC: NC
State University. https://projects.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/about_ud/
udprinciplestext.htm.
Dolmage, J. T. 2017. Academic Ableism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Bloomsbury.
Garland-Thomson, R. 1997. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American
Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goodley, D. 2017. Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Rev. ed. London: SAGE.
Hamraie, A. 2016. “Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-Disability” Ideology.”
Design and Culture 8 (3): 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714.
Hamraie, A. 2017. Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Jain, N. R. 2020. “Negotiating the Capability Imperative: Enacting Disability Inclusion
in Medical Education.” PhD Thesis, University of Auckland.
Jauregui, J., Strote, J., Addison, C., Robins, L., and Shandro, J. 2020. “A Novel Medical
Student Assistant Accommodation Model for a Medical Student with a Disability
during a Required Clinical Clerkship.” AEM Education and Training 4 (3): 275–279.
http://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10426.
Johnson, M. L., and McRuer, R. 2014. “Cripistemologies: Introduction.” Journal of
Cultural and Disability Studies 8 (2): 127–148. http://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2014.12.
Kafer, A. 2013. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kryger, K., and Zimmerman, G. X. 2020. “Neurodivergence and Intersectionality in
Labor-Based Grading Contracts.” Journal of Writing Assessment 13 (2): 1–12. https://
escholarship.org/uc/item/0934x4rm
Lau, T. C. W. 2021. “Access from Afar: Cultivating Inclusive, Flexible Classrooms
after COVID-19.” Nineteenth-Century Gender Studies 17 (1). http://ncgsjournal.com/
issue171/PDFs/lau.pdf
Lewis, T. A. 2022. Working Definition of Ableism – January 2022 Update. Talila A. Lewis
(blog). January 1, 2022. https://www.talilalewis.com/blog/working-definition-of-
ableism-january-2022-update
Linton, S. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: NYU Press.
McCulley v. The University of Kansas School of Medicine. 2014. Case No. 13-3299
(10th Cir. 2014).
McKinney, C. 2016. “Cripping the Classroom: Disability as a Teaching Method in the
Humanities.” Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy 25 (2):
114–127. http://doi.org/10.5325/trajincschped.25.2.0114.
40 N. R. Jain

McRuer, R. 2006. Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York:
NYU Press.
Miller, R. 2020. “Out of (Queer/Disabled) Time: Temporal Experiences of Disability
and LGBTQ+ Identities in U.S. Higher Education.” Critical Education 11 (16): 1–20.
http://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v11i16.186495.
Mingus, M. 2017. “Access Intimacy, Interdependence, and Disability Justice.” Leaving
Evidence (blog). April 12, 2017. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/
access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/
Mitchell, D. T. 2016. “Disability, Diversity, and Diversion.” In Disability, Avoidance, and
the Academy, edited by David Bolt, and Claire Penketh, 9–20. Oxon: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. T., Snyder, S. L., and Ware, L. 2014. ““[Every] Child Left Behind”:
Curricular Cripistemologies and the Crip/Queer Art of Failure.” Journal of Literary
and Cultural Disability Studies 8 (3): 295–313. http://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2014.24.
Polish, J. 2017. “Final Projects and Research Papers: On Anti-Ableist Assignment Design.”
Visible Pedagogy (blog). July 12, 2017. https://vp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2017/07/12/
final-projects-and-research-papers-on-anti-ableist-assignment-design/
Price, M. 2011. Mad at School. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Price, M. 2015. “The Bodymind Problem and the Possibilities of Pain.” Hypatia (30) 1:
268–284. http://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12127.
Reeve, D. 2012. “Cyborgs, Cripples and iCrip: Reflections on the Contribution of
Haraway to Disability Studies.” In Disability and Social Theory: New Developments and
Directions, edited by Dan Goodley, Bill Hughes, and Lennard Davis, 91–111. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Samuels, E. 2017. “Six Ways of Looking at Crip Time.” Disability Studies Quarterly 37 (3).
http://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824.
Sebok-Syer, S. S., Chahine, S., Watling, C. J., Goldszmidt, M., Cristancho, S., and
Lingard, L., 2018. “Considering the Interdependence of Clinical Performance:
Implications for Assessment and Entrustment.” Medical Education 52 (9): 970–980.
http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13588.
Sins Invalid. 2019. Skin, Tooth, and Bone. Rev. ed. Berkeley: Sins Invalid.
Stanback, E. B. 2015. “The Borderlands of Articulation.” Pedagogy 15 (3): 421–440.
https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2917009.
Tobin, T. J., and Behling, K. 2018. Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone: Universal Design for
Learning in Higher Education. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.
Waiari, D. A. K., Lim, W. T., Thomson-Baker, A. P., Freestone, M. K., Thompson,
S., Manuela, S., Mayeda, D., Purdy, S. P., and Le Grice, J. 2021. “Stoking the Fires
for Māori and Pacific Student Success in Psychology.” Higher Education Research and
Development 40 (1): 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1852186.
Waitoller, F. R., and Thorius, K. A. K. 2016. “Cross-Pollinating Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an Inclusive Pedagogy that
Accounts for Dis/Ability.” Harvard Educational Review 86 (3): 366–389. http://doi.
org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366.
Wong, A. 2020. “I’m disabled and need a ventilator to live. Am I expendable during
this pandemic?” Vox, April 4, 2020. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/4/4/
21204261/coronavirus-covid-19-disabled-people-disabilities-triage
Wood, T. 2017. “Cripping Time in the College Composition Classroom.” College
Composition and Communication 69 (2): 260–286.
Zola, I. K. 1993. “Self, Identity and the Naming Question: Reflections on the Language
of Disability.” Social Science and Medicine 36 (2): 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0277-9536(93)90208-L.
4
INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES
ON INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT
Knowledge, knowing and the relational

Jessamy Gleeson and Gabrielle Fletcher

What does it mean to “assess” a person’s learning? The common answer might
appear to be quite clear: a student is “taught” some “thing” and is then required
to demonstrate that they “understand” what they have been taught. The way this
“demonstration of understanding” takes place may be scaffolded: at first, an expla-
nation of knowledge; followed by an application of knowledge, and so it goes.
But these concepts – “assess”, “knowledge”, “understand”, and so on – do not
fully capture Indigenous Ways of Valuing, Knowing, Being, and Doing (Arbon
2008; Martin and Mirraboopa 2003). There is not always one right way, and
the existence of many viewpoints, standpoints, and knowledges can sit uncom-
fortably within wider institutions. In short, a “major challenge for academics is
decision-making around what students need to know, and how to get them ‘to
know it’ and ‘accept it’” (Nakata 2017, 3).
As two First Nations academics, this chapter evolved from us coming together
to share and narrate our insights and experience across notions of inclusive edu-
cation and provide a reflection upon focused Indigenous perspectives in assess-
ment contexts. This chapter moves between two sections: the first, provided
by co-author Gleeson, considers First Nations learning spaces in the context
of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students; and the second, from co-author
Fletcher, examines the tensions of assessment within a more specific First Nations
context. Drawing upon these apertures, we consider how inclusive assessment
may be enacted, and finally offer some thoughts on how these perspectives and
understandings may be further developed.
In providing these perspectives, we acknowledge our standpoints in doing so:
not only as First Nations women but also as academics that sit at, and at times,
within, the “cultural interface” (Nakata 2002, 2006, 2017). The challenge for us –
and our students, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous – exists in drawing on
Indigenous perspectives in negotiating this “cultural interface”. This interface is

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-6
42 J. Gleeson and G. Fletcher

one in which we may be free to assess students on what they have learned, but the
ways in which we do so are encompassed by wider structures. These structures
prescribe the methods and approaches of assessment to ensure a quantified, con-
sistent result: all students gain a comparable and acceptable level of knowledge
and skills upon completion of their degree. We acknowledge it is a space where
the particularities of what and how we know is embedded in our subjectivities,
our locations and, as we will show, the “self ” as a site of knowledge contestation
and nuanced tension that requires ongoing negotiation. These encounters can be
constraining and sites of collision in many ways, but as we argue, they offer pow-
erful transformative opportunities in revealing inclusive assessment approaches
that can dimension understanding and practice as the cultural interface is viewed
in relational terms. And as such is an enabler for students and teachers alike.

A note on the cultural interface

The cultural interface may be understood in its most broad terms as an intersec-
tion of “higher” knowledge where epistemic systems engage and contest in messy
convergence. It is also a liberating space of transformation and understanding.
Nakata (2006) suggests it is a “… different conceptualisation of the cross-cultural
space, not as a clash of opposites and differences but as a layered and very complex
entanglement of concepts, theories and sets of meanings of a knowledge system”
(272). Further, the “notion of the Cultural Interface as a place of constant tension
and negotiation of different interests and systems of Knowledge means that both
must be reflected on and interrogated” (Nakata 2002, 5).

Part I: Indigenous Studies within the university

The Indigenous Studies “space” we refer to within this first section encompasses
a series of undergraduate Indigenous Studies units currently taught at Deakin
University: both core units and preferred electives. Consequently, our student
cohort for these units is quite broad in their academic knowledge and consist of
undergraduates commencing degrees in primary and early years education, arts
and communication, law, occupational therapy, social work, psychology, and
anthropology. Students participating in these units may be Indigenous, non-
Indigenous local Australian students, or international students.
In designing and applying the assessment tasks for these units, we were faced
with several challenges. Each student brought a different understanding of what
constituted “assessment” and “knowledge” to their Indigenous Studies unit. As
a result, we needed to both challenge and expand these understandings, whilst
simultaneously introducing our own perspectives as First Nations teachers.
Next we outline our perspective on assessment and provide a series of key
examples regarding how these have been implemented in our Indigenous
Studies undergraduate units. Our account is designed to illustrate the varying
approaches to how we view assessment to be “inclusive”. We also reflect on
 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment 43

the wider systemic issues that First Nations scholars are often faced with when
designing units, and how universities can move to address these hurdles to ensure
a consistent embedding of First Nations knowledges.

Perspectives on assessment
How do we, as First Nations people, assess knowledge? As oral storytellers, the
question of how knowledge is passed down whilst being “accurate” is not a new
one. Rather, our knowledges have required these “assessments” for thousands
of years, in the form of various checks and balances that each system permits.
A “story” could have embedded in it layers of learning, and may be accompanied
by dance, music, or told as a part of a wider ceremony depending on its purpose.
Sveiby and Skuthorpe (2006) provide the example of the crane and the crow: a
story of the Nhunggabarra people, in which the crane and the crow are at odds
with one another regarding a piece of fish. The subsequent discussion on layered
learning provides an illustrative example of how one story may hold many hid-
den and deeper meanings, and can therefore contain a community’s “archives,
law book, educational textbooks, country maps, and Bible – in short the whole
framework for generating and maintaining the knowledge base of the people”
(Sveiby and Skuthorpe 2006, 42).
In our units, we adopt an approach of layered learning: we return to the same
questions, topics, and prompts across units and apply a series of “layers” in doing
so. In some ways, this echoes mainstream approaches of scaffolded learning: stu-
dents are equipped with increasingly complex forms of knowledge, and in turn
apply these (Cho and Cho 2016). But the process of learning is also reiterative: in
discussing the impacts of colonisation, we turn in one unit to the loss of knowl-
edge, in another the effect on Country, and in a third to the ongoing consequences
on community health. Accordingly, the assessment tasks for each of these units and
topics must build on, and re-use, the knowledge gathered in previous units.

Breaking down student assumptions

In many ways, our approaches to assessment are negations of what is already in
place. The structured nature of colonised knowledge spaces impacts on what
students expect they will learn: its shape, form, and the allotted number of hours
required to master it. But when we shift our understandings of what learning
and assessment look like, the associated student expectations are also challenged.
A brief example exists in how we employ yarning. As a practice, yarning is
a way to share stories: it is a way we communicate that has been employed for
thousands of years. It is broadly understood as a discussion that is free-flowing,
uninhibited, and takes place in an environment in which all participants feel
safe and respected (Sharmil et al. 2021). In a classroom space, yarning exists
beyond PowerPoint slides, tutorial question prompts, and allocated discussion
times. Instead, the conversation is free-flowing and reciprocal: it is a “process
44 J. Gleeson and G. Fletcher

and an exchange, encompassing elements of respect, protocol, and engagement”

(Lowitja Institute 2012). To move beyond these familiar structures into a yarning
space can leave students feeling untethered. For some, it can be a welcome differ-
ence, whilst others find it uniquely disorienting and challenging. The challenge
for us is to simultaneously challenge and reassure students: the learning envi-
ronment may look and feel different, but that does not mean that they are not
learning. For some students, yarning may provide a welcome change: previous
research has noted that Aboriginal students have found yarning useful for sharing
their perspective (Donovan 2015).
The need to contest and expand student expectations manifests as we set about
the business of assessment. Instead of being required to seek out peer reviewed
sources, students are asked to prioritise the voices of First Nations people. Rather
than an objective analysis of a policy or case study, assessment tasks also include
discussions on self-reflection and growth. In this sense, the “inclusive” practices
of assessment are an expansion: both of student expectations, and of the wider
systems of knowledge that surround these expectations.
The final assumption we seek to contest is that of “learning” itself – and by
extension, what each student is permitted to know. Within a Western, positiv-
ist framework, students are encouraged – and can feel entitled – to seek out all
knowledge. This is typically reinforced by systems of assessment: students are
rewarded for outstanding use of academic sources. However, this sits at odds with
how we, as First Nations people, learn. The right to learn and know isn’t assumed:
just because we exist as part of a community (whether a community of learners,
or elsewhere) this does not immediately equate to an entitlement to knowledge.
To return to the earlier point of layered learning: each layer of learning is only
unlocked when the learner proves they have fully understood the lessons of the
previous one. In much the same way, our students may “unlock” different aspects
of a topic or concept as they progress through the units. But simultaneously,
they may also only ever cycle through the first layer. The remaining layers of
knowledge spiral out beneath them: like ducks on a pond, they may move across
the surface of the learning, but rarely dive beneath. The deeper water of the
pond contains knowledges that are both sacred and restricted: these knowledges
cannot be captured by what we teach, and to attempt to do so would be highly
disrespectful and inappropriate.
Instead, we teach students that in undertaking Indigenous Studies, they need
to understand that they cannot expect to have access to everything. Simply
because a student is enrolled in one of our units, this does not equate to immedi-
ate and unrestricted access to our knowledges. The lesson of “learning what you
cannot learn” is key: it demonstrates to students our autonomy within a wider
Western space and emphasises the need to develop a level of cultural respon-
siveness in undertaking an Indigenous Studies unit. As First Nations staff, the
“learning what you cannot learn” lesson also returns us to Nakata’s cultural
interface – we are still obliged to formally assess what students do know. How we
do so, and the challenges faced, are outlined below.
 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment 45

Each of the methods of assessment used exist within wider structures: a three-
year degree, a 1000-word essay, a 12-week semester, and so on. Consequently,
when we set about the process of assessment, we rapidly arrive at the cultural
interface between Western structures, and Indigenous Knowledges. For exam-
ple, despite thousands of years of oral storytelling practices, if we built a series
of units that relied only on oral presentations, we would quickly find ourselves
needing to justify to wider university committees how these assessment tasks
captured a student’s knowledge.
These structures can still serve a purpose for us, as First Nations staff – they
allow us to change the curricula, and change the teaching approaches, so that
we can “do our job more effectively” (Nakata 2013, 298). But these improved
outcomes are still dependent on the context and specificities of each university
and its associated “Whitefella” practices – those methods and structures of assess-
ment we need to work alongside, to assist the professionalisation and systemisation
of our practices of teaching (Nakata 2013). In short, the outcomes for teaching
Indigenous Knowledges are only as good as the system they are embedded within.
How we achieve these outcomes, and reconcile these Whitefella practices
with our own, is a continuing, collaborative process. Working alongside and
within these practices requires knowledge of the right conditions: who to talk to
for support, when to submit changes to assessment, and what words to use within
the submission. In much the same way that Country has indicators of seasonal
changes, the university curriculum environment has its own. The right person
needs to be in the right place at the right time of year. The right words need to be
used on the right form. The right committee members need to be told in advance
of the submission, and their support needs to be gained. And finally, the right
meeting needs to be attended, and approval granted. These practices – forms,
committees, and emails – are not a unique challenge for First Nations staff. But
how we reconcile and “style” our knowledges to sit within these Whitefella
practices is one of the difficulties faced by First Nations teaching staff. Broader
understandings within the university of culturally appropriate assessment are a
useful start for respecting (and ideally, embedding) Indigenous Knowledges; but
beyond this there are hurdles built within the system itself that cannot be over-
come without significant collaboration and partnership from others within the
same environment.

Part II: Reflections on a moment of relational

subversion in assessment
To this point, we have reflected broadly upon two key considerations – structural
tensions and student knowledge – in our own problematising and re-negotiations
of the cultural interface in terms of assessing students undertaking Indigenous
Studies. We now turn our attention to consider more nuanced experiences of
such negotiation as First Nations academics assessing First Nations students. We
provide a particular experiential example from Macquarie University that makes
46 J. Gleeson and G. Fletcher

visible more explicit tensions and entanglements in simultaneously approaching

and then being at the cultural interface. We aim to provide insight and deeper
understanding of a moment of what might be described as relational subversion
occurring during an assessment task that demonstrates the power of transforma-
tion afforded by this closer examination of a “narrative case”.
The “representation” of Indigenous culture and presence within units that
explicitly explore Indigenous content is ideated by the delivery of such content
by Indigenous teachers/academics who might be better positioned culturally and
philosophically to do so. As First Nations teachers we bring both the science and
art of our Indigenous pedagogy that “… could be described as being founded
on the broad principals (sic) of identity and relatedness, couched in the contex-
tual values of reciprocity, inclusiveness, nurturance and respect” (Biermann and
Townsend-Cross 2008, 150). We further bring understanding that “Indigenous
knowledge and Indigenous ways of knowing are about the connected concepts
of what one knows and how one comes to know it” (Santoro et al. 2011, 68),
and that this knowledge is relational and exists within a web of interconnec-
tion. In this section, we explore what happens when the “seasonal conditions
of Country” we have referred to in Part I seem aligned, and yet the relational
forged something new.

Backdrop and assessment task

The student cohort discussed within this section were in their second semes-
ter of the third year of their course and were undertaking a compulsory unit
called “Indigenous Voices and Perspectives” within a Bachelor of Early Childhood
Education degree at Macquarie University. Previously offered, the unit was
redesigned on the basis that these students had not been exposed to content or
literature pertaining to an Australian Indigenous education context at all: either
the historic backdrop or contemporary experience. Previously the unit had
drawn the notion of “Indigenous voices” from “established” Indigenous leaders,
artists, and writers as both contemporary and historic figures, and students were
required to base “case studies” upon the particular Indigenous “identities” they
had chosen. These case studies then formed the basis of a written submission that
had a 100% assessment loading, itself problematic.
In discussion with colleagues, we agreed to reformulate and re-form the assess-
ments task, reframed broadly as a “Learner’s Biography”: however, the case studies
would seek to mediate the contextual focal point on Indigenous Education in theory/
criticality, policy and lived experience as sub-elements of the total assessment
loading of the task. Further, the “voices” were reconceptualised to be constitutive
of the students themselves as First Nations Peoples within the educational context
that they were participating in and would enter into as Early Childhood teachers.
The “lived experience” component was reflective, with the teaching and learning
rationale drawing out the biographical experience of the cohort as “learners” to
dimension their understanding as “teachers” – providing empathic and explicit
 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment 47

terrain for “deeper understanding” of that nexus and exchange. The first part of
this element required students to post reflections under four distinct headings in
an online discussion board:

What facilitated your learning; What impeded your learning; How might
your learning be enhanced; and commenting upon other people’s experience.

This was on an ongoing task, with one reflective post required weekly. The
second part of the assessment, examined here, was an extension of the Learner’s
Biography, where students narrated (Indigenous voice) their learning experi-
ence in a Knowledge Circle. Students were asked to draw from their weekly
postings, including concepts and literature they had been exposed to. They
were encouraged to bring “artefacts” that may have represented anchorage or
a sense of meaning to their learning experience, to extend their own personal
subjectivity and identity, and their particularity of experience. Each student
was allocated ten minutes for their “presentations” in the Knowledge Circle,
and the assessment was marked against a rubric that we had developed with key
assessment criteria being:

Connection to Literature and concepts; Engagement; Presentation style

and Fielding questions.

Performance of task
The assessment session began with students volunteering the ordering of their
presentation in the Knowledge Circle. As each student spoke, it became increas-
ingly evident that their reflective narratives and the concept of the Learning
Biography itself as a broader task relating to education were transformed with
each recitation. There was a clear and ongoing departure from the “marking
criteria”, despite students’ previous briefing and circulation of all relevant infor-
mation. What emerged were narratives clearly embedded within personal his-
toriographies, with references to family, community, the Stolen Generations,
and policies and practices of ongoing colonisation. Resultantly, the space was
transformed to a shared arena of personal and cultural decompressing, and for
some students, an exposure of ongoing wounding.
Students focused on their experiences of “being” Indigenous, and their story,
rather than the experience of being “learners” as a compartmentalised aspect of
self, and clearly this demarcation of particularities of “multiple identities” was
indivisible with the experience of being constructed as “Indigenous” and the cul-
tural aspects and responsibilities of their identities and Indigenous stand-points.
From an assessment perspective, the rubric became a problematic tool. We
found attempting to fit each historiography into neatly delineated criteria either
did not apply, or there was such significant departure that it was impossible to
mark according to the measures and criteria before us, that we had devised.
48 J. Gleeson and G. Fletcher

Students began to extend their storied responses and texture these around the
growing thematic articulations and collapsing of the strictures of the assessment.
And whilst we struggled with the measures of assessment we had carefully devel-
oped, we found ourselves equally immersed within a cultural collective focused
on the importance of the student’s vocality and sensitivity to the emotional dif-
ficulty of this “closed but public” discourse.
Over the 90 minutes allocated for the “assessment”, it was evident that the
culture of the space, and its spatiality had changed significantly. And yet it was
an organic, unconscious shift that seemed guided by needs beyond the students
and staff present and the learning context. This “Knowledge Circle” became a
cultural location and an explicitly Indigenous social context. A locality where
all that the students brought and represented not just themselves but their home
communities, their histories, and experiences, against an historic backdrop of
exclusion and marginalisation – an imagined and real community sharing both
similar and different experiences in an inclusive remaking of place that enabled
each member to speak, spill, and explore beyond the frame of the dominant
knowledge system and its measures.

Reconciling a relational subversion to a Western assessment

framework – re-learning ourselves
Most students commented upon the experience afterwards, taking the opportunity
to offer insight and translation of what had become a cultural experience beyond
the frame of simply an “assessment task”. Overwhelming, they reported that it had
been “good” and “of value”. Interestingly, several older students commented that
“it was long overdue”, and reported that, as a cohort the sense of “community” had
not been given a space to be explored beyond the informality of studying together.
One student remarked “It was the good cry we needed to have”.
Alongside the student experience, teaching staff also required space to debrief
and discuss. In early teacher discussions, some of us felt an initial sense of fail-
ure. We felt that every care had been taken with course design and the rig-
ours of Whitefella standards, including explicit attention to ensuring that the
unit outline had been peer reviewed; that our Indigenous pedagogical approach
supported and valued students in their learning experience; that the assessment
was aligned, and that the assessment extended voice and a level of critical rig-
our for students to contextualise their own commitment to social justice and
their pro-active engagement with it. We also noted the constrained evaluative
Western index for measuring the assessment – a measure that we had devised.
We began to unpack further to understand more fully what had happened
within the setting. What was clear to us was the experience of Indigenous
education and the policies and practices that have excluded Indigenous people
were clearly settled realities for these students, and the experiences were ine-
luctable from social and historic context, and impossible to separate from the set
of relations within which the self comes to know. We also recognised that the
 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment 49

assessment setting was a transformative enactment of an Indigenous contemporary

space, one that was allowing us to draw attention “to the presence of both systems
of thought and their history of entanglement and (con)fused practice, all of which
conditions the way that contemporary Indigenous lifeworlds can now be under-
stood and brought forward for analysis and innovative engagement and produc-
tion” and “how Indigenous peoples can defend their interests and construct their
arguments in spaces where a wide and complex world of converging knowledge
and practice shapes the way lives can be Enacted” (Nakata et al. 2012, 126).
This began to dimension notions of the collective and the manifestation of the
relational that this “biographical voicing” moment had revealed and engaged. It
was also naturalised and naturalising according to Indigenous values, meaning,
and purpose, and although it was recognised that this had been an assessment
“task”, the difficulty of its emotional terrain and the socio-historic commonality
of these students and their multiple subjectivities was much “harder” and more
challenging than the “conventional” frame of the marking criteria could possibly
capture and measure.
What had emerged was deep learning, value, respect, connectedness, sig-
nificance, background knowledge, and a diversity of Indigenous perspectives.
The richness of this community experience, the storying of each student and the
agency and self-determination of their expression and experience could not be
rendered in the available assessment tool, and we realised that the assessment tool
itself was not inclusive and did not form part of an inclusive assessment approach as
we had imagined. For us, the tensions within this cultural interface were equally
about taking account of approaching the cultural interface, and the entanglement
of what is brought to bear within it from First Nations students – a whole relational
self. We had asked students in effect to decontextualise that whole relational self
to think only of their learner self: a reductive endeavour because that “discreet”
component is shaped by myriad complex entanglements that require contex-
tualisation. In this sense, a relational subversion occurred: one that produced
new knowledge production and transferability. We were able to reconfigure the
assessment tool, taking forward key learnings and grounding for ourselves as First
Nations teachers and reflexive practitioners.

Making Indigenous sense – re-negotiations

This experience was a deeply transformative revelation – a complex encounter
of entangled knowledge systems for both students and ourselves as First Nations
teachers. The visibility of empowered Indigenous identity and its possibility was
an enabler to assessment for inclusion, anchored in Indigenous perspective and
reciprocity by foregrounding more explicitly the relational and the “whole per-
son” as part of a broader contextual process of learning, teaching, and assessment.
As mentioned earlier, the structural tensions and understandings of knowl-
edge that partialise, depart from or do not acknowledge Indigenous perspectives
and standpoints impact upon our encounters of and within the cultural interface.
50 J. Gleeson and G. Fletcher

And we have made clear our own reflexivity to own inclusion in assessing lev-
els of knowledge. But this space is not ours alone. As Nakata (2002, 285) has
suggested:

the intersection of the Western and Indigenous domains … the place where
we live and learn, the place that conditions our lives, the place that shapes
our futures and, more to the point, the place where we are active agents in
our own lives – where we make our decisions – our lifeworld.

We need to acknowledge “Indigenous individuals, communities and the broader

collective differences in responses and in the priority given to different systems
of Knowledge and thinking illustrate the dynamism and diversity within the
collective” (Nakata 2002, 6). This dynamism and diversity reflect the origi-
nal heterogeneity of traditional contexts, the varied impacts of colonisation, the
diversity of contexts in which First Nations people now live, and the creativity
we bring to bridging systems of Knowledge and responding to changing cir-
cumstances (Nakata 2002). Further, learning spaces that actively include our
Knowledges must accept both these intersections, and the tensions and condi-
tions of “what is possible, but do not directly produce certainty of outcomes”
(Nakata 2002, 6). This uncertainty of outcomes in a more “closed” cultural place
becomes the locus of tensions of self: in this instance the “us” of First Nations
academics who not only must translate, transform, and bridge discursive and
ideological theoretic schisms but also navigate complex terrains of practice in
relational re-negotiations with our own subjectivities in providing the inclusive,
and shaping the delivery of places for agential change and social justice.

Conclusion
This chapter has its focality in the interface of the transformation of assessment
to be more inclusive by creating sets of structural conditions that can enable
collaboration and diverse standpoints for all. For us as First Nations teachers, we
seek to teach and evaluate in ways that are socially explicit and culturally viable,
within a theoretic and practical model that can assess according to the value of
social justice, Indigenous meaning, relationality, and the whole person.
Reflexively and collaboratively with our non-Indigenous colleagues, we seek
to share our insights and perspectives to co-create, explore, and expand the cul-
tural interface as a space of transformation and the new. These examples narra-
tivise the ongoing tensions of the cultural interface – and find ways to liberate
an embedded otherness and the ongoing discursive terrain that needs to be con-
tinually theorised in finding equitable domains and the enabling points that can
resist and register according to the implicit need for emergence and liberation.
Inclusive assessment is an ongoing process, and one that must be lived to be
enacted upon and alongside. Our accounts in this chapter emphasise the need
to “read” the Country of curriculum design, and understand how and where
 Indigenous perspectives on inclusive assessment 51

to intercede and change, and then reflexively, change again. We therefore argue
for the continued expansion and development of the cultural interface to facili-
tate opportunities for curriculum refinement and change. Finally, we also note
that our experiences outlined here are just two amongst many. We therefore
emphasise the need for, and invite, additional accounts and contributions of our
peers’ insights to provide further standpoints and perspectives in the ongoing and
reflexive process of inclusive assessment design.

References
Arbon, V. 2008. Arlathirnda Ngurkarnda Ityirnda: Being-Knowing-Doing, De-Colonising Indigenous
Tertiary Education. Teneriffe, QLD: Post Press.
Biermann, S., and Townsend-Cross, M. 2008. “Indigenous Pedagogy as a Force for
Change.” The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 37 (S1): 146–154. http://doi.org/
10.1375/S132601110000048X.
Cho, M.-H., and Cho, Y. 2016. “Online Instructors” Use of Scaffolding Strategies to
Promote Interactions: A Scale Development Study.” The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning 17 (6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2816.
Donovan, M. 2015. “Aboriginal Student Stories, the Missing Voice to Guide us towards
Change.” Australian Educational Researcher 42: 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-
015-0182-3.
Lowitja Institute. 2012. “Using Yarning as Research Methodology.” Accessed March 12,
2022. https://www.lowitja.org.au/using-yarning-research-methodology.
Martin, K., and Mirraboopa, B. 2003. “Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing: A Theoretical
Framework and Methods for Indigenous and Indigenist Research.” Journal of Australian
Studies 27 (76): 203–214. http://doi.org/10.1080/14443050309387838.
Nakata, M. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge and the Cultural Interface: Underlying Issues
at the Intersection of Knowledge and Information Systems.” IFLA Journal 28 (5–6):
281–291. http://doi.org/10.1177/034003520202800513.
Nakata, M. 2006. “Australian Indigenous Studies: A Question of Discipline.” The Australian
Journal of Anthropology 17 (3). 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2006.
tb00063.x.
Nakata, M. 2013. “The Rights and Blights of Politics in Indigenous Higher Education.”
Anthropological Forum 23 (3): 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2013.803457.
Nakata, M. 2017. Disciplining the Savages — Savaging the Disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal
Studies Press.
Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., and Bolt, R. 2012. “Decolonial Goals and Pedagogies
for Indigenous Studies.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1 (1): 120–140.
Santoro, N., Reid, J., Crawford, L., and Simpson, L. 2011. “Teaching Indigenous
Children: Listening to and Learning from Indigenous Teachers.” Australian Journal of
Teacher Education 36 (10). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n10.2.
Sharmil, H., Kelly, J., Bowden, M., Galletly, C., Cairney, I., Wilson, C., and Hahn,
L. et al. 2021. “Participatory Action Research-Dadirri-Ganma, Using Yarning:
Methodology Co-design with Aboriginal Community Members.” International
Journal of Equity Health 20: 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01493-4.
Sveiby, K. E., and Skuthorpe, T. 2006. Treading Lightly: The Hidden Wisdom of the World’s
Oldest People. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
5
WHAT CAN DECOLONISATION
OF CURRICULUM TELL US ABOUT
INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT?
Sarah Lambert, Johanna Funk, and Taskeen Adam

Introduction
One of the strengths of an inclusive approach to education is that all students
benefit. It’s not just about accommodating and improving education for students
with diverse abilities and cultures. Inclusive education that models respectful and
productive relationships between students with diverse knowledges, cultures,
histories, and identities also shows majority or privileged students the strength
and contribution made by those with different backgrounds.
From the perspective of cultural inclusion, inclusive assessment as a sub-set
of inclusive education can aim to: provide justice for Indigenous, international
and students from minority cultural backgrounds; and cultivate in all students an
understanding of the need for cultural justice and the value of multiple cultural
knowledge perspectives. Inclusive assessment – particularly if part of inclusive
curriculum – has the potential to provide all students with greater graduate out-
comes than assessment that draws on only the Western cannon of ideas. The idea
is that all students should graduate with multiple kinds of knowledges and leave
better prepared to negotiate different worldviews and cultures in their lives.
However, this vision for inclusive education and assessment has not yet
generally arrived in practice. Higher Education tends to consider students who
are not from White, English-speaking middle-class backgrounds as “disadvan-
taged”, less-capable students who lack the “cultural capital” needed to navigate
university terminology and processes. Students from Indigenous, international,
or migrant backgrounds are often considered doubly disadvantaged for having
to study in a second or third language and for being first in family to go to
university.
Our work has been informed by theories of social justice and decolonisation
which reject these narratives of underperformance for the way they focus on

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-7
 Decolonisation of curriculum and inclusive assessment 53

what a student lacks (i.e., “proper English”) instead of the abilities they possess
such as learning across multiple languages and cultures. Focussing on lacks rather
than embracing diverse motivations for study is known as “deficit discourse” and
higher education is awash with it (Burke 2012). The problem of deficit discourse
is that it leads us to want to mould students who are not like us to be more like
us. Our assessments and their grading criteria often ask students to think like us,
speak like us, and write like us (where the majority of “us” in Western higher
education are White) and be rewarded with good marks and university success.
Students may accept, reject, or mediate the need to assimilate to succeed. One
mediating response is the contemporary cultural practice of “code-switching”.
Code-switching is where students who speak different forms of English such as
Black English, Aboriginal English, or African-American Vernacular English to
learn to switch between their local English and the English required of them
at university and beyond. A similar process happens when it comes to writ-
ing in English too. Code-switching requires additional cognitive effort but it
does allow students to move between two similar but distinctly separate worlds.
Rather than making an effort to incorporate the actual English of millions of
students into Western education, the sub-text of our learning outcomes is clear:
we do not recognise your own English as legitimate, work harder to change.
In addition to our previous understanding of higher education as exclusionary
to working-class students’ values and language (O’Shea 2016), current approaches
to students from different cultural-linguistic backgrounds can be seen as contem-
porary expressions of racist White assimilationist or White Supremacist policies
(Baker-Bell 2020). But what are the alternatives? Social justice and decolonial
approaches are an alternative that we explore for assessment for inclusion in the
next section before introducing a Culturally Inclusive Assessment model developed
from a range of empirical and theoretical sources.

Rethinking assessment as social justice and decolonisation

Social justice principles such as recognitive and representational justice (Fraser et al.
2004) provide a more inclusive narrative and way to relate to students from differ-
ent socio-cultural backgrounds. Social justice principles focus on recognition of
and respect for students’ strengths, abilities and cultural knowledges – sometimes
known as a “strengths-based approach”.
In the context of higher education curriculum and assessment, we can think of
recognitive justice as ensuring students can see diversity in the examples and resources
provided to scaffold learning and assessment. Representative justice is about ensuring
students can hear and take on board diverse points of view and knowledges in
what is taught and assessed. It assumes there is knowledge and expertise in every
language and culture, and seeks to avoid dominance of one over the other.
Social justice principles can help us identify and address under-representation
and misrepresentation in curriculum, knowledge, and assessment. Under-
representation is where socio-cultural diversity of authors and ideas are absent.
54 S. Lambert, J. Funk, and T. Adam

Misrecognition is where students’ cultural differences are represented in negative

or stereotyped ways (Burke 2012).
Decolonial theories address “sexual, political, epistemic, economic, spiritual,
linguistic and racial forms of domination and exploitation” that developed dur-
ing periods of White colonial rule (Grosfoguel 2007, 217), and that are still pres-
ent even after political emancipation. For example, the need to decolonise higher
education in South African is as pressing now as ever, even though technically
the rule of “apartheid” has been over for many years. In Australia, the “White
Australia” policy is long gone but its insistence on White ways of knowing casts
a long shadow on higher education even today.
With regard to assessment practices, decoloniality sheds light on the geopol-
itics of knowledge production which questions who determines what counts
as knowledge. Knowledges produced in North America and Europe tend to
be considered more authoritative than knowledge produced elsewhere. This is
known as “epistemic hegemony” and it relates to how endogenous and indige-
nous knowledges have also been pushed to “the barbarian margins of society”
(Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2015, 490).
Diversifying what is taught and assessed can help overcome negative stereo-
types surrounding those who are seen to be different – particularly Indigenous
people, people of different religious beliefs and people of colour as well as women
in certain roles and fields. It is important to reduce the marginalisation and trauma
that students feel when confronted with education and assessment systems which
reinforce racist assumptions and stereotypes about them and their abilities that
they already suffer from society on a day-to-day basis. It is important to note
that not all differences are visible. So, in the current context of higher education,
recognitive and representational justice is also a priority to increase the inclusion
and success of LGBTQI+ students and those with invisible disabilities whose are
present in increasing numbers, even if they are not seen.
Indigenous theorising of education for and with Indigenous students is a par-
ticular example of decolonisation of education that also underpins our work.
Framing education as a “both ways” model (Yunupingu 1989) between Indigenous
Australians and communities – also now known as “two-ways” (Harris 1990) –
provides opportunities to enrich and reframe Indigenous and Western learning as
complementary. In doing so, the strengths of Indigenous communities and tra-
ditional knowledge is acknowledged, helping to overcome deficit discourses and
misrepresentation which are still unfortunately all too common.
Framing learning as “two-way” also helps to overcome the tensions between
global and local knowledges. The interviewees in Lambert and Fadel’s (2022)
study debated the extent that particular topics needed more culturally diverse
authors, citations, readings, knowledges and ideas. Some wanted a more
“Australian” textbook, others preferred a more “global” approach to learning
materials and assessment examples. The developing consensus was that both the
local and global knowledge and examples were critical to include, and that colo-
nial narratives should not be normalised or centred.
 Decolonisation of curriculum and inclusive assessment 55

While two-way learning has developed to describe learning between Indigenous/

local and settler/Western cultures, its ethos can be used to frame the bridging
between a range of cultural knowledges and contexts. For example, in Australian
Universities with Asian campuses, “two-way” learning can also be valuable to foster
an approach of learning from each other. This might be expressed by allowing stu-
dents to negotiate assessment topics, examples, and literature relevance across both
Western and Asian knowledge bases.
Building on theorisations by Jansen (2017), Adam similarly found that a decol-
onised education can involve “situating one’s culture at the centre of one’s learn-
ing while still drawing on other cultures” (Adam 2020a, 200), or it can be taken
even further to be “learning about all cultures and their entanglements” (ibid).
Indigenous and Eastern scholars (Bates et al. 2009; Bhabha 2004) have critiqued
the idea of “traditional knowledge” as some kind of pure cultural knowledge that
was static pre-colonisation. In the contemporary world, ideas are fluid - our knowl-
edges are tangled together with ideas moving from Indigenous to coloniser, settler
to Indigenous, east to west and west to east. From the knowledge-as-entanglement
point of view, no one region is the sole authority. The role of the educator can be as
a facilitator of two-ways learning that encourages students to recognise the benefit
of their own cultural knowledges, and new/additional cultural knowledges.
To avoid further marginalising minority students, we need to ensure that
we don’t reject their cultural beliefs and “other ways of being, thinking and
rationalising” (Gonzalez 2011, 7) in the way we grade and provide feedback
on their assessments. Nor do we need to accept them wholly without question.
We can model critical questioning across multiple knowledges by drawing on
different cultural ideas and frameworks to discuss and analyse topics in our lec-
tures and tutorial discussions and even to challenge the ideas put forth by the
educator. At the post-graduate level, we can support our students to critique and
weave new knowledge from multiple cultural knowledge sources. We can also
respect multi-cultural students’ differing identities and motivations for study (see
Stephens et al. 2012 relating to communal vs individualistic reasons for studying)
by designing assignments that give students the choice to do a project or research
in partnership with their community. We can also frame any discussions about
the rationale and benefits of our assignments in terms of both helping individuals
get jobs as well as a broader benefit to the community.
We can also learn to take an inclusive stance on the kinds of global Englishes
our students speak, and to mark their written and spoken assessments on the
strength of their ideas and ability to demonstrate the learning outcomes, and not
for how much their syntax and descriptive language habits match our own (for
more on Habits of White Language (HOWL), see Inoue 2021). Institutions on a
path to decolonisation could also reflect on whether it is time to allow students
to submit assignments in Indigenous and other official languages, such as the case
in some institutions in South Africa (Mbamalu 2018).
In Adam’s (2020a) study students interviewed reflected on how colonial and
apartheid legacies have affected their educational experiences and identities
56 S. Lambert, J. Funk, and T. Adam

through inferior quality of education, forced languages, forgotten histories

and incongruent values, cultural norms and practices. Assessment is implicated
in each of these issues. Students’ views ranged from: wanting to learn and be
assessed on local knowledges in their local languages (Africanisation); wanting
to centre their learning and assessments on their own cultural history topics rel-
evant to their daily lives (Afro-centrism); and wanting to learn and be assessed
about all cultures and their entanglements equally (knowledge as entanglement).
Adams also spoke to MOOC designers who strove towards decolonising their
MOOCs. She found they used three approaches: justice-as-content where read-
ing lists and curriculum was diverse and decolonised; justice-as-process where co-
creation and a plurality of thought were actively sought in the design of the
course and its content; and justice-as-pedagogy where students were encouraged
to critically engage, reflect on, and even challenge what was being taught (Adam
2020b; Freire 1970). These approaches could be taken up by educators in many
colonial/settler contexts and they underpin the Culturally Inclusive Assessment
model that we describe with further examples in the next section of this chapter.

Culturally Inclusive Assessment model

We have identified some common themes across our decolonisation work which
we have drawn together to develop a Culturally Inclusive Assessment model. The
themes map across the justice-as-content, justice-as-process and justice-as-pedagogy
dimensions (after Adam 2020b), as shown in Table 5.1. The following section
discusses each dimension in detail and provides additional examples.
Within the justice-as-content dimension, a content diversification approach is
taken replacing Western case studies and other examples used in assessment with

TABLE 5.1 Culturally Inclusive Assessment model

Dimension Common themes

Justice-as-content: decolonising what is Removing deficit discourse from learning

taught. materials, texts, discussions, assessment
examples and feedback. Correcting
under-representation or misrepresentation.
Justice-as-process: decolonising education Two-way learning; relational processes;
processes; a plurality of thought is personal positioning and critical
designed into the course curriculum, consciousness; student co-creation of
assessment, and content decolonised learning materials as an
assessment task.
Justice-as-pedagogy: students are Modelling and scaffolding critical
encouraged to critically engage, reflect on, thinking and reading skills to challenge
and even challenge what is being taught; deficit discourses and power difference;
assessments or whole subjects designed to learning how to apply socio-cultural
teach the ideas of socio-cultural justice, justice, diversification and decolonisation
decolonisation or cultural competence. to new experiences and contexts.

Source: Adapted from Adam (2020b).

 Decolonisation of curriculum and inclusive assessment 57

local/Indigenous/Asian examples or those more relevant to students’ context.

While this is not without some risk of romanticisation of the local ( Jansen 2017),
it allows for marginalised knowledges to be reclaimed.
The justice-as-content dimension also emphasises overcoming deficit language
which describes students as “underperforming” or lacking knowledge or “cul-
tural capital”. Deficit language is commonplace and hard to shift. Therefore, it
may need to be the focus of some assessment items, which students “read” as
more important than lectures and other activities. Related literature suggests that
assessment is needed to support unlearning of deficit, sexist, racist and colonial
ideas and assumptions of the world and the field the student expects to graduate
into (Cross 2003; Mize and Glover 2021). One approach is the use of a structured
“deconstruction assessment” (Sjoberg and McDermott 2016) where early phase
medical students undertake a class discussion and a reflective assignment address-
ing a set of anonymous questions about race and health issues. The assignment
reveals and addresses a wide range of misrepresentations and assumptions which
would be undesirable to carry through to their medical practice.
From this we can see that there is some overlap in the model’s dimensions – it
would be hard to design an assessment for unlearning racist and colonial ideas
( justice-as-pedagogy) without first addressing deficit language ( justice-as-content).
While staff in Lambert and Fadel’s (2022) study said they used lectures or
tutorials to counter outdated and sometimes racist language and ideas found in
textbooks, they also acknowledged that students relied on these same textbooks
to write their assignments, which then might carry outdated ideas and defi-
cit discourses with them. To ensure alignment between what is said and read
it would be necessary to regularly review and revise lists of essential readings
recommended to students to complete their assignments ( justice-as-content). An
idea to take this further would be to offer students a simple process such as a
web-form to allow them to provide feedback comments on outdated or rac-
ist sections of texts and to suggest new texts from a wider cultural perspective
( justice-as-process).
Another approach used to respond to colonialist knowledge in an outdated
textbook was to invite students to update it ( justice-as-process). An assessment
option was provided to students to convert their final written assessment into a
chapter of a new textbook to be used by future cohorts (Funk 2021). To support
the assessment, students were guided in critical reading and two-way learning
( justice-as-pedagogy), which was also modelled in the discussions ( justice-as-process).
Decolonised thinking in the form of the students’ book chapters were provided
by students with both Indigenous and settler identities and the class modelled
how to position themselves with humility (justice-as-pedagogy).
Since the assessment required students to produce an analysis of a cultural
event in recent social media, the examples incorporated into the new textbook
were both culturally diverse and very current.
The justice-as-process dimension recognises that diversifying and decolonis-
ing learning and assessment can and must address more than the surface level
58 S. Lambert, J. Funk, and T. Adam

symptoms of colonialist thinking and euro-centric content in assessment and

curriculum content. The justice-as-process dimension is personal and relational no
matter whether we are teaching on-site or online. There is an emphasis on cen-
tring learners and their cultural backgrounds within formative and summative
assessment conversations and processes.
For example, the MOOC designers in Adam’s study (2020b) and the RPL pro-
cess in Funk’s work (2021)-centred relationships (between learners/participants
and communities) within assessment processes so that feedback is located within
the context of trusting and open practices. Participants are taught how to “posi-
tion themselves” by acknowledging their cultural position and power differentials
associated with their roles. Trust emerges from the development of a “critical
consciousness” which is when one takes a conscious stance to investigate one’s
positionality in the world in relation to others (Freire 1970).
The justice-as-process dimension is underpinned or framed by two-way and
complementary learning between multiple knowledge traditions. For example,
two-way learning can also be extended to recognition of prior learning (RPL)
between institutions and Indigenous communities – a form of decolonising
access to higher education credit.
Funk (2021) was involved in the development of RPL processes with stu-
dents’ deep on-Country knowledge and community leadership roles in mind.
For those outside Australia, being and doing “on Country” refers to identities,
relationships and practices between Indigenous people and their land that shifts
from region to region. RPL processes allowed for a contextualised demonstra-
tion of cultural knowledge and skills such as exhibiting awareness of power
relationships and cultural norms in a work setting. These skills enabled students
to gain credit for these learning outcomes in a mandatory first-year cultural
studies unit. Prior qualifications and work experience related to the cultural
studies subject also counted towards the RPL credit gained. A student working
“on-Country” as an Aboriginal liaison officer could, for example, submit work
produced in their employ that showcases their ability to work in a “two-ways”
capacity. One recent student and Indigenous business owner developed three of
his own papers on Indigenous Business perspectives into an open book chapter
(Wickey 2022). These RPL records lodged in an institutional electronic port-
folio begin to populate institutional digital platforms with examples of more
diverse cultural knowledges. Such records can be read by other staff and stu-
dents and in turn provide more examples of assessment equivalence for students
from a range of cultural backgrounds. Wickey (2022) also used these papers as a
basis for cultural orientations to new non-Indigenous work colleagues and the
“open” nature of the book chapter allows wider uptake within a wide range of
educational and other institutions due to the lack of login or payment needed
to access the book.
Wickey’s commitment to his own development alongside his commitment to
sharing Indigenous knowledge with non-Indigenous business leaders and work-
ers remind us that Indigenous and international students are experts at cultural
 Decolonisation of curriculum and inclusive assessment 59

“code-switching”, as they’ve been living in two-worlds for all their lives. It is

more the case that Universities have been slow to accept their responsibilities for
two-way learning or “bridging the socio-cultural divide” (Devlin 2013; O’Shea
2016) as a process of reconciliation between Western and non-Western, working-
and middle-class modes of thinking, being and doing at university.
Funk’s work also highlights that the students being taught may already be
leaders in their own communities, so it is not helpful for teachers to position
themselves as always more knowledgeable than students in student-teacher rela-
tionships. Educators can choose to position themselves as leaders in one area, while
deferring to students’ leadership, authority and experience in other areas. The
complementary nature of both educators and students’ cultural knowledges can
be made explicit in class and assessment conversations, and the benefit to the class
of the collective knowledges shared. This development of “critical consciousness”
as a process of “mutual humanisation” can take place for both teacher and learner,
coloniser and settler – as a two-way approach in situ and online (Freire 1970).
The justice-as-pedagogy dimension extends the decolonised processes to the
explicit teaching of socio-cultural justice as the focus for whole assessments or
even whole subjects. The focus is on teaching critical thinking and reading skills
attuned to cultural power differentials. This is often an interdisciplinary exercise.
For example, an assessment on Indigenous nursing within a series of assessments
or a whole unit on culturally inclusive nursing, teaching, business, or environ-
mental management. If students can learn to critically read cultural situations
and exchanges, they will be empowered to apply it to a host of new situations in
their life, future studies, and careers.

Opportunities in assessment for inclusion

Although we have provided some ideas and examples in the previous section,
different disciplines, year levels and cultural contexts usually require something
more tailored. Using the Culturally Inclusive Assessment model as a framework,
the following questions can be used to diversity and/or decolonise assessment
in one’s own context through consideration of content, process and pedagogy.

Justice-as-content opportunities
• Whose cultural knowledges are the focus of assessment questions; is there a
rationale for this? How might students use more diversified cultural exam-
ples or options?
• Whose knowledges and perspectives might be missing from reading lists and
assessment resources? To what extent are, for example, women and authors
of colour cited in practical examples and theoretical frameworks?
• How frequently do staff review essential and assessment related readings
and examples to weed out deficit language which might unintentionally
reinforce exclusionary stereotypes? Libraries and/or teaching and Learning
60 S. Lambert, J. Funk, and T. Adam

centres can contribute to this. Institutional Inclusive language guides may be

available. If key readings are historic and use what is now considered inap-
propriate terminology, students need to know what has changed and why
the older reference is still useful.
• Whose knowledge is legitimate to be included and cited by students? How
will new authors be evaluated?
• How will deficit discourse be re-storied in the ways that feedback infor-
mation is provided without speaking on behalf of those from other cultural
backgrounds?
• What digital resources of cultural leadership can students be referred to, to
allow leaders of colour to be represented in assessments?

Justice-as-process opportunities
• How can assessments be designed to allow students to situate their culture
at the centre of their learning, while still recognising and appreciating other
cultures?
• How can students be supported to develop skills in learning about all
cultures and their entanglements within particular fields of study?
• How might students’ high impact contributions to their socio-cultural
communities be recognised as knowledge in pre-admission assessments of
students’ capability?
• How can a recognition of prior learning approach be brought into classroom
conversations to recognise students’ existing cultural knowledge within
examples and assessment conversations?
• How can two-way learning and dialogue be modelled rather than one-way
“inputs” provided in feedback and assessment?

Justice-as-pedagogy opportunities
• How can assessments that foster “unlearning” be introduced in early classes
to explicitly address students’ pre-existing assumptions and language of
difference as a foundational learning activity for the discipline?
• In upper-level classes, how can students be engaged in a process of address-
ing under- and misrepresentation in curriculum materials by assessing the
research and development of newly decolonised learning materials?
• How and when can students be scaffolded to critically read new material,
including materials they source as part of assessment work, to avoid reinforc-
ing stereotypes or misrepresentations in the field?
• What kinds of assessment items could be modified to include reflections or
measures of students’ development of critical consciousness from the begin-
ning of their learning journey?
• When should questions be added to course feedback surveys asking students
how assessments could be more inclusive?
 Decolonisation of curriculum and inclusive assessment 61

While the main aim of this chapter has been to focus on diversifying and
decolonising learning and assessment, it is important to recognise that the
broader educational landscape is founded on many colonial logics. Drawing on
Bali (2018, 305), “[a]ttempts at inclusion can only be authentic and meaningful
when we make the content, process, and outcome of education more egalitarian,
open, and inclusive”. Decolonising assessment practices will be more effective
when coupled with decolonising content and curriculum, embracing criti-
cal pedagogy and praxis, diversifying staff, encouraging interdisciplinary and
cross-disciplinary collaboration, questioning academic processes that determine
what counts as knowledge and what doesn’t, and questioning power structures
within our institutions. These diverse angles on knowledge practices can offer
justice as content, process, and pedagogy at the level of the institution, which can
better lead to more just and inclusive assessment.

References
Adam, T. 2020a. Addressing Injustices through MOOCs: A Study among Peri-Urban, Marginalised,
South African Youth. University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.56608.
Adam, T. 2020b. “Between Social Justice and Decolonisation: Exploring South African
MOOC Designers’ Conceptualisations and Approaches to Addressing Injustices.”
Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2020 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.557.
Baker-Bell, A. 2020. Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy.
New York: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147383.
Bali, M. 2018. “The ‘Unbearable’ Exclusion of the Digital.” In Disrupting the Digital Humanities,
edited by Dorothy Kim and Jesse Stommel, 295–319. Brooklyn: Punctumbooks. https://
doi.org/10.21983/P3.0230.1.00.
Bates, P., Chiba, M., Kube, S., and Nakashima, D., eds. 2009. Learning and Knowing in
Indigenous Societies Today. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Bhabha, H. K. 2004. The Location of Culture. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203820551.
Burke, P. J. 2012. The Right to Higher Education: Beyond Widening Participation. London and
New York: Routledge.
Cross, B. E. 2003. “Learning or Unlearning Racism: Transferring Teacher Education
Curriculum to Classroom Practices.” Theory into Practice 42 (3): 203–209. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_6.
Devlin, M. 2013. “Bridging Socio-Cultural Incongruity: Conceptualising the Success
of Students from Low Socio-Economic Status Backgrounds in Australian Higher
Education.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (6): 939–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2011.613991.
Fraser, N., Dahl, H. M., Stoltz, P., and Willig, R. 2004. “Recognition, Redistribution
and Representation in Capitalist Global Society: An Interview with Nancy Fraser.”
Acta Sociologica 46 (4): 374–382. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0001699304048671.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London and New York: Penguin Books.
Funk, J. 2021. “Caring in Practice, Caring for Knowledge.” Journal of Interactive Media in
Education 2021 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.648.
Gonzalez, J. M. 2011. “Suspending the Desire for Recognition: Coloniality of Being, the
Dialectics of Death, and Chicana/o Literature.” UC Berkeley.
62 S. Lambert, J. Funk, and T. Adam

Grosfoguel, R. 2007. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn.” Cultural Studies 21 (2–3):

211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514.
Harris, S. 1990. Two-Way Aboriginal Schooling: Education and Cultural Survival/Stephen
Harris. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Inoue, A. B. 2021. “Habits of White Language (HOWL).” Asao B. Inoue’s Infrequent
Words. 2021. https://asaobinoue.blogspot.com/2021/07/blogbook-habits-of-white-
language-howl.html.
Jansen, J. 2017. As by Fire: The End of the South African University. Cape Town: Tafelberg.
Lambert, S. R., and Fadel, H. 2022. “Open Textbooks and Social Justice: A National
Scoping Study.” Perth, Australia. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/open-
textbooks-social-justice/.
Mbamalu, S. 2018. “Nompumelelo Kapa, First Academic to Write Thesis in IsiXhosa in
102 Years.” This Is Africa. 2018. https://thisisafrica.me/african-identities/nompumelelo-
kapa-isixhosa-phd-thesis-fort-hare/.
Mize, M., and Glover, C. 2021. “Supporting Black, Indigenous, and Students of Color
in Learning Environments Transformed by COVID-19.” International Journal of
Multicultural Education 23 (1): 162–173. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v23i1.2559.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. 2015. “Decoloniality as the Future of Africa.” History Compass 13
(10): 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12264.
O’Shea, S. 2016. “Avoiding the Manufacture of ‘Sameness’: First-in-Family Students,
Cultural Capital and the Higher Education Environment.” Higher Education 72 (1):
59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9938-y.
Sjoberg, D., and McDermott, D. 2016. “The Deconstruction Exercise: An Assessment
Tool for Enhancing Critical Thinking in Cultural Safety Education.” International
Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 9 (1): 28–48. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v9i1.143.
Stephens, N. M. et al. 2012. “Unseen Disadvantage: How American Universities’ Focus
on Independence Undermines the Academic Performance of First-Generation
College Students.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (6): 1178–1197. http://
doi.org/10.1037/a0027143.
Wickey, T. 2022. “Indigenous Business Perspectives.” In Cultural Knowledges and Work
Integrated Learning, edited by Johanna Funk. Darwin: Charles Darwin University.
https://cduebooks.pressbooks.pub/cuc107/chapter/6-indigenous-business-perspectives/.
Yunupingu, M. 1989. “Language and Power: The Yolngu Rise to Power at Yirrkala School.”
Ngoonjook 2: 1–6. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.151805372855431.
6
INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT,
EXCLUSIVE ACADEMY
Juuso Henrik Nieminen

Assessment as a partition for abledness

Higher education, as a societal institution, has travelled a long way from its elitist
roots. If a higher education degree was once a sign of intelligence and social class,
nowadays it is a modern commodity: a necessity for entry into the job market
in the knowledge society. The mass higher education model has led to diversifi-
cation of the student population as people from marginalised backgrounds have
gained increased access to academia. This “massification” has provided important
opportunities for marginalised students to reinvent their identity by attending
higher education and thus enhance their quality of life (Moriña 2017). Yet, it
has been noted how disabled students often participate in higher education as
“the Others”; as the ones who are inside but recognised to be different (Dolmage
2017). Inaccessible learning environment design plays a key role in how disabled
students come to understand themselves as unfit rather than as fully accepted
members of academia (Nieminen and Pesonen 2022).
The role of assessment has only rather recently been emphasised in the pro-
cesses of belonging, inclusion, and social justice. This is surprising given the
substantial role that assessment plays in student learning. The predominant way
to address diversity in assessment in higher education is to provide individual
accommodations (or “adjustments”, depending on one’s context, e.g., extra time
for tests or separate testing rooms). Often, the reasons for accessing such accom-
modations include psychological and medical conditions such as disabilities,
illnesses, mental health issues, and so forth. The accommodation system pre-
vails globally and is currently mandated in legislation in various countries. Yet,
the accommodation model is unable to address the deeper issues of exclusion as
related to assessment. In fact, the accommodation model relies on a conceptualis-
ation of disability and diversity as something that obscures assessment and should

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-8
64 J. H. Nieminen

thus be mitigated. Assessment constitutes a partition that divides students into

normal/abnormal, able/disabled, and “ideal students”/“equity group students”
(Nieminen 2020, 2021, 2022). To challenge this view, research has advocated for
inclusive assessment design that would by design reduce the need for accommo-
dations through accessible assessment practices (Hanafin et al. 2007; Tai, Ajjawi,
and Umarova 2021). Unfortunately, not much has changed: the accommodation
model remains the norm for both research and practice.
This chapter widens our understanding of assessment for inclusion amidst the
broader political landscapes of higher education. Drawing on my earlier work
(Nieminen 2022), I examine the rationale of assessment as a way of bringing
assessment from the margins of inclusion work into its very centre. Focusing on
disabled students, I discuss the role of inclusive assessment in enhancing inclusion
during this era of growing inequity and segregation. I ask: How far can we go to
promote inclusion through assessment design? Who are the people who benefit
from “inclusive assessment”? Answering these questions is crucial: assessment is
often a key reason for disabled students to feel like they do not belong in academic
communities (Hanafin et al. 2007; Nieminen and Pesonen 2022). In this chapter,
then, I introduce three conceptualisations for inclusive assessment. I argue that
two of them have been unsuccessful in their quest to promote inclusion. Finally,
I discuss how the third conceptualisation could be implemented in practice in the
form of authentic assessment for social justice.

Inclusive assessment: What’s in a name?

Inclusive assessment has been understood in multiple ways in earlier research. This is
understandable: after all, “inclusion” and “assessment” are both complex, social con-
cepts. Here, I introduce three ways of conceptualising inclusive assessment, drawing
on different epistemological underpinning of both “inclusion” and “assessment”.

The accommodation model and the false sense of inclusion

The most common way of dealing with diversity in assessment is the accommo-
dation model. Individual accommodations (e.g., extra time in tests and separate
testing rooms) are administered for students with a medical and/or psychological
diagnosis or a similar, often medicalised reason for support. The accommoda-
tion model can be identified in most higher education institutes, emphasising
their role as the “norm” when it comes to inclusive assessment policies. Often,
this model relies on a specific understanding of assessment as a process of valid
and reliable measurement. Disabilities (and similar “conditions” such as men-
tal health issues and illnesses, often presented as yes/no boxes to be ticked in
accommodation applications) are then seen to threaten the validity of assess-
ment by obscuring the results. For example, if a student with dyslexia is not
granted accommodations in a mathematics test, the test might not be measuring
“mathematical skills” anymore but other non-related constructs such as perhaps
 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 65

“reading comprehension skills”. By offering enough support (but not too much)
on the disability-specific hindrances (but not for anything else), it is possible to
provide a fair access to assessment for disabled students (see e.g., Holmes and
Silvestri 2019; Lovett and Lewandowski 2020).
This approach to “inclusive assessment” reflects the medical model of disability
which understands disabilities mainly as personal deficits that need to be cured,
fixed, and accommodated. This model sees disabilities as something to be miti-
gated in assessment, rather than something that enriches it (Nieminen 2021). As
the support mechanisms of higher education rely on the medical model, disabled
students might be further marginalised and excluded in academic communities
(Nieminen and Pesonen 2022).
Within such a medical model, assessment accommodations are likened to med-
ical treatment. Just as a certain illness is cured with certain medicine, a certain dis-
ability type (e.g., dyscalculia) should be paired with an adequate type of assessment
accommodations (e.g., a possibility for a calculator). Assessment accommodations
should, then, be based on objective psycho-cognitive knowledge. Accommodation
literature is dominated by psychometrics, leaving the approaches of ethics, care,
and social justice in the margins of the literature. For example, advocacy roles are
commonly portrayed as risks in assessment:

Assuming an advocacy role can lead practitioners to make recommendations

that are not based on demonstrated need but are instead based on preferences
or supports that might actually provide undue advantage or simply make life
easier for students.
(Holmes and Silvestri 2019, 8)

Overreliance on the accommodation model, ultimately, frames inclusion as a

procedural matter, as “inclusive assessment” is seen to ensure students’ equal
participation in testing. Seen through this lens, inclusion has been successfully
provided when the test results of students have been improved. However, por-
traying inclusive assessment mainly as a way of ensuring students’ right to attend
tests creates a false sense of inclusion: the accommodation model provides access
to testing while neglecting deeper issues of exclusion and equal participation.
Furthermore, the psycho-cognitive approach has been unable to address how
assessment itself marginalises disabled students. Assessment accommodations
have been shown to stigmatise disabled students and frame them as “unfit” and
“abnormal” (Hanafin et al. 2007; Nieminen 2020). There is thus a need for alter-
native approaches beyond psychometric epistemologies.

Accessible assessment design for all students

Another way of conceptualising inclusive assessment is through “accessible assess-
ment”. This view is far more rare both in research and in practice (Tai, Ajjawi,
and Umarova 2021). To negate the marginalising nature of the accommodation
66 J. H. Nieminen

model, inclusive assessment design is based on accessible assessment design that is

designed to suit the diversity of students (see Ketterlin Geller, Johnstone, and
Thurlow 2015 for “Universal Design for Assessment” and Chapter 12 in this
book). Such design locates the inaccessible and exclusionary elements of assess-
ment design before assessment is conducted. This conceptualisation of disability
then follows the social model that acknowledges the social, cultural, and historical
underpinnings of disabledness. Assessment disables students: inclusion is provided
by designing out the inaccessible, marginalising aspects of assessment.
In practice, inclusively designed assessment has been connected with the overall
principles of “student-centred assessment”, such as transparent learning criteria,
diverse assessment practices (e.g., self- and peer-assessment) and student-centred,
engaging feedback practices (e.g., Hanafin et al. 2007; Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova
2021). Inclusive assessment, as understood through the social design epistemology,
then aims to reduce the need for accommodations through assessment design.
The profound issue with such inclusive assessment design is that it has largely
not found its way into practice (Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021). Overall, chal-
lenging the testing-driven assessment cultures has been notoriously tricky in
higher education (Medland 2016). Riddell and Weedon (2006) argued that what
stands in the way of inclusive assessment is the meritocratic ideology that underlies
assessment in higher education. Testing and grades are the key elements in rank-
ing the best students and best universities. As testing maintains the social legiti-
macy of higher education in this process of selection, disabled students are seen
to challenge not only assessment but the very idea of academic standards (Riddell
and Weedon 2006). In the increasingly “measured university” driven by grades,
rankings, and indicators (Manathunga et al. 2017), assessment remains stubbornly
test-driven despite the overwhelming amount of evidence of student-centred
assessment practices (see, e.g., Medland 2016).
Furthermore, as I have fully argued elsewhere (Nieminen 2022), inclusive
assessment design initiatives run the risk of “pedagogisation”, that is, mainly
understanding the deep, societal issues of exclusion as simply a matter of peda-
gogy and design. A true reimagination of higher education as an inclusive space
requires transformation not only at the level of assessment design but also at the
broader societal and political levels.

Inclusive assessment for all? Towards critical approaches

To avoid the risk of suggesting procedural solutions to profound forms of exclu-
sion, “inclusive assessment” must be understood as a deeply political issue. This
idea is built on the following premises. First, the inclusion of disabled people
at various tiers of society is always a political quest, tied to prevailing national
and institutional policies. Second, it is argued that higher education has a moral
imperative to play a pivotal role in such inclusion work, namely, that disabled peo-
ple have the human right to partake in higher education (Uditsky and Hughson
2012). Third, assessment is recognised as a key factor in students’ learning and
 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 67

studying in terms of the full spectrum of “learning” as a cognitive, social, affec-

tive, cultural, historical, and political phenomenon. Inclusive assessment is, then,
understood as a moral and ethical practice that plays a role in promoting societal
inclusion in higher education and beyond.
I argue that earlier attempts to promote “inclusive assessment” have addressed
this moral imperative through a limited approach. Both the approaches of the
accommodation model and inclusive assessment design have operated within the
boundaries of higher education, assuming that equal access to higher education
has already been achieved. So, can inclusive assessment fulfil the promise of inclu-
sion for the large numbers of disabled people who never reach higher education?
Here, the concept of ableism helps to reframe the question of “inclusion” in
political terms. Dolmage (2017) discusses the concept of academic ableism to show
how higher education environments – with their physical, social, and cultural
features, amongst others – are designed for the “ideal, able student”. Ableist prac-
tices provide information about bodies and minds, steering people to understand
themselves against the ideals of normality, ability, and productivity. Here, assess-
ment plays a key role as it provides students with knowledge about the develop-
ment of their abilities throughout their studies. Assessment portrays students as
certain kinds of students: as weak or talented, slow or fast, normal or abnormal
(Nieminen 2020). Test-driven assessment reflects the valued modern citizen who
is cognitively able and productively takes part in the market economy. Disabled
people challenge this view (Riddell and Weedon 2006), and indeed, disabled peo-
ple have been historically excluded from academic settings as unsuitable for the
knowledge economies that higher education prepares people for.
So, who are the students who get to enjoy “inclusive assessment” in higher
education? Let me offer the example of Finnish universities. Finland is largely
considered as an inclusive country from the viewpoint of access to higher educa-
tion. For example, attending higher education is free for students in the EU/EEA
area. Has the system been able to include disabled people? While Finland does not
collect systematic data on the issue, recent self-reported health surveys conducted
at all Finnish higher education institutions have indicated that disabled students
are a small minority in universities (Korkeamäki and Vuorento 2021; Kunttu,
Pesonen, and Saari 2016). In part, this reflects the minority status of disabled peo-
ple in the society at large. In Kunttu, Pesonen, and Saari’s survey, “a learning
difficulty or other illness or disability” was reported by 10.6% of the students in
universities of applied sciences, and by 6.5% of the students in academic univer-
sities. Dyslexia was reported as the most common disability (5.0%) and attention
deficit disorder as the next most common one (0.9%). Korkeamäki and Vuorento
(2021) noted that learning disabilities were reported by 4.8% of female and 3.8%
of male university students. These numbers imply that Finnish academia remains a
space with limited diversity from the viewpoint of disabilities and neurodiversity.
What about people with intellectual disabilities? In Finland, people with intel-
lectual disabilities remain largely excluded from society. According to the disa-
bility organisation Väylä (2022), of the 3000 people with intellectual disabilities,
68 J. H. Nieminen

only 16% are integrated into the society through work, and only 2% have a full-
time job. It is reported that many people with intellectual disabilities work for free
as they are not told their rights for salary. According to Väylä, the average pay for
people with intellectual disabilities is 7 euros per day on average, from which a
lunch fee (€4.90) is often deducted. In fact, Väylä was founded to ensure that “in
the future, every person with intellectual disabilities receives an appropriate salary
for their work” (Väylä 2022, my translation). These shameful statistics remind us of
the inability of Finland to include people with intellectual disabilities in society –
and definitely not in universities.
How could “inclusive assessment” challenge ableism on a broader societal
level? One possible answer can be found in Finnish legislation for universities.
Finnish universities have a three-fold mission of 1) independent academic research,
2) research-based education, and 3) the promotion of socially impactful research
(Universities Act 2009). However, academic funding models consistently prior-
itise the first two missions, while the third has remained non-implemented and
without support (Heinonen and Raevaara 2012). Behold, the measured univer-
sity! Inclusive assessment, understood through an anti-ableist stance, brings all
these three missions together.

Authentic assessment for inclusion and social justice

One solution to combine these three purposes of higher education is research-
based (purpose 1) authentic assessment (purpose 2) that aims to foster inclusion
for communities within and beyond higher education (purpose 3). In many ways,
this idea is not novel, as critical research has advocated transformative teach-
ing practices. However, similar approaches remain in the margins of assessment
(e.g., McArthur 2022; Nieminen 2022).
“Authentic assessment” offers an interesting starting point for such work. In
higher education, authentic assessment has referred to assessment and feedback
tasks that “mirror the capability of the students to use their knowledge beyond their
academic environment” (Sokhanvar, Salehi, and Sokhanvar 2021, 2). Authentic
assessment is often defined in relation to “traditional” assessment. For example,
Sokhanvar, Salehi, and Sokhanvar (2021) list performances, projects, exhibitions,
portfolios, case studies, reflective journals, interviews, and group work as forms
of authentic assessment. Such conceptualisations offer a suitable starting point for
“assessment for inclusion” but are not enough to capture its complexity. To ful-
fil its promise of inclusion, authentic assessment needs to connect not only with
the context of work but society at large (McArthur 2022). I draw on Dawson
and Bearman (2020) who discussed future-authentic assessment that “faithfully rep-
resents not just the current realities of the discipline in practice, but the likely
future realities of that discipline” (292). Authentic assessment for inclusion does not
only aim to guess and replicate authentic futures, but aims to redefine them. This
is achieved through an activist stance that draws explicitly on an advocacy role
that earlier assessment research warned against (e.g., Holmes and Silvestri 2019).
 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 69

Through such a stance, assessment is harnessed as a vehicle for creating more inclu-
sive futures in higher education.
How could such an idea be put into practise? One concrete example is the
study by Thompson (2009) who introduced community action projects as a form
of authentic assessment in statistics education. Students took part in authentic
projects in which they provided statistical analyses for the needs of blind adoles-
cents and adults for independent living, and to create multi-sensory education
environments for disabled students. This study is an inspiring example as the
students worked in close collaboration with the communities and with the end
users of the statistical tools in particular. Other examples of authentic assessment
projects might be collaborations with disability organisations and other relevant
stakeholders whose voice is rarely heard when developing inclusive higher edu-
cation. Moreover, such projects might include activism and campaigns for more
inclusive teaching and assessment policies in higher education. In social sciences,
students might help to organise a system-wide professional development pro-
gram for staff on diversity and disabilities. These are of course just a few exam-
ples. Below, I outline some guidelines for authentic assessment for inclusion.

Authentic assessment criteria and feedback

While designing authentic assessment for inclusion, one must challenge the tradi-
tional understanding of academic standards and assessment criteria. Predetermined
assessment criteria and learning objectives often leave little room for diversity to
flourish. While assessment criteria are often framed through the metaphor of trans-
parency, Bearman and Ajjawi’s (2021) proposal of a metaphor of invitation is a more
powerful way to consider how the quality of students’ work could be determined
in assessment for inclusion. No one person, such as the teacher, can determine
the assessment criteria for such assessment: instead, all stakeholders (e.g., teachers,
students, teaching assistants, representatives from organisations and industry) are
invited to a “productive space” to negotiate quality criteria (Bearman and Ajjawi
2021). This way, the criteria represent the real needs and voices of people in and
out of academia.
Such productive spaces disrupt the ableist assumption that academics should
decide what counts as successful activism and inclusion work. It might be left up
to the “end users” of inclusion-related assessment projects to determine whether
assessment has truly led to desirable changes. As such, authentic assessment cri-
teria do not aim to lower academic standards but indeed to raise the bar higher.
When assessment is evaluated in terms of the social good it provides (McArthur
2022), students are asked to truly connect with the world rather than to produce
work only for their teachers.
Reimagined approaches to assessment criteria ultimately lead into assessment
design that celebrates diversity and personalised forms of achievement (see Jorre
de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021). As Jorre de St Jorre and colleagues note,
evaluative judgement plays a key role here, as it ties together co-constructed
70 J. H. Nieminen

assessment criteria and the personalised presentations of skills that demonstrate

such criteria. Authentic feedback is needed to communicate both criteria and
judgements about students’ work. Dawson, Carless, and Lee (2021) introduced
the idea of authentic feedback in various disciplines. In authentic assessment for
inclusion, feedback processes are not restricted to classrooms but might concern
multiple authentic stakeholders such as the “end users” themselves.

Authentic assessment accommodations

Authentic assessment accommodations are a crucial part of “assessment for inclu-
sion”. The usual menu of assessment accommodations − extra time in exams,
separate testing rooms − is indeed rather inauthentic: few of us face these prac-
tices after graduation. As accommodations are redesigned from the viewpoint of
authenticity, they represent the authentic contexts in professional work situations
and beyond. If carefully facilitated, authentic assessment projects might develop
students’ assessment literacies as they learn to reflect and communicate on their
access needs in assessment. In tandem, teachers’ assessment literacies are devel-
oped as they co-design accommodations together with students. Both parties
might indeed develop their assessment and feedback literacies specifically from
the viewpoint of diversity.

The teacher perspective

In practice, the success of such authentic assessment depends on whether teachers
have agency over their assessment practices. In many ways, teacher agency, exper-
tise, and support are all at the heart of inclusive assessment: assessment is contextual
and situational, it cannot always be standardised through rules, regulations, and
rubrics. Importantly, inclusive assessment should also be inclusive for teachers. We,
teachers, are also diverse! For example, marking a pile of essays is an inaccessible
practice for many of us. Authentic assessment projects might offer novel approaches
to including disabled teachers as full members of academic communities too.

Undoing barriers: The question of grades

“Assessment for inclusion” not only promotes inclusion and social justice but
also actively undoes the barriers to such goals (Nieminen 2022). Assessment and
grading policies often focus on social selection and competition – these ideals run
contrary to inclusion. Changing grading is essential given its major role in main-
taining the legitimacy of meritocratic ideologies in higher education (Riddell
and Weedon 2006). Indeed, grading is a key mechanism that grounds higher
education in individualistic ideologies. One starting point might then be sys-
temic, institution-wide “ungrading” or a similar process of rendering individual
grades meaningless for students. Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson (2021)
offered other interesting future trajectories by discussing assessment that, instead
 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 71

of grading, allows for multiple portrayals of achievement for different audiences.

As they argue, such approaches to certification in higher education might benefit
all stakeholders, as assessment might then provide more meaningful evidence of
achievement rather than simply a number (see also Chapter 13).

Closing words: Bringing assessment to the centre

of inclusion work
In this chapter, I have outlined how inclusive assessment literature has moved
from technical (the accommodation model) to social (accessible assessment design)
conceptualisation of the inclusivity in assessment. I have argued that in order to
be successful, inclusivity in assessment needs to be rethought through a critical
and political stance. Inclusive assessment must disrupt rather than complement
the prevalent and often ableist discourses of measurement, individualisation, and
competition in assessment. Without critical approaches, inclusive assessment runs
the risk of being yet another mechanical, pedagogical response to the deeper
political issues concerning the exclusion of disabled people (see Nieminen and
Pesonen 2021).
The politically oriented idea of inclusive assessment humbly reminds us that
assessment cannot do everything: we will not end societal exclusion through
assessment design. However, assessment could do a lot more than it is currently
doing for inclusion. Thus far the initiatives to enhance the inclusivity of assess-
ment have remained within the boundaries of the classroom. I have proposed
some future trajectories for inclusive assessment to reach communities beyond
higher education. This idea links with multiple current strands of assessment
research, such as authentic assessment, group assessment and project assessment.
There is a lot to build on.
Assessment is often presented as its own object that can be developed sepa-
rately from other entities such as teaching, pedagogy, and inclusion work. Yet,
in the measured university (Manathunga et al. 2017) assessment is everywhere: it
is intertwined in all activities in academia. Many have argued that academia has
started to lose its meaning on the altar of measurement, metrics, and competi-
tion. Inclusive assessment presents a way to bring together the three purposes of
the university to refocus academia towards what is truly meaningful. It turns
assessment – a current mechanism for individualisation and social selection – into
a vehicle of collectivity. Inclusive assessment highlights the moral and ethical
imperative of higher education to provide social good (Uditsky and Hughson
2012). It is time to bring assessment to the very centre of inclusion work.

References
Bearman, M., and Ajjawi, R. 2021. “Can a Rubric Do More than Be Transparent?
Invitation as a New Metaphor for Assessment Criteria.” Studies in Higher Education 46
(2): 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1637842.
72 J. H. Nieminen

Dawson, P., and Bearman, M. 2020. “Concluding Comments: Reimagining University

Assessment in a Digital World.” In Re-Imagining University Assessment in a Digital World,
edited by Margaret Bearman, Phillip Dawson, Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai, and David
Boud, 291–296. Cham: Springer.
Dawson, P., Carless, D., and Lee, P. P. W. 2021. “Authentic Feedback: Supporting
Learners to Engage in Disciplinary Feedback Practices.” Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 46 (2): 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1769022.
Dolmage, J. T. 2017. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan
Press. http://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722.
Hanafin, J., Shevlin, M., Kenny, M., and Neela, E. M. 2007. “Including Young People
with Disabilities: Assessment Challenges in Higher Education.” Higher Education 54
(3): 435–448. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9005-9.
Heinonen, A., and Raevaara, T. 2012. “Yliopistojen Kolmas Tehtävä jää Vaille Toteutusta
ja Tukea.” [The Third Mission of Universities Is Left without Implementation and Support.]
Tieteessä Tapahtuu 30 (5): 3–8. https://journal.fi/tt/article/view/6875/5527.
Holmes, A., and Silvestri, R. 2019. “Extra Time or Unused Time? What Data from a
College Testing Center Tells Us about 50% Extra Time as an Accommodation for
Students with Learning Disabilities.” Psychological Injury and Law 12 (1): 7–16. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09339-9.
Jorre de St Jorre, T., Boud, D., and Johnson, E. D. 2021. “Assessment for Distinctiveness:
Recognising Diversity of Accomplishments.” Studies in Higher Education 46 (7):
1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1689385.
Ketterlin Geller, L. R., Johnstone, C. J., and Thurlow, M. L. 2015. “Universal Design of
Assessment.” In Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, edited by
Sheryl E. Burgstahler, 163–176. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Korkeamäki, J., and Vuorento, M. 2021. Students with Self-Reported Health Problems and
Disabilities in Higher Education. Eurostudent VII Article Series. Publication of the Ministry of
Education and Culture, Finland: 16. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-841-0.
Kunttu, K., Pesonen, T., and Saari, J. 2016. “Student Health Survey 2016: A National
Survey among Finnish University Students.” Finnish Student Health Service. https://
1285112865.rsc.cdn77.org/app/uploads/2020/03/KOTT_2016_ENG.pdf.
Lovett, B. J., and Lewandowski, L. J. 2020. “Private Room Testing Accommodations
for Students with ADHD.” The ADHD Report 28 (8): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1521/
adhd.2020.28.8.1.
Manathunga, C., Selkrig, M., Sadler, K., and Keamy, K. 2017. “Rendering the Paradoxes
and Pleasures of Academic Life: Using Images, Poetry and Drama to Speak Back to
the Measured University.” Higher Education Research and Development 36 (3): 526–540.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1289157.
McArthur, J. 2022. “Rethinking Authentic Assessment: Work, Well-Being, and Society.”
Higher Education: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y.
Medland, E. 2016. “Assessment in Higher Education: Drivers, Barriers and Directions for
Change in the UK.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (1): 81–96. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.982072.
Moriña, A. 2017. ““We Aren’t Heroes, We’re Survivors”: Higher Education as an
Opportunity for Students with Disabilities to Reinvent an Identity.” Journal of Further
and Higher Education 41 (2): 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1070402.
Nieminen, J. H. 2020. “Student Conceptions of Assessment Accommodations in University
Mathematics: An Analysis of Power.” Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education 25 (3–4):
27–49. http://ncm.gu.se/wp-content/uploads/1605/83/25_34_027050_nieminen.pdf.
 Inclusive assessment, exclusive academy 73

Nieminen, J. H. 2021. “Governing the “Disabled Assessee”: A Critical Reframing of

Assessment Accommodations as Sociocultural Practices.” Disability and Society. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1874304.
Nieminen, J. H. 2022. “Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Inclusive Assessment in
Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.
2021.2021395.
Nieminen, J. H., and Pesonen, H. V. 2022. “Politicising Inclusive Learning Environments:
How to Foster Belonging and Challenge Ableism?” Higher Education Research and
Development 41 (6): 2020–2033. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1945547.
Riddell, S., and Weedon, E. 2006. “What Counts as a Reasonable Adjustment? Dyslexic
Students and the Concept of Fair Assessment.” International Studies in Sociology of Education
16 (1): 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19620210600804301.
Sokhanvar, Z., Salehi, K., and Sokhanvar, F. 2021. “Advantages of Authentic Assessment
for Improving the Learning Experience and Employability Skills of Higher Education
Students: A Systematic Literature Review.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 70, 101030.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101030.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
Thompson, C. J. 2009. “Educational Statistics Authentic Learning CAPSULES: Commu­
nity Action Projects for Students Utilizing Leadership and E-Based Statistics.” Journal
of Statistics Education 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2009.11889508.
Uditsky, B., and Hughson, E. 2012. “Inclusive Postsecondary Education—An Evidence-
Based Moral Imperative.” Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 9 (4):
298–302. http://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12005.
Universities Act (558/2009). Ministry of Education and Culture. https://www.finlex.fi/
fi/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdf.
Väylä. 2022. Vaikuttaminen [Influence]. Accessed 2 February 2022. https://vaylary.fi/
page/9/vaikuttaminen.
7
ONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
DECISIONS IN TEACHING
AND LEARNING
Ben Whitburn and Matthew Krehl Edward Thomas

Orientation
Concerned with the design and implementation of assessment for inclusion, in
this conceptual chapter we discuss sustainable orientations towards equitable
ways of working by adopting a theory that embraces the ontological turn. What
we mean by this is that we want to use theory to think with ( Jackson and Mazzei
2011) which concentrates on the “nature of being and the basic categories of
existence” (St. Pierre, Jackson, and Mazzei 2016, 99) as an ethical project. This
contrasts with what assessment tends to emphasise; a constructivist approach to
evidencing understanding and knowing against preconceived learning outcomes
(Sadler and Reimann 2017). Our reason for taking this conceptual pathway will
become clearer as this chapter unfolds; though to briefly introduce it here, a
push for evidence-informed practices in education tends to obfuscate context
and circumstance, ignoring complex structural and social impacts on student
achievement. As Spina observes, “arguments in favour of standardised testing
and evidence-informed decision making are frequently framed around the need
for evidence as a means of increasing achievement and equity” (Spina 2018,
335). However, as she and others (e.g., McArthur 2016) have forcefully argued,
approaches to equity in education that start with evidence-based “best practices”,
and that espouse equity in so doing, tend to be framed by a determination to
set a level playing field, whereby difference among student groups is minimised.
Consequently, social justice in education through these practices remains elusive.
In this chapter, then, we build a case for centring ontology in assessment for
inclusion and social justice by paying attention to the implications of diversity in
educational design. The discussion takes place in two interrelated movements.
In the first, we explore ways inclusive education has been differentially framed in
the tertiary sector across 40 years, and correspondingly, how educational design

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-9
 Ontological assessment decisions 75

can present temporal barriers to diverse students. Accounting for institutional

assessment decisions to be highly contingent (Dawson et al. 2013) and the expe-
riences of students in higher education to be highly varied in terms of temporal
engagement (Bennett and Burke 2017; Whitburn and Thomas 2021). In the
second movement, we explore the ontological turn. Here we advance a frame-
work for orientating towards ontology to reframe assessment for social justice
and inclusion in higher education (McArthur 2016). We draw on an evidence-
making intervention (EMI) framework adapted from Rhodes and Lancaster
(2019) to advance an approach to assessment design and implementation from an
ontological position, discussing how this can be more equitable for students in
ways that difference is treated differently.

Inclusive times
We live in a fascinating period of educational and social history, in which matters
of equity underpin policies and practices in higher education. Indeed, widen-
ing participation in higher education has been a prominent policy strategy in
Australia since the late 1980s for students whose profile and/or living conditions
are not reflective of the mainstream (Bennett and Burke 2017). This has not been
straightforward, with divergent priorities taken over this period. For instance,
whereas once heightening participation for student diversity in higher education
was initially taken to mean ensuring that institutions are more representative of
their populations, at present this concept has been expanded: broader inclusion in
higher education is prioritised for its contribution to a more functional economy
(Adam 2003). Rights-based arguments have also been prevalent internationally,
although these centre on a liberal humanist universal norm to which to aspire,
and in so doing, they have tended to favour inclusion for discrete categories
of identity, such as people with disabilities, cultural diversities, and sexualities
(Whitburn and Thomas 2021).
Indeed, whichever mast we nail our colours to, the underlying premise
behind contemporary inclusive education discourse across the sectors is that all
individuals can take part on the basis that they are equal stakeholders in the
marketplaces which dominate our lives (Simons and Masschelein 2015). Though
as scholars of inclusive education have pointed out (Dolmage 2017; Whitburn
and Thomas 2021), interventions targeting specific student identities do little to
address entrenched barriers to inclusion in education. Here we want to take the
notions of equity and social justice further, to consider how they shape teaching
practices in higher education, and more specifically how they influence what
Dawson et al. (2013) refer to as assessment decisions. That is, how conditions in
the higher education sector lead to making particular decisions about the role
and purpose of assessment in educational design. Indeed, these concerns pertain
both to the “what” and “how” of assessment – both in the ways assessments are
designed and implemented, and “the role of assessment in nurturing the forms
of learning that will promote greater social justice within society as a whole”
76 B. Whitburn and M. K. E. Thomas

(McArthur 2016, 968), which together form the root of the present discussion
across both movements of the chapter.
Supplying fair opportunities to local and global communities through
inclusive teaching and learning features highly on university strategic mission
statements internationally. However, rigid practice standards, academic integ-
rity, and the development of individual students’ core skills to increase employ-
ability are often given centre stage, leading McArthur (2016) to consider that
institutional concerns for procedural fairness overtake aspirations for increasing
and responding to student diversity. Regulatory compliance is at the fore when
compelling students to disclose disabilities to institutions, as a way to ensure
that they can then expect reasonable adjustments to be made to their programs
of learning, rather than to consider the inclusiveness and accessibility of courses
writ large (Bunbury 2020). We suggest that educators would do well to con-
sider what is reasonable, and inclusive, about adjustments, and further, how,
and why assessment decisions are made that foster learning conditions through
which adjustments are necessitated for designated student groups. In noting that
extensions to time are a core means by which universities adjust programs of
assessment for particular students (Dolmage 2017), rather than engage with them
to demonstrate learning development (McArthur 2016), we acknowledge that
assessment in higher education is inescapably temporal.
Consider how time mediates learning design in higher education. Courses of
higher education are designed according to pre-conceived temporal milestones,
cast against national benchmarks of duration, be they 3-year undergraduate
courses or 2-year Masters programs. Years are typically divided into semesters,
splitting the year into teaching periods framed within pockets of time. Each
bi- or trifurcated measure is replete with regularly established pauses that stu-
dents must utilise to catch up should they fall foul of the predetermined pace of
learning progression; or perhaps if they can, to push forward in time, gaining the
elusive edge over their fellow students in a race against the clock to demonstrate
fledgling competency. Summative tasks in such programs are simultaneously
mediated by time, for “educational attainment targets and assessment apply the
invariable norm as measure” (Adam 2003, 63). Students are expected to turn in
assessment tasks on specific dates corresponding with their contractual agree-
ments as stipulated in course outlines (McArthur 2016), or else produce knowl-
edge on cue under timed examination conditions (Gilovich, Kerr, and Medvec
1993). Adjustments to such temporal expectations can be made, but only to those
who have verifiable reasons to make such interruptions, and only if those adap-
tations are considered reasonable (Bunbury 2020).
For committed students and engaged educators alike, these conditions to study
and receive judgement on submitted evidence of learning (Dawson et al. 2013)
may seem entirely feasible, and unassailable. Yet, these approaches to assessment
favour a normative, top-down approach to working with difference, in which
disruptions to the temporal order of teaching and learning are sanctioned on
the basis that they are documented as reasonable adjustments. Put differently,
 Ontological assessment decisions 77

students’ propensities for learning are associated with assumptions of being able to
comply with timed deadlines. Time pressures are moreover a principal reason that
underrepresented students exclude themselves from higher education (Bennett
and Burke 2017), giving little heed to the ways that normative frameworks of
hegemonic time affect student engagement. There are two points of significance
worthy of consideration, related to matters of assessment procedures in higher
education. Firstly, as they are easier and quicker to control than the ways students
engage with relevant and professional knowledge, procedural concerns are given
primacy in assessment over ontological ones (Bennett and Burke 2017; McArthur
2016). As McArthur (2016) notes, a “focus on procedure in assessment thus leads
students away from the most important aspect of what they should be doing –
critical engagement with complex knowledge” (972). Secondly, these ways of
working with assessment and the design of education programs more broadly are
predicated on linear, neoliberal-driven notions of learning progression (Lingard
and Thompson 2017), which emphasise individualised skill development in sup-
port of economies. Theorists have surmised that we live in a period of sped up
and individualised psychology, and that higher education has consequently never
been as hyper-accelerated as in the present (Vostal 2014), wherein temporal com-
pressions, such as shortened teaching periods containing tight assessment dead-
lines have become de rigueur. As we have foreshadowed, while many can thrive
in fast-paced and self-driven environments of learning, left behind are those stu-
dents who are unable to conform to linear, normative progression, and institu-
tions of higher education risk marginalising these students further (Bennett and
Burke 2017; Whitburn and Thomas 2021). In the next movement of this chapter,
we turn to ontology, and consider its productive possibilities for assessment, and
making evidence of learning.

Turning to ontology
To recap, what we have argued for is to recognise how higher education institutions
invoke assessment in their course designs to privilege particular ways of being and
engaging with knowledge; ways that evoke universalist ideals that everybody can
be equally included in a classroom and that balancing fairness in assessment by way
of procedural means to attempt achieving a level playing field stifles critical engage-
ment with knowledge for students. This approach neglects to account for diversity,
and how time – “the way it is lived, experienced and (re)constructed through our
location, positionality and experience – is gendered, classed and racialised and tied
to unequal power relations and socio-cultural differences” (Bennett and Burke
2017, 2). To that end, the extent to which assessment can be meaningfully under-
stood as a hallmark of inclusive practice is contingent, in our view, on how it can
go beyond epistemological limitations – ways of knowing or not knowing – to
incorporate ontological awareness: the ways that knowledge affects co-existence.
As we briefly presaged at the start, the ontological turn in social science inquiry
is concerned with the nature of being (St. Pierre, Jackson, and Mazzei 2016).
78 B. Whitburn and M. K. E. Thomas

It primarily shifts focus away from knowledge as fixed, infallible, and separate to
bodies, and thereby to be learned, held, and applied incontrovertibly, to an alter-
native point of departure that instead emphasises matter and meaning-making.
We draw here from the new materialism (St. Pierre, Jackson, and Mazzei 2016),
which is an orientation to social science inquiry that emphasises ontology to chal-
lenge categorical assumptions, including that which is material such as objects,
texts, and buildings and that which is non-material such as mood, time, and
intention. To consider inclusion through assessment in higher education gives us
scope to draw students’ attention towards the interconnections between things
that affect their experiences while engaging in the processes of meaning-making
about and for their chosen course of study. It supplies conditions for contexts of
learning in which students are made aware that educational programs and assess-
ment procedures are constructed (McArthur 2016), and that the knowledge that
is produced through learning is co-created, contingent on other variables, tem-
porary and forever changeable.
The co-creation of knowledge is of particular significance to an ontological
orientation to assessment in higher education. Similarly compelled to engage
ontology in approaches to assessment, Bourke (2017) observes that unnatural
divisions take shape through assessment practices in higher education: ones that
prevent teachers from forming legitimate partnerships with students, and that
also functions to detach students from their learning. As she writes, “students
take less responsibility for their own assessment because they have learned to rely
on assessments that tell them that they had learned, and by how much” (Bourke
2017, 829), or perhaps, how little. Bourke (2017) advocates instead for self-
assessment approaches, which, in co-production with teachers and peers, allow
students to identify questions for investigation, and grow professionally through
their inquiries. Significant to ensuring this approach led to strong outcomes for
students, teaching staff were themselves made to justify the decisions they made
about the types of assessment tasks set, and their purpose in supporting profes-
sional development. Assessment in use, then, is always changeable, being contin-
gent on the profile of learners and teachers in context, and they have their utility
in showing student learning aligned to these contexts.

Designing assessment: An evidence-making

intervention framework
Institutions of higher education increasingly rely on authentic forms of assess-
ment to judge student learning, identified as such by the implied connection
of tasks to real-world applications. While evidence for their fitness to purpose
remains illusory (Hathcoat et al. 2016), the benefits of authentic assessment
to shoring up academic integrity are in doubt, not least because authenticity
can differ starkly for different stakeholders (Ellis et al. 2019). A correspond-
ing issue is that despite there being little understanding about how teachers in
higher education purposefully engage in assessment design and implementation
 Ontological assessment decisions 79

practices, social constructivist conceptualisations dominate the field (Sadler and

Reimann 2017). On the surface, engaging students in the active development of
their knowledge in conjunction with others, as per social constructivist theories
of learning espoused by Bruner and Vygotsky, seems appropriate for ensuring
education is an initiative-taking pursuit. Yet, we would caution that social con-
structivism trades in psychological individualism, assuming pre-existing agency,
rationality, and developmental normativity, and its continued dominance in the
field of education is antithetical to an inclusive design (Whitburn and Corcoran
2019). To expand on these and the above points, we draw on an EMI framework
as a way of attending to questions of ontological relevance in assessment design
and implementation.
Originally developed and applied in the health field and implementation
sciences, Rhodes and Lancaster (2019) outline an ontology-driven framework,
which emphasises the “processes and practices through which ‘evidence’, ‘inter-
vention’ and ‘context’ come to be” (1); foregrounding matters that, to us, make
inclusive assessment possible for the ways that the approach orientates to differ-
ence. A distinction is made between evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and
EMIs, primarily in laying the groundwork for questioning what evidence is,
what it does, and how it contributes to sense-making. EBIs developed in edu-
cation as a crossover from evidence-based medicine, creating notions of best
practice that are centred on evidence to inform ongoing improvement to aspects
of learning including course design, teaching practices, and assessment. While
EBIs are sensitive to contextual specificity in populations and complex adaptive
systems, they draw very closely on epistemological (randomised controlled tri-
als, meta-analyses) evidence, and it is Rhodes and Lancaster’s contention that
EBIs do not account sufficiently for material practices in the constitution of evi-
dence as fluid, emergent practice. EMIs, on the other hand, start with practice;
they concentrate on “what interventions become through their implementations;
how they are worked-with into different things with multiple effects; and crucially,
how they are made-to-matter locally” (Rhodes and Lancaster 2019, 2). An EMI
framework has been used across broad contexts, for example, to interrogate how
evidence informs programs of school-wide behaviour (Corcoran and Thomas
2021), as well as media accounts of temporal implications in public sentiment
about COVID-19 vaccinations (Harrison, Lancaster, and Rhodes 2021). Based
on the ways this work centres ontological concerns at the core of their subject
matter, we are similarly drawn to consider its contribution to assessment deci-
sions in higher education, for supplying a sustainable approach to centring onto-
logical concerns in the design and implementation of assessment.
Before offering an example of how to apply an EMI framework to the design of
assessment for inclusion, we situate it alongside policies and principles of learning
design in higher education. Evidence is a core concern of the EMI framework, for
how it is associated with assessment and learning design. Yet, assessment is a form
of learning intervention – a process by which students demonstrate understanding
(Dawson et al. 2013). While evidence about appropriate approaches to the design
80 B. Whitburn and M. K. E. Thomas

and implementation of assessment is unsurprisingly varied (Sadler and Reimann

2017), rigorous institutional criteria articulate assessment as the form by which
students develop cumulative evidence of their learning. Focusing squarely on
outcomes, the evidence here quantifies levels of achievement against standardised
learning progression expectations. Similarly, evidence is used to inform the ongo-
ing development of the course and assessment design. We wish to emphatically
state that it is not itself a problem that evidence is held in such high regard for its
capacity to demonstrate knowledge attainment and improvement. However, and
aligned with the EMI framework, “[b]eing evidence-based is largely a function of
method, a question of epistemology, of how we judge an appropriate, and optimum,
way of knowing an intervention and its effects” (Rhodes and Lancaster 2019, 2).
We contend this ought to be accounted for more explicitly when making assess-
ment decisions so that institutions of higher education can provide more inclusive
ways of engaging evidence of a students’ learning.
In directing the application of their EMI framework to public health research,
Rhodes and Lancaster (2019) offer a series of tenets for researchers and practition-
ers concerned with pursuing different approaches to explicating how evidence is
made, and how it is used, and how it is made to matter. Drawing on the princi-
ples of new materialism and adapting these EMI-oriented tenets for application
to assessment decisions, design and implementation in higher education, our
approach proposes:

• Material-discursive practices inform learning outcomes and assessment, and

a multiplicity of practices generates multiple realities.
• Multiple human and non-human agents create assessment events.
• Evidencing learning should develop diverse ways of intervening in matters
of concern.

Let us now discuss each of these tenets in turn, for how they set the groundwork
for an ontological orientation to assessment, drawing on an example applicable to
each to invite others to pursue a similar orientation in their assessment decisions.

Material-discursive practices inform learning outcomes and

assessment, and a multiplicity of practices generates multiple realities
The intention is to problematise rigid binaries, which were and continue to be reck-
lessly dispensed to situate divisions between things such as learner/teacher, ability/
disability, adjusted and non-adjusted programs of study. Instead, in recognition
that such categories are contingent on context and emergent through practice, an
inclusive curriculum and associated programs of assessments can obviate the neces-
sity for reasonable adjustments when multiplicity is given consideration (Bunbury
2020). Emphasis on the processual nature of learning, and an ontological orientation
favours assessment tasks that highlight the co-existence of students’ knowledge-
creating processes in heterogenous connections with one another. Learning
 Ontological assessment decisions 81

outcomes are thereby formed to not assume static indicators of knowledge or skill
acquisition, but on the realities (evidence) created through relational interconnec-
tion. In an example of such an approach to learning design in inclusive education
for preservice teachers (Whitburn and Corcoran 2019), students are set summative
assessment tasks in which they are asked to articulate their conceptualisations of
heterogeneous learning environments, while decentring focus away from diagnos-
tic categories in favour of inclusive pedagogical approaches and accessibility consid-
erations. In so doing, they are assigned assessment partners and asked to reflect on
their interactions with one another in the development of their knowledge. What
is assessed, then, is how students come to recognise the ways that an ontological
orientation affects their understanding about diversity, and how they will use this
approach to knowledge making in their practices as school-based educators.

Multiple human and non-human agents create

assessment events
All matter is agentic, and inclusion in education is temporal, emergent, and mul-
tiple, rather than representing a fixed or aspirational state (Whitburn and Thomas
2021). Emphasis is given to affect: bodies and things mutually affect and can be
affected, through constitutive actions or events. This has implications for assess-
ment design and implementation, requiring a focus on the specific interactions
that occur within such events. EMIs foreground the constitutive forces of mate-
rial (e.g., technology) and non-material (e.g., study motivation), human (students,
teachers) and non-human (institutional assessment policy) agents at work, whose
interactions are fluid, transversal and temporary. Returning to the example cited
above (Whitburn and Corcoran 2019), students have their attention drawn to the
human and non-human interactions they experience in undertaking paired work
and are assessed on their capacity to apply analysis to the implications of these on
the knowledge they learned. These include how they named their strengths and
those of their assigned partner, how they centred equity in working together, and
as well how digital tools and knowledge traditions influenced their assessment
responses. The focus is on the continuous making and remaking of students’
ways of being within relationships. Importantly, reasonable adjustments are not
considered a bolt-on or extra procedural considerations but are anticipated and
accounted for in assessment design, in recognition that all students will have
divergent strengths, accessibility capabilities and temporal capacities to engage in
their studies, and that these will shape their learning achievements.

Evidencing learning should develop diverse ways

of intervening in matters of concern
To abstract knowledge from its ontological and political context is to make an
intervention that promotes outcomes limited to pre-set criteria. Shifting from
matters of fact to matters of concern (Latour 2004) is to emphasise context, and
82 B. Whitburn and M. K. E. Thomas

focuses on evidencing and intervening as ontological and political undertakings

(Corcoran and Thomas 2021). Returning once more to our example of assess-
ment design (Whitburn and Corcoran 2019), students are supplied with assess-
ment tasks that show their learning by explaining how matters of concern affect
them, and how they can in turn affect inclusive possibilities for learners. One
political matter of particular concern to education jurisdictions internationally
has been individualised planning for students with disabilities – a process that is a
key policy driver for inclusive education in our context in Victoria (Department
of Education and Training 2021). The paired assessment task focuses on students’
contexts of teaching and the implications of individualised planning on their
roles, centring on individualisation as a key concern for its ability to affect inclu-
sion or exclusion. Students are invited to articulate how they are affected by this
and related policies, and how inclusive curriculum design and pedagogy become
their matters of concern.

Conclusion
This chapter has sought to centre ontological awareness in assessment deci-
sions as the means to develop inclusiveness. Drawing on evidence using an EMI
framework it engages with relational and temporal concepts to orientate towards
assessment for inclusion, providing examples of how these principles have been
used to develop assessment tasks in the scholarship of inclusive education. By
designing assessment activities that attentively engage students in assessing their
ongoing development, that encourage them to identify and work within the
parameters of their strengths and those of their peers, and applying these skills
to the context of the profession in which they are studying, educators can move
focus away from quantifying knowledge and shifting conceptual focus towards
assessment for inclusion. We optimistically predict wider acceptance of onto-
logical orientations in the field, for escaping the clutches of constructivism and
giving educators the necessary theoretical resources to think with that promote
affirmative ways of engaging difference.

References
Adam, B. 2003. “Reflexive Modernization Temporalized.” Theory, Culture and Society 20
(2): 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276403020002004.
Bennett, A., and Burke, P. J. 2017. “Re/Conceptualising Time and Temporality: An
Exploration of Time in Higher Education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education 39 (6): 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1312285.
Bourke, R. 2017. “Self-Assessment to Incite Learning in Higher Education: Developing
Ontological Awareness.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 827–839.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1411881.
Bunbury, S. 2020. “Disability in Higher Education – Do Reasonable Adjustments
Contribute to an Inclusive Curriculum?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 24
(9): 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1503347.
 Ontological assessment decisions 83

Corcoran, T., and Thomas, M. K. E. 2021. “School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support

as Evidence-Making Interventions.” Research in Education 11 (1): 108–125. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00345237211034884.
Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Boud, D. J., Hall, M., Molloy, E. K., and Bennett, S. 2013.
“Assessment Might Dictate the Curriculum, but What Dictates Assessment?” Teaching
and Learning Inquiry 1 (1): 107–111.
Department of Education and Training. 2021. “Individual Education Plans (IEPs)
Policy.” Last modified 22 November 2021. https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/
individual-education-plans-ieps/policy.
Dolmage, J. T. 2017. “Disability on Campus, on Film: Framing the Failures of Higher
Education.” In Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education, edited by Jay T.
Dolmage, 153–184. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/j.ctvr33d50.
Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., Rozenberg,
P., Newton, P., and Saddiqui, S. 2019. “Does Authentic Assessment Assure Academic
Integrity? Evidence from Contract Cheating Data.” Higher Education Research and
Development 39 (3): 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956.
Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., and Medvec, V. H. 1993. “Effect of Temporal Perspective on
Subjective Confidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (4): 552–560.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.552.
Harrison, M., Lancaster, K., and Rhodes, T. 2021. ““A Matter of Time”: Evidence-
Making Temporalities of Vaccine Development in the COVID-19 Media Landscape.”
Time and Society 31 (1): 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463x211032201.
Hathcoat, J. D., Penn, J. D., Barnes, L. L. B., and Comer, J. C. 2016. “A Second Dystopia
in Education: Validity Issues in Authentic Assessment Practices.” Research in Higher
Education 57 (7): 892–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9407-1.
Jackson, A. Y., and Mazzei, L. 2011. Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing
Data across Multiple Perspectives. London: Taylor and Francis.
Latour, B. 2004. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters
of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30 (2): 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123.
Lingard, B., and Thompson, G. 2017. “Doing Time in the Sociology of Education.”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.
2016.1260854.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
Rhodes, T., and Lancaster, K. 2019. “Evidence-Making Interventions in Health:
A Conceptual Framing.” Social Science and Medicine 238: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.socscimed.2019.112488.
Sadler, I., and Reimann, N. 2017. “Variation in the Development of Teachers’
Understandings of Assessment and Their Assessment Practices in Higher Education.”
Higher Education Research and Development 37 (1): 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07294360.2017.1344199.
Simons, M., and Masschelein, J. 2015. “Inclusive Education for Exclusive Pupils: A Critical
Analysis of the Government of the Exceptional.” In Foucault and the Government of
Disability, edited by Shelley Tremain, 208–228. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8265343.
Spina, N. 2018. ““Once upon a Time”: Examining Ability Grouping and Differentiation
Practices in Cultures of Evidence-Based Decision-Making.” Cambridge Journal of
Education 49 (3): 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2018.1533525.
84 B. Whitburn and M. K. E. Thomas

St. Pierre, E. A., Jackson, A. Y., and Mazzei, L. A. 2016. “New Empiricisms and New
Materialisms.” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 16 (2): 99–110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1532708616638694.
Vostal, F. 2014. “Academic Life in the Fast Lane: The Experience of Time and Speed in
British Academia.” Time and Society 24 (1): 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463x
13517537.
Whitburn, B., and Corcoran, T. 2019. “Ontologies of Inclusion and Teacher Education.”
In Global Perspectives on Inclusive Teacher Education, edited by Bethany M. Rice, 1–15.
Hershley, PA: IGI Global.
Whitburn, B., and Thomas, M. K. E. 2021. “A Right to Be Included: The Best and
Worst of Times for Learners with Disabilities.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability
Research 23(1): 104–113. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.772.
SECTION II

Meso contexts of
assessment for inclusion:
Institutional and
community perspectives
8
INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT
Recognising difference through
communities of praxis

Penny Jane Burke

Assessment is a relation of power in higher education. It is not only about the

criteria, the methods, or the grading systems; it is also about how we make sense
of potential, capability, and belonging as assessors and assessed. It is about how
experiences of assessment become part of our subjective relationship to higher
education, knowledge, and knowing. Because assessment is entrenched in the
many institutionalised judgements we encounter as knowers and learners – even
when this is an experience of exclusion from higher education – it is embodied
in our sense of self. Those involved in assessment processes are also subjected
to the technologies of assessment in higher education; for example, through
performance review processes, peer review practices, and through our power
and participation in the assessment of students. Thus, developing a strong, crit-
ical reflexivity about how we experience this and enact it might help us to re/
form our assessment practices especially when we are explicitly and formally
engaged in making judgements of others. This chapter illuminates how une-
qual power relations and taken-for-granted values and practices shape assess-
ment, which makes inclusivity an ongoing challenge. I introduce the concept of
“Communities of Praxis” as a framework to engage with these challenges and
work collaboratively towards developing possibilities for assessment for inclusion.
Experiences and practices of assessment take place in time and space. The
discourses of meritocracy, aptitude, and capability are longstanding features
of assessment in higher education, and are central to national level assessment
systems, such as the Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) and the
American Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Such systems are built on notions of
standardisation, objectivity, and the commitment to equality of opportunity,
but the decontextualised frameworks underpinning these systems are unable to
grapple with the inequities of educational systems. Indeed, what merit means
and how it is judged across time and space has been extensively researched and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-11
88 P. J. Burke

shown to be fluid, dynamic, and tied to unequal relations of power. Karabel’s

(2006) meticulous study of “the hidden history of admission and exclusion” is an
outstanding examination of the exclusionary power of meritocracy embedded in
national systems such as the SAT. He traces in fine detail how the “definition of
‘merit’ changed fundamentally several times” over twentieth-century America
(Karabel 2006, 4). Yet, what is often absent are explicit discussions about the
relationship between assessment and the historical struggles over the right to
higher education, who is seen to belong, and how merit, aptitude, and capability
are discursively produced. These discourses powerfully shape – and limit – our
pedagogical imaginations about what kinds of assessment frameworks and prac-
tices are possible.

Some conceptual tools for reimagining assessment

Drawing from Barbara Adam (1998), I use the concept of timescapes to extend
the notion of the landscape of higher education and to foreground how time
and space are critical and related dimensions of inequality in higher education.
The discourses, practices, and relations by which time and space are unequally
structured, managed, and negotiated become more visible through the lens
of timescapes. This is crucial as temporal inequalities play out in and through
everyday experiences and practices but are often reduced to notions of effective
“time management” skills (Bennett and Burke 2018). Time management tends
to ignore that students negotiate assessment from a range of different and unequal
positions in relation to time and space. This might include having to negotiate
the demands of paid and unpaid labour while studying, having no quiet space to
study or having a long commute to university via unreliable or unsafe transpor-
tation. Despite this, the articulation of experiences of time tends to be limited
by discourses of individualism and management, constructed as mechanistic and
technocratic, whereby simply providing staff and students with the training to
develop the skills to effectively manage their time is identified as a central focus
of equity and inclusion. This reinforces deficit discourses of the problem, which
are often perceived as simply fixed by better time management skills. Related
to this is the problematic idea of “teaching smarter”, which implies spending
less time supporting students who are constructed as “needy”. This severely
limits pedagogical opportunities to fully engage students with assessment pro-
cesses, and to demystify academic literacy practices and expectations, reproduc-
ing inequities and exclusion (Lillis 2001). Rather, a remedial approach to study
skills is problematically bolted on, leaving little time and space for students from
under-represented backgrounds to decode the unfamiliar academic practices that
underpin specific assessment frameworks within a field of study and are crucial
to inclusion.
In the body of my work (Burke 2002, 2012), and through the development
of the Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education (CEEHE) (Burke
2020), I have foregrounded praxis as key to building what I call transformative
 Inclusive assessment through communities of praxis 89

equity, which is underpinned by social justice theories/practices. Praxis brings

theory and practice together in ongoing conversation, creating new relation-
alities to time and space that prioritise reflection-action and action-reflection
(Burke 2002, 2012) drawing on Freire’s significant work (Freire 1970). This dif-
fers significantly from hegemonic deficit models of equity which focus primar-
ily on the remediation of the supposed deficiencies of students associated with
equity policies. A praxis-based framework enables the collective interrogation
of taken-for-granted values, assumptions, and perspectives (Lather 1991) that are
embedded in institutionalised histories of exclusion to generate new forms of
research-informed practice and practice-informed research (Burke 2020).
Praxis-based approaches enable the disruption of deficit models that repro-
duce impoverished notions of inclusion and diversity that locate the problem
of equity in the supposed deficiencies of the individual. I have argued in my
work (e.g., Burke 2012) that such deficit models lean heavily into problematic
and decontextualised forms of student support based on remediation rather than
to tackle the complex dynamics of power and knowledge in the formation of
studenthood; the recognition of capability that is central to a sense of belonging
in higher education and for which assessment plays a major role (Burke et al.
2015). It is through praxis-oriented approaches that we can grapple with these
complexities and move away from simplistic deficit models of equity to more
transformative social justice ones.
So, what do I mean by an impoverished view of inclusion? My body of
research has demonstrated that “inclusion” often operates as a form of symbolic
violence; a way of regulating difference and constructing difference as Other
(Said 1993) and as a problem to be fixed (Burke 2015). That is, inclusion becomes
an institutional mechanism to “transform” students seen as Other or different
to fit into the dominant values, practices, and ways of being in order that they
are recognisable as capable university students within specific disciplines and/or
fields of study.
Assessment is a technology (I use technology here in a Foucauldian sense, see
Foucault 1977) that reinforces such forms of symbolic violence; a technology that
excludes those who are misrecognised as incapable of meeting the criteria, which
is designed to aid assessors to rank, grade, judge, categorise, hierarchise, and/or
measure the assessed (Burke 2002, 90–91). The assessment criteria are presented
as neutral and transparent tools for the assessor to make fair judgements, rather
than as embedded in the shared values, assumptions, and perspectives of the
community of practice in which the assessment has been designed and conducted.

Assessment generated in communities of practice

Communities of practice (CoP) (Lave and Wenger 1991) are significant spaces
in which our academic, discipline-based, and professional knowledge is legiti-
mated and developed. However, inclusion in the community of practice empha-
sises that which is shared rather than grappling with ontological differences and
90 P. J. Burke

epistemological contestations that generate exclusions, Othering and not belong-

ing (Burke 2020). In the context of contemporary higher education timescapes,
including the intensified pace of work, knowledge-production and assessment
experienced by both staff and students, there is little time/space to interrogate
our taken-for-granted assumptions, values, and perspectives through forms of
ethical reflexivity. I offer the concept “ethical reflexivity” to signal an ongoing
commitment to examining one’s situatedness in complex relations of power and
to critically consider the values, assumptions, and perspectives that shape key
higher education discourses and practices, including assessment. This involves a
deep and sustained ethical orientation to generating inclusive assessment.
Although communities of practice are important sites in which academic,
disciplinary, and professional knowledge is shared, formed, and developed, the
implicit sense of knowing of the collective body often undermines the capacity
to exercise ethical reflexivity about how these ontological and epistemological
framings might be experienced as exclusive to other bodies (of knowledge and
people). An example is that we often attempt to “decolonise the curriculum”
without attention to the Western- and White-centric epistemologies that frame
a discipline. Or we often aim to create inclusive practices whilst requiring stu-
dents from diverse communities to conform to the implicit (and explicit) values
embedded institutionally without careful attention to the different values at play
that relate to the diverse experiences and communities that student identities are
situated in.
Assessment is embedded in the communities of practice (e.g., Maths,
Psychology, Sociology, Science, Arts, etc.) in which our mutual knowledge
provides important epistemic foundations and developments, providing signif-
icant and meaningful spaces of shared understanding, belonging, and identity.
This mutual knowledge can afford important opportunities towards developing
forms of inclusive assessment. However, communities of practice also produce
significant forms of exclusion and misrecognition often realised through explicit
assessment practices, undermining students’ sense of capability, success, identity,
and belonging (Burke et al. 2015). The tendency to (mis)represent assessment as
neutral, fair, and value-free leads to the reproduction of inequalities through the
erasure of the implicit knowledge, values, and perspectives that frame it. There is
thus a circularity of the legitimation of the knowledge, values, and perspectives
of those who are included in the community of practice and who are in a position
to determine the assessment framework in the first place.
These exclusionary assessment practices are entangled in relations of inequal-
ity in ways that are often invisible, particularly in the absence of close analysis
and ethical reflexivity. Social justice theories provide important analytical and
reflexive tools to bring to light the exclusionary dimensions of assessment prac-
tice otherwise unseen. Furthermore, moving away from theory and practice and
towards “praxis” (Burke 2002; Freire 1970; Lather 1991) enables new dialogical
spaces of critical reflection/action to support the development of social justice
oriented forms of “inclusive assessment” (Burke et al. 2015).
 Inclusive assessment through communities of praxis 91

A case study: Art for a Few

The research project Art for a Few (Burke and McManus 2009) provides a com-
pelling case to bring such exclusionary processes to light. As part of this research,
we observed 70 selection interviews across five UK higher education institu-
tions, which consisted of the pre-interview assessment of the art portfolio, the
interview itself and the post-interview assessment. These technologies of assess-
ment, ranking and judgement, taking place within particular communities of
practice, were revealed to reproduce gendered, classed and racialised exclusions.
This was most evident in our observation of the selection interview process of
Nina (pseudonym), a young Black British woman from a poor inner-city area
who was applying for a BA in Fashion. Nina met the academic assessment cri-
teria, and her art portfolio was ranked as good. However, when she replied to
the standard interview question about major artistic influences, she cited hip-
hop and explained that she would like to design sports tops. Her interview was
cut short and she was rejected immediately. Shortly after, a young middle-class,
White British male, cited a range of contemporary artists as his influences and he
was offered a place, despite having significantly poorer qualifications than Nina,
including having failed his General Certificate in Secondary Education in Art.
In their post-interview discussion, the assessment panel formally justified their
decision in reference to Nina’s portfolio, which they claimed later to be ranked as
“below average”. They also referred to Nina’s “immaturity” due to her desire to
stay home while at university and negatively judged her attire as unfashionable.
Nina is misrecognised as lacking fashion flair; despite wearing similar cloth-
ing to the White female candidates offered places, Nina was judged as deficient
in her embodied performance of self. Through the technologies of assessment of
the selection interview, which included what were seen as transparent, fair, and
standardised questions, Nina was judged as immature because she did not want to
move away from home to study at university. The White male candidate embod-
ied the values and practices embedded in the assessment questions; he expressed
that leaving home is key to the university experience, he dressed and spoke in a
way that signalled talent, and he referenced contemporary artists and designers,
all of which was viewed as signifying his potential and creativity. This case study
demonstrates how the shared values, practices, and knowledge within a commu-
nity of practice (in this case Fashion) can unwittingly work to reproduce classed,
gendered, and racialised inequalities, misrecognitions, and exclusions in ways
that appear to the assessment panel as fair, objective, and transparent.
Following publication of Art for a Few (Burke and McManus 2009), we dis-
seminated the report widely holding workshops with those teaching arts across
higher education institutions. This led one program team, responsible for one of
the most selective fine arts programs in England, to dig deep into their assump-
tions and taken-for-granted practices. Engaging with the research, they looked
closely at their admissions, pedagogical and assessment practices, and a new
perspective emerged that deeply concerned them. They realised they had no
92 P. J. Burke

representation from the immediate schools, colleges, and communities in their

local area and the student profile was homogenous – mainly White, middle-class
students from across more affluent areas in England. The programme team
started to work closely with the Widening Participation Unit, local schools and
colleges, and developed regular program team meetings to collectively reform
the ways they thought about what counted as potential, talent, and capability.
Working with the analysis provided by Art for a Few, they interrogated their val-
ues, perspectives, and assessment practices. Through this, they developed inclu-
sive capacity to accommodate diverse artistic expressions that better represented
the university’s under-represented local communities.
Sustaining this commitment to transformation of the program over time,
their student profile has dramatically shifted to a highly diverse student pro-
file with strong representation from the institution’s immediate local communi-
ties. The curriculum developed organically as new artistic expressions emerging
from their now diverse student communities were recognised, valued, and rep-
resented. The programme team effectively developed what I call a community of
praxis in which they exercised ethical reflexivity through social justice perspec-
tives bringing new forms of practice to play and thus transforming the program.

Towards communities of praxis

Considering the benefits of working with, through and against the communities
of practice in which our assessment practices are differently situated, I argue for
the value of building and sustaining communities of praxis. In order to generate
time and space for creative, collaborative, and innovative development of inclu-
sive assessment, we need to draw from our points of connection, supporting
our sense of belonging and purpose. However, in order to extend this sense of
belonging in ways that challenge harmful forms of institutionalised misrecog-
nition, we need to attend to the politics of difference, perhaps discovering that
difference becomes a pedagogical resource for re-imagining inclusive assessment.
In resituating assessment through the lens of difference, and through building
communities of praxis, we might generate counter-hegemonic timescapes to
create meaningful forms of inclusion.
Creating counter-hegemonic timescapes through communities of praxis ena-
bles us to collectively grapple with the ways that inclusion can so easily slip into
being a mechanism of regulation, misrecognition and the exclusion of difference,
coercing students to fit into or conform to the hegemonic ways of being, know-
ing, and doing (Archer 2003). Inclusion therefore demands the recognition of
difference through ethical reflexivity (Burke 2015), rather than the regulation
and exclusion of difference, or the pernicious willingness to transform those
seen to be different into the preferred ways of being as framed by a commu-
nity of practice. This is undoubtedly challenging and requires deep work within
our communities of praxis, examining the taken-for-granted ontological and
epistemological foundations that underpin assessment frameworks. I suggest
 Inclusive assessment through communities of praxis 93

that we draw from Paulo Freire’s concept of the circle of knowledge to do this
deep, reflexive, praxis-oriented work. This circle of knowledge brings together
knowledge emerging from across difference, including the knowledge of the
assessor but also knowledge within community contexts, to transform the lim-
itations of how knowledge is legitimated. Such approaches strive to open time
and space for the cyclical and reciprocal reformation of knowledge and know-
ing in the commitment to inclusion and diversity. This is a process of bringing
together disciplinary knowledge with the heterogeneous knowledge of those
groups, communities, and societies that have often been denied representation in
higher education curricula. This is demonstrated clearly in the example provided
above of the Fine Art team’s sustained commitment to bringing together in new
ways marginalised bodies of art with hegemonic bodies of art, in a project of
transformative equity.

Engaging a multi-dimensional social justice

framework for inclusive assessment
Nancy Fraser (2008) argues that social justice requires attention to, and the
holding together of, redistribution, recognition, and representation, with a focus
on enabling parity of participation. Understanding these three dimensions of
social justice as interwoven is crucial for reconceptualising “inclusion” in higher
education timescapes and assessment practices, challenging hegemonic discourses
(Burke, Crozier, and Misiaszek 2017).
In keeping with Fraser’s position, inclusive assessment requires holding together
the multi-dimensions of justice, even when these create tensions, dilemmas, and
challenges. Following Fraser (1997, 2003, 2008), it is crucial to shift attention
away from deficit discourses with its problematic focus on the remediation of
what individual students are seen to lack. Instead, we need to re/situate our com-
munities of praxis through practices of curiosity and unknowing (Lather 2007)
as part of grappling with difference and multi-dimensional injustices. Through
this sustained and collaborative grappling, and by drawing on the theoretical tools
provided through social justice frameworks, we might open counter-hegemonic
timescapes for thinking and doing inclusion with and through difference. This
requires sustained and reflexive processes; not one-off programmatic design and
delivery. This means that the community of praxis think through and develop
practices that address the inter-connected dimensions of distribution, recognition,
and representation.
Inclusion is more complex than overcoming barriers through access to
financial and material resources, as important as these resources are. This one-
dimensional approach to inclusion is flawed because it is unable to grapple
with the more insidious dimensions of misrecognition and misrepresentation.
Processes of misrecognition are about the institutionally legitimatised values and
judgements that are imposed on the misrecognised person in ways that effec-
tively exclude them from inclusion (Burke 2012). In order to have parity of
94 P. J. Burke

participation, a student must have access to the resources and high-quality ped-
agogical opportunities that enable access to esoteric practices and institutionally
legitimised epistemologies. The students must also though be recognised and have
access to representation as a fully valued member of the community (Burke, Crozier,
and Misiaszek 2017) which means the inclusion of their experiences, knowledge,
and ways of knowing.
This requires valuing different ways of knowing and being and addressing
the historical inequalities that have shaped processes of institutional legitimacy. It
is also important to capture the affective, emotional, subjective, and lived expe-
riences of misrecognition and misrepresentation, that are felt in and through the
body as forms of symbolic violence and injury on the self (Burke 2012; McNay
2008, 150). This often leads to feelings of shame and fear (Ahmed 2004; Burke
2017) and is not a matter of lack of confidence but of sustained experiences of
symbolic violence over time.
Success in higher education depends on navigating assessment practices that
operate to recognise a student as “successful” or not. The student must decode
(often esoteric) forms of academic practice that are granted legitimacy through the
community of practice in which the assessment is located. Students from socially
privileged contexts often have access to a range of resources that enable them
to decode how to demonstrate academic capability through assessment practices.
The successful student must first understand how to write, speak, construct an
argument, hypothesis, and read (and so forth) in ways that is recognised as insti-
tutionally legitimate forms of practice within a particular community of practice.
These academic practices are highly contextual, requiring students to develop
complex skills of decoding expectations and conventions across the different com-
munities of practice in which they are studying. Academic practices (e.g., con-
structing an argument, debating, formulating a problem, presenting with clarity
and coherence, bring critical, etc.) tend to be misrepresented as neutral, decontex-
tualised sets of technical skills and literacy that can be straightforwardly assessed
(Lillis 2001) and that students from disadvantaged social contexts simply lack. That
these academic practices are historically embedded in classed, racialised, and gen-
dered ways of doing is erased from view thus perpetuating exclusive forms of what
is named “inclusion”.

Final reflections
I have argued that resituating assessment through the lens of difference, and
through building communities of praxis, we might generate new timescapes to
consider what assessment-for-inclusion means in the context of our fields and
how we might affect social justice transformation. I suggest this requires orienta-
tions towards social justice praxis; the bringing together of theoretical insights on
the working of knowledge, power, and inequality with commitments to trans-
formative forms of practice. I have also suggested that moving towards com-
munities of praxis might open counter-hegemonic timescapes to grapple with
 Inclusive assessment through communities of praxis 95

the ways that assessment can unwittingly become a mechanism of regulation,

misrecognition, and the exclusion of difference. Inclusion is often a mechanism
in which students are coerced to fit into or conform to the hegemonic ways
of being, knowing and doing or to risk exclusion. My position is that striving
towards inclusive assessment demands the recognition of difference, rather than
its regulation and exclusion, presenting us with significant challenges and possi-
bilities to spark our pedagogical imaginations.
I recognise that this requires more than the development of communities
of praxis – it demands transformation institutionally, epistemologically, and
ontologically – and that is deeply challenging. However, I suggest that forming
communities of praxis is a good starting point – to generate timescapes for us
to work differently together and through this collective praxis to challenge the
competitive, individualistic, performative, and instrumentalist discourses, prac-
tice, and structures at play.
So what shape might an actual community of praxis take? An example is the
Excellence in Teaching for Equity in Higher Education (ETEHE) program. This
program was developed to redress the misframing of equity as a remedial project
located outside of the core work of education and to create critical timescapes and
conceptual resources to engage participants in the complexity of making sense
of and generating inclusive practices across a range of disciplinary fields. ETEHE
opens up reflexive spaces of ethical praxis, deepening participants’ engagement
with equity as researchers-practitioners. In generating collaborative communi-
ties of praxis, institutional, community-based, and personal transformation is
facilitated through processes of peer exchange to co-produce meaning and prac-
tice. ETEHE redistributes resources (research funding, mentorship, space, and
time) for a number of project teams to develop a research project with a strong
emphasis on creating social justice-oriented forms of impact. Each project team
works closely together on their research with the support of a senior academic
mentor, with research funding granted. As part of the ETEHE framework, each
project team also joins a transdisciplinary community of praxis, which brings
ETEHE participants together to focus time and energy on the challenges and
dilemmas emerging from their specific and collective projects. The meetings
of the community of praxis are sustained over time, to develop peer mentoring
spaces and rich opportunities for critical exchange, interrogation of assumptions
and identification of the possibilities for transformative practice. The space facil-
itates dialogue across disciplinary, epistemological, and ontological differences
and time to consider the contested meanings of equity and the implications of
these for practice. Although this has provoked difficult discussions and problem-
atic issues, the space and time of the community of praxis has allowed for partici-
pants to work through these differences together. One of the difficult dimensions
of this approach is to accept that there are simple answers and that working with
and through difference in transdisciplinary and collaborative communities of
praxis requires that we “stay with the trouble” (Haraway 2016) of developing
inclusive assessment in collaborative timescapes.
96 P. J. Burke

Staying with the trouble cultivates an orientation towards ongoing question-

ing through curiosity and a form of unknowing (Lather 2007). In the spirit of
generating possibilities for dialogue within communities of praxis beyond this
chapter, I end my reflections by offering some questions for further consideration:

• How might we create the time and space to interrogate the values and
assumptions about the purpose(s) of HE and the right to higher education in
relation to assessment structures, practices, and inclusion?
• How might we more clearly articulate – and question – how we understand
potential, capability, and success? Who judges, how and with what implications?
• What might it mean to work with rather than against difference? How does
this translate to assessment practices?
• What are the opportunities to build on our communities of practice to
recreate these as communities of praxis? In what ways and contexts could these
be of value?
• How might we cultivate counter-hegemonic timescapes and collectively challenge
the hegemonic timescapes of contemporary higher education? What are the
possibilities? What are the challenges?

By bringing ETEHE participants together within communities of praxis, their

research praxis enabled them to address such questions through their projects
and with their mentors together in the workshops. This opened new timescapes
for ethical reflexivity to reimagine inclusivity not through the lens of deficit
and/or remediation but through the collective interrogation of whose knowl-
edges, values, and experiences are included and excluded through assessment
frameworks.

References
Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of Modernity. London: Routledge.
Ahmed, S. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Archer, L. 2003. Race, Masculinity and Schooling: Muslim Boys and Education. Berkshire,
MA: Open University Press.
Bennett, A., and Burke, P. J. 2018. “Re/conceptualising Time and Temporality: An
Exploration of Time in Higher Education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education 39 (6): 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1312285.
Burke, P. J. 2002. Accessing Education Effectively Widening Participation. Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham Books.
Burke, P. J. 2012. The Right to Higher Education: Beyond Widening Participation. London:
Routledge.
Burke, P. J. 2015. “Re/imagining Higher Education Pedagogies: Gender, Emotion and
Difference.” Teaching in Higher Education 20 (4): 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13562517.2015.1020782.
Burke, P. J. 2017. “Difference in Higher Education Pedagogies. Gender, Emotion and
Shame.” Gender and Education 29 (4): 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.
2017.1308471.
 Inclusive assessment through communities of praxis 97

Burke, P. J. 2020. “Contradiction and Collaboration in Equity and Widening Participation:

In Conversation with Geoff Whitty.” In Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Education and the
Struggle for Social Justice, edited by Andrew Brown, and Emma Wisby, 233–254. London:
UCL Press.
Burke, P. J., Bennett, A., Burgess, C., Gray, K., and Southgate, E. 2015. Capability, Belonging and
Equity in Higher Education. Callaghan: University of Newcastle. https://nova.newcastle.
edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/uon:32939/ATTACHMENT02?view=true.
Burke, P. J., Crozier, G., and Misiaszek, L. I. 2017. Changing Pedagogical Spaces in Higher
Education: Diversity, Inequalities and Misrecognition. London and New York: Routledge.
Burke, P. J., and McManus, J. 2009. “Art for a Few: Exclusions and Misrecognitions in Higher
Education Admissions Practices.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32
(5): 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620753.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Random
House.
Fraser, N. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. London
and New York: Routledge.
Fraser, N. 2003. “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition
and Participation.” In Redistribution or Recognition? A Political- Philosophical Exchange,
edited by Nancy Fraser and Alex Honneth, 7–109. London and New York: Verso.
Fraser, N. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Cambridge
and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Karabel, J. 2006. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale
and Princeton. Boston and NY: Mariner Books.
Lather, P. 1991. Getting Smart. Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Post-Modern.
New York and London: Routledge.
Lather, P. 2007. Getting Lost. Feminist Efforts toward a Double(d) Science. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. 1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lillis, T. 2001. Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge.
McNay, L. 2008. Against Recognition. Cambridge: Polity.
Said, E. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus.
9
INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT
AND AUSTRALIAN HIGHER
EDUCATION POLICY
Matt Brett and Andrew Harvey

Introduction
Equity is a concept that is interwoven with concepts of underrepresentation,
fairness, diversity, and inequality, defined, and measured by groups that are more
likely to participate (or are included) in higher education, and groups that are
less likely to participate (thereby facing exclusion). The ways in which inclusion
and exclusion are understood and defined in Australian society vary over time.
This book’s focus on assessment for inclusion can be considered a contemporary and
specific manifestation of concern for equity and fairness that spans the history of
Australian higher education from its genesis.
To understand the possibilities of assessment for inclusion in Australian higher
education it is important to understand the dominant paradigm for inclusion
and exclusion, and how this is sustained through policy and practice. The chap-
ter undertakes a policy analysis of “assessment for inclusion” drawing upon the
social and legal frameworks of the policy analysis toolkit (Althaus, Bridgman,
and Davis 2018) to understand how assessment for inclusion is framed, aligned,
implemented, and evaluated within higher education policy.
Australia introduced an equity policy framework in the 1990s that priori-
tised access to higher education for designated equity groups, a framework that
remains intact 30 years later (Harvey, Burnheim, and Brett 2016). A major fea-
ture of the equity framework is an equity performance indicator that captures
and reports data on designated equity group access, participation, success, and
retention (Martin 2016a).
The framework and complementary subsequent policies such as creation of
the demand-driven system have been remarkably successful in expanding access
(Zacharias 2017). Notwithstanding successes in increasing participation, there
are nevertheless enduring challenges with the equity framework. Equitable

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-12
 Inclusive assessment and policy 99

access to undergraduate study does not flow through to access to postgradu-

ate study (Grant-Smith, Irmer, and Mayes 2020). There is variance in equity
group access, participation, success, retention, and completion across universities
(Pitman et al. 2020). Some disciplines are more inclusive than others, demon-
strating higher rates of equity group participation than others. Some disciplines
formalise the exclusion of students with specific characteristics through pub-
lishing inherent requirements (Boucher 2021). Student success and retention is
persistently lower for designated equity groups (Department of Education Skills
and Employment (DESE) 2022). Finally, graduate outcomes vary substantially
across student groups (Harvey, Cakitaki, and Brett 2018), with some sub-groups
recording relatively low employment rates upon graduation (Harvey, Szalkowicz,
and Luckman 2020).
These data confirm a paradox of equity and inclusion in higher education.
Equity group participation rates steadily increase, suggesting a trend towards
inclusion, but coincide with sustained disparities in success, retention, and
completion indicative of entrenched exclusion. These disparities are most pro-
nounced for students with disabilities and Indigenous students (DESE 2022),
through disparities indicative of exclusion at different points of the student lifecy-
cle. For example, despite relatively low success and retention rates, the Graduate
Outcomes Survey reveals that Indigenous graduates earn more than all graduates
irrespective of course level (Grant-Smith, Irmer, and Mayes 2020). By contrast,
students with a disability record the lowest graduate employment outcomes of
any equity group. While graduate outcomes are affected by several influences
outside the university’s scope (Harvey, Cakitaki, and Brett 2018), specific gov-
ernment policies and funding clearly affect the participation, success, and out-
comes of student equity groups. These policies enable focused examination of
the relationships between equity, inclusion, and assessment.
Assessment practices themselves are likely to be central to the equity paradox
of rising access alongside continuing inequities in success, retention, and out-
comes. International evidence suggests that differences in grades among students
of different ethnicities and backgrounds cannot be explained by prior academic
achievement. The attainment gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic
(BAME) students and White students in the United Kingdom (UK), for exam-
ple, is longstanding, unexplained by prior achievement, and variable across fields
of education (AdvanceHE 2017; Cramer 2021). Similar findings in the United
States and elsewhere suggest that some assessment practices are exclusionary and
lead to variable outcomes across a range of different student groups. Increasing
the inclusivity of assessment is thus central to the broader project of increasing
student equity in higher education.
This chapter examines contemporary Commonwealth policies relating to
higher education for references to equity, inclusion, and assessment. We iden-
tify policies where these terms are represented, acknowledging that these terms
are contested but avoid aligning with particular definitions beyond those uti-
lised within policy. Our policy analysis includes higher education standards,
100 M. Brett and A. Harvey

higher education financing, university enabling legislation, and institutional

assessment policies. This chapter also considers the role of non-higher edu-
cation specific policies influencing inclusive assessment, particularly disability
discrimination legislation. We conclude with opportunities for strengthening
higher education policies to advance inclusive assessment.

Commonwealth higher education policy

Higher education standards
To deliver higher education courses in Australia, institutions must be registered
with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). TEQSA
has the primary function of regulating higher education against the Higher
Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011.
There is no requirement to be inclusive or adopt inclusive assessment in the
Threshold Standards. There are, however, requirements to accommodate “diversity
and equity”, contextualised by reference to identified underrepresented groups, and
specific reference to admission, participation, and completion of Indigenous stu-
dents. Whilst diversity and equity are distinct and non-interchangeable terms, the
manner in which the Threshold Standards juxtaposes these terms highlights that
equity and inclusion are part of a broader overlapping lexicon.
The framing of equity and inclusion within the Threshold Standards high-
lights the significance of the equity paradigm, whilst simultaneously failing to
engage with assessment as a fundamental property of the higher education sys-
tem. Another Threshold Standard is that learning outcomes are specified and
assessed with validity. There is no reference within the “learning outcomes
and assessment” standard nor related guidance notes (TEQSA 2017a) as to how
assessment might be structured to be equitable or inclusive, nor how it might
interact with equity and diversity standards.
Access is generally prioritised within Commonwealth policy, with little atten-
tion to learning experiences of designated equity groups. One might see each
standard as a holistic set of equivalent requirements, but some standards exert
more influence than others. For example, efforts to decolonise the curriculum
have been evident for decades (see Anderson et al. 1998), but only now do we
see evidence of success in integrating Indigenous knowledges in the curriculum
(Harvey and Russell-Mundine 2019). This integration of Indigenous knowledge
in the curriculum can be understood as a means of bringing distinct equity
and assessment focused standards into coherence. Generating coherence between
equity and assessment standards is challenging because diversity and equity con-
siderations are, as evidenced by use in TEQSA registration processes, non-core,
and have limited influence over learning outcomes and assessment standards.
These core standards have proven resistant to change, and their primacy is vali-
dated and reinforced through regulation and registration processes.
Universities are assessed for compliance with the Threshold Standards through
cyclical registration processes. Application guides and evidentiary requirements
 Inclusive assessment and policy 101

for re-registration make no reference to diversity and equity standards (TEQSA

2017b). Course accreditation proposals are a core evidentiary requirement for
re-registration, and this directly relates to learning outcomes and assessment stand-
ards, but again with no specific reference to inclusion. The registration process
positions diversity and equity standards as non-core and there are few if any conse-
quences arising from systemic exclusion of students from designated equity groups.

Higher education financing

Registration with TEQSA makes Australian universities eligible for public sub-
sidies mediated by the Higher Education Support Act (HESA) 2003 (Cth). HESA
objectives embed a focus on equity of access. A small proportion of HESA sub-
sidies are distributed for “Grants to promote equality of opportunity in higher
education”. There are several grant programs that distribute funds based on
enrolments by designated equity groups. This approach entrenches a focus
on access rather than experience or success.
One word that is not found within HESA is “inclusion”. We do observe,
however, that legislative instruments established under HESA have progres-
sively introduced the language of inclusion. For example, Indigenous funding
is currently contingent on requirements that include inclusion of Indigenous
knowledge in the curricula (Indigenous Student Assistance Grants 2017 Cth s13.c.).
Earlier iterations of grants made under HESA to support Indigenous students
made funding conditional on strategies to support access, participation, reten-
tion, and success (Other Grant Guidelines Education 2012 Cth). Grants made under
HESA for disability have also emphasised the importance of inclusive teach-
ing and learning practices (Amendment No. 3 to the Other Grants Guidelines 2006
Cth 1.55.5.1). The amounts of money allocated for inclusion-related purposes via
Indigenous and disability grants represent a small proportion of system financing,
which limits their potential impact on the broader system (Brett 2018).

Victorian government higher education policy

Space constraints prohibit a detailed account of equity, inclusion, and assess-
ment in higher education policy across each Australian state, but attention here is
placed on the State of Victoria. Each university operating in Victoria is the prod-
uct of legislation of the Victorian parliament. Diverse legislative histories and
inconsistencies were standardised across Victoria in 2009. A distinctive narrative
for each institution was prepared as a short preamble for each Act. The preamble
was followed by standardised text around the purposes, functions, and processes
of governance in each institution. Equity and social justice are referenced in the
standard text across each Act, as are commitments to Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander people.
The preambles of Victorian public university Acts reveal distinct narratives
for each institution’s mission, history, and orientation. The preambles highlight
102 M. Brett and A. Harvey

specific institutional priorities on comprehensiveness, technology, technological

education, specific communities, international orientation, equity, social justice,
progressiveness, serving disadvantaged learners, and inclusion.
Paralleling observations made about Commonwealth policy, equity and
inclusion sits at the margins of a dominant paradigm. University Acts adopt
standardised text of university purpose and membership of governing bodies.
Whilst there is interest in matters of diversity in the composition of University
Councils (Kang, Cheng, and Gray 2007), including Indigenous representation
(Weerasinghe 2021), Victorian university Acts are silent on matters of diversity.
A defining characteristic of Australian universities is that they are set up as
self-governing and self-accrediting institutions (Orr 2012). This enables them
to make policy within policy frameworks set and monitored by council. These
policies cannot ignore Commonwealth policy requirements nor localised inter-
ests of State governments. Nonetheless, there remains significant latitude for
university policies to be framed in line with institution-specific preferences.
We next examine how equity and inclusion features in publicly accessible poli-
cies of Victorian universities, with specific reference to assessment.

Victorian university assessment policies

Assessment policies for eight Victorian universities were examined for references
to equity and inclusion (Table 9.1). Each institution is referred to by the distinc-
tive orientation evident in the preamble of its Act of establishment. The specific
title of the policy mediating assessment is described, along with policies mediat-
ing legally mandated reasonable adjustments. References to Indigenous students
and students with disability within the relevant assessment policy are described.
Text from assessment policies is presented to highlight how equity and inclusion-
related concepts are phrased within assessment policies.
The majority of universities appear to be devising assessment policies with
reference to each other rather than the founding, regulation or financing leg-
islation. This approach arguably contributes to policy misalignment across the
Victorian sector. Six of eight institutions do not include reference to Indigenous
students in assessment policies, despite it being a feature of their mission and
Threshold Standards. Conversely, six of eight institutions include reference to
students with disability in assessment policy, even though this does not feature
within their mission or Threshold Standards. These discrepancies highlight that
policy drivers beyond higher education exert influence over universities, par-
ticularly the Disability Discrimination Act (1992 Cth).
Our policy analysis of the dominant funding, legislative, and policy architec-
ture suggests that Commonwealth and State level equity and inclusion related
commitments are peripheral as policy requirements, and linked to weak account-
ability measures. Similar claims can be made about equity and inclusion require-
ments of institutional assessment polices. No clauses were identified in Victorian
university assessment or adjustment policies that would evaluate the efficacy of
TABLE 9.1 Equity and inclusion references in assessment policies of select Victorian universities

Indigenous Disability
reference in reference in
Victorian Assessment Adjustment policy assessment assessment
university policy title title policy policy Inclusion-related policy statement within assessment policy

Comprehensive Assessment and results policy No Yes Assessment must be fair, equitable, inclusive, objective, and auditable and
orientation accessible by, and meet the needs of a diverse student population
Disadvantaged Assessment policy No No Assessment is designed to be fair and equitable and is designed to ensure
learner that students have an opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of
orientation learning outcomes… adjustments to assessment tasks are available to
students experiencing significant disadvantage.
International Assessment and academic No Yes Assessment is designed to be fair and equitable and is designed to ensure
orientation integrity policy that students have an opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of
learning outcomes.
Local Assessment Assessment for No No Assessment is fair and equitable … Assessment variations/adjustments and
orientation for learning – processes for allowing and recording any variations/adjustments to the
learning adjustments to stated conditions of assessment, submission and grading rules are in line
policy assessment with the University Student Equity and Social Inclusion Policy
procedure

Inclusive assessment and policy

Progressive Assessment (higher education Yes Yes To ensure that all students have a consistent and fair opportunity to
orientation courses) procedure demonstrate their achievement of learning outcomes, alternative
assessment arrangements may be provided for students with a disability
or health condition.
Regional Higher Disability No Yes Tasks are fair and can be undertaken by a range of students with diverse
orientation education learning access background and/or additional learning needs to minimise unfair
assessment plan procedure discrimination and protected attributes
policy
Technical Assessment and assessment No Yes Flexible, equitable, and inclusive assessment with a commitment to caring
orientation flexibility policy for students whose circumstances require assessment flexibility.
Technology Assessment and results policy Yes Yes Ensure that assessment practices are transparent, consistent, and fair
orientation

103
Source: Victorian university policy library websites as of 6 March 2022.
104 M. Brett and A. Harvey

a reasonable adjustment. Assessment policies include clauses to align and assure

assessment with learning outcomes, but in no case was this explicitly connected
to an evaluation of equity and inclusion policy values. One policy referred to
making “reasonable and evidence-based adjustments” but this too failed to spec-
ify any explicit mechanism of how this should be implemented or evaluated. The
language of “adjustment” is consistent with the Disability Discrimination Act Cth
and Equal Opportunity Act (2010) Vic which embed requirements to make reason-
able adjustments for students with disabilities. Whilst other attributes and char-
acteristics are the subject of protections under Commonwealth and Victorian
anti-discrimination legislation, reasonable adjustments are uniquely available
to students with disabilities. This gives impetus to explore implementation and
accountability in disability discrimination legislation.

Disability and higher education policy

The Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to develop or accredit cur-
ricula that exclude a person with disability or subjects them to any other detri-
ment. Curricula in this context include assessment. Assessment for inclusion, is
thus embedded as a policy requirement. Discrimination on the basis of disability
in Australian higher education may be unlawful but is commonly reported by
students with disabilities as a feature of their experience. The 2018 Survey of
Disability Aging and Carers (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021) estimates that
14% of higher education students with a disability have experienced discrimination.
The Survey of Disability, Aging, and Carers does not allow us to identify
whether assessment is a feature of the discrimination experienced by students
with disabilities. The substantive point is that generalised requirements that
make discrimination unlawful do not prevent discrimination.
The recourse available to students through the Disability Discrimination Act
is complaint, with complaints that fail to be resolved through conciliation poten-
tially considered by the Federal Court (Australian Human Rights Commission
2021). In 2018, there were a handful of complaints heard by the Federal Court
(Australian Legal Information Institute 2021) relating to discrimination in educa-
tion. None of these related to higher education. This may be the outcome of suc-
cessful institutional complaint management systems. However, we suggest that
it is at least in part a systemic flaw in how accountability is framed for inclusion-
related policy objectives.
The general absence of case law on higher education and disability makes
it hard to make specific claims about the extent to which legal requirements
for inclusive assessment are upheld. We do, however, have empirical evidence
on how universities are complying with other requirements of the Disability
Discrimination Act that might be extrapolated to assessment.
Website accessibility is a legal requirement under the Disability Discrimination
Act and policy commitment of universities. There is evidence of a high rate
of inaccessibility associated with Australian university websites. A 2015 study
 Inclusive assessment and policy 105

reviewed accessibility requirements in three specific webpages of universities,

including a selection of Australian universities (Alahmadi and Drew 2017).
Thousands of accessibility errors were identified in every university website, the
most common of which were the absence of alt tags for images and absence of
nested headers.
These web accessibility assessments suggest that universities actual operations
do not reflect institutional policy, requirements of the higher education stand-
ards framework, and legal requirements for delivering an inclusive curriculum.
It is likely that weak accountability for inclusion is evident in other facets of
higher education, including assessment design, implementation, and evaluation.
We next consider what might be done differently to normalise more inclusive
assessment practices.

Towards more inclusive Australian higher

education assessment policy
A straightforward proposition in transitioning towards more inclusive Australian
higher education assessment policy is that existing policy requirements be upheld.
Threshold Standards for diversity and equity, for example, should be actively
considered by TEQSA. It is plausible that a system wide focus on inclusive assess-
ment could be catalysed if a university (or universities) were to have conditions
placed on its registration for not meeting diversity and equity standards evidenced
by lower rates of access, success, and/or completion for one or more designated
equity groups.
The reporting frameworks for equity groups have maintained their core
structures since being introduced three decades ago. Emphasis on group access,
participation and success should be augmented with a more nuanced understand-
ing of how inclusion and diversity play out within the student experience. Other
elements of exclusion are likely to be invisible. In the UK, a Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) attainment gap is evident, in which BAME students
receive lower grades than other students, even after controlling for entrance
grades and other factors such as wealth (Akinbosede 2019). Little similar analysis
has been conducted in Australia. There is a vast United States (US) research and
policy agenda around campus climate (e.g., University of Southern California
2017). More granular analysis of assessment and grading is possible in the United
Kingdom (e.g., Universities UK 2019) and could be extended to Australia. Such
data, if collected and monitored, might confirm the extent of exclusionary and
discriminatory practices in assessment.
A framework for assessment of student learning outcomes to measure univer-
sity performance has been proposed (Martin 2016b). This framework embeds
consideration of assessments against standards for learning outcomes aligned
to clusters of graduate learning outcomes commonly utilised by Australian
universities. The framework integrates graduate attribute traits of equity and
social justice, and Indigenous cultural understanding (Martin 2016b, 89). State
106 M. Brett and A. Harvey

Governments can exert influence over equity, inclusion, and assessment through
embedding Martin’s assessment performance indicator framework in reporting
requirements to State parliaments.
There are opportunities for higher education financing to exert a stronger influ-
ence on inclusive assessment. Equity grants made under HESA currently include
reporting requirements that dilute their impact. PhillipsKPA (2012) found the cost
of reporting for each $1,000 of funding was higher for equity grants compared to
core operating grants, as high as 49 times higher for disability grants. PhillipsKPA
conclude that reporting on equity activities should be consolidated with a focus on
accountability. We suggest there is an opportunity to purposefully link funding
for equity and inclusion with teaching and assessment policy that embed stronger
accountability requirements.
Finally, there are opportunities to build a strong evidence base and culture
of evaluation for reasonable adjustments. A recent review of the Disability
Standards for Education (DESE 2021) was concerned with optimising access to
reasonable adjustments. The review recommended a more proactive approach to
making reasonable adjustments available, reducing the need for complaints. The
review recognised issues of alignment across various State and Commonwealth
policy frameworks.

Conclusion
We have highlighted in this chapter the misalignment of policies relating to
equity, inclusion and assessment across Commonwealth, State, and institutional
policies. Across each level there are shortcomings in how policy requirements
are implemented and/or upheld. We suggest there is potential for greater under-
standing of practices influencing inclusion and exclusion, including better trans-
parency and monitoring of grading practices and assessment outcomes within
and across institutions. Moving from a reliance on individual complaints towards
stronger institutional accountability is also critical, as is better regulation and
enforcement of existing codes and legislation. The explicit inclusion of equity
accountabilities within institutional re-registration and related requirements
would also elevate the priority of inclusion. Finally, there remains a need for
better education of institutional staff, from academics, support staff, and web
designers through to senior managers, on the legislative requirements and moral
imperatives of inclusion. This educative approach is central to recent research
into disability in higher education (Pitman 2022). Much current research and
practice considers specific types of assessment, technology, and activities, and
their potential inclusiveness for students with a disability. However, attention is
also required to understand why inclusiveness, including in assessment, appears
to remain a relatively low priority for institutions and the sector at large, not-
withstanding existing legislative and policy requirements. While individual
assessment practices and innovations provide cause for some optimism, institu-
tions also need to focus on the elevation of inclusion as an urgent policy priority.
 Inclusive assessment and policy 107

References
AdvanceHE. 2017. Equality in Higher Education: Statistical Report 2017. https://www.
advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2017.
Akinbosede, D. 2019. “The BAME Attainment Gap Is Not the Fault of BAME Students.”
Times Higher Education, 5 December 2019. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/
opinion/bame-attainment-gap-not-fault-bame-students.
Alahmadi, T., and Drew, S. 2017. “An Evaluation of the Accessibility of Top-Ranking
University Websites: Accessibility Rates from 2005 to 2015.” Journal of Open, Flexible,
and Distance Learning 21 (1): 7–24.
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., and Davis, G. 2018. The Australian Policy Handbook: A Practical
Guide to the Policy-Making Process. Rev. ed. Abingdon: Allen and Unwin.
Amendment No. 3 to the Other Grants Guidelines. 2006. Commonwealth of Australia.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2007L01158.
Anderson, L., Singh, M., Stehbens, C., and Ryerson, L. 1998. Equity Issues: Every University’s
Concern, Whose Business?: An Exploration of Universities’ Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’
Rights and Interests. Evaluations and Investigations Programme. Higher Education
Division. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2021. TableBuilder, Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2018.
Australian Human Rights Commission. 2021. Conciliation – How It Works. https://
humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/conciliation-how-it-works.
Australian Legal Information Institute. 2021. Federal Court of Australia Decisions. http://
classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/.
Boucher, S. 2021. “Inherent Requirements and Social Work Education: Issues of Access
and Equity.” In Research Anthology on Mental Health Stigma, Education, and Treatment,
edited by Information Resources Management Association 681–697. Hershey, PA,
US: IGI Global.
Brett, M. 2018. Equity Performance and Accountability. National Centre for Student
Equity in Higher Education and La Trobe University. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/
publications/equity-performance-accountability.
Cramer, L. 2021. “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: Alternative Strategies for Closing
the Award Gap between White and Minority Ethnic Students.” eLife, 4 August 2021.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58971.
Department of Education Skills and Employment. 2021. Final Report of the 2020. Review
of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. https://www.dese.gov.au/disability-
standards-education-2005/resources/final-report-2020-review-disability-standards-
education-2005.
Department of Education Skills and Employment. 2022. Higher Education Statistics –
2020 Section 16 Equity Performance Data. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-
statistics/resources/2020-section-16-equity-performance-data.
Disability Discrimination Act. 1992. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.legislation.
gov.au/Details/C2022C00087.
Equal Opportunity Act. 2010. Victorian Legislation. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/
in-force/acts/equal-opportunity-act-2010/029.
Grant-Smith, D., Irmer, B., and Mayes, R. 2020. Equity in Postgraduate Education in Australia:
Widening Participation or Widening the Gap? Perth: National Centre for Student Equity
in Higher Education, Curtin University. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/
uploads/2020/09/GrantSmith_2020_FINAL_Web.pdf.
Harvey, A., Burnheim, C., and Brett, M. 2016. Student Equity in Australian Higher Education:
Twenty-Five Years of a Fair Chance for All. Singapore: Springer.
108 M. Brett and A. Harvey

Harvey, A., Cakitaki, B., and Brett, M. 2018. Principles for Equity in Higher Education Performance
Funding. Report for the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education
Research. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research,
La Trobe University. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/La-
Trobe-University-Performance-Funding-REPORT-28-April-2020.pdf.
Harvey, A., and Russell-Mundine, G. 2019. “Decolonising the Curriculum: Using
Graduate Qualities to Embed Indigenous Knowledges at the Academic Cultural
Interface.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (6), 789–808. http://doi.org/10.1080/
13562517.2018.1508131.
Harvey, A., Szalkowicz, G., and Luckman, M. 2020. Improving Employment and Education
Outcomes for Somali Australians. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Equity and
Diversity Research, La Trobe University.
Higher Education Standards Framework. 2011. TEQSA. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/higher-
education-standards-framework-2011.
Higher Education Support Act. 2003. Australian Government. https://www.legislation.gov.
au/Details/C2022C00005.
Indigenous Student Assistance Grants Guidelines. 2017. Commonwealth of Australia. https://
www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00036.
Kang, H., Cheng, M., and Gray, S. J. 2007. “Corporate Governance and Board Composition:
Diversity and Independence of Australian Boards.” Corporate Governance: An International
Review 15 (2): 194–207. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00554.x.
Martin, L. 2016a. “Framing the Framework: The Origins of a Fair Chance for All.”
In Student Equity in Australian Higher Education: Twenty-Five Years of a Fair Chance for
All, edited by Andrew Harvey, Catherine Burnheim, and Matthew Brett, 21–37.
Singapore: Springer.
Martin, L. M. 2016b. “Using Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes to Measure
University Performance: Towards a Viable Model.” Ph.D., University of Melbourne.
Orr, J. L. 2012. “Australian Corporate Universities and the Corporations Act.”
International Journal of Law and Education 17 (2): 123–148.
Other Grants Guidelines (Education). 2012. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.
legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013C00350.
PhillipsKPA. 2012. Review of Reporting Requirements for Universities. Final Report. Melbourne: LH
Martin Institute. https://www.phillipskpa.com.au/dreamcms/app/webroot/files/files/
PhillipsKPA%20Review%20of%20University%20Reporting%20Requirements.pdf.
Pitman, T. 2022. Supporting Persons with Disabilities to Succeed in Higher Education: Final
Report. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin
University.
Pitman, T., Edwards, D., Zhang, L. C., Koshy, P., and McMillan, J. 2020. “Constructing a
Ranking of Higher Education Institutions Based on Equity: Is It Possible or Desirable?”
Higher Education 80 (4): 605–624. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00487-0.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. 2017a. Guidance Note: Course Design
(including Learning Outcomes and Assessment) Version 1.3. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/
latest-news/publications/guidance-note-course-design-including-learning-outcomes-
and-assessment.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. 2017b. Application Guide for Registered
Higher Education Providers – Renewal of Registration for Existing Providers. Version 2.7.
https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/application-guide-for-re-registration-v2.
7.pdf?v=1535500067.
 Inclusive assessment and policy 109

Universities UK. 2019. “Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK
Universities: Closing the Gap.” Last modified 9 September 2021. https://www.
universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/black-asian-and-
minority-ethnic-student.
University of Southern California. 2017. Campus Climate Literature Review and Report. https://
academicsenate.usc.edu/files/2017/12/CampusClimateReport_FINAL121117.pdf.
Weerasinghe, L. A. A. P. 2021. “Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Participation on
Australian Corporate Boards.” Ph.D., Queensland University of Technology.
Zacharias, N. 2017. The Australian Student Equity Programme and Institutional Change:
Paradigm Shift or Business as Usual. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/
2017/06/Nadine-ZachariasThe-Australian-Student-Equity-Program.pdf.
10
INCLUSION, CHEATING,
AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Validity as a goal and a mediating concept

Phillip Dawson

When designing assessment, educators think about a range of competing concerns,

including how they will deal with cheating (Bearman et al. 2017). Some of the
dominant assessment practices currently in use are deployed because there is a belief
that they will in some way prevent or detect cheating. Examinations are trusted in
part due to their perceived anti-cheating properties (Carless 2009). In an online con-
text, remote proctoring software is used primarily to secure exams against cheating
(Dawson 2021). Outside the context of exams, educators deploy other strategies such
as using short turnaround times on tasks to limit opportunities for cheating (Wallace
and Newton 2014). Each of these choices attempts to privilege the detection or pre-
vention of cheating, knowingly or unknowingly harming inclusion in the process.
Much of the exclusion that happens in assessment, happens out of a desire to
prevent or detect cheating. In this chapter, I will argue that to be more inclusive
we need to re-think cheating, anti-cheating approaches, and inclusion in terms
of how they influence validity.
There are two main tensions at play in traditional conversations about cheat-
ing: academic integrity and assessment security (Dawson 2021). Academic integ-
rity is a positive mission to develop and promote particular capabilities and values
in students (Fishman 2014) so that they can and do complete their work honestly,
and that they value doing so. The International Centre for Academic Integrity
espouses six fundamental values of academic integrity: honesty, trust, fairness,
respect, responsibility, and courage (Fishman 2014). Students pledging to adhere
to an honour code (McCabe, Treviño, and Butterfield 1999), and education
programs that develop student capabilities and understandings of ethical schol-
arship are examples of academic integrity approaches to addressing cheating.
In contrast, assessment security takes more of an adversarial approach, focused
on detecting and deterring cheating (Dawson 2021). Examples of assessment
security include text-matching tools, proctoring/invigilation of exams, and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-13
 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity 111

surveillance of students while they complete online tasks. Debate in this space
can become polarised and dichotomous at its extremes, but in practice most
institutions deploy some combination of the two approaches. If you attempt to
educate students about referencing and ethical scholarship, while also checking
that they have not submitted the same assignment as a peer, you are adopting a
mix of academic integrity and assessment security approaches.
This chapter focuses specifically on assessment security approaches, as most
of the harms to inclusion that have occurred in addressing cheating have been
due to these attempts to police and surveil students. Academic integrity does not
punish you for needing to use the bathroom, having an atypical gaze pattern or
living in insecure housing, but assessment security might. To further focus the
chapter, it is largely interested in assessment of learning rather than assessment
for learning; as I have argued elsewhere, assessment security does not matter
as much (or sometimes, at all) in assessment for learning, and we should focus
on positive academic integrity instead in those assessments (Dawson 2021). The
chapter proposes that validity can act as a mediating concept that inserts inclusion
as a necessary part of any conversation about cheating.

Tensions between cheating, inclusion,

and assessment security
Inclusion has not traditionally been a focus for assessment security beyond the
provision of targeted adjustments for specific students. For example, exams are
predominantly used for assessment security, and substantial resources are devoted
to providing a range of adjustments for students who need supports during exams.
But this bolt-on or band-aid approach to addressing the deficiencies caused by
assessment security is not an in-depth engagement with inclusion. It involves
holding the approaches used in assessment security as constant as possible while
making the most minimal adjustments required for individual students who have
been identified as needing them; there are other students who are excluded by
assessment security who do not fit within (or choose not to disclose they are
within) the identified categories deemed as needing support.
In contrast, concerns about cheating are often raised as one of the reasons
why more inclusive assessment practices cannot be adopted in some contexts. For
example, many students with caring responsibilities may find it difficult to attend
a synchronous exam – face-to-face or online – and a more inclusive approach
may be to offer an open-ended take-home task that assesses the same outcomes.
However, such a shift can be hard to implement when the spectre of cheating is
raised. Traditional exams are viewed as more trustworthy (Carless 2009), partly
due to perceptions that in take-home tasks students will be more likely to cheat,
or that cheating will be more difficult to detect – even though the data may not
always support these perceptions (Harper, Bretag, and Rundle 2021). The per-
ceived anti-cheating benefits of traditional assessment approaches create great iner-
tia, slowing any shift towards more inclusive practices.
112 P. Dawson

There is a third, meaner connection between cheating and inclusion: the

arguments raised in committee meetings and occasionally in the literature (e.g.,
Madriaga et al. 2011) that the provision of adjustments to students is tantamount
to cheating. That these adjustments provide such an unfair advantage to a subset
of students that they will be able to be lazy and outperform their peers. This is a
flawed argument, as the process of providing adjustments is carefully regulated to
ensure they enable the student to be assessed fairly, providing only the minimal
assistance required for them to participate fully.
Assessment security is to blame at least in part for the need for bolt-on adjust-
ments, inertia that is slowing a shift towards inclusive practices, and a reluctance
to offer adjustments. The desire to address cheating seems to trump a desire to
be inclusive in assessment. These are unfortunately old, engrained effects. More
recently, with the rapid shift to online assessment during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, tensions between inclusion and assessment security have boiled over due to
the use of new assessment security technologies. Critical pedagogy scholars such
as Logan (2020) and Swauger (2020) question the fundamentals of our systems of
assessment that are seen to require such technologies. They level strong criticism
at remote proctoring in particular, for example, Logan (2020) states that:

students must endure the racist, ableist technology peddled by companies

like Proctorio, ProctorU, and ExamSoft, which frames students’ bodies as
abnormal. Have dark skin? The racist technology cannot see you. Wear
glasses? The ablest technology sees you, but it doesn’t believe you are you
because it can’t detect your eyes.

In this view, remote proctoring is akin to “cop shit” (Moro 2020): “any pedagog-
ical technique or technology that presumes an adversarial relationship between
students and teachers”. Given this definition, assessment security and cop shit are
arguably synonymous terms, the former carrying a more sanitised or euphemistic
tone, and the latter a sense of activism and disgust. But whatever term you ascribe
to it, there are inclusion consequences for the rapidly developing set of assessment
security/cop shit technologies.
While there is a significant body of work critiquing assessment security as a
problem for inclusion, the inclusion problems of cheating itself have been dis-
cussed much less. Modern cheating has become commercialised, with multi-
billion dollar publicly traded companies offering cheating services to paying cus-
tomers (Lancaster and Cotarlan 2021). There are financial barriers to cheating,
with wealthier students able to purchase better quality bespoke assignments from
contract cheating services. Less well-off students might turn to assignment swap-
ping services (Rogerson 2014), which expose them to a much greater risk of
getting caught when someone else submits their assignment. There are language
barriers to cheating, with students who have more capability in the language of
instruction being better able to engage in sham paraphrasing. And there are tech-
nological barriers to cheating, with those students who have better technological
 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity 113

expertise having access to a range of additional cheating approaches (Dawson

2021). So, in addition to creating problems for inclusion, cheating is not inclu-
sive. Cheating is not a level playing field, and it disproportionately preys on the
disadvantaged and offers premium services to the advantaged.

The wrongness of cheating

That cheating is wrong is often taken for granted. Entire papers are written
about cheating that never justify why cheating is a problem. If we just accept
that cheating is wrong without any further discussion it makes it easy to accept
all manner of wrongs that are done in the name of assessment security. When
the wrongness of cheating is discussed, there are two main default arguments:
that cheating provides an unfair advantage, and that cheating hurts learning
(Bouville 2009).
The view that cheating is wrong because it is unfair has been critiqued by
Bouville (2009, 1) as requiring a view of education as a “race of all against all”. In
such a view, if one student cheats they are placed in an advantaged position over
their peers. This sort of competitive view of assessment suggests an implicit norm
referencing perspective, whereby students are judged against each other. In a
norm-referenced assessment context, one student cheating and performing better
than they should hurts the grades of their peers, as individual student grades are
adjusted based on how well the student body performs. However, modern views
of criterion-referenced or standards-based assessment are incompatible with this
view of assessment as a zero-sum game. Standards-based assessment rejects the
idea that students should be judged against each other, and instead seeks to judge
student performance against predetermined standards. In a well-functioning sys-
tem where student achievement is evaluated against standards, the assessor’s abil-
ity to judge any student’s performance is not affected by other students cheating.
The view that cheating is wrong because it hurts learning holds promise,
as cheating robs students of the time on meaningful tasks they would oth-
erwise spend. The assessment for learning tradition contends that a primary
purpose of assessment is to support student learning (Carless 2017) – and if
students do not complete the task themselves without taking shortcuts, then
they miss out on meaningful learning opportunities. Bouville (2009) identifies
three conditions necessary for this justification of the wrongness of cheating to
be acceptable. Firstly, the assessment must be a worthwhile learning activity.
Not all assessments fulfil this criterion. Motz et al. (2021) found that during the
COVID-19 pandemic, some students experienced many more hastily-designed
online assignments that appeared to harm rather than help their academic per-
formance – Motz et al. (2021) classified those tasks as “busywork”. Secondly,
for cheating to be wrong due to its effects on learning, it should actually hin-
der learning. This is not universally the case; Bouville gives the example of
unauthorised peer collaboration as something that might help rather than hurt
learning. There is a fine line between, for example, the positive practices of
114 P. Dawson

feedback seeking and peer learning, and the forbidden practices of cheating.
Heavy-handed anti-cheating messages to students’ risk hindering effective
independent learning strategies. Thirdly, for cheating’s wrongness to be based
in the harms it does to learning, other activities that hurt learning need to
be punished just as much as cheating. This would include punishing students
for not completing tasks, as non-completion poses at least the same threat to
learning that cheating does, or even going as far as punishing students for hav-
ing hobbies or jobs which could distract from their studies (Bouville 2009).
Punishing students for activities in general that harm their learning like hob-
bies or jobs is not just ridiculous, but more importantly it goes against student
academic freedom to learn how they want to learn (Macfarlane 2016). Based
on these three criteria, harms to learning do not appear to be solid ground on
which to stake the wrongness of cheating.
Sidestepping the ethical wrongness of cheating, Cizek and Wollack (2017)
argue that cheating should be viewed as a threat to validity:

There may be disagreement about the ethical dimensions of cheating, but it

is uncontestable that cheating represents a threat to the valid interpretation
of a test score. When cheating takes place – whether in the form of copy-
ing from another test taker, collusion, prior access to secure test materials,
inappropriate manipulation of answer documents, or any other form – the
resulting test scores are not likely to be an accurate measurement of an
examinee’s true level of knowledge, skill, or ability. In short, a concern
about cheating can be viewed as a psychometric concern about the validity
or ‘interpretive accuracy’ of test scores.
(Cizek and Wollack 2017, 8)

Here, cheating is wrong not based on an ethical argument but a pragmatic argu-
ment about the problems it creates for assessment in terms of validity. Cizek and
Wollack (2017) come at validity and cheating from a psychometric perspective,
which conjures up images of testing and statistics. But validity is a core concern
for any assessment: assessment for learning, assessment of learning, high-stakes
assessment, low-stakes assessment, self-assessment, and peer assessment. At its
most basic level, validity is a concern that an act of assessment assesses what it is
supposed to assess – that claims made about a student from what they have done
reflect what they are capable of. Assessment validity is ultimately what allows
institutions to fulfil their contract with society to graduate students who are
capable of what is written on their testamurs. Assessment validity is how a maths
educator knows that students who pass mathematics 1 are ready to study math-
ematics 2, and that students who fail mathematics 1 are not. Assessment validity
is why I feel confident that a newly-qualified teacher can teach my children. I
acknowledge that there are problems with validity in higher education, including
the extent to which claims made about performance in one context are mean-
ingful in predicting performance in another (Tummons 2020). But regardless of
 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity 115

how imperfect assessment validity in higher education already is, cheating makes
assessor judgements less valid, and it is this threat to validity that I find resonates
most with a concern for the impacts of (anti-)cheating on inclusion.

The impact of cheating, inclusion,

and assessment security on validity
Validity is both an aim in itself, and a powerful mediating concept in conver-
sations about cheating, inclusion and assessment security. If cheating is wrong
primarily or partly because of its impacts on validity, then this should inform
arguments about assessment security and inclusion. Anti-cheating approaches
often bring with them harms to inclusion. Assessment security should be con-
cerned that the trade-offs made to address cheating validity threats are, on bal-
ance, worth it. If our attempts to stop cheating create more substantial threats
to validity than what cheating itself creates, then they are unjustifiable from a
cheating-as-validity-threat perspective – they are nothing more than cop shit.
There are many competing interpretations of validity. The core conversation
about validity has been occupied by measurement researchers from education and
psychology who are interested in testing (e.g., American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education, 2014). That community has moved from an under-
standing of validity as being an endpoint – the idea of a “valid” test – to validity
being about processes and evidence in support of inferences, and from a focus on
testing to including all acts of assessment (Iliescu and Greiff 2021).
Assessment security consists of two core components that can support valid-
ity: authentication and control of circumstances (Dawson 2021). Authentication
supports validity through attempting to ensure that the student did the assessed
task themselves. When an invigilator checks a student identification card at the
start of an exam, they are helping the assessor make a more valid judgement as it
is more likely the judgement will be about the assessed student rather than some
other third party. Control of circumstances supports validity by limiting the sup-
ports that are available to students during a task so that they are in line with what
the assessment designer intended. When a task is set as closed-book, perhaps
because it assesses lower-level learning outcomes that can be easily looked up in
a book, assessment security approaches that stop students from having access to
the book improve the validity of the assessor’s judgements about what the student
is capable of. This is not an argument in favour of closed-book exams; just that if
the closed-book restriction is in place, there is a validity threat to not enforcing
it. Closed-book can be seen as imposing its own problems for validity if it fails
to represent the authentic professional practice of the discipline; elsewhere I have
challenged assessment designers to think in terms of “authentic restrictions” vs
“inauthentic restrictions” (Dawson 2021).
One significant problem with assessment security is that little is known
about the effectiveness of various approaches in terms of addressing cheating
116 P. Dawson

(and consequentially supporting validity). For example, there is a common

assumption that exams are more secure than take-home assignments, in part
because of the authentication that is used. However, when Harper, Bretag, and
Rundle (2021) asked Australian academics and students in a survey about their
experiences, the results were surprising. Students self-reported much higher rates
of “third party cheating” (e.g., contract cheating and exam impersonation) in
exams than in take-home assignments, but staff reported this was only rarely
detected in exams. Staff reported detecting third party cheating much more in
take-home assignments, even though students reported it was less prevalent than
in exams. This suggests the third-party cheating problem is bigger and more
poorly detected in exams than assignments. There are also conspicuous gaps in
the literature around the effectiveness of some assessment security technologies.
For example, there are many papers showing that students perform worse in
remote proctored exams than unproctored exams. These papers usually con-
clude that this means proctoring is an effective measure against cheating (e.g.,
Akaaboune et al. 2022; Alessio et al. 2017; Davis, Rand, and Seay 2016; Dendir
and Maxwell 2020; Reisenwitz 2020; Stapleton and Blanchard 2021) – despite
the other potential explanations for such a result. But there are, to my knowledge,
zero studies where the effectiveness of remote proctoring at detecting cheating is
tested by someone trying to cheat. For years I have tried to conduct such a study
but I am unable to get a proctoring company to agree to let me do one, and I have
received legal advice that it would be unwise to do this sort of research without
their permission. Taken together, the research that exists and the research that
does not exist suggests that assumptions about the anti-cheating (and therefore
validity) benefits of assessment security approaches might not always be founded
in solid, transparent evidence.
Inclusion can similarly be justified through a range of arguments, including
validity. Not adequately attending to inclusion is a threat to validity. Logically,
the problems for validity created by cheating and exclusion are of the same
formulation: if the assessment only produces meaningful information about stu-
dent capability for some students but not all then it is less valid, regardless of if
the reason is cheating or exclusion. Validity is threatened when an assessment
requires materials only some students can afford; is conducted under time con-
straints only some students can meet; or assumes linguistic skills only some
students have but that are unrelated to the outcomes being assessed. Exclusion
is a validity threat.
Cheating, inclusion, and assessment security therefore each have a role to play
with validity. Cheating as a threat to validity, assessment security as either a threat
or a support to validity, and inclusion as a support for validity. Inclusion is there-
fore vital to the evaluation of assessment security approaches. If an assessment
security approach hurts validity more through exclusion than it helps through
addressing cheating, then it should not be adopted. If it excludes or dispropor-
tionately affects one group of students more than another, it creates a validity
 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity 117

problem. For example, if in remote proctored exams, students with trait test
anxiety are affected more negatively than other students (Woldeab and Brothen
2019), we create a new validity problem trying to fix an old one. The problem
is, comparing the validity effects of assessment security and exclusion requires
some complex qualitative calculus. There are no easy metrics. And straightfor-
ward notions of validity, about the accuracy of a judgement with respect to some
standard, are only the beginning of this complexity.
While this chapter has largely focused on traditional notions of validity, sim-
ilar arguments can be made with respect to broader understandings of validity.
Consequential validity is an extension of validity to include effects beyond the
immediate act of assessment (Sambell, McDowell, and Brown 1997). For exam-
ple, when students sit a multiple-choice exam focused on lower-level knowledge
they may choose to cram right before the test rather than space their study out,
choosing an effective short-term strategy, with consequential validity effects in
the form of poorer longer-term learning. Assessment security has a variety of
consequential validity effects. These include exclusionary effects, which can be
viewed as both validity threats in the traditional sense as discussed previously,
as well as consequential validity threats. For example, when a remote proctored
exam is set without allowance for a bathroom break, it risks impairing tradi-
tional validity (examinees may perform worse due to no bathroom break, which
misrepresents their capabilities). But it also presents risks to consequential valid-
ity (e.g., discomfort, pain, exclusion, and ultimately barriers in place for cer-
tain categories of people into particular professions). Consequential validity has
been criticised as conflating too many ideas underneath the banner of validity
(Mehrens 1997). But regardless of whether other harms to inclusion done by
assessment security fall inside the concept of validity or outside it, they remain
important counterbalances to any validity gains made by assessment security.
Validity holds significant promise as a mediating concept that can insert inclu-
sion as a necessary component in any conversation about cheating, academic
integrity or assessment security. Cheating is wrong, and measures need to be
taken to both detect it and deter it; our need to only graduate students who can
do what we say they can do requires us to. But those anti-cheating measures need
to be weighed against their unintended consequences. The razor to be applied to
any changes in the name of assessment security is this: at an absolute minimum,
assessment security needs to help validity more than it hurts it. A similar standard
should be applied to existing, dominant practices as well; if they entrench exclu-
sion, they may be as much of a threat to validity as cheating is.

References
Akaaboune, O., Blix, L. H., Carrington, L., and Henderson, C. 2022. “Accountability
in Distance Learning: The Effect of Remote Proctoring on Performance in Online
Accounting Courses.” Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 19 (1): 121–131.
https://doi.org/doi:10.2308/JETA-2020-040.
118 P. Dawson

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., and Rubin, B. 2017. “Examining
the Effect of Proctoring on Online Test Scores.” Online Learning 21 (1): 146–161.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.885.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and
National Council on Measurement in Education. 2014. Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D., and Joughin, G.
2017. “How University Teachers Design Assessments: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.”
Higher Education 74 (1): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7.
Bouville, M. 2009. “Why Is Cheating Wrong?” Studies in Philosophy and Education 29 (1):
67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9148-0.
Carless, D. 2009. “Trust, Distrust and Their Impact on Assessment Reform.” Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1): 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895786.
Carless, D. 2017. “Scaling Up Assessment for Learning: Progress and Prospects.” In
Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, edited by David Carless, Susan
M. Bridges, Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan, and Rick Glofcheski, 3–17. Singapore: Springer
Singapore.
Cizek, G. J., and Wollack, J. A. 2017. “Exploring Cheating on Tests: The Context,
the Concern, and the Challenges.” In Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Detecting
Cheating on Tests, edited by Gregory J. Cizek, and James A. Wollack, 3–19. New York:
Routledge.
Davis, A. B., Rand, R., and Seay, R. 2016. “Remote Proctoring: The Effect of Proctoring
on Grades.” Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations
18: 23–50. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/
S1085-462220160000018002.
Dawson, P. 2021. Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World: Preventing E-Cheating and
Supporting Academic Integrity in Higher Education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Dendir, S., and Maxwell, R. S. 2020. “Cheating in Online Courses: Evidence from
Online Proctoring.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2: 100033. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033.
Fishman, T. 2014. The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity. Rev. ed. International
Center for Academic Integrity: Clemson University.
Harper, R., Bretag, T., and Rundle, K. 2021. “Detecting Contract Cheating: Examining
the Role of Assessment Type.” Higher Education Research & Development 40 (2):
263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899.
Iliescu, D., and Greiff, S. 2021. “On Consequential Validity.” European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 37 (3): 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000664.
Lancaster, T., and Cotarlan, C. 2021. “Contract Cheating by STEM Students through
a File Sharing Website: A Covid-19 Pandemic Perspective.” International Journal for
Educational Integrity 17 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0.
Logan, C. 2020. “Refusal, Partnership, and Countering Educational Technology’s
Harms. Hybrid Pedagogy.” Accessed 19 November 2021. https://hybridpedagogy.
org/refusal-partnership-countering-harms/.
Macfarlane, B. 2016. Freedom to Learn: The Threat to Student Academic Freedom and Why It
Needs to Be Reclaimed. London and New York: Routledge.
Madriaga, M., Hanson, K., Kay, H., and Walker, A. 2011. “Marking-Out Normalcy
and Disability in Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 32 (6):
901–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.596380.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., and Butterfield, K. D. 1999. “Academic Integrity in
Honor Code and Non-Honor Code Environments.” The Journal of Higher Education 70
(2): 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1999.11780762.
 Inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity 119

Mehrens, W. A. 1997. “The Consequences of Consequential Validity.” Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice 16 (2): 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.
tb00588.x.
Moro, J. 2020. “Against Cop Shit.” Accessed 19 November 2021. https://jeffreymoro.
com/blog/2020-02-13-against-cop-shit/.
Motz, B. A., Quick, J. D., Wernert, J. A., and Miles, T. A. 2021. “A Pandemic of
Busywork: Increased Online Coursework Following the Transition to Remote
Instruction Is Associated with Reduced Academic Achievement.” Online Learning 25
(1): 70–85. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2475.
Reisenwitz, T. H. 2020. “Examining the Necessity of Proctoring Online Exams.” Journal
of Higher Education Theory and Practice 20 (1): 118–124.
Rogerson, A. M. 2014. “Detecting the Work of Essay Mills and File Swapping Sites:
Some Clues They Leave behind.” In the 6th International Integrity & Plagiarism
Conference. Newcastle-on-Tyne. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1441&context=gsbpapers.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., and Brown, S. 1997. “‘But Is It Fair?’”: An Exploratory Study of
Student Perceptions of the Consequential Validity of Assessment.” Studies in Educational
Evaluation 23 (4): 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3.
Stapleton, P., and Blanchard, J. 2021. “Remote Proctoring: Expanding Reliability and
Trust.” In the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Virtual
Event. USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3439671.
Swauger, S. 2020. “Our Bodies Encoded: Algorithmic Test Proctoring in Higher
Education.” https://hybridpedagogy.org/our-bodies-encoded-algorithmic-test-
proctoring-in-higher-education/.
Tummons, J. 2020. “Education as a Mode of Existence: A Latourian Inquiry into
Assessment Validity in Higher Education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 52 (1):
45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1586530.
Wallace, M. J., and Newton, P. M. 2014. “Turnaround Time and Market Capacity in
Contract Cheating.” Educational Studies 40 (2): 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03055698.2014.889597.
Woldeab, D., and Brothen, T. 2019. “21st Century Assessment: Online Proctoring, Test
Anxiety, and Student Performance.” International Journal of E-Learning & Distance
Education 34 (1): 1–10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1227595.pdf.
11
STUDENT EQUITY IN THE AGE
OF AI-ENABLED ASSESSMENT
Towards a politics of inclusion

Bret Stephenson and Andrew Harvey

Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) in education is now prevalent, and as Cope, Kalantzis,
and Searsmith (2020) have argued, “assessment is perhaps the most significant
area of opportunity offered by artificial intelligence for transformative change in
education” (5). For both good and ill, this wave of change is occurring as count-
less AI-enabled assessment products, and eager commercial edtech vendors, make
their way into schools and universities globally (González-Calatayud, Prendes-
Espinosa, and Roig-Vila 2021; Williamson and Eynon 2020). The deployment
of AI-enabled assessments within the university landscape extends to assessments
of all kinds, including formative and summative (Gardner, O’Leary, and Yuan
2021), as well as high-stakes and low-stakes assessment. In addition, it incorpo-
rates AI “solutions” aimed at addressing perceived threats to academic integrity
(Coghlan, Miller, and Paterson 2020).
Critically, however, this rapid proliferation comes at a time when the computer
and data sciences are undergoing a significant reckoning with their own com-
plicity in perpetuating social discrimination and disadvantage through features
inherent to AI and machine learning (ML) techniques and practices (Barocas,
Hardt, and Narayanan 2020). AI-enabled assessment practices can contribute
to this disadvantage by introducing, and often concealing, inequitable and dis-
criminatory outcomes. After defining AI and questioning its often-triumphalist
narrative, in this chapter we examine several examples of AI-enabled assessment
and explore the ways in which each may produce inequitable or exclusionary
outcomes for students.
We further aim to problematise recent attempts to utilise AI and ML techniques
themselves to minimise or detect inequitable or unfair outcomes through the
largely technological and statistical focus of the growing fairness, accountability,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-14
 Student equity in AI-enabled assessment 121

and transparency movement in the data sciences. Our central argument is that
technological solutions to equity and inclusion are of limited value, but particu-
larly when educational institutions fail to engage in genuine political negotiation
with a range of stakeholders and domain experts. Universities, we argue, should
not cede their ethical and legal responsibility for ensuring inclusive AI-enabled
assessment practices to third-party vendors, ill-equipped teaching staff, or to
technological “solutions” such as algorithmic tests for “fairness”. We conclude by
outlining how, in the rapidly evolving age of AI-enabled education, universities
can begin to engage in a politics of inclusion that rests upon robust democratic
and ethical decision-making architectures.

Artificial intelligence (AI): Hype and hazards

More than 65 years since the term “artificial intelligence” was coined by McCarthy
et al. (2006 [1955]), a commonly accepted definition of the term remains elusive.
In a sweeping review of AI definitions from across the research literature, Wang
(2019) argues that: “The current field of AI is actually a mixture of multiple
research fields, each with its own goal, methods, applicable situations, etc., and
they are called “AI” mainly for historical, rather than theoretical, reasons” (28).
Given the tremendous diversity and complexity of modern AI methods, we argue
that educators should be minimally familiar with the two key stages of automation
that are fundamental to nearly all AI systems. Understanding these key stages will
aid educators in developing the critical mindsets that are required if discrimina-
tory outcomes are to be anticipated, discovered, and remediated:

1. Automation of algorithmic learning – Utilising an historical or “training” data-

set, machine learning (ML) algorithms are automatically “trained” to find, or
“learn”, useful correlations between numerous variables and a “target varia-
ble” or “label” – the thing being predicted, categorised, or scored.
2. Automation of algorithmic decision-making – The AI system then uses these data-
trained and optimised algorithms to automate decisions (classifications, predic-
tions, scores, feedback, etc.) on new data in a way that imitates human-like
judgements and decision-making processes.

These two key stages of automation are central to the brief description of AI
provided by Gardner, O’Leary, and Yuan (2021): “The essence of artificial intel-
ligence (AI) in both summative and formative [assessment] contexts is the con-
cept of machine “learning” – where the computer is “taught” how to interpret
patterns in data and “trained” to undertake predetermined actions according
to those interpretations” (1207–1208). Even within this truncated sketch of the
typical AI/ML lifecycle, we find three important points where it is widely recog-
nised that biased outcomes may be unintentionally introduced into the process:
(1) with the underlying training data that may lack diversity thereby causing
representational harms; (2) at the stage of algorithmic “training” which can be
122 B. Stephenson and A. Harvey

a notoriously opaque and uninterpretable process; and (3) during the real-world
model deployment stage (Barocas, Hardt, and Narayanan 2020).
A definition which focuses on these two fundamental stages of automation also
works to take some of the unrealistic “magic” out of the AI mythology that is
currently working to inflate public perceptions of AI’s capabilities. We argue that
demystifying AI is an important task, but particularly in educational environments
where there is a need to relieve ourselves of notions that AI can currently “think”,
“understand”, or deploy “knowledge” as humans do (Smith 2018). The often overly
idealistic tone of AI’s current wave of hype has been widely adopted by a university
sector that has long been searching for cost-cutting measures, while also working to
improve student success, retention, and completion outcomes. This drive for tech-
nologically powered “efficiencies” and “solutions” has been made much more acute
by the COVID-19 crisis and the global emergency shift to computer-mediated
“pandemic pedagogies” (Williamson, Eynon, and Potter 2020).
We should not lose sight, however, of the immense pressures of privatisation
and profit that drives the rapid proliferation of educational technology (edtech)
companies and the “Silicon Valley narrative” that they bring to higher education
(Weller 2015). Matched with what Morozow (2013) describes as Silicon Valley’s
“technological solutionism”, universities are in the midst of a sweeping move-
ment of “edtech market-making” and a “private re-infrastructuring of public
education” (Williamson and Hogan 2020). In the midst of this milieu of “Digital
Enchantment” (Yeung 2022), it is important that we adopt a critical mindset
in response to the triumphalist narrative of AI’s remaking of higher education
learning and teaching practice. The overtly techno-optimistic tone of public and
academic discourse concerning AI’s advancements – in the absence of critical
evaluation – too easily serves to obscure the potential for AI to perpetuate disad-
vantage and exclusion based on, for example: disability (Lillywhite and Wolbring
2020), race and ethnicity (Leavy, Siapera, and O’Sullivan 2021), sex and gender
(D’Ignazio and Klein 2020), economic status (O’Neil 2016), or linguistic back-
ground (Mayfield et al. 2019).

Examples of AI-enabled assessment and threats

to equity and inclusion
While this chapter cannot offer a full overview of AI-enabled assessment prac-
tices, we will instead explore the risks they pose to principles of equity and
inclusion through three representative examples. In the interest of brevity, we
can think of these risks as being of two kinds: (1) the inherent risks posed by AI/
ML processes themselves, such as “data bias”, “algorithmic bias”, or the lack of
process transparency and “explainability”, and (2) those created or exacerbated
by commercial or governmental claims to confidentiality. In the realms of com-
mercial edtech and AI, these two risks often present themselves jointly.
First, the recent A-level “exams fiasco” (Kippin and Cairney 2021) in England
is perhaps the most recent and high-profile example of algorithmic bias finding its
 Student equity in AI-enabled assessment 123

way into a high-stakes assessment process. Due to COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020,

students were unable to sit for A-Level exams which weigh heavily in university
admissions decisions. As an emergency measure, the Office of Qualifications and
Examinations Regulations (Ofqual) opted to use teacher predictions of student
results, along with the teachers’ rank orderings, that were then standardised by
an algorithmic process in the hopes of controlling for grade inflation. Designed
with great haste, the selected algorithm unintentionally, but perhaps predictably,
introduced a familiar set of inequitable outcomes that are commonly found in
algorithmic decision-making processes. In their “attempt to match historical dis-
tributions, the algorithm increased predicted grades at small, private schools and
lowered grades at larger, state-run schools that have historically educated a larger
proportion of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students” (Wachter,
Mittelstadt, and Russell 2021, 737).
The public backlash against Ofqual’s algorithm-produced grades was wide-
spread and made more severe due to perceptions that both the algorithm, and the
political process that created it, represented “a ‘black box’ of politically motivated
manipulation” (Kelly 2021, 3). These claims were not baseless. Few technical details
of the algorithm were shared with the public and only after the algorithmically
adjusted grades were published. It was also later revealed that the Royal Statistical
Society (RSS) had offered to help Ofqual with its algorithm, but ultimately opted
not to participate after being asked to sign a restrictive non-disclosure agreement
(Kelly 2021, 5). The inequitable results of the Ofqual algorithm, coupled with the
strong public outcry, were enough for the government to decide to eventually
scrap the results. Perhaps the most important lesson to take from the UK “exams
fiasco”, as Kelly (2021) has reflected, is that numerous non-algorithmic solutions
were available to decision-makers but too quickly overlooked.
As algorithms go, the Ofqual algorithm was rather simple in its construction.
And while media reports frequently blamed the fiasco on “AI” itself, only at a stretch
could we class it as a true AI/ML algorithm. While its creators likely used elements
of data mining in its production, there is no indication that the two key stages of
AI automation that we described earlier were a part of the process. The key point
is, however, that even within this comparatively low-tech algorithmic “solution”
we find common hallmarks of discriminatory AI/ML algorithms. In the Ofqual
example, the algorithmic sources of discrimination could be readily identified by
experts once they were given full access to the algorithm itself. Had Ofqual opted
for a true AI/ML algorithm – one that “learns” for itself through complex auto-
mated processes – the result could have been much worse and far more inscrutable.
Secondly, we can also look to examples of automated essay scoring (AES) sys-
tems which are now a common form of AI-enabled assessment practices within
schools and universities. AES systems utilise natural language processing (NLP),
a subfield of AI/ML, to automate formative feedback and summative “scoring”
of a student’s written text, such as essays and short answers (Gardner, O’Leary,
and Yuan 2021). To be certain, AES technologies and products can hold tremen-
dous comercial value as they are frequently used to score the written portion of
124 B. Stephenson and A. Harvey

millions of high-stakes standardised aptitude tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude

Test (SAT) and Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) in the North American
context (Ke and Ng 2019).
Using a recent and highly controversial proposal for an AES use case in
Australia, we can briefly explore how AI’s own inherent threats to equity can be
further complicated by claims to commercial privacy. In 2018, it was proposed that
the written portion of the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
tests (NAPLAN) – historically assessed and marked by highly trained human
assessors – be “robo-scored” by AI software. While the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) internal research team claimed
that the AES system developed by Pearson was valid and reliable (Lazendic, Justus,
and Rabinowitz 2018), the NSW Teachers” Federation commissioned AES expert
Les Perelman to review the research. Perelman was ultimately denied access to
Pearson’s proprietary software and ACARA declined to provide the underlying
data used for their own assessment, yet Perelman’s (2018) independent evaluation
still proved devastating, and the program was scrapped for 2018.
Of particular interest for our purposes, Perelman noted the threat to cul-
tural linguistic “fairness” presented by AES systems of this kind. “Whatever the
explanation”, he writes, “unfairness by machines in inflating the marks of some
linguistic groups and artificially lowering the marks of others is morally indefen-
sible and, possibly, illegal” (Perelman 2018, 5). Bias of this kind often makes its
way into AI systems via culturally, linguistically, and even racially homogenous
training data (Mayfield et al. 2019), or what is described as representational bias
in the training data themselves. These equity and inclusion concerns are particu-
larly salient as AI-enabled scoring is also currently deployed in the assessment of
English proficiency for international university students via the Test of English as
a Foreign Language (TOEFL), Post Enrolment Language Assessments (PELAs),
and other high-stakes exams (Zimitat 2019).
Third, while university staff and students are well familiarised with the
AI-enabled functionality of plagiarism checking services, such as Turnitin, AI is
also increasingly being deployed for the purposes of ensuring academic integrity
in online exam proctoring. The use of these online proctoring (OP) systems, or
“robot invigilators” (Mubin et al. 2020), has seen a rapid rise amid the COVID-19
pandemic and numerous edtech providers have now flooded into the space. In
their effort to detect instances of student cheating, OP systems frequently rely
on a suite of “multimodal AI” capabilities which, for example, combine multiple
AI systems, including facial and voice recognition/detection, object detection, as
well as remote computer system surveillance. As Coghlan, Miller, and Paterson
(2020) have explained, “OP software contains artificial intelligence (AI) and
machine learning (ML) components that analyse exam recordings to identify
suspicious examinee behaviours or suspicious items in their immediate environ-
ment” (1), or unexpected eye and body movements.
The threats posed by AI-powered OP systems to equity and inclusion con-
cerns, not to mention privacy objections, are vast. As Swauger (2020) has detailed,
 Student equity in AI-enabled assessment 125

algorithmic test proctoring can disadvantage, or simply not work, for people
who lack access to suitable testing spaces, safe home environments, or who lack
the necessary computer equipment. Critically, people who do not present as
able-bodied or neurotypical to the OP algrithms are also likely to be flagged as
cheating threats. For instance, many “robo-proctors” utilise eye-tracking soft-
ware that may flag as suspicous test takers who are blind or express atypical eye
movements due to a range of conditions. Facial recognition AI systems have also
become notorious for their bias and inacuracy in relation to particular demo-
graphics, namely, people of colour and women (Lohr 2018). (See Chapter 10 for
an account of inclusion, cheating, and academic integrity.)
Finally, we must also recognise that students and institutions who are already
well-resourced stand to benefit most from AI-enabled assessments and educational
technologies. These are also the institutions that are most likely to have the greatest
agency in making unconstrained decisions between which computer and human
labours they wish to deploy. For instance, the utilisation of less advantageous AI
technologies may be forced upon some students or institutions as a means of cost
savings. As Selwyn (2019) has warned, “AI will impact on an Ivy League univer-
sity such as Harvard in very different ways to a community college in Hudson
County. In all these ways, then, we need to remain mindful of the politics of tech-
nology” (23). For this, and other reasons, we should be highly sceptical of edtech
marketing claims concerning “equitable” AI technologies that provide greater
“access” through scalability alone. As Selwyn et al. (2020) have argued, digital in/
exclusion is not simply a matter of creating access to digital learning technologies.
Uncritically accepting what we might call the “equality = access” narrative, they
argue, problematically accepts educational technologies “as an inherently “good
thing” that merely offers educational opportunities” to those in need. A focus on
access, they argue, remains “an “easy” way for policy makers to signal that they
are “dealing with” inequality” (Selwyn et al. 2020, 2).

Confronting AI-enabled disadvantage and discrimination

While the efficacy and performance of AI-enabled assessments, and their like-
lihood of meeting true parity with human assessors, has been critiqued and
reviewed elsewhere (Cope, Kalantzis, and Searsmith 2020; Gardner, O’Leary,
and Yuan 2021; Selwyn et al. 2020), our primary concern is with how institu-
tions may protect against (unintended) AI-enabled discrimination and exclusion.
The potential avenues for AI-enabled assessments, software, and platforms to
quietly smuggle disadvantage and bias into the assessment process are numerous
and complex. Their complexity is to be found in their technological and com-
mercial aspects, certainly, but also in the inescapably complex political, ethical,
and social contexts in which they are deployed.
To their credit, computer and data science academics have not remained aloof
to the problems of AI-enabled disadvantage and discrimination, or to the per-
nicious ways that advanced data analytics can obscure inequitable outcomes.
126 B. Stephenson and A. Harvey

The past ten years have seen an explosion of research in new fields such as
Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML),
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), and what is broadly called Responsible
Artificial Intelligence (RAI) (Barocas, Hardt, and Narayanan 2020; Gilpin et al.
2018). There have been tremendous advancements made in these fields towards
producing technical tools and strategies aimed at, for example, calculating the
statistical “fairness” of AI systems or adding “explainability” outputs to oth-
erwise inscrutable algorithmic decisions. As we have argued elsewhere, these
technical advancements in AI fairness monitoring and transparency are neces-
sary, but ultimately not sufficient, in our effort to maintain equitable and inclu-
sive deployments of AI in educational settings (Stephenson, Harvey, and Huang
2022, 28–30).
For example, mathematical tests for “algorithmic fairness”, of which there are
now dozens to choose from, are frequently contradictory and fundamentally fail
to be instructive in the absence of applied domain expertise, or where ethical and
political negotiations of “the good” are not confronted (Green and Hu 2018). For
example, an AI cannot tell us which fairness test, or which fairness definition, is
ethically superior in each use case. Nor can an AI process tell us which course of
action to take if an agreed principle of fairness is found to be violated. Equally,
the goal of bringing interpretability and transparency to extremely complex
algorithmic processes – that is, to open the “black box” of AI inscrutability –
has also come under considerable critique (Gilpin et al. 2018). While the crea-
tion of tools which seek to make algorithmic decisions more comprehensible to
human users is a necessary pursuit, it is not sufficient to guaranteeing equitable
outcomes. There are ethical and political questions that must first be negoti-
ated. To whom should the algorithm, or the student’s AI-assessed feedback or
grade, be interpretable to? Who will be the human-in-the-loop who possesses
the necessary disciplinary content specialisation, coupled with AI understand-
ing? Ultimately, we argue that determining the shape of fairness and inclusivity
in educational contexts requires in-house ethical human judgements that should
be made through rigorous political negotiation, not algorithmic quantification.

Towards an inclusive AI-enabled assessment

policy and practice for institutions
Given the pressures exerted upon universities and teaching academics to create
money and time-saving “efficiencies”, we need to find ways to engage fully in the
politics of technology and inclusivity in our institutions. Along with Zuboff (2019,
181), we must ask “Who knows? Who decides? Who decides who decides?”.
Who decides when an AI-enabled assessment is adequately protective of equity
and inclusivity? Who is the sufficiently knowledgeable “human-in-the-loop”
who can explain an AI-enabled assessment tool’s scoring of a student’s work?
How can institutions construct robust and democratic decision architectures that
protect equity and inclusion interests during rapid technological change?
 Student equity in AI-enabled assessment 127

Chaudhry and Kazim (2021) have claimed that teachers can play the role of
human-in-the-loop, and that “the final decision makers are teachers” (1). But
will all teachers be able to understand the algorithmic decision making of the AI?
Teachers are, of course, content specialists, but few are specialists in AI and ML
or familiar with its potential shortcomings. In a systematic review of research
relating to data literacies and the training of university faculty, Raffaghelli and
Stewart (2020) found that where training was taking place it was largely con-
cerned with mastery of accepted, and unproblematised, technical practices. This
finding indicates that many university teachers are unlikely to be prepared to
be the critical-minded “human-in-the-loop”, but particularly when commercial
and proprietary AI are deployed within a veil of opacity and secrecy.
Ultimately, we agree with Elish and Boyd (2018) who have argued that
“[a]cknowledging the limits of Big Data and AI should not result in their dis-
missal, but rather enable a more grounded and ultimately more useful set of
conversations about the appropriate and effective design of such technologies” (73).
But to protect equity and inclusivity goals, we must have transparency in uni-
versity technology procurement processes (Zeide 2020), we should normalise
the production of AI or algorithm impact assessments (Reisman et al. 2018),
and we need to engage in a discussion about the outsourcing or insourcing of
AI oversight. For instance, some have argued for the creation of a new industry
of external algorithmic auditing professionals who might ensure legal protection
for companies and institutions (Koshiyama et al. 2021).
We argue, however, that responsibility for AI oversight and monitoring should
be made a standard part of internal institutional policy and practice. One approach
could involve the creation of specialised institutional review boards that are of
a similar composition to human research ethics committees. Such institutional
governance bodies could draw on the evolving “responsible innovation” research
literature (Jarmai 2020). In a university context, something like a Responsible
Innovation Committee would require broad representation from equity cohorts,
computer science/analytics experts, teaching and learning experts, ethicists, legal
professionals, and student representatives. In this way universities may be able to
better guarantee that the adoption of AI/ML processes will undergo a full engage-
ment with the politics of technology and inclusion in a transparent and democratic
manner. More broadly, the rise of AI-enabled assessment highlights the need for
broad professional development that can then form a critical bulwark against many
forms of digital enchantment (Yeung 2022) that put inclusivity at risk.

References
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., and Narayanan, A. 2020. Fairness in Machine Learning: Limitations
and Opportunities. https://fairmlbook.org/.
Chaudhry, M. A., and Kazim, E. 2021. “Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd): A
High-Level Academic and Industry Note 2021.” AI and Ethics 2: 157–165. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z.
128 B. Stephenson and A. Harvey

Coghlan, S., Miller, T., and Paterson, J. 2020. “Good Proctor or “Big Brother”?”
AI Ethics and Online Exam Supervision Technologies.” ArXiv, abs/2011.07647.
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.07647.
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., and Searsmith, D. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence for Education:
Knowledge and Its Assessment in AI-Enabled Learning Ecologies.” Educational Philosophy
and Theory 53 (12): 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732.
D’Ignazio, C., and Klein, L. F. 2020. Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elish, M. C., and Boyd, D. 2018. “Situating Methods in the Magic of Big Data and AI.”
Communication Monographs 85 (1): 57–80.
Gardner, J., O’Leary, M., and Yuan, L. 2021. “Artificial Intelligence in Educational
Assessment: “Breakthrough? or Buncombe and Ballyhoo?”” Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning 37 (5): 1207–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12577.
Gilpin, L. H., Bau, D., Yuan, B. Z., Bajwa, A., Specter, M., and Kagal, L. 2018.
“Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning.”
In The 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA 2018).
http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.00069.
González-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, P., and Roig-Vila, R. 2021. “Artificial
Intelligence for Student Assessment: A Systematic Review.” Applied Sciences 11 (12):
5467. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125467.
Green, B., and Hu, L. 2018. “The Myth in the Methodology: Towards a Recontextualization
of Fairness in Machine Learning.” In The Debates workshop at the 35th International
Conference on Machine Learning. Stockholm, Sweden.
Jarmai, K., ed. 2020. Responsible Innovation: Business Opportunities and Strategies for Implementation.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Open.
Ke, Z., and Ng, V. 2019. “Automated Essay Scoring: A Survey of the State of the Art.”
In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
(IJCAI-19).
Kelly, A. 2021. “A Tale of Two Algorithms: The Appeal and Repeal of Calculated Grades
Systems in England and Ireland in 2020.” British Educational Research Journal 47 (3):
725–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3705.
Kippin, S., and Cairney, P. 2021. “The COVID-19 Exams Fiasco across the UK: Four
Nations and Two Windows of Opportunity.” British Politics 17: 1–23. https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41293-021-00162-y.
Koshiyama, A., Kazim, E., Treleaven, P., Rai, P., Szpruch, L., Pavey, G., Ahamat, G.,
Leutner, F., Goebel, R., Knight, A., et al. 2021. “Towards Algorithm Auditing: A
Survey on Managing Legal, Ethical and Technological Risks of AI, ML and Associated
Algorithms.” SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3778998.
Lazendic, G., Justus, J., and Rabinowitz, S. 2018. NAPLAN Online Automated
Scoring Research Program: Research Report. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA), Tech. Rep. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/
default-document-library/naplan-online-aes-research-report-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
Leavy, S., Siapera, E., and O’Sullivan, B. 2021. “Ethical Data Curation for AI: An Approach
Based on Feminist Epistemology and Critical Theories of Race.” In Proceedings of the
2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
Lillywhite, A., and Wolbring, G. 2020. “Coverage of Artificial Intelligence and
Machine Learning within Academic Literature, Canadian Newspapers, and Twitter
Tweets: The Case of Disabled People.” Societies 10 (1): 23. https://www.mdpi.
com/2075-4698/10/1/23.
Lohr, S. 2018. “Facial Recognition Is Accurate, If You’re a White Guy.” In Ethics
of Data and Analytics, edited by Kirsten Martin, 143–147. New York: Auerbach
Publications.
 Student equity in AI-enabled assessment 129

Mayfield, E., Madaio, M., Prabhumoye, S., Gerritsen, D., McLaughlin, B., Dixon-
Román, E., and Black, A. W. 2019. “Equity beyond Bias in Language Technologies
for Education.” In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for
Building Educational Applications.
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., and Shannon, C. E. 2006 [1955]. “A Proposal
for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, August 31,
1955.” AI Magazine 27 (4): 12. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904.
Morozow, E. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to
Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Penguin Press.
Mubin, O., Cappuccio, M., Alnajjar, F., Ahmad, M. I., and Shahid, S. 2020. “Can a
Robot Invigilator Prevent Cheating?” AI & Society 35 (4). http://doi.org/10.1007/
s00146-020-00954-8.
O’Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and
Threatens Democracy. London: Penguin Press.
Perelman, L. 2018. “Robot Marking: Automated Essay Scoring and NAPLAN – A
Summary Report.” Journal of Professional Learning, Semester 1. https://cpl.asn.au/
journal/semester-1-2018/robot-marking-automated-essay-scoring-and-naplan-a-
summary-report.
Raffaghelli, J. E., and Stewart, B. 2020. “Centering Complexity in “Educators” Data
Literacy” to Support Future Practices in Faculty Development: A Systematic Review
of the Literature.” Teaching in Higher Education 25 (4): 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13562517.2019.1696301.
Reisman, D., Schultz, J., Crawford, K., and Whittaker, M. 2018. Algorithmic Impact
Assessments: A Practical Framework for Public Agency Accountability. AI Now. https://
ainowinstitute.org/aiareport2018.pdf.
Selwyn, N. 2019. Should Robots Replace Teachers? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., and Sancho-
Gil, J. M. 2020. “What’s Next for Ed-Tech? Critical Hopes and Concerns for the
2020s.” Learning, Media and Technology 45 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.
2020.1694945.
Smith, G. 2018. The AI Delusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stephenson, B., Harvey, A., and Huang, Q. 2022. Towards an Inclusive Analytics for Australian
Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/inclusive-analytics-australian-
higher-education/.
Swauger, S. 2020. “Our Bodies Encoded: Algorithmic Test Proctoring in Higher Education.”
In Critical Digital Pedagogy: A Collection, edited by Jesse Stommel, Chris Friend, and Sean
M. Morris. Washington, DC: Pressbooks.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., and Russell, C. 2021. “Bias Preservation in Machine
Learning: The Legality of Fairness Metrics under EU Non-Discrimination Law.”
West Virginia Law Review 123 (3): 735–790. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3792772.
Wang, P. 2019. “On Defining Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of Artificial General Intelligence
10 (2): 1–37. http://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2019-0002.
Weller, M. 2015. “MOOCs and the Silicon Valley Narrative.” Journal of Interactive Media
in Education 1 (5): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jime.am.
Williamson, B., and Eynon, R. 2020. “Historical Threads, Missing Links, and Future
Directions in AI in Education.” Learning, Media and Technology 45 (3): 223–235.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995.
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., and Potter, J. 2020. “Pandemic Politics, Pedagogies and
Practices: Digital Technologies and Distance Education during the Coronavirus
Emergency.” Learning, Media and Technology 45 (2): 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439884.2020.1761641.
130 B. Stephenson and A. Harvey

Williamson, B., and Hogan, A. 2020. Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of Education
in the Context of Covid-19. Brussels, Belgium: Education International. https://www.
ei-ie.org/file/130.
Yeung, K. 2022. “Dispelling the Digital Enchantment.” Futures Lecture, Edinburgh
Futures Institute, the University of Edinburgh. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/
2022/cal-law-digital-enchantment.
Zeide, E. 2020. “Robot Teaching, Pedagogy, and Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics
of AI (Online Edition), edited by Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das, 1–17.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.51.
Zimitat, C. 2019. “Scalable English Language Screening in a Multi-Campus University.”
In TEQSA 4th Annual Conference. Melbourne, Victoria http://teqsa-2019.p.asnevents.
com.au/days/2019-11-28/abstract/66733.
Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New
Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
12
OPPORTUNITIES AND
LIMITATIONS OF
ACCOMMODATIONS AND
ACCESSIBILITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSESSMENT
Christopher Johnstone, Leanne R. Ketterlin Geller,
and Martha Thurlow

Introduction
A mechanism for understanding if students are learning in universities is class-
room assessments. The practice of assessment has wide-ranging understandings
that vary from classroom to classroom and instructor to instructor. This chap-
ter considers assessment within the context of the United States, but lessons
may be applicable in other parts of the world. In the United States, entrance
examinations (those that are designed to inform admissions decisions in higher
education institutions) are highly standardised, but beyond this there is little
to no standardisation of assessment practice in higher education settings in the
United States. For example, two instructors in the same department may take
two entirely different approaches to assessment. Instructor A may define the goal
of their class as factual or procedural knowledge, and thus rely heavily on quizzes
and exams as mechanisms for students to demonstrate knowledge. Instructor B
may be more concerned about applications and use written papers or authentic
application activities (i.e., projects) to examine student course outputs.
The lack of consistency surrounding assessment in the United States can be
challenging for students to navigate. A typical semester course load requires
students to take 4–5 classes with instructors who each have their own vision of
assessment. Students in higher education settings, then, are required to navi-
gate due dates, instructors’ assessment expectations, and (for many undergrad-
uates) independent living skills during their university experience. The level
of support that students receive for navigating higher education expectations
also varies widely. In the next section, we will focus on support mechanisms
for students with disabilities as an example of how assessment practice is con-
structed for a particular population within a larger decentralised higher educa-
tion ecosystem.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-15
132 C. Johnstone, L. R. Ketterlin Geller, and M. Thurlow

Students with disabilities in higher education

in the United States
A recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) revealed
that as many as 19% of undergraduate students and 12% of graduate students
self-reported a disability (US Department of Education 2021). According to the
survey, students could select “yes” to having a disability if they self-identified as
having any of the following circumstances: blindness or visual impairment that
cannot be corrected by wearing glasses; hearing impairment (e.g., deaf or hard of
hearing); orthopaedic or mobility impairment; speech or language impairment;
learning, mental, emotional, or psychiatric condition such as a serious learning
disability, depression, ADD, or ADHD); or other health impairment.
Students identifying as having a disability, however, do not automatically receive
any form of disability-related service from their home universities. According to
US policy, if students wish to receive any form of disability services from their
home institution, they must make an appointment with a designated disability
resource office, disclose their disability, and provide accurate documentation of the
disability. These processes can be stigmatising to students and many students may
fail to receive services if they are uncomfortable with self-disclosure of a disability.
Despite the stigmatising barriers that may prevent students from disclosing their
disability to receive services, many students effectively advocate for themselves
through disability resource offices in universities. In relation to assessment, stu-
dents who register at disability resource offices are frequently entitled to accom-
modations in assessments. Because resource offices are mandated to serve students
under US disability laws, once instructional and assessment accommodations deci-
sions are finalised, instructors are mandated to implement them in classes.

Accommodations in higher education

Accommodations are any change to the presentation or response/action require-
ments of an assessment for an individual student if the conditions of the assess-
ment create an accessibility barrier unrelated to the construct taught or assessed.
Accommodations are a common global practice in higher education, primarily
designed to provide opportunities for all students to participate in assessment.
Accommodations practice and research aim to ensure inclusion in whatever
assessment is given to students, but do not typically critique the utility, applica-
bility, or authenticity of assessments themselves (Nieminen 2022). (See Chapter 6
for a broader discussion of the limitations of accommodations.)
Although accommodations can be provided for any type of assessment or any
student, they are often applied in higher education settings as “testing accommo-
dations”, and frequently utilised by students with disabilities. For example, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) defines testing accommodations as:

• Braille or large-print exam booklets

• Screen reading technology
 Accommodations and accessibility in assessment 133

• Scribes to transfer answers to Scantron bubble sheets or record dictated notes

and essays
• Extended time
• Wheelchair-accessible testing stations
• Distraction-free rooms
• Physical prompts (such as for individuals with hearing impairments)
• Permission to bring and take medications during the exam (e.g., for individuals
with diabetes who must monitor their blood sugar and administer insulin)

In general, accommodations are designed to provide access to an assessment,

without changing its constructs, when the standard presentation or response con-
ditions introduce a barrier (Thurlow and Bolt 2001). In addition to testing accom-
modations, disability resource offices also provide documentation and require
accommodations for non-exam assessments (such as papers and projects). Typical
accommodations include extended time, allowances for alternative presentation
(i.e., not in front of a large group), allowances for additional resources, grammar
checks if projects are completed in class, and a host of other accommodations
based on students’ disability profiles.
As noted above, accommodations are a widespread practice worldwide and
are often supported by national or institutional policies (see Hanafin et al. 2007).
In the United States, accommodations are protected by educational rights and
represent a clear pathway for student access in assessment. If disability resource
centres document a need for accommodations, instructors must provide them
or be in violation of US law. The language of accommodations is clear and
non-debatable. Because of the procedural requirements for accommodations that
require diagnosis data, appointments with disability resource offices, and the
effort required to seek official letters, a relatively small number of students in
universities benefit from them. For example, we are all highly committed to
providing legally mandated accommodations in our classrooms, yet sometimes
go entire semesters without official accommodations requests.
Increased attention to the provision of accommodations for higher education
assessments emerged, in part, from the extensive increases in the provision of
assessment accommodations in primary and secondary schools. In the United
States, for example, some states reported more than 95% of high school students
with disabilities received assessment accommodations during the 2018–2019
school year (Wu et al. 2021). As these students move on to higher education,
they often expect to receive the same accommodations.
A report to the US Congress, however, foresaw the challenges in providing
testing accommodations in higher education (Scott 2011). Although the report
focused on assessments provided by testing companies, it was clear about the need
for the Department of Justice to take a more strategic approach to enforcement of
regulations governing testing accommodations in higher education settings. As a
result, new guidance on testing accommodations was released (US Department
of Justice 2014). It applied to tests related to “applications, licensing, certification,
or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade
134 C. Johnstone, L. R. Ketterlin Geller, and M. Thurlow

purposes” (US Department of Justice 2014, 1) yet had implications for higher
education in general. The following are among some of the many points made
in the guidance:

• A person with a history of academic success may still be a person with a

disability who is entitled to testing accommodations under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. (3)
• Proof of past testing accommodations in similar test settings is generally
sufficient to support a request for the same testing accommodations for a
current standardised exam or other high-stakes test. (5)
• If a candidate previously received testing accommodations under an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a Section 504 Plan,1 he or she
should generally receive the same testing accommodations for a current
standardised exam or high-stakes test. (6)
• Testing entities should defer to documentation from a qualified professional
who has made an individualised assessment of the candidate that supports
the need for the requested testing accommodations. (7)

Although the above report’s recommendations apply specifically to a narrow set

of tests, consistency in approaches across instructional and assessment situations
suggests that they have important implications for higher education testing
situations in general.
The legal and contractual focus of accommodations provides an opportu-
nity for students with disabilities to experience greater accessibility in assessment
experiences but is limited in its reach and potential. Similarly, recent research on
the effects of accommodations in higher education has been limited, and often
not consistent in research findings. As noted by Weis and Beauchemin (2019),
researchers have found positive effects (e.g., Kim and Lee 2016), negative effects
(e.g., Lewandowski, Wood, and Lambert 2015), or no effect (e.g., Lombardi,
Murray, and Gerdes 2012) of similar accommodations. Despite overall positive
effects, Weis and Beauchemin (2019) themselves found negative results, indicat-
ing no performance advantage of a private room for examinations. A limitation
of many of the findings of these and other studies is that the accommodations
were not administered to students for whom there was an identified individu-
alised need for the accommodation. A further limitation is that “assessment” in
higher education is often conflated with testing, which is a narrowed imaginary
of how students might demonstrate knowledge and how accommodations might
support such a process.
Instructors are required to provide accommodations for students with identi-
fied disabilities who have chosen to seek assistance from disability services offices
but may have additional students with and without disabilities in their classes
who may benefit from individualised accommodations. In US higher educa-
tion settings, there is little policy guidance that focuses on individual instruc-
tors providing accommodations based on their own knowledge of students and
 Accommodations and accessibility in assessment 135

course assessments. We will revisit this limitation in our final section but will
now introduce a second mechanism for increasing accessibility of assessments -
Universal Design for Assessment (UDA).

Universal design for assessment

Although the previous section focused on accommodations and the legal right
of students with disabilities to receive them, many students without disabilities
may encounter barriers when in tests and other assessments that are rooted in
similar reasons as those experienced by students with disabilities. Namely, there
are some aspects of the assessment process that are not accessible to them based on
the interactions between personal characteristics and the structure of assessments.
Institutions of higher education host a wide range of students of different ages,
cultural experiences, prior education background, continuity in formal school-
ing, and other histories that shape how they experience assessment. Some stu-
dents may experience anxiety in certain subjects or settings that is based on prior
experiences. For example, many students across the grades as well as in postsec-
ondary settings experience math anxiety. While often not significant enough to
be diagnosed as a disability, it may impact their learning as well as their ability
to demonstrate their knowledge on assessment tasks. Students who experience
math anxiety may have emotional, cognitive, and physiological reactions that
reduce their ability to concentrate, impact their working memory, and physical
symptoms such as an increased heart rate, upset stomach and light-headedness
(Luttenberger, Wimmer, and Paechter 2018). Although students who experience
these or similar situations may not have a disability that requires accommoda-
tions, their personal experiences coupled with the often-narrow range of assess-
ments in mathematics may impact their performance in ways that are not related
to their potential on the mathematics constructs in question. Under current US
law, accommodations would not be allowable for these students. To improve
accessibility for these and other students, many instructors have begun to design
their assessments following the principles of UDA.
UDA began to be conceptualised in the early 2000s in the United States by schol-
ars and practitioners concerned with accessibility of tests. Thompson, Johnstone,
and Thurlow (2002) first attempted to make a linkage between Universal Design
architectural principles and accessible assessment (see Center for Universal Design
1997, for an overview of these architectural principles, which focus on accessibility
of the build environment). Thompson, Johnstone, and Thurlow’s (2002) elements
focused on (1) inclusive test populations, (2) precisely defined constructs, (3) accessi-
ble, non-biased items, (4) amenable to accommodations, (5) simple, clear, and intu-
itive instructions and procedures, (6) maximum readability and comprehensibility,
and (7) maximum legibility. The policy context for accessibility advocacy at the
time was the United States’ No Child Left Behind Act, which increased assessment
for accountability requirements in primary and secondary schools to the highest
point in US history. Assessment experts responded by pushing for further evidence
136 C. Johnstone, L. R. Ketterlin Geller, and M. Thurlow

that test formats did not introduce barriers for students or assess skills that were
outside of the intended construct. Both Ketterlin Geller et al. (2012) and Kettler
(2012) warned that sometimes assessments had access requirements (i.e., decoding
the words of a math word problem) that inhibited students from demonstrating
knowledge of a construct (i.e., mathematical reasoning and problem solving).
Early twenty-first century UDA research focused heavily on assessment the-
ory and understanding the interactions between assessment barriers and stu-
dent abilities, capabilities, and disabilities. Around the same time, the Center
for Applied Special Technologies (CAST) began conceptualising Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose and Meyer 2002) as learning opportunities
that included (1) multiple means of engagement, (2) multiple means of response/
action, and (3) multiple means of representation. UDL became an important
concept in the United States and beyond and was acknowledged in the 2008 US
Higher Education Act to promote accessibility in higher education classrooms.
Specifically, the guidance notes important features of UDL as: “(A) provides
flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or
demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and
(B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, sup-
ports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all stu-
dents, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English
proficient” (US Department of Education 2008, sec. 103). Scholars also posited
that UDL guidelines could improve the assessment experience for all students
and allow for “built-in” accommodations that all students could access (Dolan
et al. 2013). Sheryl Burgstahler and colleagues at the University of Washington
Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technologies (DO-IT) Center
have been at the forefront of promoting and conducting UDL research in higher
education settings (see https://www.washington.edu/doit/).
The framing of UDA as an extension of UDL is an intuitive linkage for assess-
ment in higher education. Although much of the early UDA research focused on
paper- and later technology-based tests, in higher education contexts UDA can be
applied to a variety of assessment approaches. The overall consideration for “mul-
tiple means” has provided instructors in higher education settings with a degree
of freedom to allow their students to engage with material in ways that are most
accessible. However, identifying ways to improve the accessibility of assessments
may be difficult for some instructors. These instructors may be unaware of the
barriers that students face, likely because they did not have similar experiences or
receive training on assessments. As such, specific assessment practices are often per-
petuated by instructors themselves or within disciplines with little understanding
of student needs. Focusing on providing “multiple means” can help faculty recog-
nise that students may express their knowledge in a variety of ways and varying
their approach to assessment may draw out different levels of understanding.
Although the CAST guidelines associated with providing multiple means of
action and expression tend to naturally apply to assessments, drawing on the
range of modalities can enhance accessibility of assessments in higher education.
 Accommodations and accessibility in assessment 137

Examples of incorporating multiple means of engagement in assessment design

include providing students with choice from a given set of situations, for instance,
choice of context, choice of exercises to complete (see Chapter 18), increase the
relevance of items or tasks to align with their interests, and build in ways for
students to assess their own learning. Multiple means of action and expression
can be embedded in assessments by allowing students to respond using different
methods (e.g., a written response, a photo essay, or audio presentation), including
different item formats that elicit different methods of expression, and scoring
the processes (in addition to the products) that students use to engage in prob-
lem solving. Finally, multiple means of representation may include providing
students with explanations and elaborations on aspects of the task that are not
related to the construct, allowing language supports such as dictionaries or trans-
lation tools, and provide different ways in which the items are perceived (e.g.,
written, auditory). Important to all these accessibility features are that they do
not change the underlying learning objectives.
Another important consideration when applying UDL to assessment is the
way in which feedback information is provided to students. Within the assess-
ment cycle, receiving results and acting on those data is as important as taking the
assessment itself. As such, increasing the accessibility of feedback is an important
consideration. “Multiple means” can be applied to the way in which feedback
information is provided by annotating the scoring of worked samples, provid-
ing audio recordings of the instructor’s comments, illustrating comments with
specific examples, and building in opportunities for self-reflection on outcomes.
Universal Design in higher education in the United States, thanks to policy
attention through the Higher Education Act, researchers, and other university
disability resource centres, is a relatively well-known approach. UDL (and UDA
as an emergent, yet small component of UDL) are now featured in training
programs by centres for teaching excellence around the country. Instructors par-
ticipate in training programs to help them understand that a singular concept
may have multiple pathways to understanding and demonstration of knowl-
edge for students. Training and implementation, however, most often occur at
the goodwill of instructors, and there is little to compel instructors to take on
UDL/UDA approaches except their own interest. Therefore, a student may, in the
same semester, experience an instructor who begrudgingly implements accom-
modations as required but does little more, and another instructor who focuses
on multiple means of engagement, response/action, and representation in a class.
In the United States, academic freedom is often conflated with pedagogical free-
dom, which leads students to experience higher education in very different ways.

A proposal
Evidence from around the world indicates that accommodations provide a path-
way for individual changes to higher education assessments. These changes are
helpful to receiving students, and if they are administered via a disability services
138 C. Johnstone, L. R. Ketterlin Geller, and M. Thurlow

office, they are required by law. The procedural implementation of accom-

modations holds individual instructors accountable for providing changes to
assessments for students, whether these assessments are examinations or applied
activities. However, the number of students who disclose their disability and
seek out accommodations in higher education institutions worldwide is likely far
fewer than the actual number of students with disabilities (Griful-Freixenet et al.
2017). This creates a service gap and a barrier to accessible educational opportu-
nities for students.
UDA provides greater flexibility and allows for accessibility measures to be
implemented at any time for any student, regardless of disability status. A limi-
tation of UDA, however, is that it largely depends on the interest and goodwill
of individual instructors. In the United States there are ample professional devel-
opment opportunities through university-based teaching centres of excellence
and webinars from national organisations like DO-IT, but these opportunities
are often underutilised. Further, although UDL is mentioned in the Higher
Education Act, neither UDL nor UDA are mandated.
Our proposal for assessment for inclusion in higher education, then, is to
draw upon the strengths of accommodations and UDA models to address the
weaknesses of each other’s model. There have previously been calls by scholars
to facilitate greater accessibility in higher education assessment (see Hanafin et al.
2007), but in this chapter we propose a dialectical approach that considers both
accommodations and UDA as separate approaches that are complementary, but
also could be influential to one another. For example, accommodations are an
excellent way to provide individualised changes for students on an as-needed
basis. Accommodations, however, are often limited by instructors’ perceptions
that they must be sanctioned by a disability service office to be allowable. In fact,
some disability services offices are now recommending that disability service
office accommodations should be the minimum approach to accommodations,
and instructors should feel empowered to provide accommodations as students’
needs dictate (University of Minnesota Disability Resource Center, personal
communication 2021).
In this way, accommodations might become a part of general practice, rather
than be treated as a precious resource that can only be administered in rare
instances (see Wong 2020). In such circumstances, new lines of research may
emerge that would characterise accommodations as a practical and individualised
solution to educational barriers, not a procedural action. In such scenarios new
guidelines would likely need to be developed to ensure minimum, legally man-
dated accommodations were not overlooked.
Alternatively, UDA is a flexible strategy that can enhance educational acces-
sibility for all students, but its implementation may be limited because there is a
lack of policy mandates. Stronger guidance or required evidence of UDL/UDA
implementation in instructors’ portfolios is a policy lever that could increase
accessibility for all students, including students with disabilities. Including
UDL/UDA in tenure and merit reviews, or associating UDL/UDA principles as
 Accommodations and accessibility in assessment 139

part of “quality teaching” expectations, for example, would mandate greater use
in higher education classrooms.
In summary, there are two tools that are currently used to increase accessibil-
ity in assessments - whether those assessments are tests, authentic expressions of
knowledge, or applied activities. Accommodations and UDA each provide useful
pathways to accessibility, but also have limitations. One way to address these lim-
itations is to better understand and articulate how accommodations and UDA can
be used to inform one another. By drawing on the strengths of accommodations,
institutions may become more accountable to their students by making accessi-
bility of assessments an indicator of quality against which instructors’ efforts are
judged. At the same time, UDA can inform accommodations practice, unlocking
greater potential for instructors to utilise and experiment with accommodations,
rather than rely solely on minimum requirements outlined in accommodations
letters. In the latter case, transparency by instructors on the decisions they make
will be critical so that students can track instructor expectations of students, as
well as what students can expect of their instructors, across multiple courses.
Further research in these areas is needed, both at the policy and pedagog-
ical level. Little is known about how flexible administration of accommoda-
tions impacts the learning and assessment experiences of students, but we suspect
such administration might improve students’ motivation, decrease anxieties, and
allow for greater focus on the core constructs of courses. At the same time, there
are few case studies about the impact of institutional reform efforts focused on
accessible learning and assessments. We suspect, however, that such changes may
improve students’ ability to demonstrate how they have understood and reflected
on the material in their courses. To this end, we conclude by broadly arguing
that enhanced accessibility of assessments aligns with the public good mission of
higher education. By removing the access barriers students face in learning and
assessment, students may have enhanced opportunity to enjoy all that higher
education may provide for them as individuals and enhance their potential for
making an impact on their communities and world.

Note
1 IEPs and Section 504 plans are educational planning documents required by law for
students in primary and secondary schools in the United States. IEPs are generated by
multidisciplinary teams and not used in postsecondary settings, but Section 504 Plans
(which identify student accommodation needs based on their disability) are applicable
in postsecondary settings).

References
Americans with Disabilities Act. 1990. 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.303(b), 36.309(b)(3).
Center for Universal Design. 1997. The Principles of Universal Design. Center for Universal
Design, North Carolina State University. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/
pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf.
140 C. Johnstone, L. R. Ketterlin Geller, and M. Thurlow

Dolan, R. P., Burling, K., Harms, M., Strain-Seymour, E., Way, W., and Rose, D. H. 2013.
A Universal Design for Learning-Based Framework for Designing Accessible Technology-Enhanced
Assessments. New Jersey: Pearson. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16823.85922.
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., and Andries, C. 2017. “Higher Education
Students with Disabilities Speaking Out: Perceived Barriers and Opportunities of the
Universal Design for Learning Framework.” Disability and Society 32 (10): 1627–1649.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695.
Hanafin, J., Shevlin, M., Kenny, M., and McNeela, E. 2007. “Including Young People
with Disabilities. Assessment Challenges in Higher Education.” Higher Education 54
(3): 435–488. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9005-9.
Ketterlin Geller, L. R., Jamgochian, E. M., Nelson-Walker, N. J., and Geller, J. P. 2012.
“Disentangling Mathematics Target and Access Skills: Implications for Accommodation
Assignment Practices.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 27 (4): 178–188. http://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00365.x.
Kettler, R. J. 2012. “Testing Accommodations: Theory and Research to Inform Practice.”
International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 5 (1): 53–66. http://doi.
org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952.
Kim, W. H., and Lee, J. 2016. “The Effect of Accommodations on Academic Performance
of College Students with Disabilities.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 60 (1): 40–50.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0034355215605259.
Lewandowski, L., Wood, W, and Lambert, T. 2015. “Private Room as a Test Accommodation.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (2): 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2014.911243.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., and Gerdes, H. 2012. “Academic Performance of First
Generation College Students with Disabilities.” Journal of College Student Development
53 (6): 811–826. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0082.
Luttenberger, S., Wimmer, S., and Paechter, M. 2018. “Spotlight on Math Anxiety.”
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 11: 311–322. http://doi.org/10.2147/
PRBM.S141421.
Nieminen, J. H. 2022. “Governing the ‘Disabled Assessee’: A Critical Reframing of
Assessment Accommodations as Sociocultural Practices.” Disability and Society 37(8):
1293–1320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1874304.
Rose, D. H., and Meyer, A. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design
for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Scott, G. A. 2011. Higher Education and Disability: Improved Federal Enforcement Needed to
Better Protect Students’ Rights to Testing Accommodations. Report to Congressional Requesters.
GAO-12-40. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., and Thurlow, M. L. 2002. Universal Design Applied to
Large Scale Assessments. Synthesis Report 44. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., and Bolt, S. 2001. Empirical Support for Accommodations Most Often Allowed
in State Policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2021. Digest of
Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2021-009). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d19/tables/dt19_311.10.asp.
US Department of Education. 2008, sec. 103. The Higher Education Opportunity Act.
Universal Design for Learning. 20 USC § 1003(24).
US Department of Justice. 2014. ADA Requirements: Testing Accommodations. https://
www.ada.gov/regs2014/testing-accommodations.pdf.
 Accommodations and accessibility in assessment 141

Weis, R., and Beauchemin, E. L. 2019. “Are Separate Room Accommodations Effective
for College Students with Disabilities? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 45
(5): 794–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1702922.
Wong, A., ed. 2020. Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century.
New York: Vintage Books.
Wu, Y.-C., Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., and Thurlow, M. L. 2021. 2018–2019 APR Snapshot
#26: Students in Special Education Assigned Assessment Accommodations. National Center on
Educational Outcomes. https://ici.umn.edu/products/ODcf UaAbRUm1nIr5nftRaQ.
13
MORE THAN ASSESSMENT
TASK DESIGN
Promoting equity for students from low
socio-economic status backgrounds

Trina Jorre de St Jorre and David Boud

What is the problem?

Investment in widening participation initiatives has significantly improved the par-
ticipation of students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds (Raciti
2019), but they continue to have poorer educational outcomes, both in terms of
academic achievement and graduate employment (Harvey et al. 2017). As students,
they face challenges related to belonging and engagement throughout their degree
(Burke et al. 2016), and are more likely to discontinue study and achieve poorer
grades (Harvey et al. 2017). As graduates they benefit less in the labour market than
their peers from medium and high SES backgrounds (Li and Carroll 2019; O’Shea
2016; Richardson, Bennett, and Roberts 2016), having poorer rates of overall and
full-time employment, and reduced salaries after graduation (4–6 months, QILT
2019; 5–15 years, Tomaszewski et al. 2019). Some causes have been identified, but
more research is needed to fully understand and address inequities that cause disad-
vantage, especially with regards to the suitability of assessment.
Attempts to address inequalities for students from low SES backgrounds have
primarily focussed on their transition into university, including transition pedago-
gies to address gaps in academic preparedness, self-efficacy and belonging as stu-
dents move into and through their degrees (Devlin and McKay 2017; Kift 2015).
This has led to improvements in understanding and practice, but gaps in academic
achievement and retention remain, and few studies have focussed on the equally
challenging transition that the same vulnerable cohorts face as they enter the highly
competitive graduate workforce. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the
contribution of assessment to gaps in retention, success or employment outcomes.
There is ample evidence that the ways in which universities represent the
achievement of graduates provides poor evidence of capabilities and outcomes val-
ued in the workplace (Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021). This presents

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-16
 More than assessment task design 143

challenges for all graduates, because they need to look to experiences beyond
what is assessed to convey their capabilities to employers (Jorre de St Jorre, Boud,
and Johnson 2021). However, the shortcomings of assessment pose a greater
problem for students from low SES backgrounds because they tend to be less
aware of opportunities to improve their employability (Doyle 2011; Greenbank
and Hepworth 2008; Harvey et al. 2017), and this contributes to disadvantage
in the graduate labour market (Li and Carroll 2019; O’Shea 2016; QILT 2019;
Richardson, Bennett, and Roberts 2016; Tomaszewski et al. 2019). Equitable
employment opportunities are essential to improving social mobility and stopping
cycles of intergenerational disadvantage for students from low SES backgrounds,
so this aspect of assessment needs to be addressed urgently.

Why does assessment matter?

Assessment impacts what students learn and serves as a gateway to progression
and entry into professions. Despite its importance, numerous scholars have
expressed concerns about assessment failing to meet its potential and lagging
other curriculum reform ( Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021; Knight
2002; Shay 2008). Of equal concern, is the unchallenged influence that assess-
ment has in legitimising certain capabilities, knowledge, and ways of knowing
(Bullen and Flavell 2022; Leathwood 2005; Shay 2008). Assessment is a socially
constructed practice, that is interwoven with relations of power (Leathwood
2005; Shay 2008). With that in mind, it is appropriate that we carefully examine
the purpose of assessment and whose interest it serves.
There is growing evidence that assessment perpetuates dominant social struc-
tures and power relations. For example, stereotype threat (the predicament in
which individuals from a stigmatised social group are or feel at risk of confirm-
ing a negative stereotype) is known to negatively impact the test performance of
people from minorities groups and women (Nguyen and Ryan 2008), and it is
well documented that unconscious bias in the assessment of learner performance
disadvantages minority performance in medical education (Lucey et al. 2020).
Thus, it is somewhat surprising, that assessment has not been scrutinised more as
a source of the inequity that contributes to persistent gaps in academic achieve-
ment and employment outcomes for students from low SES backgrounds.

The shortcomings of current assessment

strategies and how they might be addressed
Assessment privileges dominant cultural practices
and perspectives
Assessment supports individualism and competition, and those who “under-
stand the game” are advantaged by that knowledge and encouraged by early
success. Whereas those who don’t, need to learn the rules, and overcome the
144 T. Jorre de St Jorre and D. Boud

de-motivating potential of negative emotions associated with failure or disap-

pointing grades (Leathwood 2005). These experiences impact some individuals
more than others, but more concerningly, they can systemically discriminate
against entire groups in ways that are insidious and predictable given common
experiences of past inequalities.
Assessors strive for consistency and accuracy in the judgement of student
work. However, they are rarely experts in assessment design, and grade integrity
is compromised both by the scope and soundness of assessment design, and the
subjectivity of judgements made about performance (Hailikari et al. 2014; Sadler
2009a). In reality, assessment is largely informed by long-standing disciplinary
norms, and what educators have themselves experienced (Bearman et al. 2017).
As such, it is designed and constructed in accordance with the social and cultural
backgrounds of academics, whose experience of higher education may differ
considerably from how it is experienced by contemporary students, or those from
other sociocultural backgrounds (HEFCE 2015).
Qualitative research shows that students often feel that what they see in the
curriculum, and thus assessment, does not reflect their identities (HEFCE 2015).
However, students from middle and high SES backgrounds are more likely to be
familiar with, and therefore be advantaged by, dominant cultural codes and prac-
tices (cultural capital) and social relationships which provide access to resources
(social capital) relevant to their navigating assessment. Thus assessment “norms”
and traditions advantage those who can relate to, or are familiar with, the values
and practices reflected in standards and assessment tasks, particularly aspects that
involve subjective elements (Sadler 2009a, 2009b; Yorke 2011).
The articulation of standards and criteria are meant to help with assuring
accuracy and transparency in assessment. However, the way in which criteria are
formulated and communicated provides insufficient clarity for students or those
who contribute to assessment, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the
judgement of achievement (Woolf 2004). Some argue that to strive for greater
accuracy is fruitless, because the application of criteria necessarily requires sub-
jective interpretation, and understanding therefore needs to be co-constructed
(Shay 2008). This is especially important for students from low SES backgrounds,
because they often feel underprepared academically and less assured in co-
constructing knowledge. There is evidence that both university staff and stu-
dents recognise the importance of accessible language and examples, especially
with respect to assessment requirements (Devlin et al. 2012).

Assessment that is not inclusive is demotivating

and enables social closure
Where students from low SES backgrounds are confused by assessment require-
ments, doubt their ability to succeed, or compare themselves to more advantaged
peers, they are likely to be demotivated. Students who are demotivated are likely
to engage less with activities of importance to assessment because expectations
 More than assessment task design 145

and personal efficacy are mediators of achievement related choices. Individuals

are more inclined to engage with activities when they have high expectations of
success and their own self-efficacy (Eccles 2009). Achievement-related choices are
also influenced by internal and external comparison processes: people assess their
skills across different tasks or contexts, and in comparison to others (Eccles 2009).
Interpretive processes, such as the amount of effort attributed to success or failure,
and social influences (people who reinforce whether they are good or not) are also
important (Eccles 2009).
In addition to limitations imposed by students’ perceptions of themselves and
how they relate to assessment tasks, their aspirations can be further limited by
how they are treated by others. “Social closure” is a phenomenon which describes
the tendency of privileged groups to limit access to resources and opportunities
in ways that sustain social hierarchies (Harvey et al. 2017). Harvey et al. (2017)
raise concerns about social closure in relation to the employability strategies
implemented by universities. They argue that institutions need to think more
carefully about what, and who, are rewarded by such strategies. For example, it is
well established that students from low SES backgrounds are less likely to engage
with opportunities to gain experience relevant to employment – using career
services, non-compulsory work-integrated learning, extra-curricular experi-
ences valued by employers, and student clubs and societies – that can provide
valuable networks and experience (Doyle 2011; Greenbank and Hepworth 2008;
Harvey et al. 2017).
Concerns about the impact of social closure are equally relevant to assessment.
Students who interact more with their teachers tend to do better, but students
from low SES backgrounds are more reluctant to seek academic support than
their more privileged peers, because they often lack confidence and self-esteem,
and are more likely to question the validity of their questions and how staff
might respond (Devlin et al. 2012). Greater focus on inclusive assessment could
help to address inequities that lead to disparities in both academic achievement
and employment outcomes. For example, scaffolded low stakes early assessment,
enables students to develop skills and confidence, and formative feedback and
self and peer review can be embedded into assessment processes to ensure that all
students have opportunities to learn the rules of the game. Assessment can also be
used to ensure that all students engage with learning relevant to developing their
vocational aspirations and understanding of the skills and experience relevant to
gaining those opportunities ( Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021; Jorre de
St Jorre and Oliver 2018).

“Fairness” at the expense of equity

The notion of fairness is integral to the design and improvement of assessment
practices, but scholars have primarily been concerned with the challenge of con-
structing “neutral” and “objective” assessment tools (Leathwood 2005). For rea-
sons of fairness, assessment strives to consistently measure student achievement
146 T. Jorre de St Jorre and D. Boud

of learning outcomes, irrespective of the student assessed or the assessor respon-

sible. Historically, and ironically, examinations have been explicitly introduced
to eliminate patronage and mitigate advantage afforded by social standing.
However, the conditions under which assessment takes place are not identical
and assessment that treats all students the same, is by definition, not equitable
(Stowell 2004). Students have unique personal histories and lived realities which
influence what they know (including their familiarity with the assessment pro-
cesses) and can do, and opportunities for growth and expression. Those differ-
ences influence how students experience and perform during assessment.
Under some circumstances, inequities associated with assessing all students the
same are acknowledged, for example, special arrangements are put in place to pro-
vide students with obvious and accepted disabilities with fairer opportunities to
demonstrate achievement. Likewise, ill-health, family bereavements, and personal
crises are commonly regarded as legitimate reasons for special arrangements, such
as deferral or reassessment (Stowell 2004). However, other circumstances which
are more likely to adversely affect the performance of students from low SES back-
grounds are not acknowledged or written into policy. These include the impact of
competing family and work responsibilities, which persist throughout a student’s
enrolment, or the impact of geographical distance which makes it more difficult
and time consuming for students to access learning resources and environments.
With these examples, one could argue that students have opportunities to adjust
their own enrolment to accommodate competing demands (e.g., they can enrol
in part-time study). However, other inequalities are not so easily dismissed. For
example, students from low SES backgrounds commonly have less educational
opportunity prior to entering higher education, and those who are first-in-family,
have less support for understanding the “rules of the game”.
It is not necessary for students to undertake identical assessment tasks or to
produce identical artefacts to demonstrate equivalent achievement of the same
learning outcomes, but that is the way in which assessment is most often designed
( Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021). While it is commonplace for stu-
dents to generate a variety of outputs with respect to project work, the same
thinking is needed with all major summative assessment tasks. Assessment must
enable judgement of whether a student has met the necessary learning outcomes,
but the mechanisms or tasks they use to demonstrate those can vary.

Lack of opportunity to understand and portray

meaningful achievements
Assessment for learning is a well-established concept, which recognises that assess-
ment can, and should be used to direct students’ attention to the achievement of
important learning outcomes. Numerous authors have pointed to assessment as a
means through which educators can engage students with learning important to
employability ( Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver 2018; Kinash, McGillivray, and Crane
2017), and this is especially relevant for students from low SES backgrounds
 More than assessment task design 147

because they more often lack awareness of the skills and experiences employers
value, or networks that can provide careers advice or connect them with relevant
opportunities (Doyle 2011; Richardson, Bennett, and Roberts 2016). Thus, it is
especially important that assessment is designed to direct this vulnerable cohort
to learning of importance to careers. Unfortunately, research has also shown
that students rarely link assessment to employability (Ajjawi et al. 2020; Kinash,
McGillivray, and Crane 2017).
As more students graduate from large cohorts, assessment that fails to capture
unique achievements becomes increasingly questionable. In addition to failing to
account for differences in opportunity and expression, homogenised assessment
that involves identical tasks for all, provides students with poor opportunities to
demonstrate achievements that distinguish them from peers or predecessors with
the same or similar qualifications ( Jorre de St Jorre, Boud, and Johnson 2021;
Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver 2018). Instead of providing opportunities for distinc-
tive achievement, common assessment practices encourage “sameness” which,
beyond the necessary purpose of assuring threshold achievements, has little addi-
tional value to students, employers, or society.
Graduates with the same or similar qualifications do not all need to have
the same strengths, because they will inevitably gain different roles in which
different subsets of skills and personal attributes are most valued. Unlike assess-
ment, employers judge graduates based on different characteristics and standards,
because their preferences and the requirements of different job roles and organ-
isations are highly variable. Thus, the ideal candidate for one employer will not
necessarily be the best candidate for another.
Given that assessment signals that which is important, what does assessment
that values sameness, say about the value of diversity in the workplace, our soci-
ety and our learning environments? In requiring that students perform the same
tasks and be judged against the same standards, homogenised assessment fails to
acknowledge the value of different perspectives, skills, personal attributes and
experience. This is in direct contrast with professional contexts in which indi-
vidual differences can be a valuable source of competitive advantage, and diverse
collaborations can be leveraged to solve complex problems, drive innovation and
build new knowledge (Adams et al. 2011; Brown, Hesketh, and Williams 2004).
To enable students to utilise assessment for distinctiveness, we also need to
rethink the ways in which we enable students to verify and portray their per-
sonal achievements to different audiences, for different purposes ( Jorre St Jorre,
Boud, and Johnson 2021). For example, representation of achievement through
academic transcripts provides insufficient detail to enable identification of what a
graduate can do. Likewise, where university awards are solely grades based (e.g.,
based on a Grade Point Average), they provide no context for what was achieved,
and only recognise a small number of students, rather than all of those who meet
a specific standard. Digital credentials can, however, be constructed to convey
the context of achievement, including the standards assessed, and rich artefacts
curated by students to evidence their achievements, such as portfolios or videos
148 T. Jorre de St Jorre and D. Boud

(Miller et al. 2017). Valuing distinctiveness may require students from non-
traditional backgrounds to be reassured that they do not need to always conform
to the norm.

Fostering engagement with assessment

While the shortcomings of assessment can inappropriately limit students, other
attributes can foster fuller engagement. The subjective value attributed to a task
is important to motivation and the decisions made about engagement with spe-
cific tasks (Eccles 2009). Student engagement is bi-directional: curricula that
increase achievement and satisfaction through fostering interest, enthusiasm and
effort can lead to more of the same, that is, “engagement breeds engagement”
(Kahu 2013). Thus, to be inclusive, assessment needs not only to provide equal
opportunities for students to succeed, but it also needs to be equally meaningful
to them. This requires that students understand the relevance of intended learn-
ing outcomes, and that these consider the values and aspirations of learners, and
the communities to which they seek to belong. Eccles (2009, 82) suggest that
four components contribute to the value of a task: (1) interest value: interest in, or
enjoyment gained from the task itself; (2) attainment value: the value an activity
has for affirming one’s personal and collective identities; (3) utility value: utility
of the task to achieving long term goals or to obtaining rewards; (4) perceived
cost: the financial and emotional costs associated with engaging with the activ-
ity, as well as the potential opportunity cost, and the potential meaning of the
behavior for confirming or disconfirming a salient personal or social identity.
The components proposed by Eccles align with factors known to be impor-
tant to the retention and success of students. Being intellectually engaged with
study, feeling a sense of belonging and feeling supported and able to succeed, are
factors that incentivise students to study, whereas fear of failure, emotional health
and financial stress, contribute to attrition (Naylor, Baik, and Arkoudis 2018).
The costs associated with study tend to be less for students from middle and
high SES backgrounds. Such students also have more opportunities to develop
identities which support their expectations of success, their sense of belonging in
higher education and help to develop their aspirations for life beyond higher edu-
cation: factors which are likely to contribute to advantage in regards to retention,
academic achievement and graduate employment outcomes.
We suggest that assessment which helps students develop their professional iden-
tity and understand the relevance of the curriculum and other opportunities to
their future aspirations, can help to engage and address gaps in achievement for
students from low SES backgrounds. Student-focussed research has shown that stu-
dents perceive the involvement of industry or the professions in the design or deliv-
ery of their learning with credibility and relevance, and suggests that involvement
of employers, professionals and recent graduates, and exposure to industry-related
experiences can make the curriculum and the achievement of learning outcomes
more meaningful (Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver 2018). Other studies have shown
 More than assessment task design 149

that experiences in the workplace can change how students approach learning on
campus, because they help students to understand the relevance of their skills and
knowledge, and orientate them to careers (Johnson and Rice 2016). Other research
examining students experience of extra-curricular strategies designed to recog-
nise and engage students in articulating and evidencing capabilities of importance
to employability (i.e. video pitches and digital credentials requiring students to
curate portfolios) has shown that students can gain confidence – in themselves,
their employability and in their ability to articulate themselves to employers –
and greater appreciation for learning throughout their degree (Jorre de St Jorre,
Johnson, and O’Dea 2017). While the majority of students enrol in higher edu-
cation for employment related reasons, employment outcomes are particularly
important to students from low SES backgrounds (Raciti 2019).
Assessment that emphasises the relevance of learning outcomes to careers may
also contribute to students’ sense of belonging. Students have been shown to
perceive teachers who emphasise employability as caring ( Jorre de St Jorre and
Oliver 2018). Positive correlations have been observed between students’ per-
ceptions of their employability, and their perception of their employability skills,
knowledge and attitudes acquired through completing their degree (de Oliveira
Silva et al. 2019). Thus, in addition to ensuring that students from low SES back-
grounds proactively engage in activities that are important to expanding their
understanding and development of employability, assessment which develops
students’ professional identity, such as through simulation or modelling activi-
ties, will likely also contribute to how they value and engage with their broader
learning experience and with the assessment itself.

Conclusion
Assessment needs to ensure that all students meet appropriate high standards.
However, it must do so in ways that do not provide additional privilege to cer-
tain social groups, or which place unnecessary barriers in the way of students
meeting these standards. Inclusive assessment means not giving hidden advantage
to those who have already benefited. Consideration of assessment for inclusion
also provides an opportunity to rethink what is needed to motivate students and
engage them in activities which aid their employability.

References
Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L., Fugueiredo, A., Mousoulides, N., Pawley,
A. L., and Schiefellite, C. et al. 2011. “Multiple Perspectives on Engaging Future
Engineers.” Journal of Engineering Education 100 (1): 48–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/
j.2168-9830.2011.tb00004.x.
Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Huu Nghia, T. L., Boud, D., Johnson, L., and Patrick, C.-J. 2020.
“Aligning Assessment with the Needs of Work-Integrated Learning: The Challenges
of Authentic Assessment in a Complex Context.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 45 (2): 304–316. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1639613.
150 T. Jorre de St Jorre and D. Boud

Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D., and Joughin, G.
2017. “How University Teachers Design Assessments: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.”
Higher Education (1): 49–64. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A., and Williams, S. 2004. The Mismanagement of Talent: Employability
and Jobs in the Knowledge Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bullen, J., and Flavell, H. 2022. “Decolonising the Indigenised Curricula: Preparing
Australian Graduates for a Workplace and World in Flux.” Higher Education Research
and Development 41(5): 1402–1416. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1927998.
Burke, P. J., Bennett, A., Burgess, C., Gray, K., and Southgate, E. 2016. Capability,
Belonging and Equity in Higher Education: Developing Inclusive Approaches. Accessed 23
September 2021. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/capability-belonging-and-
equity-in-higher-education-developing-inclusive-approaches/.
de Oliveira Silva, J. H., de Sousa Mendes, G. H., Ganga, G. M. D., Mergulhão, R. C.,
and Lizarelli, F. L. 2019. “Antecedents and Consequents of Student Satisfaction in
Higher Technical-Vocational Education: Evidence from Brazil.” International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-019-09407-1.
Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., and McKay, J. 2012. Effective Teaching and
Support of Students from Low Socioeconomic Status Backgrounds: Practical Advice for Teaching
Staff. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/Practical%20
Advice%20for%20Teaching%20Staff.pdf.
Devlin, M., and McKay, J. 2017. Facilitating Success for Students from Low Socioeconomic Status
Backgrounds at Regional Universities. Ballarat: Federation University Australia. https://
www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/55_Federation_MarciaDevlin_
Accessible_PDF.pdf.
Doyle, E. 2011. “Career Development Needs of Low Socio-Economic Status University
Students.” Australian Journal of Career Development 20 (3): 56–65. http://doi.org/10.1177/
103841621102000309.
Eccles, J. 2009. “Who Am I and What Am I Going to Do with My Life? Personal and
Collective Identities as Motivators of Action.” Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 78–89.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368.
Greenbank, P., and Hepworth, S. 2008. Working Class Students and the Career Decision-
Making Process: A Qualitative Study. Great Britain: Higher Education Careers Services
Unit (HECSU). http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/195946.
Hailikari, T., Postareff, L., Tuonone, T., Räisänen, M., and Lindblom-Ylänne, S. 2014.
“Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Fairness of Assessment.” In Advances and
Innovations in University Assessment and Feedback: A Festchrift in Honour of Professor Dai
Hounsell, edited by Caroline Kreber, Charles Anderson, Noel Entwistle, and Jan
McArthur, 99–113. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. http://doi.org/10.3366/
edinburgh/9780748694549.003.0006.
Harvey, A., Andrewartha, L., Edwards, D., Clarke, J., and Reyes, K. 2017. Student
Equity and Employability in Higher Education. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education
Equity and Diversity Research. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/
06/73_LaTrobe_AndrewHarvey_Accessible_PDF.pdf.
HEFCE. 2015. Causes of Differences in Student Outcomes. Report to HEFCE by Kings
College London, ARC Network and The University of Manchester. https://dera.ioe.
ac.uk/23653/1/HEFCE2015_diffout.pdf.
Johnson, E., and Rice, J. 2016. WIL in Science: Leadership for WIL Final Report. https://
www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2017/05/report-work-integrated-learning-in-science-
leadership-for-wil/.
 More than assessment task design 151

Jorre de St Jorre, T., Boud, D., and Johnson, E. D. 2021. “Assessment for Distinctiveness:
Recognising Diversity of Accomplishments.” Studies in Higher Education 46 (7):
1371–1382. http://doi.org/:10.1080/03075079.2019.1689385.
Jorre de St Jorre, T., Johnson, L., and O’Dea, G. 2017. “Me in a Minute: A Simple Strategy
for Developing and Showcasing Personal Employability.” In The Me, Us, IT! Proceedings
ASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use
of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education. Toowomba.
Jorre de St Jorre, T., and Oliver, B. 2018. “Want Students to Engage? Contextualise
Graduate Learning Outcomes and Assess for Employability.” Higher Education Research
and Development 37 (1): 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1339183.
Kahu, E. R. 2013. “Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher
Education 38 (5): 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.
Kift, S. 2015. “A Decade of Transition Pedagogy: A Quantum Leap in Conceptualising
the First Year Experience.” HERDSA Review of Higher Education 2: 51–86. www.
herdsa.org.au/publications/journals/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-2.
Kinash, S., McGillivray, L., and Crane, L. 2017. “Do University Students, Alumni,
Educators and Employers Link Assessment and Graduate Employability?” Higher
Education Research and Development 37 (2): 301–315. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.
2017.1370439.
Knight, P. T. 2002. “The Achilles Heel of Quality: The Assessment of Student Learning.”
Quality in Higher Education 8 (1): 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320220127506.
Leathwood, C. 2005. “Assessment Policy and Practice in Higher Education: Purpose,
Standards and Equity.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (3): 307–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063876.
Li, I. W., and Carroll, D. R. 2019. “Factors Influencing Dropout and Academic Performance:
An Australian Higher Education Equity Perspective.” Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management 42 (1): 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1649993.
Lucey, C. R., Hauer, K. E., Boatright, D., and Fernandez, A. 2020. “Medical Education’s
Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners.” Academic
Medicine 95 (12S): S98–S108. http://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003717.
Miller, K. K., Jorre de St Jorre, T., West, J. M., and Elizabeth, D. J. 2017. “The Potential
of Digital Credentials to Engage Students with Capabilities of Importance to Scholars
and Citizens.” Active Learning in Higher Education 21 (1): 11–22. http://doi.org/10.1177/
1469787417742021.
Naylor, R., Baik, C., and Arkoudis, S. 2018. “Identifying Attrition Risk Based on the
First Year Experience.” Higher Education Research and Development 37 (2): 328–342.
http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370438.
Nguyen, H.-H. D., and Ryan, A. M. 2008. “Does Stereotype Threat Affect Test
Performance of Minorities and Women? A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Evidence.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (6): 1314–1334. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702.
O’Shea, S. 2016. ‘Mind the Gap!’ Exploring the Postgraduation Outcomes and Employment
Mobility of Individuals Who Are First in Their Family to Complete a University Degree. Perth:
National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/
wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OShea_ResearchFellowship_FINALREPORT_.pdf.
QILT. 2019. 2018 Graduate Outcomes Survey. National Report. https://www.qilt.edu.au/
resources?survey=GOS&type=Reports.
Raciti, M. 2019. Career Construction, Future Work and the Perceived Risks of Going to University
for Young People from Low SES Backgrounds. Research Fellowship Final Report. Perth:
National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE).
152 T. Jorre de St Jorre and D. Boud

Richardson, S., Bennett, D., and Roberts, L. 2016. Investigating the Relationship between
Equity and Graduate Outcomes in Australia. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity
in Higher Education.
Sadler, D. R. 2009a. “Grade Integrity and the Representation of Academic Achievement.”
Studies in Higher Education 34 (7): 807–826. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802706553.
Sadler, D. R. 2009b. “Indeterminacy in the Use of Preset Criteria for Assessment and
Grading.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 159–179. http://doi.
org/10.1080/02602930801956059.
Shay, S. 2008. “Beyond Social Constructivist Perspectives on Assessment: The Centring
of Knowledge.” Teaching in Higher Education 13 (5): 595–605. http://doi.org/10.1080/
13562510802334970.
Stowell, M. 2004. “Equity, Justice and Standards: Assessment Decision Making in Higher
Education.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (4): 495–510. http://doi.
org/10.1080/02602930310001689055.
Tomaszewski, W., Perales, F., Xiang, N., and Kubler, M. 2019. Beyond Graduation: Long-
Term Socioeconomic Outcomes Amongst Equity Students. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/Tomaszewski_UQ_Final_Accessible_9_8.pdf.
Woolf, H. 2004. “Assessment Criteria: Reflections on Current Practices.” Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (4): 479–493. http://doi.org/10.1080/026029303100
01689046.
Yorke, M. 2011. “Summative Assessment: Dealing with the ‘Measurement Fallacy.’” Studies
in Higher Education 36 (3): 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903545082.
14
ASSESSING EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS
How are current assessment practices
“fair” for international students?

Thanh Pham

Introduction
International education plays a significant role in Australia’s economy. The sec-
tor contributed A$40.3 billion to Australia’s economy in 2019 (UK Department
of Education 2019). However, Australia’s position in the international educa-
tion market has been threatened because both traditional (e.g., the UK) and
non-traditional (e.g., Asian countries) immigration countries have actively
launched policies to attract and retain highly skilled migrants (Czaika 2018).
Post-study career prospects are a key goal for many international students.
Therefore, to become more competitive in the international education mar-
ket, Australian higher education needs to better ensure international students’
employability outcomes.
In fact, the Australian Government has recently targeted graduate employ-
ability as its key priority by linking university performance-based funding
directly to employment outcomes (Wellings et al. 2019). Universities have taken
the skills-based approach that emphasises the need for students to learn a range
of professional skills (e.g., communication, teamwork) as a “solution” to enhance
students’ education-to-work transition. Although this approach has been widely
applied, professional skills are still perceived as supplementary to the curriculum
or part of work-integrated learning units. Consequently, insufficient attention
has been paid to how students’ professional skills could be assessed properly.
Importantly, current practices designed to assess students’ professional skills
disadvantage international students in various ways.
This chapter aims to critically discuss how current assessment practices of
employability skills disadvantage international students. The chapter has three
main parts. It starts with a discussion about how employability skills have
been implemented and assessed in higher education. It then discusses common

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-17
154 T. Pham

limitations in employability skills facing international students. Finally, the

chapter critically discusses how current assessment practices disadvantage inter-
national students.

Employability skills and assessing employability skills

of international students in higher education
Employability is a contested concept. Predominantly, researchers have argued
that employability refers to skills and capacities of students to obtain and gain
employment and be successful in their chosen occupations (Yorke 2004) and the
capability to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise poten-
tial through sustainable employment (Hillage and Pollard 1998). Recently, an
increasing number of researchers have argued for the need to examine employa-
bility as a phenomenon that is supported and constrained by various capitals (e.g.,
human, social, cultural, identity, psychological, agentic) rather than as a skill
(Pham 2021b; Tomlinson 2017).
Due to the predominance of the skills-based approach, in Australia, for the last
two decades universities have attempted to identify specific graduate attributes
that they believe university students need to develop during their studies. There
has been an array of terminology used to describe employability skills. The com-
mon terms are “competencies”, “generic skills”, “professional skills”, “graduate
outcomes”, “graduate capabilities”, “transferable skills”, and recently “professional
skills” (Clanchy and Ballard 1995; Jones 2010; Pham and Saito 2019). In general,
“employability skills” refers to the skills – beyond disciplinary knowledge and
technical skills – considered necessary and relevant for the workplace. A wide
range of employability skills have been identified and emphasised differently in
different disciplines. However, the most common skills are communication (ver-
bal and written), problem solving, analysis, critical thinking, and teamwork.
To assess students’ employability skills, recently, more and more researchers have
argued for a novel test format known as competence-oriented examinations, also
referred to as “performance-based” or “competence-oriented tests” (Braun 2021).
This type of assessment aims to test the individual’s capabilities to act holistically
(Blomeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015; Shavelson, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia,
and Mariño 2018). Competence-oriented examinations emphasise the specificity
of the situation and the student’s capacity to adapt. They measure skills by intro-
ducing situations that involve complex interactions that are as authentic as possible
(Braun and Mishra 2016). This means that employability skills are not assessed by
standardised written tests but in scenarios where students need to show their tech-
nical knowledge and skills so that they can respond to the situation.
Although this employability skills approach and competence-oriented exam-
ination have been predominant in higher education, the approach has received
a range of criticisms. One of the main critiques is that the concepts of skills are
vague (Lowden et al. 2011; Mason, Williams, and Cramner 2009). Jackson (2012)
evidenced that there was a range of different interpretations of an attribute or a
 Assessing employability skills 155

skill depending on the context, background, expertise and position of the inter-
preter. In the workplace, the process of matching expert knowledge with occu-
pational recruitment and roles does not take place in a social vacuum, with all
skills and attributes heavily raced, classed, and gendered (Brown 1995; Morrison
2014; Tholen 2015). This means the skills that students learn in higher education
are often interpreted and used differently in the workplace although the name
might be the same.
In the case of international students, a range of studies exploring interna-
tional students’ employability have reported a wide range of problems related to
employability skills facing this cohort. They have been evidenced to have limited
English proficiency, low-level communication skills and limitations in a range of
Western personal values like being proactive, critical, innovative, and independ-
ent (Blackmore, Gribble, and Rahimi 2017). They therefore need additional
assistance in order to excel in their studies and to gain the most of their over-
seas study experiences (Briguglio and Smith 2012). When international gradu-
ates enter the workforce, they have been described as having similar problems.
For instance, common comments about international, especially Asian, students
are that they are “not active”, “unconfident”, and “not critical”. Specifically,
Howells, Westerveld, and Garvis (2017) found that workplace supervisors com-
plained that international students, particularly those from Asia, were disengaged
because they did not ask questions.
Amongst employability skills, the skill that international students have received
the most complaints about is communication (Pham 2021a). Communication skills
are often interpreted as linguistic skills, so understood as cognitive dispositions
(Blomeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015). Communication skills are, therefore,
measured using standardised written and oral tests. In these tests, common prob-
lems facing international students are their “heavy” accents and limited terminolo-
gies. They often cannot pronounce sounds and phonemes that do not exist in their
language accurately. For instance, Asian students from certain regions often have
difficulty with, and inaccurate pronunciation of “r”, “th”, and “w” sounds. Some
students are notedto have an “awkward” accent which can be hard to understand
(Barton et al. 2017). This is because British and American English are the most
preferable. These accents are reported as “clear”, “intelligible”, and representative
of “world standards” (Ngoc 2016). Those who do not possess an accent familiar to
British and American English speakers often experience difficulties in interacting
with other people. The second problem often facing international students is their
limited writing and technical terminologies. Consequently, it is hard for them to
write and communicate in a natural way. In daily practices, their difficulties are
amplified because the native English speakers often use slang terms such as “grab a
cuppa”, “calling the roll”, and “put your hands up” (Barton et al. 2017), which are
not taught in official teaching and learning programs.
Another line of research argues that communication competencies should
include a range of factors including discourse (capacity to speak and write in a suit-
able context), actional (capacity to convey communicative intent), sociocultural
156 T. Pham

(capacity to use culturally appropriate language), and strategic (capacity to learn

the language in the context) (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell 1995). In
brief, this perspective argues for the need to examine the non-verbal aspect as
an important part of communication. Non-verbal signals are also crucial to suc-
cessful communication. They include all the physical signals that occur when a
person talks, apart from actual words (Braun 2021). It is how something is said,
independent of the content. Röhner and Schütz (2015) claimed that common
physical signals are haptic (e.g., touching), body language (e.g., posture, mim-
icry), proxemics (e.g., the chosen spatial proximity to one another), or physical
characteristics (e.g., clothing and cosmetics). Body language in particular is rel-
evant to communication (Röhner and Schütz 2015). Sharing a similar view,
Blomeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015) argued that communication should
include competence to act. This competence refers to the ability to adapt effec-
tively to one’s social environment or to behave appropriately according to the
situation. According to this notion of competence, individuals are perceived to
have good communication if they have socially accepted behaviours. This means
this line of research argues for the use of competence-oriented examinations so
that multifaceted aspects of communication could be assessed.
Pham (2021a) reported evidence about a range of issues that international
graduates often face in scenarios like competence-oriented examinations. They
often divulge a sense of difficulty in obtaining the right knowledge, appropriate
communication skills, and sensitivity to cultural differences to respond to real-
life scenarios, so fail to conduct natural and smooth conversations. Issues associ-
ated with smoothness and confidence did not arise from the graduates’ English
proficiency, but from the context in which they performed their interactions.
This point is illustrated in an excerpt of an international graduate in this study
as follows:

I do not know why, it was the same “me” who had the same level of English,
but sometimes I could talk and sometimes I could not. I always got tongue-
tied when meeting my colleagues. They never tried to understand me, but
kept saying “pardon”, which made me lose confidence in my English.

How does employability skills assessment

disadvantage international students?
As discussed above, international students have been reported as having various
limitations in employment skills assessment. However, a critical question that
needs further discussion and more attention is: Why are only international stu-
dents blamed for these problems?
Pham (2021b) claims that the local society is divided into various discourses;
of these, the main discourses are discourses of local people and international
students. The former is featured by expectations of Western culture and hab-
itus. Therefore, at university and in workplaces, desirable knowledge, skills,
 Assessing employability skills 157

and behaviours are English proficiency, high-level communication skills, local

work experience, and a range of Western personal values like being proactive,
critical, innovative, and independent (Blackmore, Gribble, and Rahimi 2017).
International students are categorised in another discourse where their position
is defined as “inferior others” (Leask 2004, 186) who need to be filled with
Euro-American knowledge (Sancho 2008), or “complex others” who have their
own identities but still need to assimilate into Australian academic conventions
(Magyar and Robinson-Pant 2011). International students tend to be expected to
adjust themselves to fit the conventions of programs.
When assessment of employability skills is applied, common comments about
international, especially Asian, students are that they are “not active”, “uncon-
fident”, and “not critical”. Specifically, Howells, Westerveld, and Garvis (2017)
found that international students, particularly those from Asia, were perceived
as being disengaged because they did not ask questions. This is because asking
questions has been considered as an indicator of being critical in Western class-
rooms (Ryan and Louie 2006). In interactions, local people have a strong desire
for critical thinking because it shows how people question current practices and
challenge the status quo to generate newer ways of thinking. Unfortunately,
international students have difficulty engaging with this process (Clements and
Cord 2013) because they often struggle with being self-critical and reflecting on
personal experience (Campbell and Zegwaard 2011). Local people may therefore
interpret Asian students as lacking engagement or interest in what they are doing
when they do not ask questions.
In fact, issues perceived as “problems” of Asian students, as discussed above,
are more related to cultural norms in different contexts. Asian students consider
asking their supervisor a question as an act of challenging them and a lack of def-
erence to authority (Elliott and Reynolds 2014). In fact, the concepts of “active”,
“passive”, and “critical” have attracted lots of attention from researchers. Jin
and Cortazzi (1995) point out that these terms are often interpreted differently,
depending on the expectations of the “culture of learning” into which one has
been socialised. In recent times the idea of using Vygotskian notions of lan-
guage as the tool for thought has become very popular, especially in Western dis-
courses. In Western classrooms, talk or verbal participation are seen as pathways
to a critical questioning approach (Ryan and Louie 2006) and “learner-centred”
pedagogies are designed to encourage students to “learn by participating,
through talking and active involvement” ( Jin and Cortazzi 1995, 6). This
explains why Western employers have implicit and explicit preferences for these
activities and expect their employees to actively engage in these practices. If
students and employees are not verbally participatory, they are very likely to
be seen as problematic. Such a view of “effective” learning contrasts with the
more cognitive-centred, learning–listening approach that is largely favoured by
Asian learners ( Jin and Cortazzi 1995). Within this tradition, being “active” sug-
gests cognitive involvement, lesson preparation, reflection and review, thinking,
memorisation and self-study (Cortazzi and Jin 1996).
158 T. Pham

Therefore, Littlewood (2000) claims that Asian classrooms may indeed appear
relatively “static” in comparison to those of the Anglophone West. However,
just because the students operate in a receptive mode does not imply that they
are any less engaged. Conversely, just because students in Anglophone Western
classrooms are seen to be verbally participatory, this does not necessarily guaran-
tee that learning is actually taking place. For instance, in her study, Pham (2014)
reported that Asian students found it astonishing and culturally inappropriate
when Australian students interrupted someone who was talking to make a point
or ask a very simple question when they could just have kept quiet and found out
from their classmates at a later time. As such, it appears that each specific learn-
ing context has its own explicit and tacit rules to define what should be called
“active”, “critical”, and “confident”.
When competence-oriented examinations are applied, these assessment prac-
tices disadvantage international students because they rarely embrace deep cul-
tural values of international students but spotlight their limited understanding
of multiple aspects of what Bourdieu (1986) calls “cultural capital”. Specifically,
Bourdieu (1986) discusses two aspects of cultural capital. He claims that cultural
capital carries standardised values, which are legalised and institutionalised, and
embodied values, which refer to one’s preference or perception of the “correct”
way of doing things. While people may possess the same standardised values, it is
often the case that only the dominant groups’ embodied values are acknowledged
and validated. Regarding communication, Bourdieu (1992) highlighted two
components: linguistic skill, which refers to the use of standardised grammatical
structure, and legitimate language skills, which describes “the social capacity
to use the linguistic capacity adequately in a determinate situation” (as cited
in Cederberg 2015, 41). International students might be aware of the embod-
ied values and used legitimate language skills. However, they cannot often read
non-verbal language when they work with people from different backgrounds,
which leads to more problems in their communication ability. Therefore, it is
very common that they struggle to find “proper” behaviours, shared interests,
and values when conducting conversations with local people. They often experi-
ence mishaps, described by Cultural Savvy (2003) as “hitting [an] iceberg”, when
venturing into different cultures without adequate preparation. This leads to
international students feeling left out and failing to engage their local friends in
small talk to build relationships. Such failures are not necessarily due to limited
English proficiencies but more about preferences and “ways of doing things”.

Moving forward: Developing assessment practices

that are “fair” for international students
Australian universities are under great pressure to produce employable graduates,
so have widely adopted the skills-based approach. However, this approach has
been widely criticised due to a number of limitations. In the case of interna-
tional students, assessment practices that have been used in higher education have
been evidenced to disadvantage them in various ways. There is a need to rethink
 Assessing employability skills 159

how much international students should be assessed based on Western values.

To address this issue, it is important to work on internationalising curricula.
Although internationalising the curriculum has been implemented for decades,
most activities related to this agenda have only stopped at introducing cultural
topics such as foods and clothes to domestic students, but have not embedded
intellectual resources of other countries (i.e., concepts, ideologies) in current ped-
agogies and curricula (Singh 2009). Without considering deep cultural values and
intellectual heritages of different cultures, assessment practices keep creating gaps
between different groups of students and disadvantage international students.
To truly internationalise curricula and pedagogies and create more suita-
ble and fairer assessment practices for international students, there is a need for
Australian universities to be more engaged with forms of pedagogies related to
legitimatising marginalised knowledge. For example, Moll et al. (1992) devel-
oped the “funds of knowledge” approach requiring teachers to bring minority
students’ prior knowledge into the mainstream curriculum. Other researchers,
by using the socio-cultural perspective, further argue for the deployment of
culturally appropriate pedagogies to transfer new knowledges into the exist-
ing curriculum (e.g., Pham 2014; Zipin 2005). It has been widely reported that
so-called marginalised countries have a rich body of philosophical and ethical
socio-political thought. India is a clear example of being widely recognised for its
rich science, philosophy, literature, and critical theories. These intellectual qual-
ities are helping many of these countries develop their economies over Western
nations – China is a clear example. International students are nurtured with these
intellectual heritages, so surely they possess and could access them while working
in Australia. It is timely for current and future employers in Australia to rethink
and make use of these marginalised ways of thinking and working.
International students should also engage in social interactions so that they
could have better chances to understand the expectations of the people they are
communicating with. This would help them avoid asking “odd” questions. It
is also noted that the international graduates’ ability to recognise subtle codes
in order to perform “acceptable” behaviours is premised on them being active,
observant, and reflective, because many of these “soft” aspects cannot be taught
by their host institutions. This also means that the predominant skills-based
approach – which emphasises the enhancement of communication skills through
English tests such as IELTS, additional language support services, and embed-
ding language within the disciplinary study – excludes students and is therefore,
inadequate to prepare and measure international students’ communication.

References
Barton, G., Hartwig, K., Joseph, D., and Podorova, A. 2017. “Practicum for International
Students in Teacher Education Programs: An Investigation of Three University
Sites through Multisocialisation, Interculturalisation and Reflection.” In Professional
Learning in the Work Place for International Students: Exploring Theory and Practice, edited
by Georgina Barton and Kay Hartwig, 129–146. Cham: Springer.
160 T. Pham

Blackmore, J., Gribble, C., and Rahimi, M. 2017. “International Education, the
Formation of Capital and Graduate Employment: Chinese Accounting Graduates’
Experiences of the Australian Labour Market.” Critical Studies in Education 58 (1):
69–88. http://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1117505.
Blomeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., and Shavelson, R. 2015. “Beyond Dichotomies:
Competence Viewed as a Continuum.” Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 223 (1): 3–13. http://
doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, 241–259. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Braun, E. 2021. “Performance-Based Assessment of Students’ Communication Skills.”
International Journal of Chinese Education 10 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/22125
868211006202.
Braun, E., and Mishra, S. 2016. “Methods for Assessing Competences in Higher
Education: A Comparative Review” In Theory and Method in Higher Education Research
Vol. 2, edited by Jeroen Huisman and Malcolm Tight, 47–68. Bingley: Emerald
Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220160000002003.
Briguglio, C., and Smith, R. 2012. “Perceptions of Chinese Students in an Australian
University: Are We Meeting Their Needs?” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32 (1):
17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.655237.
Brown, P. 1995. “Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion: Some Observations on Recent
Trends in Education, Employment and the Labour Market.” Work, Employment and
Society 9 (1): 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/095001709591002.
Campbell, M., and Zegwaard, K. E. 2011. “Ethical Considerations and Workplace
Values in Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education.” In International Handbook for
Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education: International Perspectives of Theory, Research
and Practice, rev. ed., edited by Richard K. Coll, and Karsten E. Zegwaard, 363–369.
Lowell, MA: World Association for Cooperative Education.
Cederberg, M. 2015. “Embodied Cultural Capital and the Study of Ethnic Inequalities.”
In Migrant Capital: Networks, Identities and Strategies, edited by Louise Ryan, Umut Erel,
and Alessio D”Angelo, 33–47. Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. “Communicative Competence:
A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications.” Issues in Applied
Linguist 6 (2): 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216.
Clanchy, J., and Ballard, B. 1995. “Generic Skills in the Context of Higher Education.”
Higher Education Research and Development 14 (2): 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0729436950140202.
Clements, M. D., and Cord, B. A. 2013. “Assessment Guiding Learning: Developing
Graduate Qualities in an Experiential Learning Program.” Assessment and Evalua­
tion in Higher Education 38 (1): 114–124. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.
609314.
Cortazzi, M., and Jin, L. 1996. “Cultures of Learning: Language Classrooms in China.”
In Society and the Language Classroom, edited by Hywel Coleman, 169–206. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cultural Savvy. 2003. “What is Culture? How Does It Impact Everything We Do?”
Accessed July 23, 2022. http://www.culturalsavvy.com/culture.htm.
 Assessing employability skills 161

Czaika, M. 2018. “High-Skilled Migration.” In High-Skilled Migration: Drivers and Policies,

edited by Mathias Czaika, 1–20. Oxford Scholarship. http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/
9780198815273.003.0001.
Elliott, C. J., and Reynolds, M. 2014. “Participative Pedagogies, Group Work and
International Classroom: An Account of Students” and Tutors” Experiences.” Studies
in Higher Education 39 (2): 307–320. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709492.
Hillage, J., and Pollard, E. 1998. “Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy
Analysis”. Department for Education and Employment, London. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/225083565_Employability_Developing_a_framework_
for_policy_analysis_London_Df EE
Howells, S., Westerveld, M., and Garvis, S. 2017. “Revisiting Cultural and Linguistic
Diversity in Speech Pathology Programs in Australia: Listening to the Voices of Staff
and International Students.” In Professional Learning in the Work Place for International
Students: Exploring Theory and Practice, edited by Georgina Barton and Kay Hartwig,
165–182. Cham: Springer International.
Jackson, D. 2012. “Business Undergraduates” Perceptions of Their Capabilities in
Employability Skills Implications for Industry and Higher Education.” Industry and
Higher Education 26 (5): 345–356. http://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2012.0117.
Jin, L., and Cortazzi, M. 1995. “A Cultural Synergy Model for Academic Language Use.”
In Explorations in English for Professional Communication, edited by Paul Bruthiaux,
Tim Boswood, and Bertha Du-Babcock, 41–56. Hong Kong: City University
of Hong Kong.
Jones, A. 2010. “Generic Attributes in Accounting: The Significance of the Disciplinary
Context.” Education: An International Journal 19 (1–2): 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09639280902875523.
Leask, B. 2004. “Transnational Education and Intercultural Learning: Reconstructing the
Offshore Teaching Team to Enhance Internationalisation.” In Proceedings of the Australian
Universities Quality Forum 2004. Australia: AUQA Occasional Publication. http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.9090&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Littlewood, W. 2000. “Do Asian Students Really Want to Listen and Obey?” ELT Journal
54 (1): 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.31.
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D., and Lewin, J. 2011. Employers” Perceptions of the
Employability Skills of New Graduates. Glasgow: University of Glasgow SCRE Centre
and Edge Foundation.
Magyar, A., and Robinson-Pant, A. 2011. “Special Issue on University Internationalisation –
Towards Transformative Change in Higher Education. Internationalising Doctoral
Research: Developing Theoretical Perspectives on Practice.” Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice 17 (6): 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.
625189.
Mason, G., Williams, G., and Cramner, S. 2009. “Employability Skills Initiatives in Higher
Education: What Effects Do They Have on Graduate Labour Market Outcomes?”
Education Economics 17 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802028315.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and Gonzalez, N. 1992. “Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory
into Practice 31 (2): 132–141. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399.
Morrison, A. 2014. “A Class Act? Lecturers” Views on Undergraduates” Employability.”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 35 (4): 487–505. http://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.
2013.802420.
162 T. Pham

Ngoc, B. D. 2016. “To Employ or Not to Employ Expatriate Non-Native Speaker Teachers:
Views from within.” Asian Englishes 18 (1): 67–79. http://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.
2015.1132112.
Pham, T. 2014. Implementing Cross-Culture Pedagogies: Cooperative Learning at Confucian
Heritage Cultures. Singapore: Springer.
Pham, T. 2021a. “Communication Competencies and International Graduates” Emp­
loyability Outcomes: Strategies to Navigate the Host Labour Market.” Journal of Interna­
tional Migration and Integration 23: 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00869-3.
Pham, T. 2021b. “Conceptualising the Employability Agency of International Graduates.”
Working Paper 75, Centre for Global Higher Education. Oxford: University of Oxford.
https://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/working-paper-
75-1.pdf.
Pham, T. 2021c. “Developing Effective Global Pedagogies in Western Classrooms:
A Need to Understand the Internationalization Process of Confucian Heritage
Cultures (CHC) Students.” In Transforming Pedagogies through Engagement with Learners,
Teachers and Communities, edited by Bao Dat and Thanh Pham, 37–52. Singapore:
Springer.
Pham, T., and Saito, E. 2019. “Teaching towards Graduates Attributes: Is This a Solution
for Employability of University Students in Australia?” In Innovate Higher Education to
Enhance Graduate Employability, edited by Hong T. M. Bui, Hoa T. M. Nguyen, and
Doug Cole, 109–121. NY: Routledge.
Röhner, J., and Schütz, A. 2015. Psychologie der Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18891-1.
Ryan, J., and Louie, K. 2006. “False Dichotomy? “Western” and “Confucian” Concepts
of Scholarship and Learning.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39 (4): 404–417.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00347.x.
Sancho, J. M. 2008. “Opening Students’ Minds”. In Researching International Pedagogies,
edited by Meeri Hellstén, and Anna Reid, 259–276. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8858-2_16.
Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Mariño, J. P. 2018. “International
Performance Assessment of Learning in Higher Education (iPAL): Research and
Development.” In Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Cross-National
Comparisons and Perspectives Assessment, edited by Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia,
Miriam Toepper, Hans Anand Pant, Corinna Lautenbach, and Christiane Kuhn,
193–214. Cham: Springer International. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-
7_10.
Singh, M. 2009. “Connecting Intellectual Projects in China and Australia.” Australian
Journal of Education 54 (1): 31–45. http://doi.org/10.1177/000494411005400104.
Tholen, G. 2015. “What Can Research into Graduate Employability Tell Us about
Agency and Structure?” British Journal of Sociology of Education 36 (5): 766–784. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.847782.
Tomlinson, M. 2017. “Forms of Graduate Capital and Their Relationship to Graduate
Employability.” Education + Training 59 (4): 338–352. http://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-
2016-0090.
UK Department of Education. 2019. International Education Strategy: Global Potential, Global
Growth. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-education-
strategy-global-potential-global-growth/international-education-strategy-global-
potential-global-growth.
 Assessing employability skills 163

Wellings, P., Black, R., Craven, G., Freshwater, D., and Harding, S. 2019. Performance-
Based Funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. Accessed January 20, 2022.
https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-funding/performancebased-funding-
commonwealth-grant-scheme.
Yorke, M. 2004. Employability and Higher Education: What It Is – and What It Is Not. York,
England: Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-
hub/employability-higher-education-what-it-what-it-not.
Zipin, L. 2005. “Dark Funds of Knowledge, Deep Funds of Pedagogy: Exploring
Boundaries between Lifeworlds and Schools.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education 30 (3): 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300903037044.
SECTION III

Micro contexts of
assessment for inclusion:
Educators, students, and
interpersonal perspectives
15
HOW DO WE ASSESS FOR
“SUCCESS”? CHALLENGING
ASSUMPTIONS OF SUCCESS
IN THE PURSUIT OF INCLUSIVE
ASSESSMENT
Sarah O’Shea and Janine Delahunty

Introduction
“Success” at university is largely focused on calculations of “high” marks or
grades derived from assessable academic activities. While there is a sense of per-
sonal achievement in “passing” assessments, these measures of academic success
alone have become too narrow; yet they remain largely unquestioned within
the higher education environment. The relationship between “success” and
grades needs further interrogation, particularly for students who have returned
to university after a significant break in formal study. For older learners, “suc-
cess” is not exclusively academic, but often defined through complex combi-
nations involving life experience and alternative rationales for participating
in university.
In a recent national study, we asked students how they personally defined
“success” at university. Their answers were illuminating, revealing that “suc-
cess”, as a taken-for-granted term, is very diverse in its application including how
it is perceived and valued. Surprisingly, in educational literature there is limited
explicit focus on how the concept of success is individually understood, trans-
lated, and enacted. Drawing attention to this, the chapter provides a summary
overview of how success was constructed and defined through the reflections of
first in family students. Only by focussing on, and unpacking the value of, higher
education participation as defined by students themselves, can we begin to trou-
ble the ways in which assessment is traditionally constructed and designed. In
revealing tensions around understandings of “success”, this chapter is designed
to prompt thinking about how, as teaching and learning practitioners, we might
redefine assessment practices that consider success in more multi-faceted and
inclusive ways.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-19
168 S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

Success as a construction
Understandings of academic success are largely unquestioned within higher
education. Success has been problematically constructed as academic achieve-
ment, progression through a degree, overlayed with expectations of a linear,
uninterrupted barrier-free passage to completion armed with a knowledge of
the implicit “rules” of the game (Bathmaker, Ingram, and Waller 2013; Tinto
2021). However, given the diversity of our student populations and the some-
times complex circumstances they exist within, unpacking and deconstructing
taken-for-granted notions of “success” can help identify and eliminate poten-
tial barriers. Rather than perceiving “success” as a contractual arrangement that
requires judging the value or merit of a student’s performance, more nuanced,
individualised notions of success are needed.
Research and literature on success indicate highly subjective variations in
meaning. Conceptions of academic success can deviate between teaching staff and
students, such as polarised understandings on barriers to achieving success as high-
lighted by Dean and Camp (1998). These authors identified how academic staff
considered success to be determined by students’ attitudes and motivations, while
for students, it was the external factors that were the biggest influencers on success,
with success more akin to “general life satisfaction” (10). In a similar vein, Tinto
(2021) highlights the internal-external tension of students “wanting to persist” as
distinct from “being able to persist” (7) and the responsibility of institutional sup-
port in removing barriers that thwart students’ actual capacity to achieve.
Whilst research indicates some of the complexities of what constitutes success,
we argue that this complexity is exacerbated for students from equity backgrounds
accessing various pathways into higher education. For example, pathways such
as open access colleges may emphasise non-normative measures of student suc-
cess or academic achievement. In recognition of this variety, there have been
calls for alternative understandings or measures of success, which “acknowledge
the unique complexities, challenges and material conditions” of specific student
groups (Sullivan 2008, 629). Undoubtedly perceptions of success are intertwined
with preconceived ideas of what constitutes a “good” grade or the ways in which
success is measured (Yazedjian et al. 2008). This chapter seeks to consider how
alternative conceptions of success should inform and influence the objectives
and design of assessment items. Building upon previous publications which have
unpacked notions of academic success from the perspectives of equity intersected
learners, the term success cannot be assumed to have a common meaning nor be
embedded within normalised discourses of meritocracy (Delahunty and O’Shea
2019; O’Shea and Delahunty 2018).

Data collection and analysis

Given the implicit complexity of “success”, this chapter now explores how stu-
dents themselves considered and articulated notions of success to better under-
stand implications for constructing assessment in university. The research
 How do we assess for “success”? 169

TABLE 15.1 Equity factors

Equity factors Survey respondents (n = 208) Interviewees (n = 20)

First in family 208 100% 20 100%

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 9 4% 1 5%
Disability 11 5% 4 20%
Low socio-economic status (LSES) 71 34% 11 55%
Rural/Isolated 67 32% 3 15%
Non-English-speaking background 12 6% 3 15%
(NESB)
Refugee 2 1% 1 5%
TOTAL self-selected equity 380 183% 43 215%
factors
Other (e.g., extra information/ 208 100% 20 100%
clarification of category(ies))

was conducted under the auspices of an Australian Research Council (ARC)

Discovery Project (2017–2021) that explored the ways in which students who
are the first in their family to attend university enacted persistence during their
undergraduate studies. A total of 376 students across eight institutions partici-
pated in either interviews or surveys, designed to encourage broad reflection on
experiences of sustaining their studies in often complex and challenging circum-
stances. All participants were asked if they regarded themselves as “successful
students” and this chapter focuses on a selection of qualitative data from 228
participants who responded to the question: How do you define success at university?
Self-selected demographic details in Table 15.1 highlight the diversity of equity
factors of this mostly female (85%), mature-aged group (83% aged 21+) as chosen
by participants (indicated by >100% totals).
Responses were imported into NVivo and line-by-line coding was under-
taken to unpack how success manifested and specifically how these under-
standings informed persistence in higher education. These learners reflected
upon a broader conceptualisation of success including as a form of validation,
a highly emotional or embodied state as well as understandings of failure and
what “success was not”.
Themes generated defined success variously with thematic analysis identifying
subjective alternatives to success which were: success as personal outcomes (55%),
learning or gaining/applying knowledge (20%), and what success is not (7%); with
the theme “grades/passing” comprising 16%. The following section briefly high-
lights these themes, before providing implications for assessment for inclusion.

Alternative conceptions of success

This study contested the often unquestioned concept of success and assumed
common or global definitions, with participants evoking instead a range of emo-
tional and structural considerations. Alternative conceptions of success became
apparent through the absence of reference to “marks” or “grades” (and their syn-
onyms) by over half the participants (n = 118). Interestingly, in the grades/passing
170 S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

theme, general reference to “passing” (e.g., “scores that reflect your best effort”,
“marks I’m proud of ”) was made by 23 participants, rather than as a specific goal
(e.g., “success is achieving high grades/GPA/distinction average”). Thus, we turn
attention to the more contested nature of success. These first in family learners
repeatedly linked their own success to the satisfaction they gained, often artic-
ulated in emotional terms through the embodiment of persevering or achieving
personal goals, rather than through detached academic measures:

I finished my degree, that is my measure of success, I made it through

many obstacles including physical/mental/financial health challenges
(Female Survey Respondent, 31–40, Disability, LSES)

Success is finding something that you passionate about, could be easy or

hard and going after it until you get it. That’s success
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 2nd year, Refugee)

This is not to say that grades or marks were considered unimportant or irrelevant.
Interestingly, for some students grading provided a form of “external” validation
of their entitlement to be enrolled and many were performing as well as, if not
better, than they had anticipated. Similar to others, Danielle was unsure about
openly defining herself as successful, preferring instead to defer to external valida-
tions gained from lecturers, peers, and assignment feedback as “proof ” of her suc-
cess in achieving an acceptable academic standard, as the following insight shows,

Having lecturers say …“This piece of work was so good that you should
actually use it in real life, like submit that to a government committee”;
that’s the best feedback that I could ever get in my life and then that
makes me think that yeah, you know, I am actually really successful in
what I’m doing
(Danielle, 32, 3rd year, Online, LSES)

Significantly, it was the additional, personalised feedback that helped Danielle to

meaningfully translate her marks. This is an important consideration for equity
students who may experience a level of uncertainly about how “success” is trans-
lated within a university setting especially if grading is not contextualised within
constructive feedback. Notably, receiving some kind of validation was how these
students measured their successful selves. As first in family, without familial biog-
raphies to draw upon, it is common to feel like an outsider or experience imposter
syndrome. This sense of dislocation was sometimes revealed via the level of dis-
comfort in identifying as successful, such as Danielle’s unwilling admission,

I don’t really like to toot my horn but looking at what I’ve done and
achieved and how much people have said to me, like, ‘You’re doing really,
really well’. Yes, I do [define myself as successful].
 How do we assess for “success”? 171

There can also be an element of resistance to placing too much emphasis

on grades, even though many participants were self-confessed high achievers.
Instead, a focus on retaining “your sense of self ” is the advice from this female
survey respondent who also admits that,

I do aim for HDs, but I think it’s important to realise that sometimes, not
achieving in line with your expectations is a lesson in humility
(Female Survey Respondent, 31–40, 3rd year)

Repeatedly, there was a delineation between how success was constructed by indi-
vidual learners compared to institutional or political discourses. For these partic-
ipants, success was contextualised and informed by wider social and economic
factors, rather than simply attributed to the meritocratic skill set of the learner. The
dichotomous nature of this term most clearly articulated when participants reflected
on what success was not, or even defining the act of failing in terms of success.

What success-is-not and failure-as-success

The term “failure” was contested by participants. Some students agreed that success
could come from failure and so was not failure at all. For example, withdrawing
from a course was considered a chance to redefine self or focus on another area of
life, rather than “failing”. A number of participants reflected how the act of failing
was key to learning and also, developing as a person, as shown in these statements:

I have only failed one class and then from failing that one class, I have got
distinctions or high distinctions in all my other classes and also that class
when I redid it plus I’m finishing uni which I think is quite an achievement
with two children and working full-time.
(Dyahn, 25, 4th Year, LSES)

Success in the university environment is trying your hardest and passing

well (although I think if you try your hardest and fail the first time but try
again that can still be success).
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 3rd Year, LSES)

Failing was intricately bound up with success, one seemingly could not exist
independent of the other. For some not failing was an indication of success:
“Yeah I guess [I am successful], I’ve never failed anything” (Lisa, 21, 4th year).
However, experience of failure was sometimes a “wake-up call” which acted as
a catalyst for change,

I was going to major in Economics but I actually didn’t do very well with
the prerequisite classes last year so I failed Management and Finance which
was all part of that wake-up call of thinking “Yeah, I’m going to be a lot
172 S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

more happy if I just follow my passion and don’t worry about other people’s
perceptions of me so much.
(Thomas, 20, final year)

Being successful was also defined by what it is not, defying normative assump-
tions of success by taking a particular stance against these. For one student success
was “not about getting a job … it’s about completing something that I never
thought possible” (Heather, 59, final year); for another: “I don’t think success
is 2.5 kids and a house” (Female Survey Respondent, 26–30, 5th year, LSES,
Rural). Other success-is-not definitions included downplaying grades as the
most important measure,

Not just going to university because you have to, but going because you
learn things that make you curious and inspired. It’s not necessarily about
getting great grades or succeeding all the time, but about learning from
your mistakes and becoming more resilient
(Female Survey Respondent, 26–30, 5th year)

I may not have HD marks on paper, but I have HD life experience!

(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 5th year part-time)

Success…is not about living up to the ‘norms’ but to be resilient to tough

paths ahead and to be able to overcome these barriers
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 4th year, Rural)

Considerations for assessment for inclusion

In light of the strong deviation from traditional, measurable indicators as sole
identifiers of success, these first in family participants point us to alternatives
on how success at university and beyond needs to better align to student con-
ceptions. Personal definitions of success far outweigh others, such as gaining
a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment both individually and socially, working
towards personal aims and gaining the respect of others. Being successful was
also identified through the experience of learning, such as being engaged and
active in learning, being self-directed, and being able to apply skills and knowl-
edge. Defining success in terms of “failure” or what it is not can also under-
pin development of alternative forms of assessment which are more learner and
learning-centred, rather than grade-focused.
Undoubtedly, the aim of assessment should be for learning, but equally assess-
ment designed for inclusion should encourage self-motivation, autonomous
learners, and importantly, provide an opportunity to develop collective-minded
individuals who are not solely defined as being in competition with each other.
Grades are inadequate indicators of these qualities and represent narrowness if
these are the sole or foregrounded definition of achievement.
 How do we assess for “success”? 173

Implications for assessment for inclusion

These diverse participants rarely focused on grades alone when defining their
successful student selves, articulating alternative and broad notions of success.
This presents a challenge to higher education institutions, namely, why “meas-
uring” achievement, which fosters a competitive and individualised learning
culture, continues to be highly valued, even while collaboration, communica-
tion, and collective knowledge are being demanded as key competencies for the
future. The following sections explore alternatives to current assessment prac-
tices with a focus on building upon relational aspects to ensure that the student
voice is key to facilitating change to assessment which more accurately reflects
varied and relevant notions of success. This discussion will focus on two main
themes, the need to de-emphasise grades within assessment practices, and the
need to adopt students as partners approaches to involve learners themselves in
the design of authentic and inclusive assessment.

Not grading: A brave starting point

Firstly, the idea of achieving particular grades as the main aim of assessment
needs to be challenged when considering assessment for inclusion. It may be a
brave, even radical, shift to imagine assessment designed without grading, one
which Warner (2020) describes as,

a leap of faith, and there is no guarantee that after the leap, you won’t go
splat, no matter the amount of preparation, enthusiasm, and confidence
you bring to the task
(208)

However, such a shift is needed in order to explore how we might create the best
possible environments in which learning is emphasised, and where each student,
regardless of background, has “equitable opportunities to demonstrate their mas-
tery of course content and skills” (Chu 2020, 164).
Students, released from anxiety associated with a grade judgement of their
performance, are likely to be more willing to exercise creativity, to be more
adventurous and self-identify weaknesses or areas they would like to improve.
Learners, not defined only by meritocracy, may also be more willing to seek
feedback and consequently better understand the value of feedback. They may
even “fail” or perform poorly sometimes, such as many diverse learners who
have to make choices if other life priorities demand attention. There are few
places in the higher education curriculum where learning and failure co-exist
as opportunities for success; however, “failure” can present some of our most
memorable and transformational learning experiences, particularly when failure
is not framed as a source of embarrassment or fear.
Assessment for inclusion, therefore, must take account of intersecting equity
factors that may impact on an assumed linear pathway through a program of
174 S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

study to completion. For many diverse students, the assumption of such line-
arity in their learning journeys is an unrealistic one (see Crawford, Chapter 16;
Delahunty 2022; O’Shea 2014, 2020). Students leading complex lives may need
to miss classes or limit time on tasks due to competing priorities and this should
not be interpreted as lacking in academic abilities or motivation. As adults they
are best placed to make such judgements regarding their commitments or per-
sonal care (Schulz-Bergin 2020), and should not be penalised for the impact that
external pressures place on their time, well-being or capacity to achieve.
Bourke (Chapter 17) emphasises that in many assessment approaches students’
attention is directed “to ‘proving’ what they know and can apply, rather than on
‘improving’ the way they learn” (p. 190). We know that grades-focus does not
incentivise learning, nor motivate students towards deep learning, is not meaningful
nor indicative of the learning taking place (Gibbs 2020; Stommel 2020), does not
allow for failure (Chu 2020), leads to gaming-the-system or corner-cutting (Blum
2020), and does not encompass various goals for learning (Gibbs 2020). This critical
perspective challenges educators to consider how current models of teaching and
assessment that are apparently designed to support students in fact fail to “meet the
needs of diverse students” and “fail to promote equity” (Blum 2020, 227).
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to assessment for inclusion is assuming
that assessment be coupled with grading. Stommel (2020) is careful to distinguish
assessment and grading as distinctly different things, arguing that “spending less
time on grading does not mean spending less time on assessment” (36) and that
while assessment is inevitable, deeply considering the need to include grading
forces us to question “our assumptions about what assessment looks like, how
we do it, and who it is for” (36). Instead of preconceived grades or meritocratic
rankings being provided, one alternative might be to embed students’ own goals
for the assessment within marking criteria. Providing rich qualitative comments
to contextualise the feedback on execution of the task would be key to such an
approach but equally, a focus on the process of assessment rather than only the
end product is undoubtedly important.
Whatever the approach taken, it is clear that assessment needs to be embedded
within and informed by student perspectives. The next section considers the
necessity of student involvement in designing assessment to ensure inclusivity.
In adopting student-centred approaches, the intent is to address power relations
in the teaching-learning environment and ensure that assessment is embedded
within student perspectives and worldviews.

Students as partners approaches to promote assessment

as partnership
Students as partners (SaP) challenge hierarchical relations of power that tradi-
tional assessment practices often reflect. To counter such power imbalances, SaP
approaches encourage a more equitable experience of education through genuine
partnership. For educators, there are many benefits in taking a relational approach
 How do we assess for “success”? 175

to teaching and learning but this is particularly the case in (re)designing assess-
ment. Adopting a more relational approach foregrounds student perspectives and
recognises that learners are the “best experts in their own learning” (Stommel
2020, 29). As a genuine partnership model, SaP enables educators and institutions
to move beyond opinion-based surveys that may have traditionally included the
“student voice” but retained limited scope for genuine student involvement in
curriculum or pedagogy change. Instead, SaP re-positions students as agentic,
where they can exert their influence (see Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014;
Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014; Matthews 2017). Such repositioning is key
for equity-related issues and can usefully inform an inclusive pedagogy across the
higher education sector (O’Shea, Delahunty, and Gigliotti 2021)
In considering a “marriage” of assessment and inclusion, it makes little sense
not to involve students, who have the most to gain (or lose). Partnerships between
faculty, students, and other stakeholders hold the promise of richer and more
meaningful assessment processes and outcomes, even though participants may
not all contribute in the same ways, all can engage equally through the “collab-
orative, reciprocal process” (Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014, 6). Actively
seeking student engagement and collaboration in assessment (re)design not only
raises the potential for enduring change that is meaningful to those for whom it
matters most but also fosters much deeper engagement in learning in addition to
benefits to teaching practice (Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014).
However, productive student-faculty partnerships are not always easily nego-
tiated in practice, as Dargusch, Harris, and Bearman (Chapter 19) describe.
Power relations need to be acknowledged and explicitly addressed when consid-
ering SaP projects (O’Shea, Delahunty, and Gigliotti 2021). Importantly, Bovill,
Matthews, and Hinchcliffe (2021) set out five key principles for co-creating assess-
ment change using SaP as the approach. This includes developing assessment and
feedback dialogue which is transparent and ongoing; sharing responsibility for
assessment and feedback including acknowledgement that teacher-student power
dynamics and roles will be disrupted; fostering trust through dialogue; nurtur-
ing inclusive assessment and feedback processes; and connecting partnership in
assessment and feedback with curriculum and pedagogy.
At a practical level, a SaP approach could usefully inform the practical devel-
opment of assessment including working with students to develop meaningful
goals/outcomes, assessment formats, the assessment outline/brief and even, the
assessment exemplars. Equally, creating assessment criteria that respond to the
motivations and goals of the specific student cohort would ensure these activities
are meaningful to those involved.

Concluding thoughts
Returning to the broad definitions of success articulated by our first in fam-
ily participants; these prompted us to question the relevance of traditional
assessment and its narrow focus on measurable indicators. Challenging the
176 S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

exclusionary nature and reward-punishment of grades-focused assessment is

one step towards disrupting these practices. Such necessary disruption facilitates
students from all backgrounds to have equitable opportunities to demonstrate
their knowledge and skill mastery. Engaging students as partners in assessment
and feedback is a next logical step in order to “advance relational pedagogies in
the co-creation of learning, teaching and assessment” (Bovill, Matthews, and
Hinchcliffe 2021, 5).
As a much needed innovation, assessment for inclusion will undoubtedly
present challenges for educators. Some questions demanding consideration
include: How can we build upon alternative non-meritocratic perspectives of
success within assessment practices? How might assessment be redefined for stu-
dents from equity backgrounds to better account for the diversity of their back-
grounds? Exploring these and other related questions, as presented in this book,
will hopefully instigate generative discussions that will rejuvenate assessment
practices to take account of diverse student cohorts and assist in adapting to the
post-pandemic educational environment.

References
Bathmaker, A.-M., Ingram, N., and Waller, R. 2013. “Higher Education, Social Class
and the Mobilisation of Capitals: Recognising and Playing the Game.” British Journal
of Sociology of Education 34 (5–6): 723–743. http://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.
816041.
Blum, S. D. 2020. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do
Instead). Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Bovill, C., Matthews, K., and Hinchcliffe, T. 2021. “Students as Partners in Assessment
(SPiA)”. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/student-partnerships-
assessment-spia.
Chu, G. 2020. “The Point-less Classroom: A Math Teacher’s Ironic Choice in not
Calculating Grades.” In Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do
Instead), edited by Susan D. Blum, 161–170. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia
University Press.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., and Felten, P. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Teaching
and Learning: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dean, A., and Camp, W. 1998. “Defining and Achieving Student Success: University
Faculty and Student Perspectives.” In the American Vocational Association Convention.
New Orleans, LA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428180.pdf.
Delahunty, J. 2022. “You Going to Uni?”: Exploring How People from Regional, Rural and Remote
Areas Navigate into and through Higher Education. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity
in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/regional-rural-remote-
navigate-higher-education/.
Delahunty, J., and O’Shea, S. 2019. ““I’m Happy, and I’m Passing. That’s all that Matters!”:
Exploring Discourses of University Academic Success through Linguistic Analysis.”
Language and Education 33 (4): 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1562468.
Gibbs, L. 2020. “Let’s Talk about Grading.” In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines
Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 91–104. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University Press.
 How do we assess for “success”? 177

Healey, M., Flint, A., and Harrington, K. 2014. Engagement through Partnership: Students as
Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London, UK: Higher Education
Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-
partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher.
Matthews, K. E. 2017. “Five Propositions for Genuine Students as Partners Practice.”
International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (2): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.
v1i2.3315.
O’Shea, S. 2014. “Transitions and Turning Points: How First in Family Female Students
Story Their Transition to University and Student Identity Formation.” International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27 (2): 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09518398.2013.771226.
O’Shea, S. 2020. “Crossing Boundaries: Rethinking the Ways that First in Family Students
Navigate “Barriers” to Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 41 (1):
95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1668746.
O’Shea, S., and Delahunty, J. 2018. “Getting through the Day and Still Having a
Smile on My Face! How Do Students Define Success in the University Learning
Environment?” Higher Education Research and Development 37 (5): 1062–1075. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1463973.
O’Shea, S., Delahunty, J., and Gigliotti, A. 2021. “Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying
a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs”. In Student
Support Services, edited by Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F.
Padró. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3364-4_7-1.
Schulz-Bergin, M. 2020. “Grade Anarchy in the Philosophy Classroom.” In Ungrading:
Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan
Blum, 173–187. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Stommel, J. 2020. “How to Ungrade.” In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines
Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 25–41. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University Press.
Sullivan, P. 2008. “Opinion: Measuring “Success” at Open Admissions Institutions:
Thinking Carefully about This Complex Question.” College English 70 (6): 618–630.
http://doi.org/10.2307/25472297.
Tinto, V. 2021. “Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing.” In Student Support
Services, edited by Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F. Padró.
Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_33.
Warner, J. 2020. “Wile E. Coyote: The Hero of Ungrading.” In Ungrading: Why Rating
Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 25–41.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Yazedjian, A., Toews, M., Sevin, T., and Purswell, K. 2008. ““It’s a Whole New World”:
A Qualitative Exploration of College Students Definitions of and Strategies for
College Success.” Journal of College Student Development 49 (2): 141–154. http://doi.
org/10.1353/csd.2008.0009.
16
INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE
ASSESSMENT
Exploring the experiences of mature-aged
students in regional and remote Australia

Nicole Crawford, Sherridan Emery, and Allen Baird

Introduction
“Assessment” and “inclusion” are both recognised, albeit separately, in Australian
higher education policy, within the Higher Education Standards Framework
(Threshold Standards; HESF 2021). For instance, assessment is addressed in
Section 1.4, “Learning outcomes and assessment”, which sets up the foundations
for assessment, stating: “Methods of assessment are consistent with the learning
outcomes being assessed, are capable of confirming that all specified learning
outcomes are achieved” (HESF 2021, 5). Inclusion is specifically addressed in
Section 2.2.1 (HESF 2021, 7) as follows: “Institutional policies, practices and
approaches to teaching and learning are designed to accommodate student
diversity, including the under-representation and/or disadvantage experienced
by identified groups, and create equivalent opportunities for academic suc-
cess regardless of students’ backgrounds”. (See Chapter 9 for a policy analysis.)
Despite these clear standards in the HESF and the potential role of inclusive
assessment design to foster inclusion of students from diverse backgrounds and
address their challenges, there is a gap in the literature, particularly in regards to
the experiences of students in equity groups (Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021).
Assessment has been found to influence student well-being, which is a centre-
piece of a recent national study that investigated the perspectives of mature-aged
students in, and from, regional and remote areas in Australia about what impacts
their mental well-being (Crawford 2021). A major finding of this research is the
important role of teaching and support staff, and teaching and learning environ-
ments in enhancing or hindering students’ mental well-being (Crawford 2021).
The everyday interactions that students have with teaching and support staff;
their peers; the unit/subject content and curriculum (including assessment tasks);
and the physical or online learning environments were each found to impact

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-20
 Inclusive and exclusive assessment 179

students’ mental well-being. The research findings also suggest that entrenched
attitudes and expectations that favour and privilege some students over others
continue to prevail. For instance, challenges with course content or delivery,
and with university rules and regulations, which were found to be unconsciously
designed for so-called “ideal”, “implied”, and “traditional” students, exacer-
bated the already-challenging situations of students who did not fit this profile,
such as mature-aged students in, and from, regional and remote areas, many of
whom juggled parenting and work with their university studies (Crawford 2021;
Crawford and Emery 2021).
One of the impacts on students’ mental well-being was assessment tasks
(Crawford 2021). In the study’s survey of approximately 1,800 mature-aged stu-
dents in, and from, regional and remote areas in Australia, 39.3% of respond-
ents reported that assessment tasks impacted extremely negatively or negatively
on their mental well-being; 31.2% reported an extremely positive or positive
impact, while 29.5% were neutral (Crawford 2021, 37). To provide a nuanced
picture behind these numbers, we explore the participants’ experiences of assess-
ment by analysing the qualitative data. We then employ Bronfenbrenner’s (1995)
ecological systems model to interrogate institutions’ systemic and cultural influ-
ences on students’ experiences of assessment. We conclude by proposing some
approaches to moving towards more inclusive assessment.

Research methods
The larger project (Crawford 2021) from which this chapter draws followed a con-
current transformative mixed-methods design (Creswell 2014) and received ethics
approval from the Tasmania Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee.
The target population for this research was mature-aged undergraduate university
students in, and from, regional and remote areas in Australia.1 All data collection
was completed in February 2020, just prior to COVID-19 arriving in Australia.
For this chapter, we returned to the 51 interview transcripts and the open-
ended survey questions, and considered the following question: “How do
mature-aged students in, and from, regional and remote Australia experience
assessment?” We undertook reflexive thematic analysis of the qualitative data
(Braun and Clarke 2022), interpreting and making meaning of the participants’
experiences of assessments. We then considered impacts on students’ varied expe-
riences of assessment by employing Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) ecological systems
model to identify the layers of the ecological system and the array of influences.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (illustrated in Figure 16.1) pro-
vides a way to view a student’s everyday lifeworlds of university, home, work,
and local community (that is, their micro-level systems), and the interactions
between them (the mesosystem). It also enables consideration of the systemic and
structural, and the social, cultural, political and historical factors that impact on
an individual (that is, the exo, macro, and chrono-level systems), as well as the
interactions and interplay between the various layers (Bronfenbrenner 1995).2
180 N. Crawford, S. Emery, and A. Baird

FIGURE 16.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems (Crawford 2021, 18).

Students’ experiences of assessment: qualitative findings

In this section, we focus on several themes to illustrate students’ similar and
varied experiences of assessment. Pseudonyms are used to maintain participants’
anonymity; when cited, the student participants’ gender, age-range, geographi-
cal location, study mode, and course are also included.

Unclear assessment tasks and not receiving timely

responses to questions
The lack of clarity in assessment task descriptions was a major theme. For instance,
Lara, an online student, experienced unclear assessment tasks throughout her five
and a half years of part-time study:

One thing that I find very difficult, and I know I’m not alone in this [is] the
wording of a lot of the assessment tasks has really managed to get a lot of
us confused. In fact, even just in the very last assessment task that I did, the
wording was sort of a bit vague, and, so, certain students took it to mean
one thing and other students took it to mean another. And, I found that all
the way along – the wording for the assessment tasks can actually some-
times be very unclear. And, of course, you’re not in a classroom situation
where you can stick your hand up and say, “Look, this isn’t making a lot of
sense”. So, then you’ve got to go onto the discussion boards and sort of say,
“Look, I really am not getting this”.
(Lara; female; 41–50; Inner Regional; online; Dementia care)

Lara noted a disadvantage of being online is that she could not simply seek clari-
fication during or at the end of a lecture or tutorial. She had to wait for an answer
 Inclusive and exclusive assessment 181

on a discussion board. With an approaching deadline, waiting for the task to be

clarified adds to an already stressful situation.

Other online students, such as Alice, spoke of similar experiences:

One of the biggest things that holds you up on assignments is that you’ve
got a question and you post the question to the forum, and you have a look,
and it hasn’t been answered, or you don’t really understand it still, and
sometimes it can take a while to get a response from one of the teachers.
(Alice; female; 26–30; Outer Regional; online; Nursing)

Design student Beverley’s comments evoke her frustration at undertaking assess-

ment tasks for which the skills or knowledge required had not yet been taught;
she also recounted experiencing inconsistent information about a task in the
assessment description, the rubric and from staff:

I took a break this term because I had a subject in the previous term …
how to put it? The way the materials were written was quite a mess. You
were expected to have certain things in assignments that hadn’t even been
taught yet, because they came in the later lessons. So, obviously, there’d been
changes made, but things hadn’t been matched up properly. And then the
assignment requirements are one thing, and then they’d be [another] thing in
the marking rubric, which weren’t in the assignment requirement, and then
you got marked down because you didn’t get it from the rubric or something.
So, instead of having the full assignment requirements in the brief, that was
spread around a bit. Then you had two or three tutors giving responses, and
they weren’t agreeing on things, and so it got very, very confusing.
(Beverly; female; 61–70; Outer Regional; online; Design)

We found that experiences of not understanding assessment tasks and not receiv-
ing timely clarification were more commonly expressed by students who studied
online. The inference here is that it is easier for on-campus students, by com-
parison, to seek clarification for an unclear assessment task as they have more
incidental opportunities to ask questions of their lecturers, tutors, and peers face-
to-face during a class, at break time, afterwards in the corridor or during their
teachers’ student consultation hours.

Deadlines and extensions

Undertaking assessment tasks can be a stressful experience at the best of times.
This stress is often exacerbated when needing to meet deadlines along with
family, parenting, or work challenges and commitments, as illustrated by John’s
experience of being overwhelmed when his wife gave birth to their second child:

But during that time it was, just a few issues with the pregnancy before,
and then obviously with the recovery after, and I still had to look after our
182 N. Crawford, S. Emery, and A. Baird

daughter who was not quite two. And, I was, you know, in the hospital,
running to and from, trying to maintain some sort of order in the house
while visiting my wife and my new daughter in the hospital. Yeah, there
was a uni assignment due in and around that time, obviously. Yeah, and
there were times when I didn’t get an opportunity to actually sit down and
do any study until, you know, 11, 12 at night. And I would work until the
early hours of the morning as much as I could until I needed sleep. But
yeah, and I think I failed that subject because, yeah, I just couldn’t. I just
couldn’t. [Laughs] I thought I’d be right because we had some help from
family. But, yeah, it was just, the burden was just too much and it was just
too late to pull out. And, I didn’t fail by much, but I did fail, and it was just
[a] really, really tough time.
( John; male; 31–40; Inner Regional; online; Education)

A common complaint, as expressed in the following two comments, was the

issue of several assignments being due at or around the same time, and how dif-
ficult it was to manage competing deadlines along with family, parenting, and
work commitments:

Assessments always tend to be due around the same time across units. I
think with core units, at least, for each year of a degree, they could be
coordinated together better because all students have to do them. With
general electives, I understand this is probably difficult. Mature age stu-
dents are likely working and/or parenting, as I am, and structure uni time
around kids and work. The workload is never even throughout a semester.
When there are multiple assessments due around the same time, the weekly
workload increases significantly, and I find it hard to manage this around
work and kids, even though I set aside time each week for uni.
(Student Survey)

I also had 3 large assessments all due on the same day, which not only
affected my mental state but made me feel very alone.
(Student Survey)

Some students experienced difficulties receiving extensions for unexpected nat-

ural disasters, family, or life events. One survey respondent highlighted the chal-
lenges of acquiring an extension when her children were unwell:

I have found that most of my lecturers have been understanding. However,

generally speaking most will not offer extensions etc. without medical cer-
tificates. This can add additional stress to mature age students who are
also parents – sick kids and kids in general can add additional challenges
to being a student. I believe that Universities need to be more considerate
 Inclusive and exclusive assessment 183

of this factor. Speaking personally, I am attempting to gain qualifications

while I am still an at-home mum, so I am ready to re-enter the workforce
when my children are older. As such, my children and their needs will
always take priority over a due date for an assignment.
(Student Survey)

Angela shared her humiliation around needing to disclose her divorce to seek an
extension:

When I first started my studies, I was divorcing. And I was struggling

at the beginning, so I couldn’t comprehend that that happened to me. I
couldn’t complete an assessment, and then I have to tell everyone what
happened. What was the problem? You know? I mean, where can I find a
certificate that says that “I’m struggling because I’m very depressed because
I’m divorcing” … There is no such certificate … That was my situation,
but I cannot prove it, so I have to tell my story to everyone… So, at that
time, what I did, I just withdrew [from] the subject because I say, “I’m not
going to cope and I can’t do it”.
(Angela; female; 41–50; Outer Regional; online; Hospitality Management)

Angela’s experience is an example of a traumatic life event that does not fit the
typical list of reasons why a student might be granted an extension.
Students’ experiences of receiving extensions for natural disasters were mixed.
For instance, during the devastating 2019/2020 bushfires in Australia, some stu-
dents reported having supportive teaching staff, and they received extensions
without question, while others did not; some students reported inconsistent
experiences within their university with one lecturer, for example, granting an
extension in one unit, but the same request was denied in another (Crawford
2021).

The role of academic staff

Irrespective of attendance mode (online or on-campus), students shared experi-
ences of varying degrees of support with assessments from academic staff:

I struggled with it [assessment task], and both the lecturer and the tutor
were brilliant. And, I spent, I think, an hour on the phone with both of
them, at different times, to help with an assessment task. So, they were
really good and happy to have that kind of conversation over the phone.
Whereas some others just seemed to prefer either email contact or a drop-in
session. It’s like, “these are my hours”. It’s like, well, “that’s great, but I’m
not even in the same state as you”.
(Sabrina; female; 41–50; Outer Regional; online; Health and community care)
184 N. Crawford, S. Emery, and A. Baird

Numerous interviewees identified specific staff who spent time assisting them
with assessment tasks; Simone shared one such example of the invaluable role
played by a tutor:

[I] would say she [the tutor] has been the most impactful on just building my
confidence in myself and, like I said, giving me resources and showing me
where to go for certain things, and when I came home and had to do assess-
ments as part of that unit, I had this incredible amount of information that I
could draw upon, and I did not feel like I was kind of stabbing in the dark.
Yeah, I felt, actually, really confident with my knowledge on the subject
(Simone; female; 31–40; Outer Regional; online; Education)

Simone also acknowledged that she received support for her assessments from a
Facebook group of peers. Olivia commented positively on the role of teaching
staff in contextualising assessments and understanding students’ circumstances:

The assessment, so, it means that information that we’re given is contextual-
ised for our area. And, it also means that the person that’s teaching us, teach-
ing me, marks my assessment … It means that they understand, they have
a deeper understanding of what you’re trying to get at. It’s really special.
(Olivia; female; 31–40; Remote area; online; Education)

From the qualitative data analysis of the students’ experiences of assessment,

we interpreted that they did not always understand what was required in a task
nor receive timely clarification of such tasks. They also had practical concerns
around deadlines and challenges with receiving extensions. These experiences
exacerbated the stress experienced in undertaking assessment tasks. Positive
experiences were also reported – particularly, receiving support from academic
staff, as well as assessment tasks being contextualised for a student’s regional/
remote location.

Impacts on students’ experiences of assessment:

An ecological systems perspective
The students’ more negative experiences of assessment, reported above, can be
explained, at first glance, at the individual level of a student’s prior educational
experiences and preparedness for university study. That is, their prior experiences
and preparedness influence whether they understand the requirements of the
task and have the expected academic skills and literacies to undertake the task.
Similarly, responsibility can be placed on individual staff members, such as tutors
and lecturers at the micro or classroom level of the university, for providing (or
not providing) consistent information or timely responses to students’ questions.
These explanations have some relevance. However, they are deficit views of indi-
vidual students and staff; they fail to consider systemic factors that impact on
 Inclusive and exclusive assessment 185

assessment design, staff workloads, an institution’s culture and its expectations of

students, and, thus, on students’ experiences of assessment.
In this section, we broaden our lens from the individual and micro levels of
the capacities and actions of individual students and staff to the systemic and
structural factors – that is, to the influence of university cultures, rules and reg-
ulations and higher education policy – to provide a more holistic picture of what
makes assessment inclusive or exclusive for mature-aged students in, and from,
regional and remote areas in Australia. We explore some of the themes inter-
preted in the qualitative data from the perspective of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory and identify the layers of the ecological system and the array of
influences that impact on the students’ experiences of assessment.
The lack of clarity in an assessment task description, inconsistency of informa-
tion about the task within a subject/unit’s documentation and between teaching
staff, as well as students not receiving timely clarification of a task requirement,
have, on the surface, straightforward solutions. Why, then, do students have
these types of experiences? One reason is that casual teaching staff (for example,
online tutors) are often not paid for the number of hours required to monitor
the discussion forums (for instance, to be answering questions about assessment
tasks) (Dodo-Balu 2017). From an ecological systems perspective, we can find
explanations in the neoliberalisation of higher education (chronosystem impacts),
the strain on higher education budgets (exosystem impacts) and the resultant
casualisation of the university teaching workforce in Australia (May, Peetz, and
Strachan 2013) to more fully explain the students’ experiences; these influences
originate in the outer layers of the ecological systems model (refer to Figure 16.1).
Students not receiving extensions for natural disasters, family illness, or life
events can be explained by staff strictly following rules around extension requests
(exosystem impacts). Some students, however, reported receiving extensions for
situations not identified in documentation (for example, bushfires). In these cases,
staff may have used their discretion and not steadfastly followed the rules because
they had developed relationships with their students and knew their situations.
When staff understand their students’ circumstances (micro-level impacts) and
follow their personal and/or teaching team’s philosophy and expectations of stu-
dents (micro-level and macrosystem impacts), they are well positioned to make
appropriate personalised adjustments to assessment requests from students.
Not having previously been taught the discipline content and/or academic lit-
eracies and skills required to undertake an assessment task, as expressed by the
interviewee Beverley, implies that “good practice” strategies in curriculum design
and teaching are not always implemented, and also that assumptions are made
about the academic skills and literacies expected of students enrolled at univer-
sity. The “constructive alignment” in university teaching approach – which pro-
motes alignment between i) a unit’s intended learning outcomes; ii) what students
learn in the teaching/learning activities; and iii) assessment tasks (Biggs 2014) – is
of relevance here. Constructive alignment is a fundamental principle in univer-
sity teaching and learning (exosystem impacts), but, as the students’ experiences
186 N. Crawford, S. Emery, and A. Baird

illustrate, it is not always implemented beyond a tick-box exercise. In their chap-

ter on universal design for assessment, Ketterlin Geller, Johnstone, and Thurlow
(2015) make a similar point; they refer to “access skills” – the skills required to
actually undertake an assessment task (for example, how to write an academic
essay or report including following referencing style guides; how to do an oral
presentation), but which are often assumed and not taught (macrosystem impacts).
This point about “access skills” highlights the assumptions that are made
about the types of academic knowledges, literacies, and skills that students
arrive at university with, which are required to undertake assessment tasks. Such
knowledges, literacies, and skills are not always made explicit to students upon
commencement. In fact, they are often implicit, assumed, and form part of the
hidden curriculum (macrosystem impacts) and are not always embedded in cur-
riculum across courses.
Our analysis, from an ecological systems perspective, shows that the mature-
aged students in regional and remote areas in this study – especially those who
studied online – experienced numerous challenges with assessments. Along with
curriculum design more broadly, assessment tasks are not always designed with
all students – in all of their diversity – front of mind. We do not always know
who we are teaching – that is, students’ circumstances, strengths and challenges –
and scholars have identified that default approaches have tended to privilege
“traditional”, “typical”, “ideal”, or “implied” students and/or follow discipli-
nary traditions (Crawford 2021; Ulriksen 2009). Despite endeavours to improve
inclusion, diversity and equity in universities, entrenched attitudes and expec-
tations prevail, which advantage some students (for example, school-leaver stu-
dents with time and who study on-campus) over others (such as mature-aged
students who juggle numerous commitments and study online) (Crawford 2021).

Moving towards more inclusive assessment

Within the sphere of teaching and learning, there is a variety of approaches
that would help mitigate students’ poor experiences of assessment. We argue
that a first step would be for university leaders to reflect on their institution’s
mission, purpose, and values, asking who they intend to serve. It is paramount
that universities and staff (academic and professional) know who their students
are in all of their diversity – that is, their different circumstances, compound-
ing challenges, and strengths (Crawford 2021). Gaining this understanding is
foundational to implementing appropriate pedagogies (Crawford, Kift, and
Jarvis 2019) and prompts consideration of the assumptions made about students
and expectations of them. Implementing constructive alignment in unit design
(genuinely and critically) would help to ensure that students are learning the
knowledges, literacies and skills required to undertake their assessment tasks, as
would embedding academic literacies across a course and/or providing transition
courses, so that students commence their undergraduate degree on a more level
playing field, having developed the academic literacies expected of them. Further
 Inclusive and exclusive assessment 187

approaches include implementing inclusive education principles (Houghton

2019) and/or universal design in higher education and universal design in assess-
ment (Burgstahler 2015; Ketterlin Geller, Johnstone, and Thurlow 2015). As
Jain argues in Chapter 3, any implementation of universal design needs to be
undertaken critically and with ongoing reflection or risk inadvertently further
marginalising the students who are already experiencing exclusion. (Chapter 12
also examines universal design for assessment.)
Assessment is one part of students’ broader experiences of teaching and learn-
ing. The factors that are inclusionary or exclusionary often relate to the more
peripheral layers of the ecological system, such as the culture of a university – its
mission, values, philosophies, attitudes, and expectations – which influence who
an institution really serves. As Burke et al. (2016, 8) recommend: “Schools and
universities must proactively challenge stereotypes about the ‘types’ of students
who are capable of university study”. A social justice orientation (Gidley et al.
2010) applied to assessment in higher education would challenge the privileging of
traditional knowledge hierarchies and of the “implied student” to value difference
and diversity and to genuinely focus on engaged participation for all students.
Such an approach would value and draw upon the numerous assets and expertise
of, for instance, mature-aged students in regional and remote areas. Beyond spe-
cific assessment approaches, the discussion above highlights the need for cultural
change and for teaching budget allocations in higher education to be addressed.

Notes
1 “Regional and remote” students is one of the six government-identified equity
groups in Australia. Refer to Crawford (2021, 18–19) for definitions of “mature-
aged” and “regional and remote” students.
2 The ecological systems are described in Table 9 in Crawford (2021, 70–71).

References
Biggs, J. 2014. “Constructive Alignment in University Teaching.” HERDSA Review of
Higher Education 1: 5–22. https://www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-
vol-1/5-22.
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. 2022. “Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis.”
Qualitative Psychology 9 (1): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1995. “The Bioecological Model from a Life Course Perspective:
Reflections of a Participant Observer.” In Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on
the Ecology of Human Development, edited by Phyllis Moen, Glenn H. Elder, and Kurt
Lüscher, 599–618. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Burgstahler, S. 2015. “Universal Design in Higher Education.” In Universal Design in
Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, edited by Sheryl E. Burgstahler, 3–28.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Burke, P. J., Bennett, A., Burgess, C., Gray, K., and Southgate, E. 2016. Capability,
Belonging and Equity in Higher Education: Developing Inclusive Approaches. Callaghan,
NSW, Australia: The University of Newcastle. https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0011/243992/CAPABILITY-ONLINE.pdf.
188 N. Crawford, S. Emery, and A. Baird

Crawford, N. 2021. “On the Radar”: Supporting the Mental Wellbeing of Mature-Aged Students
in Regional and Remote Australia. Accessed 18 January 2022. https://www.ncsehe.edu.
au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Crawford-Equity-Fellowship-Report_FINAL.pdf.
Crawford, N., and Emery, S. 2021. “‘Shining a Light’ on Mature-Aged Students in,
and from, Regional and Remote Australia.” Student Success 12 (2): 18–27. https://doi.
org/10.5204/ssj.1919.
Crawford, N., Kift, S., and Jarvis, L. 2019. “Supporting Student Mental Wellbeing in
Enabling Education: Practices, Pedagogies and a Philosophy of Care”. In Transitioning
Students in Higher Education: Philosophy, Pedagogy and Practice, edited by Angela Jones,
Anita Olds, and Joanne G. Lisciandro, 161–170. London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
rev. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dodo-Balu, A. 2017. “Students Flourish and Tutors Wither.” Australian Universities Review
59 (1): 4–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130301.pdf.
Gidley, J., Hampson, G., Wheeler, L., and Bereded-Samuel, E. 2010. “From Access to
Success: An Integrated Approach to Quality Higher Education Informed by Social
Inclusion Theory and Practice.” Higher Education Policy 23 (1): 123–147. http://doi.
org/10.1057/hep.2009.24.
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards). 2021. Australian
Government Federal Register of Legislationю. Accessed 18 January 2022. https://
www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00488/Download.
Houghton, A.-M. 2019. “Academic and Departmental Support.” In Student Mental Health
and Wellbeing in Higher Education: A Practical Guide, edited by Nicola Barden, and Ruth
Caleb, 125–144. London: SAGE.
Ketterlin Geller, L., Johnstone, C., and Thurlow, M. 2015. “Universal Design of
Assessment.” In Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice, edited
by Sheryl E. Burgstahler, 163–175. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
May, R., Peetz, D., and Strachan, G. 2013. “The Casual Academic Workforce and Labour
Market Segmentation in Australia.” Labour and Industry: A Journal of the Social and
Economic Relations of Work 23 (3): 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2013.
839085.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
Ulriksen, L. 2009. “The Implied Student.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (5): 517–532.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597135.
17
NORMALISING ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
FOR INCLUSION
Roseanna Bourke

Introduction
If assessment tasks are effective, they will serve as powerful mediating learning
tools that enable students to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding, and
application of their knowledge to real-world contexts. Assessments that capture
the interest of students also support them to imagine their own possibilities and
future applications after the course has finished. This chapter explores how alter-
native and atypical assessment practices, that are innovative or novel for students,
can enhance their sense of engagement in a course, and can provide a more equi-
table means for students to demonstrate their learning.
Assessment tools in higher education that provide more equitable options for
students will first involve novel approaches, that over time become normalised.
Importantly, atypical approaches to assessment (such as self-assessment, ipsative
assessment, and technology-based assessments) need to move beyond being con-
sidered “alternative” or “innovative and novel” forms of assessment in higher
education. Clearly, there are challenges when introducing alternative forms of
assessment in higher education (HE) especially in highly competitive university
courses. Often students are keen to complete assessments that are tradition-
ally known to them (e.g., essays, written assignments, examinations) because
they have learned to optimise their grade through these traditional means.
Another challenge when introducing alternative forms of assessment is that stu-
dents “generally place a higher value on traditional assessment tools especially
in terms of their validity and reliability” than more novel types of assessment
(Phongsirikul 2018, 61). However, these alternative forms of assessment are fast
becoming key approaches required by students in their preparation for a post-
COVID, new world zeitgeist, premised on social justice, inclusiveness, cultural,
and Indigenous understandings.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-21
190 R. Bourke

Background
Assessment methods traditionally used in university settings (essays, writ-
ten assignments, tests, and examinations) tend to determine whether, and by
how much, a student has learned against the learning outcomes of a course.
Ironically, these assessment approaches direct the students’ attention to “prov-
ing” what they know and can apply, rather than “improving” the way they
learn or even to understand themselves better in relation to their learning and
the world around them. Higher education policies, student wellbeing, and
the type of pedagogical and assessment practices within any given course,
all impact on how inclusive the course is orientated and experienced by the
student. For example, researchers have shown the critical role that Indigenous
pedagogies and practices play in higher education for all students to feel
included and to succeed (e.g., Mayeda et al. 2014; Roberston, Smith, and
Larkin 2021).
This means that an assessment tool (e.g., essay, critique, exam, self-assessment)
cannot simply be pulled out of a suite of possible assessment methods, without
a closer understanding of why, when, and how it is used, or a clear rationale for
the purpose of the assessment. An inclusive assessment approach is one where all
students can develop the skills to sustain their learning, and that can strengthen
their motivation towards their own goals. This increases the likelihood that these
assessment tasks will also be sustainable; sustainable assessment is where students
incorporate the skills, knowledge, and attitude to continue using life-long assess-
ment practices (Boud and Soler 2016).
In higher education, the assessment of students is often controlled through
policies and regulations that can either prevent responsive changes to assessment
tasks, or promulgate a vision for change. When a shift in rhetoric is pronounced,
it becomes the starting point of a change-process to enable more inclusive, equi-
table assessment approaches to be used. In the context of the introduction of
the YouTube clip assignment, the Assessment Handbook at Massey University
(2019, 3) now includes the explicit intention:

to promote sustainable assessment practices for lifelong learning, staff must

focus on engaging students as active partners in their learning. By enabling
students to continually assess while they learn, when they are exposed to
novel situations outside the classroom, they will be able to self-assess and
use evaluative judgements.

This is the key policy document that enabled the introduction of an assignment
where students developed and trialled their own YouTube clips. A growing body
of evidence shows that supporting students as partners in decisions that affect them,
will increase student motivation, learning and likely success (Bovill, Jarvis, and
Smith 2020; Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014). Therefore, alternative and
 Alternative assessment approaches 191

authentic assessments need to be developed alongside, and with students. When

the YouTube clip assignment was first introduced, I worked in partnership with
a student cohort to establish a marking rubric that they could see themselves in.
For example, students explicitly rejected criteria associated with the technical
aspects of the clip, and did not believe a “wow” factor should be part of the
criteria. The rubrics were linked to learning outcomes for the course, and learn-
ing associated with using their knowledge in their everyday lives. The rubric
also included how the clip demonstrated their knowledge and learning for the
course. Assessment innovations in university contexts must work with students
as partners to ensure “what works” represents the perspective of students and
their learning. In this experience, incorporating partnership approaches in assess-
ment with students using their own preferred modes of presenting their learning,
challenges the “expert” and “outside” model of assessment, replaced with one
underpinned by values of partnership, respect, and inclusion.
In developing ethically defensible assessment practices that are inclusive of
all students, the impact of assessment on student wellbeing must be considered.
Increasingly, the wellbeing of students is recognised as not being separate from
their assessment experiences, and while this link has yet to be systematically
examined, it has been argued that there is “a bidirectional relationship between
wellbeing and assessment experiences” ( Jones et al. 2021, 439). There is evidence
for example, that even when examinations are adapted to become more authentic
for students such as changing from norm-referenced assessment to one of crite-
rion referenced, there is a beneficial impact on reducing student anxiety (Slavin,
Schindler, and Chibnall 2014).

Examples of authentic assessment methods

and impact on student learning
Authentic assessment methods come in a range of guises and can include var-
ying forms such as iPortfolio, WeCreate Activity, and iLearn & Teach projects
(Phongsirikul 2018), self-assessment (Bourke 2018), and ePortfolios (Kahn 2019;
Slepcevic-Zach and Stock 2018). Generally, such assessment tasks will provide
students with more autonomy and control over what they attend to and how they
want to respond to the assessment task (Bourke, Rainier, and de Vries 2018).
Practical experience in trialling these ideas, along with research on their impact,
has shown that autonomy is valued by students: “The ePortfolio is about what I
think is important. It is about my own autonomy of my own assessment” (Bourke,
Rainier, and de Vries 2018, 4, emphasis added). Students are also aware that some
assessments (such as ePortfolios) “bring a far broader benefit than just on the course
of studies” (Slepcevic-Zach and Stock 2018, 305). Often these assessments encour-
age learners to intentionally focus on their own learning and on the criteria for that
learning, and are more likely to be sustainable simply because students are afforded
more agency to develop the ability to self-assess. Self-assessment is an example of
192 R. Bourke

an alternative assessment process that can be “normalised”. It is best understood as

a sustainable assessment approach that allows for “a way of rethinking outcomes,
curriculum and pedagogy away from a focus on disciplinary knowledge to what
students can do in the world” (Boud and Soler 2016, 401).
As an example of sustainable assessment, self-assessment is both a skill and
competency required in professional life and for lifelong learning which prompts
graduates to continue being reflective independent assessors of their own learn-
ing. This enables young people to place less reliance on external markers to
affirm learning, and more on their own understanding of their learning. Aligning
with future-driven self-assessment (as distinct from programme-driven self-
assessment, or teacher-driven self-assessment) (Tan 2007), learners use their skills
to assess their learning beyond course requirements. In this way self-assessment
is markedly different from self-marking (e.g., Bourke 2018), and supports the
intention of developing students’ skills and expertise to be lifelong learners and
lifelong assessors of their learning. Research shows self-assessment can be used to
establish a greater sense of student identity as a learner and practitioner (Bourke
2018) where they develop capability with regard to self-regulation (Panadero and
Alonso-Tapia 2013).
Research within health, education, and social sectors has identified that
for most people, self-assessment is difficult and typically fundamentally flawed
(Dunning, Heath, and Suls 2004). This creates an imperative to focus on devel-
oping skills and insight for young people to continue their “future” assessment
once the course is over and to want to self-assess their learning without a teacher,
grade or mark (Bourke 2018; Tan 2007, 2009). An argument is often made that
individuals with specialist skills such as vets, doctors, teachers, dentists, and pilots
need a strong knowledge base and demonstrated competency in order to pass
courses. In a similar way, those in trades in specialised areas such as building,
engineering, electricians, and hairdressing, must show they have the skills to
do the job, and problem-solve unanticipated issues as they arise. So should these
training programmes include self-assessment tasks or traditional forms of assess-
ment? Clearly both are needed, and the evidence for self-assessment skills can be
found in real life examples of how self-assessment has been used by experts faced
with novel situations that they have not specifically been trained for, or have
earlier practiced. An example is the response of Captain Sullenberger to a critical
incident when flying over the Hudson River in New York after a double engine
blow-out following a bird strike. He landed the plane on the river without loss of
life, and at the time Captain Sullenberger explained he had mere seconds to assess
the situation and determine what he needed to do, self-assess his skills and those
around him, and what was required to land the plane. He later reported that this
was not something he had trained to do. Another situation arose when a New
Zealand broadcaster suffered a mild heart attack mid-flight. Without a doctor on
board, it was a veterinarian who came to his aid, and used her skills albeit within
a different professional context.1 As she later reported, this was something she
was not trained specifically for, but her self-assessment enabled her to use her
 Alternative assessment approaches 193

skills in this new context. She noted wryly, unlike her typical animal patients
“he didn’t try to bite”!

The YouTube clip assessment

Given there is growing urgency in developing assessment tasks that (1) incor-
porate self-assessment skills, (2) empower students to demonstrate their learn-
ing in different and diverse ways, and (3) are more equitable in the sense of
being able to showcase knowledge in a range of ways, this section presents the
introduction of the YouTube clips as an assessment task. Students are aware of,
and use YouTube clips in their formal and everyday learning, where they can
upload, and share videos to learn everything from changing a tyre, learning a
musical instrument or a new language, and to cooking a cake. The introduction
of this assessment approach was staggered across three years, first at undergrad-
uate and then subsequently at postgraduate level and Educational Psychology
Internship courses.
The YouTube clip assignment was introduced to enable students to not only
demonstrate their knowledge in new ways but also to learn skills such as com-
munication of ideas, self-assessment, creation of digital clips to share and teach
with others, and critical analysis of how major concepts can be simplified and
actioned in practice; all skills associated with their introduction into profes-
sional practice. Three components to the assignment include: (1) development of
a 3–4 minute YouTube clip; (2) sharing the YouTube clip with others and; (3) a
2000-word critical analysis of the trial of the clip on both their own and others’
learning. Although the YouTube clips developed and presented by the students
were diverse, they were all engaging and contained a wealth of ideas and appli-
cation of knowledge. Some students used animation, others used slides and talk,
and there were also ones that included a demonstration of a task or a skill. In all
cases, the student was actively able to demonstrate their learning, and themselves
in that learning.
Following completion of their respective courses, students who had submit-
ted a YouTube assessment were asked to complete an online survey (university
ethics approval was obtained). Responses from 110 students were received, and
were representative across courses including undergraduate (34%); postgradu-
ate (MEdDevPsych) (48%); and the EdPsych Internship year (18%). The sur-
vey asked students to rank their assessment preference for learning and were
given a range of assessment options that they had encountered over their studies
(essays, examinations, online tests, or open book tests, self-assessment, novel
assessments, presentations, case studies, ePortfolio collections). Over half the
students (63%) across both the undergraduate and postgraduate courses opted
for a traditional form of assessment to support their learning, and arguably a safe
way to complete their assessment requirements for course completion. Written
assignments (i.e., essays 45% and tests 18%) were the two most preferred assess-
ment approaches. However, respondents specifically identified aspects of the
194 R. Bourke

YouTube clip assignment that they enjoyed, especially with regards to applying
key concepts:

The practical aspect of this assignment was really helpful and enabled me to
understand what I was learning. I was able to see the effects of my YouTube
clip on teaching and learning, reflect on this, and apply the knowledge
gained from the course readings and teaching. I think it helped me to
cement key concepts.
(Education undergraduate student, 2021)

Sixty-five percent of the students believed the YouTube form of assessment was
more equitable than other forms of assessment (37.33% Yes, and 28% in some
ways), mainly because it enabled students to actively engage in their learning
and assessment in an authentic way showing more of themselves through the
assessment. For example, one student commented: “It provided [an] opportu-
nity to show personality and humour which isn’t necessarily accommodated in
APA [American Psychological Association] writing”. Students identified further
equity benefits, such as supporting those with learning difficulties (e.g., dyslexia),
and that the assessment task opened “thinking to being more creative and think-
ing on the spot, rather than it becoming a “tick the box” exercise and in ensuring
all references have been covered”. Importantly, students completed component
parts by actively including others (either through technical support, or through
watching and learning from the clip). One student reported: “The YouTube clip
assignment was far more interactive, so I was more willing and able to share my
learning with others in both formal and informal settings”.

Are innovative assessment practices inclusive of all learners?

A dilemma arises when determining whether to pursue assessment approaches
that students are not familiar with. These could feasibly detract from students’
expectations and experiences of tertiary assessment, especially given that stu-
dents seem to prefer traditional assessments ( Jones et al. 2021). This ambivalence
showed in a student’s response in the YouTube clip: “It was nice to do something
that didn’t involve so much writing, but I did have to learn how to make and
edit a YouTube video without understanding how it is relevant to our learning
or future career”. This shows the importance of student-staff partnership where
teachers can “join the dots” for students who do not see the benefit in the longer
term. Another consideration is that even though exams are reported by students
as creating stress and anxiety, they are also viewed as familiar and expected. Jones
et al. (2021) note that as students know the requirements of exams, and how to
prepare, such methods of assessment are “potentially preferred in comparison
with other less traditional forms of assessment” (442). In the present example
where students developed YouTube clips, they learned a range of technical skills
to demonstrate their learning, and while they did view the process as a learning
 Alternative assessment approaches 195

experience, the question remains: do the gains outweigh the possible anxiety
created through this novel approach?
Students were also asked whether they had learned something they did not
expect through the YouTube assignment, and the responses showed that there
were gains beyond the knowledge they learned. Students reported improving
their personal learning and teaching skills, actively learning patience, and perse-
verance, gaining a thorough understanding of course content, gaining the ability
to express learning in a new way, honing their problem-solving skills, elevating
their knowledge from theoretical to practical, understanding YouTube as a form
of learning, and time management skills. As one noted:

I felt I gained a better understanding by undertaking this assignment because

it was a new way of testing and presenting my learning. I also enjoyed the
process more than a traditional assignment, especially compared to exams
(Education undergraduate student, 2021)

However, other students might be more challenged by the task itself, rather than
the learning:

When trying to convey [my] learning I especially found it challenging to

not only write something but video and edit it. I found it extremely time-
consuming and felt I could be doing more valuable exercises instead. I found
it stressful and found that it didn’t really help convey my learning in any way
(Education undergraduate student, 2021)

Some students reported they did not realise the extent of their learning, until
after the course was completed:

I’ve never uploaded anything to YouTube before so that was interesting.

Now that I think about it, watching my participants use my video was my
first ever observation, and I was observing through the lens informed by
the literature such as community of practice, active participation, collab-
oration, and self-directed learning. Concepts I was unaware of prior to
that learning experience. On reflection, there was actually a lot of valuable
learning that I appear to have implicitly absorbed.
(Education postgraduate student, 2021)

What does this mean for assessment for inclusion?

Simply giving students choice of assessment or alternative assessment tasks
does not create equitable or inclusive assessment options. Initially when stu-
dents experience novel approaches to assessments, they may be anxious until
they understand there is no “one way” to present their knowledge and under-
standing. Jones et al. (2021, 443) report that for “students to become more
196 R. Bourke

independent, they needed to be given the space to develop their own strategies
for completing assessments. While some students find this independence gives
greater control and ownership of their work, less confident students experience
it as stressful”.
The results from the student survey indicated that they preferred traditional
assessments, which highlights the complexity of giving students the “freedom
to choose” assessments. Students will base their choices on their own historical,
cultural, and social experiences of assessment and learning, and can be reluctant
to move into new territory. Ironically as Rogoff (1990, 202) identified, learning
involves “functioning at the edge of one’s competence on the border of incom-
petence”; learning in this sense encourages students to explore the unknown and
take risks in the belief they can, and will, achieve.
The survey also showed that the benefits gained from learning through alter-
native assessment methods were not fully realised and used by students, until
after the course was completed. Sustainable assessment practices such as YouTube
clips and self-assessment, while uncomfortable at the time, can have more impact
on students’ learning than traditional assessments. It also shows that assessment
requires an element of trust between teachers and students, and therefore for
staff-student partnership to work, power-sharing must result. Staff may have
concerns about handing over power to students when they wish to cover sub-
stantial content and they are unconvinced that students know enough about the
subject to be co-creating classes (Bovill, Jarvis, and Smith 2020, 37).
An interesting unintended consequence of the YouTube assessment activ-
ity was that it required students to think about their learning, rather than prove
their learning. This meant there was an absence of plagiarism. Plagiarism can be
examined through a policy, pedagogical, or moral lens (Eaton 2021), and insti-
tutions determine specific ways to “define, detect, prevent, and punish” students
who are found to have plagiarised (Marsh 2007). In my experience, students
tend to plagiarise when they remove themselves from the assessment, when they
look to sources to cite, or have others complete aspects of their work. In contrast,
authentic assessment approaches that engage learners in-depth, and over time,
such as the YouTube clip development, self-assessment, and ePortfolios, can tell
educators “much about how students view themselves as learners or emerging
professionals; how they are perceiving, connecting, and interpreting their in-
and out-of-class learning experiences; and why they may be struggling with
particular content or concepts” (Kahn 2019, 138). As one student who completed
a YouTube clip assignment noted:

Some of my favourite assignments were ones where I was able to be myself,

be creative and show my learning in a way that interests me. This is what
we expect students to do in primary school so why does it suddenly stop
during high school/university and then you’re expected to regain creativ-
ity in your job/career?
(Education postgraduate student, 2021)
 Alternative assessment approaches 197

Inclusive assessment practices enable increasingly diverse cohorts of students

to succeed in multiple ways if educators extend options for students. Alternative
assessment practices that become normalised in higher education allow for a
greater choice over what inclusive assessment practices to employ. Teachers need
to recognise students as both learners and assessors, trial innovative and sustain-
able assessment practices, develop an evidence-base on the impact of assessment
on learners and support student assessment literacy. While the “learning out-
comes race” (e.g., Douglass, Thomson, and Zhao 2012) is feasibly a barrier to
redefining student success and inclusion, it remains important to remind students
that it is their learning that counts. Over time universities have created a prolif-
eration of policies that become unintentional barriers for staff and students alike;
creating bureaucratised multi-layered processes for assessment, research integrity,
and polices on learning and teaching. Increasingly though, unequivocal messages
are emerging in both policy and practice that call for inclusion of students, sus-
tainable assessment, values-based decisions, and professional autonomy; all essen-
tial components for inclusive assessment practices. An imperative for practice is
to normalise assessments that challenge the status quo, by developing alternative
assessment with students from the ground up.

Note
1 https://www.nowtolove.co.nz/news/latest-news/jason-gunn-treated-by-vet-on-
plane-33701

References
Boud, D., and Soler, R. 2016. “Sustainable Assessment Revisited.” Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education 41 (3): 400–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
Bourke, R. 2018. “Self-Assessment to Incite Learning in Higher Education: Developing
Ontological Awareness.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 827–839.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1411881.
Bourke, R., Rainier, C., and de Vries, V. 2018. “Assessment and Learning Together in
Higher Education.” International Journal of Student Voice 25: 1–11. https://repository.
brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=tlthe.
Bovill, C., Jarvis, J., and Smith, K. 2020. Co-Creating Learning and Teaching: Towards
Relational Pedagogy in Higher Education. Critical Publishing. https://www.criticalpub-
lishing.com/asset/394452/1/Co_creating_Learning_and_Teaching_sample.pdf.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., and Felten, P. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Learning
and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Douglass, J. A., Thomson, G., and Zhao, Ch.-M. 2012. “The Learning Outcomes Race:
The Value of Self-reported Gains in Large Research Universities.” Higher Education
64: 317–335. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9496-x.
Dunning, D., Heath, Ch., and Suls, J. M. 2004. “Flawed Self-Assessment. Implications
for Health, Education, and the Workplace.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5
(3): 69–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x.
Eaton, S. E. 2021. Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
198 R. Bourke

Jones, E., Priestley, M., Brewster, L., Wilbraham, S. J., Hughes, G., and Spanner, L.
2021. “Student Wellbeing and Assessment in Higher Education: The Balancing Act.”
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46 (3): 438–450. http://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2020.1782344.
Kahn, S. 2019. “Transforming Assessment, Assessing Transformation: ePortfolio Assessment
Trends.” In Trends in Assessment: Ideas, Opportunities, and Issues for Higher Education, edited
by Stephen. P. Hundley and Susan Kahn, 137–156. Bloomfield: Stylus Publishing.
Marsh, B. 2007. Plagiarism: Alchemy and Remedy in Higher Education. New York: SUNY Press.
Massey University. 2019. Massey University Assessment Handbook. Principles, Guidelines, and
Resources.
Mayeda, D. T., Keil, M., Dutton, H. D., and Ofamo’oni, I. F-H. 2014. “You’ve Gotta
Set a Precedent. Māori and Pacific Voices on Student Success in Higher Education.”
AlterNative 10 (2): 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011401000206.
Panadero, E., and Alonso-Tapia, J. 2013. “Self-Assessment: Theoretical and Practical
Connotations. When It Happens, How Is It Acquired and What to Do to Develop It
in Our Students.” Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 11 (2): 551–576.
http://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12200.
Phongsirikul, M. 2018. “Traditional and Alternative Assessments in ELT: Students’ and
Teachers’ Perceptions.” rEFLections 25 (1): 61–84.
Roberston, K., Smith, J. A., and Larkin, S. 2021. “Improving Higher Education Success
for Australian Indigenous Peoples. Examples of Promising Practice.” In Marginalised
Communities in Higher Education, edited by Neil Harrison and Graeme Atherton, 179–201.
London: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Slavin, S. J., Schindler, D. L., and Chibnall, J. T. 2014. “Medical Student Mental Health
3.0: Improving Student Wellness through Curricular Changes.” Academic Medicine 89 (4):
573–577. http://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000166.
Slepcevic-Zach, P., and Stock, M. 2018. “ePortfolio as a Tool for Reflection and
Self-Reflection.” Reflective Practice 19 (3): 291–307. http://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.
2018.1437399.
Tan, K. 2007. “Conceptions of Self-Assessment: What Is Needed for Long-Term Learning?”
In Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Long Term, edited by David
Boud and Nancy Falchikov, 114–127. London: Routledge.
Tan, K. 2009. “Meanings and Practices of Power in Academics’ Conceptions of Student
Self-Assessment.” Teaching in Higher Education 14 (4): 361–373. http://doi.org/10.1080/
13562510903050111.
18
STUDENT CHOICE OF
ASSESSMENT METHODS
How can this approach become
more mainstream and equitable?

Geraldine O’Neill

Introduction
In higher education some assessment approaches dominate the landscape. The end
of semester unseen examination, for example, is widely used internationally (Brown
2015; National Forum 2016). However, this and other common approaches have
been criticised for not allowing for all students to play to their strengths. Diversifying
assessment methods in higher education is a logical step in supporting a more
inclusive approach to assessment for diverse cohorts (O’Neill and Padden 2021).
Diversifying assessment is also in keeping with the growing emphasis on universal
design for learning (CAST 2018). Hundley and Kahn (2019, 207) identified that a
meta-trend in higher education assessment internationally is “assessment strategies
and approaches that are becoming more inclusive, equity-oriented and reflective of
the diverse students our institutions serve”.
While diversifying assessment to move away from dominant forms of assess-
ment seems a positive step, if not approached appropriately it can put some stu-
dents under pressure and may result in unintended outcomes such as poorer
performance (Armstrong 2014; Bevitt 2015; Kirkland and Sutch 2009; Medland
2016). For example, in the case of international students “coping with novel
assessment represents just one part of a much larger and slower process of adapta-
tion” (Bevitt 2015, 116). One approach worth considering therefore is giving all
students in a module1 (course) a choice of assessment methods, thus increasing the
chance of playing to the strengths of all students and minimising any potential
disadvantage. Giving students a choice between two or more assessment meth-
ods within a module, appears to go some way towards supporting the concept of
equity, often described as “fairness” (Easterbrook, Parker, and Waterfield 2005;
Garside et al. 2009; O’Neill 2011, 2017; Waterfield and West 2006). In the case
where there is a genuine opportunity for students to achieve better outcomes,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-22
200 G. O’Neill

it supports the idea of assessment for social justice (McArthur 2016). However,
using a choice of assessment approach is not without its challenges.
Over a 10-year period, as an academic staff member and an educational devel-
oper, I have engaged in a programme of research to design, implement, and eval-
uate student choice in assessment. My earlier work at institutional level resulted
in the development of: a) disciplinary case studies, b) a design template to ensure
equity between the choices given; c) a seven-step implementation process, and
d) an evaluation tool that measures equity between the choices (O’Neill 2011,
2017). During my work at national level, I advocated the concept of student-as-
partners, including the use of choice of assessment (National Forum 2016). Choice
of assessment, in our recent research, although was shown to empower students
in their learning there are concerns around equity between the choices and it
was still relatively under-used (O’Neill and Padden 2021). This programme of
research and the wider literature on choice of assessment therefore highlight key
questions that are addressed in this chapter:

• How can staff ensure that there is equity between the choices given to the
students?
• How can it become more mainstream in institutional policies and practice?
• How do staff implement this approach in their practices?

Developing equity between the choices:

Procedures and outcomes
Choice of assessment is one approach that aims to level the playing field, sup-
porting the idea of equity or fairness. In order to support a fairer approach to
assessment in 2010 at University College Dublin (UCD), I co-ordinated a stra-
tegic institutional project with module co-ordinators across a variety of disci-
plines to implement choice of assessment in one of their modules (Nine modules;
n = 370 students). However, a common theme identified at the start of the pro-
ject, when staff came together to design their choice of assessment, was how does
one ensure that there is fairness between the choices. Staff expected the assess-
ments to be relatively equal in relation to workload (of both staff and students),
feedback opportunities, alignment with teaching approaches, and opportunities
to succeed. This is often called “procedural equity” (O’Neill 2017). Students in
particular, as noted in the literature, are also concerned about fairness between
the assessment choices (Craddock and Mathias 2009) and ensuring that they have
sufficient examples and experience to make an “informed” choice.
Based on the earlier work by Easterbrook, Parker, and Waterfield (2005), who
encourage students to reflect on their choices, as part of the project, I developed
a template to ensure staff considered “procedural equity” between the choices.
This also doubled up as a document that helped students make an informed choice
(O’Neill 2011). This template encouraged staff to explore and describe to the stu-
dents the assessment’s equity under the heading of: its weighting to the overall
 Student choice of assessment methods 201

grade; its traits (visual, type of writing); the learning outcome to be assessed; the
criteria used; equity in approaches to marking/teaching/workload/feedback; and
links to some examples of the assessment choice (O’Neill 2011, 2017).
The students’ views on their experience of choice of assessment, in this institu-
tional project in 2010, were gathered by a questionnaire (respondents, n = 144/370
students). An interesting finding was that students in later years and those pursuing
postgraduate studies were more open to the use of choice of assessment (O’Neill
2011), a result that was supported by Francis (2008). This may be explained by
their increased level of experience of different assessment that helps in them mak-
ing an informed choice of assessment. Students also noted that the choice between
two assessments was sufficient level of diversity of choice (O’Neill 2011). This
speaks to an issue that was discussed in our more recent paper on the use of this
approach – there can be such a thing as too much diversity and too much choice
(O’Neill and Padden 2021).
Some of these findings are linked with “procedural equity”, but staff on the
project wanted to be sure that the different choices they are presenting to stu-
dents would also allow all students an equal chance of succeeding in the out-
comes of the assessment, that is, the grades. McArthur (2016) also emphasised
that procedural fairness is not enough and that these don’t always relate to “just
outcomes”, sometimes described as an aspect of “assessment for social justice”.
Irish students have indicated in a recent national project that “achieving high
academic attainment” is a key measure of student success (National Forum 2019,
5). Grades matter to them. Stowell (2004) describes equity in performance not
so much as “equity” but as “justice” which is more concerned with fairness in
outcomes. In examining the pattern of grades between the choices of assessment
in this institutional project, it was found that:

• Students performed better than previous years’ cohorts in the module.

• Their median grade was higher (B+) than the institutional median grade
(C grade).
• Particular student groups appeared to score higher when given an oppor-
tunity to play to their strengths – for example, students from different
socio-economic groups.
(O’Neill 2017)

Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer (2021) reported in their study on flexible assess-
ment that when they gave students some choices, students reported that it helped
them get better marks. Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer (2021) study, however,
also included choice of submission dates and weighting of assessment. Although
improving student grades should be a positive outcome, a resulting tension that
can arise with this approach is that staff become concerned with how to deal
with what they describe as “grade inflation”. In our recent institutional survey
(n = 160 module co-ordinators) on diversifying assessment and use of choice of
assessment, grade inflation was more of a concern for staff, when considering this
202 G. O’Neill

approach, than fear of student failure (O’Neill and Padden 2021). Grade inflation
is often described as perceived or actual rise in students’ average grades.
This highlights challenges in institutional grading systems and the use of
norm-referenced assessment in many institutions internationally. Tannock
(2017) emphasised that grading to a normal curve can create “social division
among students depending on where they stand in the grading hierarchy, and
particularly destructive impacts on the learning, esteem and identity of students
at the lower end of this hierarchy” (1350). If it is our intention for more students
to succeed, it would make sense that more would do well, in particular if we
are not disadvantaging other students in the process. This fear of grade inflation
needs to be interrogated at institutional and national levels. We need to also
explore the complexity of other influences on institutional grading approaches,
for example, the impact of high student fees; comparability of international
grading scales (Witte 2011); staff confidence in grading; staff accountability
and the role of the “public” university (Tannock 2017). Staff fear of grade
inflation appears to be running counter to student success. Efforts should be
taken to ensure that it does not become a barrier to the introduction of choice
of assessment.
Institutional policies on assessment, including aspects such as grade distribu-
tion, can be associated with the wider concept of social justice in assessment.
McArthur (2016) explores the concept of social justice as it relates to fairness in
assessment, she maintains that “that a preoccupation with fairness as sameness is
one of the major factors constraining assessment playing a greater social justice
role” (973). She describes the concept of the “assessment for social justice” as
referring “both to the justice of assessment within higher education, and to the
role of assessment in nurturing the forms of learning that will promote greater
social justice within society as a whole” (McArthur 2016, 968). The development
of student opportunities to play to their strengths and having an opportunity to
improve their grades through the choice of assessment method, goes some way
towards this understanding of social justice. (See Chapter 2 for reflections on
assessment for social justice.)
Another positive impactful outcome was that the use of choice of assessment
had empowered students in their learning (O’Neill and Padden 2021). This gave
them some level of responsibility, trusting them to make a choice. Responsibility
and trust are two aspects of “assessment for social justice”, referred to in
McArthur’s recent description of this term (McArthur 2021). Taking respon-
sibility was noted by Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer (2021) as an important skill
for graduates in the workplace. Where choice of assessment methods falls short
in relation to the wider concept of social justice is that the methods on their
own do promote social justice within society as a whole. McArthur (2021) also
highlights that assessment for social justice should be aspirational and transform-
ative. She explores how assessment systems can be inherently unfair and not all
students have an opportunity to succeed or indeed contribute to society more
broadly.
 Student choice of assessment methods 203

Mainstreaming this approach

Choice of assessment, therefore, seems to have some positive impact on stu-
dents, it supports student empowerment and the diversification of assessment.
However, to what extent is it being used, how widespread is it nationally and
internationally? In 2016, my work on a national project, in association with
the Union of Students in Ireland (USI), advocated the concept of students-
as-partners, including the use of choice of assessment (National Forum and
USI 2016). Therefore, there appears to be an appetite, in the Irish context,
for this approach, including from the student body. However, in exploring
the literature and in a recent institutional survey (O’Neill and Padden 2021),
although choice of assessment was shown to empower students in their learning
it appears still relatively under-used. Why, if so inclusive, is this approach not
more widespread in its use institutionally, nationally, and internationally? How
could it become more mainstream?
A key challenge to any assessment change or innovation is staff resources.
“Effective resourcing plays an important part in overcoming barriers to innova-
tion” (Kirkland and Sutch 2009, 24). Lack of time and lack of resources (such as
support) were the top two barriers cited by staff implementing choice of assess-
ment in the recent research (O’Neill and Padden 2021). Wanner, Palmer, and
Palmer (2021) explored some flexible approaches to the assessment of students
(including choice of assessment task) in the University of Adelaide, Australia.
They noted that flexible approaches to assessment can be time-consuming for the
staff, it may also need institutions to develop staff capacities. Staff need to “over-
come any feelings of loss of power, control and autonomy and have their time
commitment acknowledged to implement the flexible and personalised assess-
ment” (Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer 2021, 11). Therefore, mainstreaming this
and other assessment innovations requires adequate resourcing and a freeing of
staff time to allow for their development.
There is a growing international movement towards empowering students
and diversification of assessment to support more: inclusive assessment (EUA
2020); innovative assessment (Kapsalis et al. 2019); student-centred learning
( Jordan et al. 2014; Pham 2010); universal design (AHEAD 2021; CAST 2018;
Mavrou and Symeonidou 2014); and students-as-partners (Cook-Sather, Bovill,
and Felten 2014). However, despite this trend in assessment policies and prac-
tices, there are many staff who are not yet comfortable with handing over the
reins of power ( Jordan et al. 2014; McArthur 2016). Staff often model their
practice on what they themselves experienced, which tends to have been a more
teacher-centred approach. Jordan et al. (2014) highlighted that student-centred
learning is a concept that is not embraced by all individual staff, students, and
disciplines and needs to move away from pockets of practice to more institu-
tional approaches to this learning paradigm. “Trusting” students and giving
them some responsibility (McArthur 2016, 2021) appear to be a challenge for
some staff.
204 G. O’Neill

Student-centred learning also needs to be supported as an approach with

students. Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer (2021) found that most students had a
strong appetite for flexibility in assessment, although they identified that it can
also be stressful and they may regret the choices later. In particular, the students
highlighted that it would only work “with the guidance and support of enthusi-
astic teachers” (Wanner, Palmer, and Palmer 2021, 11).
Supporting assessment processes that gives students more responsibility, there-
fore, can be slow to emerge as “assessment systems are rooted in academic cul-
tures and institutional habitus” (Leathwood 2005, 315). The slowness of this turn
towards student-centred practice has also led to a lack of examples from practice.
“Lack of discipline examples” was cited as a barrier to staff implementing choice of
assessment in the recent research (O’Neill and Padden 2021). Just as students need
examples to make an informed choice, staff need examples of choice of assess-
ment approaches in order to be confident in developing such approaches in their
own contexts. Despite the increased interest in Universal Design for Learning
(UDL), a search of the empirical literature reveals a relative absence of showcases
or papers on choice of assessment and indeed on inclusive assessment more widely.
In a recent critical review of literature from 2005 to 2020, the evidence base for
inclusive assessment was noted to be quite small with only 13 empirical peer-
reviewed studies (Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021). Therefore, a concerted effort
is needed to encourage those using this approach to share examples of success and
any lessons learned. There is also a need to share the process of implementation of
this approach to guide module designers in the implementation of the approach.

A recommended design process

To assist in mainstreaming this approach, I therefore present the seven-step process
that I developed as part of my research over the last few years (See Figure 18.1)
(adapted from O’Neill 2011, 2017). It guides the design, implementation, and
evaluation of choice of assessment.
The process is divided into three stages, the design stage (steps 1–4), the imple-
mentation stage (steps 5 and 6), and the evaluation stage (step 7) (see Figure 18.1).

Design stage
Consider which module (step 1): This step recommends that the module co-
ordinator considers which modules might be best suited to empowering stu-
dents with a choice. For example, it may suit modules that have students with
a variety of learning needs; with different prior learning; or in modules with
high numbers of special accommodations (O’Neill 2011). There may be mod-
ules where allowing a choice may not be suitable, for example, where the abil-
ity to communicate through the written word (such as through an essay) is a
competency highlighted in the module’s learning outcomes. A programmatic
 Student choice of assessment methods 205

FIGURE 18.1 A process for implementing choice of assessment methods.

approach (Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet 2009; National Forum 2017) to its use
is one way forward, where some modules in the programme are identified as
suitable and others where it may be less appropriate.
Consider diverse choices (step 2): This step advises the module coordinator to
consider assessment methods that are dissimilar to each other, as this would max-
imise the choice for students with different strengths, approaches to learning,
learning needs and from different contexts. Two options can often be sufficient
choice (O’Neill 2011).
Develop equity (step 3): In addressing the issue of concern around fairness
(equity) between the choices, the module coordinator needs to design for this in
the assessment, as far as is reasonably practical. One tool that can support this is
the “Student Information and Equity Template” (O’Neill 2017; UCD Teaching
and Learning 2022a). This was designed to consider the equity between the
choices in relation to, for example, student workload, teaching, and learning
approaches, standards, feedback, etc. In addition, this can then be made available
to the students at the beginning of the module to assists the students in making
an informed choice.
Make standards explicit (step 4): In the case where students are unfamiliar with
one or more of the choices, they need to see examples of assessment of these
methods. Therefore, the module coordinators should share some examples of
the assessment methods and make these available to the students at beginning
of the module. In addition, it is good practice that the assessment criteria/rubrics
for both assessment methods are also available for the students (Bennett 2016;
O’Neill 2018).
206 G. O’Neill

Implementation stage
Implement (step 5): At the start of the module, the rationale for this choice of assess-
ment methods should be made clear to the students, that is, to empower them
in their learning, to allow them to play to their strengths. It needs to be clear to
students how and when they need to communicate to the staff the decision on
their assessment choice (O’Neill 2011). To streamline this, it may be useful to
decide that one assessment method is the “default” assessment, if students have not
informed staff of the choice. This could be the more familiar of the two assess-
ments. Retaining one assessment that has some familiarity could reduce some of
the challenges student experience with new and innovative assessment approaches
(Armstrong 2014; Bevitt 2015; Kirkland and Sutch 2009; Medland 2016).
Support the process (step 6): At the early stage of the module, it may be useful
to allow some in-class discussion on the choices, including opportunities for
the students to discuss these with staff and/or with other students. Throughout
the module’s implementation, the teaching activities, support for feedback, and
advice on the assessment must be relatively equitable (O’Neill 2011).

Evaluation stage
Evaluate and adjust (step 7): Finally, to ensure that there is some feedback on
the approach, module coordinators should gather students, and where relevant
staff, views on its implementation. In my original study, an evaluation tool was
developed for the approach, the “Students’ views on Choice of Assessment Methods”
(O’Neill 2011, 76–77). In one section of this tool, five key themes were devel-
oped into a 20-item scale, that is, equity, anxiety, support, empowerment, and
diversity. Four statements were created in each of these five themes (O’Neill
2011) This tool is available for use at UCD Teaching and Learning (2022c). I
developed a sub-section of this tool (O’Neill 2017) using a factor analysis, now
titled the Equity Between Choice of Assessment Evaluation Tool (available for use at
UCD Teaching and Learning 2022b). This eight-item tool tool is more focused
on the concept of equity between the choices given. It has good internal reliabil-
ity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.792) and face validity. The key questions validated for
use in this evaluation tool were:

• I felt I was given sufficient information required to choose the assessment

method.
• I was confident in my choice of assessment method.
• The staff could have been more supportive in helping me choose my assess-
ment method(s) (negatively worded).
• The assessment method I chose was not explained as well as the other
assessment method (negatively worded).
• I felt I was given the support required while attempting this assessment
method.
 Student choice of assessment methods 207

• I was satisfied with the level of feedback I had compared to the feedback in
other assessment method.
• Over the course of the semester, the workload for my choice appeared
similar to the other assessment method(s).
• I was satisfied with the examples available of my assessment method com-
pared to the examples of the other assessment method.
(O’Neill 2017, 228; UCD Teaching and Learning 2022b)

In addition, to triangulate the students’ views, further data could be gathered by

qualitative interviews or focus groups of staff and students, as appropriate. The
final aspect of this step is that based on any evaluations, the module co-ordinator
should make improvements for the next reiteration of the module.

Conclusion
Moving away from a reliance on a narrow range of traditional methods of assess-
ment can support the increasing diversity of student cohorts in higher education
internationally. This movement is part of a wider trend towards inclusive assess-
ment and supports the growing interest in universal design for learning (CAST
2018; Hundley and Kahn 2019). One approach to diversifying, which gives stu-
dents some increased level of responsibility, is to allow students a choice of assess-
ment methods within a module. This can also support their unique assessment
preferences and may indeed support the success to which they aspire. However, we
need to ensure that the choices we give are procedurally equitable and this chapter
explores how this can be achieved in practice. Choice of assessment can support the
outcome of an increase in student grades, a key indicator of student success as noted
by them (National Forum 2019). However, more inter-stakeholder dialogue needs
to take place to explore some solutions to the tension between this aspect of student
success and what can be perceived, by some, as “unwanted” grade inflation. Failure
to resolve this issue can cause more “social division among students depending on
where they stand in the grading hierarchy” (Tannock 2017, 1350).
One challenge to mainstreaming the approach is that we should not take for
granted the underlying challenge that some staff, and indeed some students, have
towards the adoption of student-centred approaches. Trusting students and giv-
ing them more responsibility is one aspect of the emerging concept of assessment
for social justice (McArthur 2016, 2021). To support a more widespread use of
the approach, institutional polices need to resource, and supports staff in rolling
out this approach. Examples of how it has been implemented in practice needs
to be showcased and disseminated. This chapter, therefore, concludes with a
seven-step process, which describes how I supported the design, implementation,
and evaluation of the approach in my institution (O’Neill 2011, 2017).
The chapter highlights the research and practice of students’ choice of assess-
ment methods. I hope it will assist in both ensuring the choices given to students
are equitable and that it goes some way towards its more widespread use in practice.
208 G. O’Neill

Note
1 The term “module” is used in this chapter to refer to a stand-alone unit that is part of
a bigger program of study. Sometimes modules are described as a “course”. Modules
have a defined set of learning outcomes, a set student credit load and aligned teaching,
learning and assessment approaches. “Module co-ordinators” is the term used for staff
responsible for a module’s design and delivery.

References
AHEAD. 2021. “Universal Design for Learning.” Accessed 29 September 2021. https://
www.ahead.ie/udl.
Armstrong, L. 2014. “Barriers to Innovation and Change in Higher Education.”
TIAA-CREF Institute. Accessed 29 September 2021. https://www.tiaainstitute.org/
publication/barriers-innovation-and-change.
Bennett, C. 2016. “Assessment Rubrics: Thinking Inside the Boxes.” The International
Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 9 (1): 50–72. http://doi.org/10.3167/
latiss.2016.090104.
Bevitt, S. 2015. “Assessment Innovation and Student Experience: A New Assessment
Challenge and Call for a Multi-Perspective Approach to Assessment Research.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (1): 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2014.890170.
Brown, S. 2015. A Review of Contemporary Trends in Higher Education Assessment.
@tic.revista d’innovacio educative 14: 43–39. http://doi.org/10.7203/attic.14.4166.
CAST. 2018. “Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2.” Accessed 29
September 2021. http://udlguidelines.cast.org/.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., and Felten, P. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Learning
and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Craddock, D., and Mathias, H. 2009. “Assessment Options in Higher Education.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930801956026.
Easterbrook, D., Parker, M., and Waterfield, J. 2005. “Engineering Subject Centre
Mini Project: Assessment Choice Case Project.” HEA-Engineering Subject Centre.
Accessed 29 September 2021. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/
engineering-subject-centre-mini-project-assessment-choice-case-study.
EUA. 2020. “Student Assessment: Thematic Peer Group Report: Learning and Teaching
Paper # 10.” European University Association. Accessed 29 September 2021. https://
eua.eu/resources/publications/921:student-assessment-thematic-peer-group-report.
html.
Francis, R. A. 2008. “An Investigation into the Receptivity of Undergraduate Students
to Assessment Empowerment.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5):
547–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698991.
Garside, J., Nhemachena, J. Z. Z, Williams, J., and Topping, A. 2009. “Repositioning
Assessment: Giving Students the ‘Choice’ of Assessment Methods.” Nurse Education in
Practice 9: 141–148. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2008.09.003.
Gibbs, G., and Dunbar-Goddet, H. 2009. “Characterising Programme-Level Assessment
Environments that Support Learning.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34
(4): 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802071114.
Hundley, S. P., and Kahn, S. 2019. Trends in Assessment: Ideas, Opportunities, and Issues for
Higher Education. Sterling, VI: Stylus.
 Student choice of assessment methods 209

Jordan, L., Bovill, C., Watters, N., Saleh, A. M., Shabila, N. P., and Othman, S. M.
2014. “Is Student-Centred Learning a Western Concept? Lessons from an Academic
Development Programme to Support Student-Centred Learning in Iraq.” Teaching in
Higher Education 19 (1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827649.
Kapsalis, G., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Conrads, J., Collado, A., Hotulainen, R., Rämä,
I., Nyman, L., Oinas, S., and Ilsley, P. 2019. “Evidence of Innovative Assessment:
Literature Review and Case Studies.” European Commission. EU Science Hub. https://
data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/552774.
Kirkland, K., and Sutch, D. 2009. “Overcoming the Barriers to Educational Innovation:
A Literature Review.” Futurelab. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL61/
FUTL61.pdf.
Leathwood, C. 2005. “Assessment Policy and Practice in Higher Education: Purpose,
Standards and Equity.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (3): 307–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063876.
Mavrou, K., and Symeonidou, S. 2014. “Employing the Principles of Universal Design for
Learning to Deconstruct the Greek-Cypriot New National Curriculum.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (9): 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.
859308.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
McArthur, J. 2021. Creating Synergies between Assessment for Social Justice and Assessment
for Inclusion. Keynote presented at Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital
Learning (CRADLE) International Symposium, 21 October 2021. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=f FE7qxqCVFY.
Medland, E. 2016. “Assessment in Higher Education: Drivers, Barriers and Directions
for Change in the UK.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (1): 81–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.982072.
National Forum. 2016. “Profile of Assessment Practices in Irish Higher Education.”
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Accessed 29 September 2021. https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/publication/profile-
of-assessment-practices-in-irish-higher-education/.
National Forum. 2017. “Enhancing Programme Approaches to Assessment and Feedback in
Irish Higher Education: Case Studies, Commentaries and Tools.” National Forum for the
Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Accessed 16 January 2022.
https://hub.teachingandlearning.ie/resource/enhancing-programme-approaches-to-
assessment-and-feedback-in-irish-higher-education-case-studies-commentaries-and-tools/.
National Forum. 2019. “Understanding and Enabling Student Success in Irish Higher
Education.” National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education. Accessed 29 September 2021. https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/
publication/understanding-and-enabling-student-success-in-irish-higher-education/.
National Forum and USI. 2016. “Assessment OF, FOR and AS Learning: Students as
Partners.” National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. https://hub.teachingandlearning.ie/resource/students-as-partners/.
O’Neill, G. (Ed.). 2011. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Choice of Assessment Methods within
a Module.” UCD Teaching and Learning. Accessed 29 September 2021. https://
www.ucd.ie/teaching/t4media/choice_of_assessment.pdf.
O’Neill, G. 2017. “It’s not Fair! Students and Educators Views on the Equity of the
Procedures and Outcomes of Students’ Choice of Assessment Methods.” Irish
Educational Studies 36 (2): 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2017.1324805.
210 G. O’Neill

O’Neill, G. 2018. “Designing Grading and Feedback Rubrics.” Dublin: UCD Teaching
and Learning. https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/t4media/designing_feedback_rubrics.pdf.
O’Neill, G., and Padden, L. 2021. “Diversifying Assessment Methods: Barriers, Benefits and
Enablers.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14703297.2021.1880462.
Pham, T. H. T. 2010. “Implementing a Student-Centered Learning Approach at Vietnamese
Higher Education Institutions: Barriers under Layers of Casual Layered Analysis
(CLA).” Journal of Futures Studies 15 (1): 21–38. https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/151-A02.pdf.
Stowell, M. 2004. “Equity, Justice and Standards: Assessment Decision Making in Higher
Education.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (4): 495–510. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602930310001689055.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
Tannock, S. 2017. “No Grades in Higher Education Now! Revisiting the Place of Graded
Assessment in the Reimagination of the Public University.” Studies in Higher Education
42 (8): 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1092131.
UCD Teaching and Learning. 2022a. Student Information and Equity Template. Dublin:
UCD Teaching and Learning. https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/t4media/student_
information_and_equity_template.docx.
UCD Teaching and Learning. 2022b. Equity Between Choice of Assessment Evaluation
Tool. Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning. https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/t4media/
equity_between_choice_of_assessment_evaluation_tool.docx.
UCD Teaching and Learning. 2022c. Students Views on Choice of Assessment Methods
(Evaluation Tool). Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning. https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/
t4media/students_views_on_choice_of_assessment_methods.docx.
Wanner, T., Palmer, E., and Palmer, D. 2021. “Flexible Assessment and Student Empower­
ment: Advantages and Disadvantages – Research from an Australian University.” Teaching
in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989578.
Waterfield, J., and West, B. 2006. “Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: A Resource
for Change University of Plymouth.” University of Plymouth. Accessed 29 September
2021. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/3/3026/Space_
toolkit.pdf.
Witte, A. E. 2011. “Understanding International Grading Scales: More Translation than
Conversion.” International Journal of Management Education 9 (3): 49–59.
19
“HOW TO LOOK AT IT
DIFFERENTLY”
Negotiating more inclusive assessment
design with student partners

Joanne Dargusch, Lois Harris, and Margaret Bearman

There is increasing impetus to make assessment in higher education more inclu-

sive of diverse student populations. This reflects a broad social movement; for
example, Australian higher education institutions are legally obliged to cater for
students with disabilities (SWDs) in socially just ways (Australian Government,
Department of Education, Skills and Employment 2005). According to Hockings
(2010), inclusive assessment is “the design and use of fair and effective assess-
ment methods and practices that enable all students to demonstrate to their full
potential what they know, understand and can do” (34). For assessment prac-
tices to be inclusive, there is a need for students to be allowed to show learning
in differing ways, with options for flexibility and choice (Morris, Milton, and
Goldstone 2019). Despite use of tools such as the Universal Design for Learning
Guidelines (CAST 2018), designing inclusive assessments in higher education
remains a challenge (Grimes et al. 2019; Lawrie et al. 2017). There are real world
challenges to creating inclusive assessment practices, with assessment processes
at universities often highly bureaucratic and perceived as inflexible, reacting to
SWDs’ diverse needs through assessment accommodation systems which are
sometimes not responsive or make decisions that are not appropriate (e.g., Bessant
2012). Concerns about workloads for staff and the need to align with university
and industry expectations impact on assessment design decisions and remain an
obstacle to more inclusive and flexible assessment design (e.g., Morris, Milton,
and Goldstone 2019). Against, this backdrop of challenge, it is important to look
for meaningful processes that can support more inclusive assessment.
It is our contention that real understanding and response to the needs of SWDs
is only possible when students have input into the conversation about assess-
ment in ways that influence practice. If assessment is to be designed in inclusive
ways that “enable all students to demonstrate to their full potential” (Hockings
2010, 34), teaching staff should be supported to understand the challenges these

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-23
212 J. Dargusch, L. Harris, and M. Bearman

students face as they navigate the complexities of higher education assessment

requirements and practices. Educators must also be motivated to overcome real
and perceived institutional barriers to designing inclusive assessments. Without
student engagement, educators must make assumptions about the impact of
assessment decisions on students.

Students as partners
Students as partners (SaP) presents a promising way forward in creating a dia-
logue, where student needs can be better understood and therefore incorporated
into assessment design. Described as process-oriented, SaP is “focused on what
students and staff do together to further common educational goals” (Mercer-
Mapstone et al. 2017, 2). The call for SaP has been growing in strength, with
attention turning to how the inclusion of student voice and partnership prac-
tices can influence traditional ways of working in higher education, including
assessment practices (Dwyer 2018; Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2016; Mercer-
Mapstone, Islam, and Reid 2021).
Underpinning successful SaP projects in higher education is what Cook-
Sather and Felten (2017, 5) refer to as an “ethic of reciprocity”, foregrounding
mutual voices and contributions between students and staff with equal impor-
tance attributed to all (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). Such a process has the
potential to subvert traditional power arrangements and allow participant roles to
be renegotiated through dialogue that includes differing perspectives (Matthews
et al. 2018). These are worthy and valuable aims, and the outcomes of exist-
ing studies have largely been reported positively (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017).
However, SWDs appear to be seldom included in the small-scale, institutional-
level SaP partnerships and projects (Bovill et al. 2016; Mercer-Mapstone et al.
2017) reported in Australian higher education.
Assessment may present particular challenges for a SaP approach, with strong
contextual influences on design processes, such as departmental norms (Bearman
et al. 2017). However, including SaP in a dialogue may help lecturers better
understand how assessment design impacts students and their learning, poten-
tially bringing new ideas and insights into the design process. Likewise, students
may feel more invested in assessment processes, understanding that their per-
spectives are heard and valued. There are, however, tensions between the various
stakeholders’ assessment expectations, including external accreditation require-
ments, university rules and processes, and students’ understanding of what is fair
and reasonable (Tai et al. 2022).
Power inequality is a key challenge for all students. The SaP literature
acknowledges the challenge of power imbalances with some researchers describ-
ing the “reinforcement of power asymmetries between students and staff” in
SaP projects (Mercer-Mapstone, Islam, and Reid 2021, 229), framing these as
an obstacle that needs to be overcome (Matthews et al. 2018). SWDs may also
be unsure how to articulate their problems/challenges in public forums, in ways
 Negotiating inclusive assessment with student partners 213

that other students understand. Diverse students need to be included in order to

address questions of inclusion and equity (Bovill et al. 2016; Mercer-Mapstone,
Islam, and Reid 2021). The interactions between staff and students are there-
fore foregrounded in this chapter, in order to highlight the practical issues that
impact on achieving change.
While embracing the potential and necessity for SaP, this chapter examines
some of the complex, ambiguous, and inevitable challenges of including diverse
student voices in assessment design. While the literature provides a mainly positive
view of students as partners, with many advocates discussing benefits (Mercer-
Mapstone et al. 2017), existing empirical studies do not clearly show how change
is negotiated between participants in SaP research projects. This chapter draws
on data from the project Reimagining Exams: How do assessment adjustments
impact on inclusion (Tai et al. 2022) to explore how SWDs engaged in workshops
and how their suggestions contributed to the more inclusive redesign of exams and
other timed assessments. In this project, funded by the Australian National Centre
for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), students were asked to share
their personal experiences of exams and offer suggestions about ways exams could
be changed to better suit their needs. We consider instances where students and
staff at times struggled to establish a mutuality of purpose and exchange, examin-
ing the different outcomes achieved. We present an analysis of these data focussing
on the participation process, followed by our reflections on how the aspirational
notion of partnership might take account of some of its complexities.

Context of the project

The project took place at two Australian universities, different in physical locations
and structures, but both serving diverse student cohorts. In Phase 1, 40 SWDs
were chosen to participate in interviews, with those not selected invited to provide
a written or oral submission in response to prompts. This chapter draws on Phase 2
data from a series of five “participatory” online workshops conducted at each uni-
versity, bringing together SWDs, unit co-ordinators/chairs (UCs), accessibility/
inclusion staff, and assessment researchers. To explore how exams could be reim-
agined in more inclusive ways, SWDs were positioned as consultants (Bovill et al.
2016) whose insights might help stakeholders understand the issues and become
motivated to change and improve assessments. There were practical goals, including
bringing about change within two subject units at each university and the develop-
ment of a framework to evaluate exam inclusivity and guide change. Students were
invited to take part in reflection activities after the workshop series had concluded,
designed to elicit their perceptions of the workshop process.

Workshop design
Online workshops were designed to elicit suggestions and recommendations, gen-
erating ideas for change. They provided opportunities for participants to speak
214 J. Dargusch, L. Harris, and M. Bearman

openly, valuing the mutual voices and contributions that underpin successful SaP
projects (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). Participants were sent written materi-
als (e.g., short student narratives), and asked to anonymously reflect/respond in a
Microsoft Teams worksheet, allowing alternative forms of interaction and record-
ing thoughts generated outside of each workshop. Workshops 1 and 2 were designed
to build relationships and share exam experiences. In workshops 3 and 4, partic-
ipants considered specific units’ exams/timed assessments and discussed potential
changes in format, conditions, and mode. Workshop 5 focused on reviewing a
draft framework for generating more inclusive exams and future directions.
After workshop 5, students were invited to reflect on their workshop expe-
riences. Set questions were posed about the workshop process and structure,
students’ level of comfort, workshop resources, and suggestions for other ways to
involve students in the work of improving assessment. Additional information
about the project’s methodology and outcomes can be found in the NCSEHE
report (Tai et al. 2022).

Data analysis
The aim of this current analysis was to understand how successfully the SaP
had promoted practical dialogue, with all students and staff given pseudonyms.
We wished for insight into how participating SWDs, Dalton (Psychology)
and Veronica (Psychology) from University 1 (U1), and Pete (Business) and
Francine (Allied Health) from University 2 (U2), engaged in workshops
designed around SaP principles and how their interactions contributed to the
group (see Table 19.1).
Analysis of workshop transcripts was focused on the interactions between
participants and the roles of students. We took student utterances, understood
here to mean every spoken contribution in the conversation, as our unit of anal-
ysis and sought to examine what prompted students to speak, what they said,
and how staff reacted to what they said. A general thematic analysis was con-
ducted on the reflection transcripts to gain insights into participating students’
perceptions of the process. Table 19.2 lists the codes applied for each different
analytical focus.

TABLE 19.1 Workshop student participants

University Student Discipline area Workshops attended Completed reflections

1 Dalton Psychology 5 Y
1 Veronica Psychology 5 Y
2 Pete Business 3 N
2 Francine Allied Health 2 Y

 e employed thematic analysis, with some supplementary counts of prevalence. Data sources were:
W
transcripts of workshop 3 (U1, n = 8 participants; U2, n = 11) and workshop 4 (U1, n = 8; U2, n = 9);
and written (n = 2) and spoken (n = 1) student reflections.
 Negotiating inclusive assessment with student partners 215

TABLE 19.2 Analysis focus and related codes

Analysis focus Codes

How did students join the conversation? Response to a direct question; unprompted
What contributions did they make and Contribution: affirmation/agreement;
how did staff respond? personal story; comment; suggestion
Staff responses: problematise; consider,
accept; ignore; revoice
How did they feel after the workshops? Affordances (e.g., being heard), challenges
(e.g., lack of student voice)

How students joined the conversation

Each conversational turn that occurred directly prior to student contributions
was coded in order to identify any patterns in how students entered, or were
invited to enter, the conversation. Three of the four students (Veronica, Pete,
and Francine) responded to questions asked specifically of them in the majority
of their turns. These questions were predominantly from the research team, with
some questions posed by unit coordinators.
Unprompted contributions were infrequent for three of the four participating
students (Pete, Francine, Veronica), indicating the level of hesitancy for these stu-
dents in entering the conversation uninvited. Dalton’s approach contrasted sharply
with his peers, and he was confident and willing to make frequent unprompted
contributions, responding to questions posed to all students in the workshops, as
well as those asked of the whole group. At times, Dalton interrupted staff members
and other students, but these interruptions may have occurred due to difficulties
arising in the on-line workshop environment where it was sometimes difficult to
hear others and see whether other participants were waiting to speak.

Student contributions and staff responses

Data show that student contributions to the workshops were rich and varied, and
included pleasantries, affirmations/agreement, personal stories, comments, and sug-
gestions. Pleasantries helped to establish relationships, while affirmations and agree-
ment usually blended into suggestions or personal stories designed to help other
participants understand the speaker’s feelings about assessment. The following per-
sonal story was offered in response to one UC’s exploration of the need for shorter
exams, including splitting exams into two parts:

Dalton: The idea of going into a room and sitting there for two or three
hours or even doing it … It is painful. Also, because you’ve got this huge
stress that what if something goes wrong, and I get a headache, or I get a
nosebleed? Whatever the scenario goes through one’s head, you end up, I
think, losing so much productive time and effort that you could have been
studying effectively, just worrying about concerns that could be addressed
in another way, I think, that would eliminate those concerns.
216 J. Dargusch, L. Harris, and M. Bearman

TABLE 19.3 Proposed changes to assessment

Categories of change Examples – student suggestions Examples – staff suggestions

Assessment – Break up exams into Break up exams into two parts

structure/content separate parts/chunksAllow students choice between paper
Smaller, interrelated based and computer formats in exam
assessment pieces Include scenario-based questions
Reduce number of questions
Multiple opportunities to
Ensure topics are not unnecessarily
meet the same outcomes
assessed
Changes to task language
Assessment – task Replace large exams with Open book exams
type/mode weekly tests or one-on- Option to read questions aloud
one discussions (practical exams)
Assessment – Flexible exam start times Flexible exam start times
conditions/timing Breaks between exam parts Give students more time to complete
exams
Short breaks during exams as a
standard feature
Additional set up/reading time
before exams
Assessment – Different modes of
conditions/access assessment instructions
Assessment – Use of interactive, Automated online quizzes embedded
conditions/use automated online quizzes in weekly tutorials
of technology for exam preparation
Improvement – Explicit exam preparation Completion of practice exams for
study advice instructions formative feedback
Assessment design Student input into question design
roles

Students took on the role of expert in the workshop, with weight given to the
value of their lived experiences in understanding the challenges SWDs negoti-
ate within assessment. Given this framing, comments like the following were a
common contribution:

FRANCINE: I feel like all my assessment tasks have been pretty relevant to what
I’ve had to go out and do.

Students and staff also provided a range of concrete suggestions for changes to
timed and other types of assessments, with categories of suggestions shared in
Table 19.3. There were some common suggestions from the two groups, with
most suggestions related to task structure, types/modes, and conditions.

Illustrative examples of staff responses to student suggestions

Across workshops at both institutions, the group most readily took up student
suggestions when they offered easily actionable ideas or when the students were
 Negotiating inclusive assessment with student partners 217

perceived as having discipline-specific insight. Persistent challenges included

staff concerns about academic integrity and discipline/accreditation require-
ments and institutional policy was frequently cited as a roadblock to change. As
presented in Table 19.2, staff reactions were coded as: problematise, consider,
accept, ignore, revoice. However, these reactions themselves could lead to differ-
ent outcomes. For example, when ideas were problematised, the student sugges-
tion was debated, leading to a discussion of various possibilities.
Two contrasting excerpts are shown here from the category of problematise.
In the first excerpt, the student suggestion for change is listened to, but the ideas
are lost in the subsequent discussion:

DALTON: … for one of the level two psych units, … there were 10 or 12 small
assessment pieces. I think that in a way works better, because then each piece
feeds into the next, and because each piece is fairly small, you get the feed-
back really quickly. … could you break some of the assessments into smaller
pieces, smaller chunks, where the person knows that this is the content for
the two weeks they’ve got to do, and they’ll do an assessment on it?

Unit Coordinator 2 considers Dalton’s suggestion, indicating she will “think

about it, for sure”, ultimately, the idea was blocked by other participants, includ-
ing a comment that “our policy goes against that”. While no clear actions for
change resulted from this part of the conversation, alterations to the structure of
the exam grew from suggestions at other points in the workshops. These changes
did not involve major adjustments to assessment across the unit (as suggested by
Dalton). Planned possible changes included introducing an exam break and using
short answer, rather than essay-style questions to reduce the overall exam time.
As was witnessed in many exchanges across the workshops, policy/imposts on
lecturers took priority over students’ suggestions.
A contrasting excerpt is offered here to illustrate how interactions between
students and staff could lead to a more collaborative outcome.

FRANCINE: Sorry, I don’t know if this is right, but I know when I was doing my
practical exam something that I really wish I could’ve done was read out that
form out loud … I couldn’t speak it, it wasn’t going into my head.
UNIT CHAIR/COORDINATOR 1: In the past students have gone into a room at
the very start and have been able to set themselves up in there. That could
possibly be an option.
RESEARCHER 2: I’m wondering, I don’t know how the practical exams take
place, but the examiner could simply just ask the student if they wanted to
read it out loud as well too, the prompt.
UNIT CHAIR/COORDINATOR 1: They’re all in, for optometry, they’re all in
a hallway quite close to each other. If they did read things out, the person
next to them will hear it. We can’t let that before they go in but definitely
when they enter the station, it’s an option. They might not be aware that
they can do that.
218 J. Dargusch, L. Harris, and M. Bearman

RESEARCHER 1: Yes. I wonder how things will go if there is still a need for
more online versions of these things versus face-to-face things because
obviously, like what Francine said about reading it out, if you’re at home
by yourself then there’s no barrier to being able to talk through stuff,
which there obviously is if you’re in a crowded space with other students
around.

The participants problematised Francine’s practical solution in order to identify

how this could be implemented. In contrast with excerpt 1 (above), participants
saw possibilities for change that did not compromise the assessment’s integrity. In
the next offering of the unit, students were permitted to read aloud each practical
exam scenario (one of several changes made in response to suggestions).

Staff suggestions
Staff proposed substantive changes to assessment designs during the workshops
(see Table 19.3). In three of four units discussed, assessment changes were planned
for the next term in direct response to workshop suggestions. In the fourth unit,
the UC’s concerns about academic integrity meant the exam remained the same,
with the approach to exam preparation being the focus of change. In most cases,
and particularly at U1, planned changes did not need formal permissions through
academic committees, but could be changed by unit coordinators/chairs as part
of routine updates.

How did students evaluate their SaP experience?

Students’ reflections indicated that they valued the opportunity to have their
voices heard, with few feedback mechanisms available for SWDs within the uni-
versity system. For example, Dalton indicated that in the past, “I have felt voice-
less in many ways as a student”.
Students commented that there was a need for more sustained focus on student
stories, case studies, feedback, and interactions in the workshops, with a strong
message that more collaboration with SWDs would provoke change. As Francine
asserted, there was a need for:

More students in meetings. I understand others were invited but did not
attend but it seemed trying to fix issues without those who suffer the issues
in the room is kind of counter-intuitive, although I also understand the
research team does have this information from surveys.

Whilst students indicated that they personally felt comfortable and unintimi-
dated when engaging the workshops, they hypothesised that to get greater par-
ticipation from a range of SWDs, “other” ways for students to interact would be
needed to ensure that workshops were a “safe space” (Veronica).
 Negotiating inclusive assessment with student partners 219

Reflections on SaP in designing inclusive assessment

The project presented in this chapter had at its core aspirational notions of part-
nerships promoted in current research (Mercer-Mapstone, Islam, and Reid 2021)
and sought to include SWDs as partners to address questions of inclusion and
equity (Bovill et al. 2016). The research was underpinned by the understanding
that inclusive assessment design is only possible when SWDs are deeply involved
in the process in an environment where all participants are committed to change.
It was anticipated that SWDs would use their lived experience to help lecturers
recognise the impacts of assessment design on students and their learning, bring-
ing new ideas and insights to the design process, helping re-imagine the ways in
which assessment could be more inclusive. However, our results show that this
aspiration was variably and incompletely achieved.
Power imbalances can create obstacles in SaP projects (Matthews et al. 2018),
and structural issues of power were evident in this project at the level of rela-
tionships within the group, as well as at a university systems level. Despite trying
to create an environment that foregrounded mutual voices and contributions
between students and staff, students [with the exclusion of Dalton] predominantly
waited for questions/statements to be directed at them from the researchers to
enter the conversation. In many instances, teaching staff members problematised
student suggestions as a first response. There is a need for more active listening,
and a focus on unpacking and understanding, in keeping with Cook-Sather and
Felten’s (2017, 5) “ethic of reciprocity”. At the same time, it may be necessary to
recognise the limitations of SaP, that not all partnerships will be fruitful, and it
is hard for any educator to open their work for scrutiny.
This study also illustrated how university processes can act as roadblocks to
change. The motivation for change was tempered, and often dampened, by long
timelines required for approvals, reviews, and committee procedures. It is noted
that one of the universities in the study (U1) was more process-driven, with UCs
giving heavy emphasis to policy and compliance. It followed, therefore, that
the immediate changes that were made to assessments at U1 were restricted to
assessment design aspects within the UC’s control. System and institutional-level
change is necessary to address equity problems; long term changes should not
be ad hoc, or exist in discrete units, and tensions between responsiveness and
compliance should be acknowledged and rectified. Prioritising equity within
assessment, rather than equality (Harris and Dargusch 2020; Tierney 2013), may
assist with this shift. It is also worth considering that sometimes staff perceptions
of policy may not be the same as the policy itself; departmental engagement may
also be necessary (Bearman et al. 2017).
SWDs’ substantive and useful contributions in our SaP project demonstrated
the importance of their input into assessment decisions if we want to move
towards equity. However, when involving diverse SWDs, physical and psycho-
social challenges that might exist around their participation must be proactively
addressed. The online workshops in this study were scheduled with consideration
220 J. Dargusch, L. Harris, and M. Bearman

of students’ work and study commitments, and included other affordances (e.g.,
physical safety during the pandemic, participants’ choice to have their camera
on or off ). Despite these advantages, it is possible that the online environment
may have impacted group cohesion. Consideration should therefore be given to
how to involve SWDs in ways that allow them to engage comfortably in various
modes and spaces/places. This might include, as these students suggested, differ-
ent ways of interacting (e.g., writing into the chat instead of speaking); it might
also mean more flexibility around attendance. Consistent with our SaP method-
ology, we believe future projects would benefit from student involvement in the
project design to ensure that eventual mechanisms for student engagement with
staff allow full participation for all within the group.
There are many reasons to continue research into, and use of, SaP processes.
The types of discrete, small-scale studies reported in the literature (Mercer-
Mapstone et al. 2017) are limited in scope and generalisability. Studies such as
this one provide insights into the ways in which SWDs can be invited to help
staff overcome assumptions about how assessment design impacts on students,
and the ways in which issues of power can influence such exchanges. If, as Dalton
remarked, SWDs such as himself are “voiceless” in HE, then partnership prac-
tices are a key first step to providing a more inclusive university experience, but
all partners must be committed to encourage students’ ideas and actively listen
to them. To reach this aim, universities must overcome a tendency to generalise
about student needs and provide many more opportunities to include diverse
student voices in co-generative, dialogic approaches to assessment design.

References
Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. 2005.
“Disability Standards for Education.” Last modified on Thursday 15 April 2021. https://
www.dese.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005.
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D., and Joughin, G.
2017. “How University Teachers Design Assessments: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.”
Higher Education 74 (1): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0027-7.
Bessant, J. 2012. “‘Measuring Up’? Assessment and Students with Disabilities in the
Modern University.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 16 (3): 265–281. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.489119.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., and Moore-Cherry, N. 2016. “Addressing
Potential Challenges in Co-Creating Learning and Teaching: Overcoming Resistance,
Navigating Institutional Norms and Ensuring Inclusivity in Student–Staff Partnerships.”
Higher Education 71 (2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4.
CAST. 2018. “Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2.” http://udlguidelines.
cast.org.
Cook-Sather, A., and Felten, P. 2017. “Where Student Engagement Meets Faculty
Development: How Student-Faculty Pedagogical Partnership Fosters a Sense of
Belonging.” Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 1 (2): 3–11.
Dwyer, A. 2018. “Toward the Formation of Genuine Partnership Spaces.” International
Journal for Students as Partners 2 (1): 11–15. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijSaP.v2i1.3503.
 Negotiating inclusive assessment with student partners 221

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., and Buchanan, R. 2019. “University Student
Perspectives on Institutional Non-Disclosure of Disability and Learning Challenges:
Reasons for Staying Invisible.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 23 (6):
639–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507.
Harris, L. R., and Dargusch, J. 2020. “Catering for Diversity in the Digital Age:
Reconsidering Equity In Assessment Practices.” In Re-Imagining University Assessment in
a Digital World, edited by Margaret Bearman, Phillip Dawson, Rola Ajjawi, Joanna Tai,
and David Boud, 95–110. Berlin: Springer.
Healey, M., Flint, A., and Harrington, K. 2016. “Students as Partners: Reflections on a
Conceptual Model.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 4 (2): 8–20. https://doi.org/10.20343/
teachlearninqu.4.2.3.
Hockings, C. 2010. Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of
Research. EvidenceNet, Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/
knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research.
Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis, M., Roelofs,
F., and Van Dam, L. 2017. “Moving towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching:
A Synthesis of Recent Literature.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 5 (1): 9–21. https://
doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.3.
Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., and Turner, J. 2018. “Conceptions of Students as
Partners.” Higher Education 76 (6): 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten,
P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., and Swaim, K. 2017. “A Systematic
Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education.” International Journal
for Students as Partners 1 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijSaP.v1i1.3119.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Islam, M., and Reid, T. 2021. “Are We Just Engaging ‘the Usual
Suspects’? Challenges in and Practical Strategies for Supporting Equity and Diversity
in Student–Staff Partnership Initiatives.” Teaching in Higher Education 26 (2): 227–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1655396.
Morris, C., Milton, E., and Goldstone, R. 2019. “Case Study: Suggesting Choice: Inclu­
sive Assessment Processes.” Higher Education Pedagogies 4 (1): 435–447. https://doi:10.1080/
23752696.2019.1669479.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Dargusch, J., Dracup, M., and Harris, L. 2022.
Re-Imagining Exams: How Do Assessment Adjustments Impact on Inclusion. Final Report
for the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.
edu.au/publications/exams-assessment-adjustments-inclusion/.
Tierney, R. D. 2013. “Fairness in Classroom Assessment.” In SAGE Handbook of Research
on Classroom Assessment, edited by James H. McMillan, 125–144. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
20
ADDRESSING INEQUITY
Students’ recommendations on how
to make assessment more inclusive

Shannon Krattli, Daniella Prezioso,

and Mollie Dollinger

Introduction
In July 2021, the student co-authors of this project (Shannon and Daniella) saw a
job opportunity to become paid student partners on a research project exploring
how assessment could be more inclusive and equitable to diverse students. While
we all had our own motivations for applying, what struck us was the uniqueness of
the job. Staff were asking us – students – to help them understand how to design
assessment. And staff were naming us – students – as their partners. Was this real?
As we learned through the project, the topic of inclusion in assessment is
increasingly discussed by scholars and educators (Hanesworth, Bracken, and
Elkington 2019; McArthur 2016; Nieminen 2022). However, missing from
the discussion is students’ expertise on how assessment could be improved. Too
often, students are seen only as a data source, for example, as attendees in a focus
group or participants in a survey. These opportunities do not allow for students
to freely, over time, share their ideas and recommendations, and through train-
ing and support, become co-researchers in this important topic.
Some readers may ask, why is it important for students to be co-researchers?
Our answer is that because as recipients of the education provided to us, we are
truly the ones who can evaluate its quality. For example, McArthur (2016) uses
an analogy by Nussbaum (2006) to illustrate the importance of moving beyond
procedural evaluation:

…[imagine] if a cook has a fancy, sophisticated pasta-maker, and assures their

guests that the pasta made in this machine will be, by definition, [the best]
…[because] it is the best machine on the market. But surely … the guests
will want to taste the pasta and see for themselves and [judge if they agree].

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-24
 Addressing inequity with student partners 223

This analogy highlights how students see learning design. It’s not that stu-
dents don’t trust educators to do their best research and use the best practice to
design our learning experiences. But just because they have taken their time
and tried their hardest does not mean, necessarily, that it is the best experience
for students. Only we – students – can taste the pasta and judge for ourselves.
And further, it is important to note that we will not all give the same evalua-
tion. It depends on our subjectivities, for example, our preferred study strategies
or environments, the topics that interest us, and the varied supports that we
need. But by including us as co-researchers, scholars and educators can mini-
mise the gap between what they think is best, and what we need to succeed in
our learning.
In this chapter, we will reflect on what we have learned in this students as
partners (SaP) research project exploring inclusion and equity in assessment. We
will provide an overview of the project and then discuss our three key recom-
mendations. Our recommendations are informed both by the co-design work-
shops that we facilitated with our peers (n = 52), and our own reflections and
experiences as students. Finally, we will conclude by advocating for others to
embed a SaP approach in their future research.

Background to our project

Our SaP project took place at Deakin University, a research-intensive univer-
sity located in Australia. The project began when six staff from various central
areas (e.g., a research centre for assessment, Office of the Dean of Students, an
academic development unit, and a disability resource centre), recruited five stu-
dent partners (including co-authors Shannon and Daniella) to join the team as
paid members. The team then worked together to create a co-design work-
shop protocol using the CoLab model. CoLabs are one- to two-hour-long co-
design workshops, in this case held online, where a range of participatory design
methods are used to facilitate dialogue and co-investigate challenges or areas for
improvement within the university (Dollinger and Vanderlelie 2021). The aim
of the CoLab in this project was to elicit students’ participants perspectives on
inclusive assessment.
The participatory design activities applied in the CoLab were scaffolded, and
ranged from storyboarding, mind maps, role playing, and persona generation.
Unlike focus groups, which are primarily aimed at “investigating shared beliefs
among cohorts, or trends across participants’ experience” (Dollinger, Eaton, and
Vanderlelie 2021, 1), CoLabs are designed to support cross-cohort collaboration
and idea generation.
After a literature review and group discussions, two CoLab protocols were
designed by the team with input from both staff and student partners. Each pro-
tocol was conducted three times for a total of six workshops. A total of 52 student
participants attended a CoLab, from a range of disciplines and year levels.
224 S. Krattli, D. Prezioso, and M. Dollinger

TABLE 20.1 Overview of protocols A and B

Scaffolded activity Protocol A Protocol B

Activity 1 Icebreaker activity where Icebreaker activity where students

students reflect on what reflect on their personal goals for
words come to mind when completing assessment
they think about assessment
Activity 2 Students work in small groups Students work in small groups to
to create a mind map on create a mind map on what teachers
what they have found should consider when designing or
challenging about assessment implementing assessment
Activity 3 Students work in small groups Students read fictional stories about
to co-create a campaign to assessment in small groups and then
support students navigating discuss potential solutions that
assessments would have helped the student

Please see the Table 20.1 for an overview of CoLab activities. Note: CoLabs
were hosted online, and the team used a combination of Zoom, Mentimeter, and
Padlet software to support activities. Student partners were the facilitators of the
workshops, while staff attended to take notes.
In each of the above activities, the student participants were allocated Zoom
breakout rooms with one student partner to facilitate and one staff member to
take additional notes, as some of the feedback may occur outside of the software
(e.g., a spoken comment not recorded on the online whiteboard). To analyse
the data the team worked in pairs (one student and one staff ) and thematically
grouped data into overarching ideas, common experiences, or as seen below,
recommendations for improving inclusion.

In dialogue: Students’ ideas for inclusive assessment

In this section, we will now present three themes which support inclusive assess-
ment for diverse students. To add depth to these recommendations, we will
present each recommendation with data drawn from the workshops, as well as
student authors’ reflections.

1. Creating empathetic relationships between staff and students

The first theme identified in our data was creating empathetic relationships
between staff and students. Teacher empathy for students has been previously
defined as “the degree to which an instructor works to deeply understand
students’ personal ad social situations, to feel care and concern in response
to students’ positive and negative emotions, and to respond compassionately
without losing the focus on student learning” (Meyers et al. 2019, 161). From
the workshop data, as well as our reflections, there was a clear message that
teachers could do more to acknowledge the challenges faced by students.
Diverse students may have multiple priorities, including work, family, and
 Addressing inequity with student partners 225

balancing their health, which means study may not always be their main
goal. Rather than treat these other priorities as excuses, students want to be
treated with respect as mature adults. An example of this from our data was
when students felt uncomfortable having to provide explicit reasons for an
extension request for their assessments.
We also recommend from the data and our reflections for staff to feel
more open about encouraging their own stressors or challenges as a way to
create a friendlier learning environment. One student summarised this sen-
timent for the workshops with,

Lecturer-student relationships should go both ways. Lecturers being aware

not all students are created equal, different circumstances, living, financial
stressors, obligations. As well, back the other way.

In fact, the student co-authors felt that when staff share aspects of their
personal or work life, students can also get a glimpse of their lives, and by
consequence understand staff’s busy schedules.
Another example of the importance of empathy emerged when students
shared experiences of when they were put down by teachers when asking for
additional clarification or help. One student voiced,

[My teacher] met me in the practicals and belittled me for not doing some-
thing right. Teachers need more empathy – there is a reason student are
struggling. The teachers – I feel like they don’t care.

Student co-authors also discussed similar experiences and suggested that

some teachers may forget that students are often doing practicals or assign-
ments for the first time. Therefore, it’s a key recommendation that teachers
should reflect on what it must be like for students and approach the topic or
assessment with empathy for them.
Finally, students stressed there should be less stigma around failure in
their subjects and more support for mental health and wellbeing resources.
Failure doesn’t mean the student won’t succeed and it can be incredibly
daunting when teachers begin units with phrases such as “50% of students
will fail this unit”. Rather than focus on the fail rate, we suggest that
teachers focus on educating students on tips and resources and reminding
them of alternate pathways to success. One student shared with us their
summary of this,

Encourage students to look after one another, mental health situations are
not well explored. Knowing that there are resources out there, but also less
focus on failure and the stigma around failing an exam [it doesn’t mean
you aren’t] as good.
226 S. Krattli, D. Prezioso, and M. Dollinger

Teachers can achieve this through reminders to students about resources

available to them (such as study sessions or mental health workshops), not
just at the beginning of the subject but throughout. As well as providing
students with the confidence that they can succeed despite setbacks they
may experience.
2. Ensuring assessment instructions, rubrics, and criteria are consistent and clear
The second theme identified in our data is ensuring assessment instructions,
rubrics and criteria are consistent and clear. From the evidence gathered in
the workshops and our reflections, students frequently brought up the incon-
sistencies between assessment instructions, rubrics and other resource mate-
rials which made completing assessments more difficult and time consuming.
For example, oral instructions in class may not match what was included in
the rubric provided on the learning management system or the instructions
may be vague or ambiguous. Students expressed this in workshops with,

Every course is a bit different, and the structure is not very explicit, teach-
ers say things on the fly, which is fine, but they don’t say what they actually
want. For example, the marking criteria are often vague, this is confusing.
Sometimes I have done research and then found out it isn’t needed. The
assessment criteria needs to be more explicit.
Another challenge is when you get instructions for the assignment, a
rubric, FAQs, additional material, notes from a lecture and notes from
a discussion board. You end up trying to collate 7 sets of instructions
which don’t always align. So, lots of time spent/wasted working out what
they want.

Student co-authors recommend for a method or guide to be created for the

markers to follow to ensure less variation across assessment marking pro-
cesses. This can be a generalised resource that can be adjusted to the needs
of the unit in various courses. This could, for example, be a checklist for
teachers to ensure all instructions are consistent and that every tutor follows
a similar marking process.
Moreover, the difference between achieving a high distinction (HD) in
comparison to a distinction (D) criterion in the rubric was often cited as
unclear, and potentially, linking to an inefficient use of students’ time as
they struggle to make sense of the rubric. As Carless and Chan (2017) have
previously noted, students may have a difficult time understanding what
“good” work looks like, without examples. Sometimes, as we have person-
ally experienced, the difference in the rubric between HD and D could be
as slight as one or two words. We suggest that one way to tackle this issue is
for teachers to provide examples of what would meet an HD versus a D and
perhaps even commentary to highlight the difference between. If teachers
were worried about plagiarism, they could use a different subject topic that
the one in question.
 Addressing inequity with student partners 227

3. One easily accessible location

Finally, the last theme identified in our data was that students preferred to
have all learning resources, including any articles, examples, or rubrics, on
one easily accessible location, and from the start of the unit. This is par-
ticularly pertinent for equity students because students may be balancing
health, family, or work commitments and strive to have flexibility around
when they complete assessments. Having everything available from the start
also recognises that every student learns at their own pace, and by providing
resources upfront, some students may be able to learn better. Students in the
workshop also expressed a similar recommendation with,

All resources on the cloud should be available at the beginning as [this]

helps with preparation and planning.
The piecemeal information about the assessment drip fed badly. Would
be good to have all the pieces well before the due date of the assessment.
All information about assessment should be recorded and stored in one
place so that all students can access it beforehand for planning.

Linking to this, students also felt it was important that unit chairs con-
sider which resources to recommend and condense these resources for stu-
dents, to avoid students feeling overwhelmed. For example, creating one
document that links to several key articles that students can use to start
their research as well as an FAQ with common questions that students may
have. Discussion boards were also seen as critical to support student success
because they can support informal dialogue, as well as opportunities to get
further clarification.

Additional considerations relating to assessment

In addition to the three key themes listed above, we have several other reflections
to share based both on our own experiences as diverse students as well as what we
learned from our peers in the workshops. The first reflection is that many of the
changes requested by students to make learning more accessible should be quite
straightforward for teachers. These include enabling subtitles on Zoom or MS
Teams, recording all online lectures, videos, or practicals for later access, hav-
ing description text for any images, and ensuring file types are compatible with
audio readers. These modifications can help improve inclusivity in assessment,
for example, if there is a video that the student must watch before taking a quiz,
subtitles would help support diverse learners. While these modifications may be
time consuming in the first instance, they will ensure that the unit is accessible
for students for many years to come.
Another aspect frequently discussed by students was around how flexibility
was integrated into the learning design. To illustrate, a student with chronic
illness may struggle to participate in a four-hour practical tutorial that is required
228 S. Krattli, D. Prezioso, and M. Dollinger

to complete an assessment task. However, if some of the tutorial could be pre-

audio recorded, for example the instructions given beforehand, then the overall
duration of the practical could be reduced. As a bonus, by providing the instruc-
tions prior it may also reduce anxiety for students. Similarly, quizzes for students
should ideally have multiple attempts allowed, to reduce stress for students, and
acknowledge that some students may be having a bad day or may have a flare
up of their condition. If the quiz must be completed in one take, another option
would be to allow for a larger window for which it must be taken and give the
student ample time to choose when they would like to complete it.
The student partners involved in this project, as well as the participants we
spoke to, also reflected on the importance of learning access plans. Learning access
plans (also known as access plans or individual study plans) are study support plans
that aim to minimise disadvantages in the learning environments resulting from
a disability, health condition, mental health condition or caring responsibility.
Typically, students need to declare a disability, and potentially submit medical
evidence, to request specific adjustments, such as more time on an exam. These
adjustments can vastly support students’ learning. Yet many students we spoke
to reported not knowing that they qualified for a learning access plan until well
into their course. And, more troubling, is that many students indicated the varia-
tion of how these plans were accepted by their teaching staff (also see Becker and
Palladino 2016). For instance, one teacher might acknowledge the students’ access
plan unprompted, and email the student that they were supportive and, if appli-
cable, extra time would be given. While another teacher in a different unit may
never acknowledge the plan unless a student emails them asking for confirmation,
and even then, may dispute giving them extra time. This variation of practice is
unacceptable. There needs to be additional training for staff on what an access plan
is and how students who have one should be treated. Students with an access plan
should not have to “prove” additional hardship to their individual unit chairs.
Lastly, we think it’s important to acknowledge that our findings and reflec-
tions here arose because the project took a SaP approach. As well documented in
literature, there are numerous benefits to SaP, both for the individuals involved
but also for the university (Dollinger and Lodge 2020; Mercer-Mapstone et al.
2017). By working with students, we can harness their lived experiences and
expertise and get an on-the-ground point of view on what is needed to sup-
port student success. More research like this should be undertaken, and teachers
should also consider other SaP mechanisms such as user-testing their resources or
curriculum with students, and even hosting CoLabs with students to understand
issues they may be facing in their teaching practice.

Conclusion
Our findings build on previous literature which has highlighted the importance
of staff training and awareness to support inclusive assessment design (Nieminen
2022; Tai, Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021). Yet as we argued, and showcase here,
 Addressing inequity with student partners 229

students should play a pivotal role in future work to understand what practical
ways teachers can improve inclusion in assessment. Therefore, the value of this
project was that it was designed to give diverse students a voice to share their ideas
on how to make assessments at university more inclusive and equitable. Engaging
students as partners and listening to the students in the workshops provided the
opportunity for students to raise concerns and speak to the inequity they have
faced. The process also gave students a sense of relief knowing that these impor-
tant issues are being heard and taken into consideration for further improvement.
CoLabs proved to be a useful model to eliciting students’ feedback and gener-
ating practical ideas on how assessment design can be more inclusive to diverse
students. The three recommendations provided in this chapter, creating empa-
thetic relationships, ensuring consistent and clear instructions and rubrics, and
having all assessment information in one easily accessible location are uncompli-
cated steps any teacher can take to improve inclusion.
Even though the participants of this project were from different academic
backgrounds and neurodivergence, we have had similar experiences and are
advocating for the same thing – equity. As we showcased in this chapter, it was
this common goal, and the leverage of our unique experiences and insights, that
helped us uncover how we could make assessment more inclusive. We urge for
further projects that involve cross-cohort collaborations between student and
staff to make the best out of everyone’s academic journey.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the other research team members who
were integral to collecting data and analysing results, including Rola Ajjawi, Sam
Bohra, Marina Booth, Harmeet Kaur, Danni McCarthy, Merrin McCracken,
Trina Jorre St Jorre, and Joanna Tai.

References
Becker, S., and Palladino, J. 2016. “Assessing Faculty Perspectives about Teaching
and Working with Students with Disabilities.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability 29 (1): 65–82.
Carless, D., and Chan, K. K. H. 2017. “Managing Dialogic Use of Exemplars.” Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (6): 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2016.1211246.
Dollinger, M., Eaton, R., and Vanderlelie, J. 2021. “Reinventing the Focus Group:
Introducing Design Thinking CoLabs.” https://unistars.org/papers/STARS2021/
03B.pdf.
Dollinger, M., and Lodge, J. 2020. “Understanding Value in the Student Experience
through Student–Staff Partnerships.” Higher Education Research and Development 39 (5):
940–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1695751.
Dollinger, M., and Vanderlelie, J. 2021. “Closing the Loop: Co-designing with Students
for Greater Market Orientation.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 31 (1): 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1757557.
230 S. Krattli, D. Prezioso, and M. Dollinger

Hanesworth, P., Bracken, S., and Elkington, S. 2019. “A Typology for a Social Justice
Approach to Assessment: Learning from Universal Design and Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (1): 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13562517.2018.1465405.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten,
P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., and Swaim, K. 2017. “A Systematic
Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education.” International Journal
for Students as Partners 1(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119.
Meyers, S., Rowell, K., Wells, M., and Smith, B. C. 2019. “Teacher Empathy: A Model
of Empathy for Teaching for Student Success.” College Teaching 67 (3):160–168. https://
doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579699.
Nieminen, J. 2022. “Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Inclusive Assessment in
Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.
2021.2021395.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
21
MOVING FORWARD
Mainstreaming assessment
for inclusion in curricula

Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, Joanna Tai,

and Trina Jorre de St Jorre

The book has focused on assessment because assessment shapes and directs student
learning; it is the assessment system that formally defines what is worth learning.
The chapter authors have brought together a diversity of perspectives to explore,
conceptualise, and problematise assessment for inclusion as well as showcasing
good practice. In this final chapter, we make some concluding remarks and draw
themes from across the book to reflect ways forward for assessment for inclusion.
Assessment for inclusion has both pragmatic and conceptual features. Focussing
on immediate practical solutions alone is unlikely to be sufficient, given the phil-
osophical roots of inclusion in the promise that education will contribute to a
better world for both the individual and society more widely. Concomitantly,
only working in abstract or theoretical spaces will not help to change practice.
There is a great need to collaborate across disciplinary and organisational bound-
aries to build upon ideas, rather than operating in silos, if we are to mainstream
assessment for inclusion. Given the diversity we seek to acknowledge and support
within higher education, there are likely to be many people who can contribute
to re-casting assessment for inclusion, from a range of perspectives. Academics,
researchers, practitioners, academic developers, industry, professional bodies, and
students themselves. The backgrounds, philosophies, theories, and practices, these
people bring will also be diverse – beyond those which we have outlined within
research fields. At this early stage of considering assessment within a broader goal
of inclusion, we should be open to what each can bring, and work on finding
resonances and commonalities to make substantial advances in assessment.
It is also important to note that this work cannot exist solely within academic
research journals, or handbooks for assessment design, or even student advocacy
agendas: it must promulgate across these spaces to achieve change in what happens
on the ground. It is of no use to talk about wonderful new types of assessment
designs which might improve inclusion, if they are never implemented or proven

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-25
232 R. Ajjawi et al.

to be effective. It is not just wide sweeping changes, due the pandemic, that have
made an impact for diverse students already (Tai et al. 2022a). We should also look
to our own “backyards” and see what can be done incrementally, since these small
things may make the difference between students choosing a different course
(or worse – discontinuing study) or persisting with their chosen course/degree.
In the end, it is not educators who determine what is inclusive, it is the students
and their future trajectories or their absences from them. We need to be observant
about not only who is present in our courses, but as importantly, who is absent or
under-represented.
Assessment design is often simply an accretion from tradition (Dawson et al.
2013), and yet, academics often justify specific designs by referring to the “real
world”. Assessment’s fabricated constraints, and thus currently allowed adjust-
ments, do not withstand scrutiny when we consider this juxtaposition: after all,
the rules are themselves social constructions and can therefore be subject to alter-
ation (McArthur 2016). Therefore, in this book and beyond, we call for engage-
ment and involvement at every level to improve assessment for inclusion.
While the chapters in this book have focused primarily on assessment, we also
need to reflect on inclusion in other aspects of the curriculum. We cannot look at
assessment independently of what else is happening in the course. The backwash
effect of assessment is on learning and all aspects of the curriculum: the intended
learning outcomes and learning and teaching activities (Biggs and Tang 2011).
So, while we might start our focus on assessment we need to look backwards
to learning and teaching activities, the context in which they occur, and the
learning outcomes desired. Intended learning outcomes should be formulated in
ways that are not so limited that they do not permit students to work on different
things and still meet the learning outcomes. They may not need to be so depend-
ent on specific subject content that they exclude equivalent demonstrations of
meeting learning outcomes as is currently assumed. Some current learning out-
comes may be inappropriately exclusionary and need to be rethought. It is also
worth noting that while we have adopted the language of inclusion in this book,
inclusion can be tokenistic if a student is merely counted but does not feel like
they belong or are active participants with a voice. Inclusion is not just a technical
requirement, it encompasses students being part of what is being assessed.
As editors, in reflecting on the various chapters, there are common refrains
that we can draw out: 1) that students should take an active and agentic role in
assessment; 2) that inclusion needs to become a mainstay of regulatory frame-
works that govern assessment from design through to evaluation; 3) that teachers
need to adopt ethical reflexivity; and 4) that more diverse discourses need to be
embedded to disrupt positivist and ableist discourses of assessment.

1. Students as agentic
Several chapters in this book showed how students needed to be positioned as
active actors in the assessment process in order to be included. This can be as
partners involved in the design of assessment (Chapters 19 and 20), as actively
 Mainstreaming assessment for inclusion 233

choosing the assessment method (Chapter 17 and 18), or as contributing to

the evaluation of the effects of assessment (Chapters 15 and 16). Nieminen
(2022) argues that it is only when students are positioned in an agentic role
within assessment that we can disrupt traditional practices in which assess-
ment may be experienced as being foisted on or done to students.
While feedback has not been explicitly addressed in this book, it often
occurs in conjunction with assessment, and we recognise that it has an
important role to play in ensuring that assessment is inclusive. Feedback is a
key opportunity for tailoring the curriculum to individual student needs and
work. If feedback is designed well, then it too should position the student as
active in the processes of seeking, interpreting, and taking action on feedback
to inform learning. Lambert, Funk, and Adam (Chapter 5) remind us that
feedback that acknowledges diversity and culture should not come from a
deficit discourse. Johnstone, Ketterlin Geller, and Thurlow (Chapter 12) note
that universal design for assessment includes improving the accessibility of
feedback through multiple means of delivery.
However, as cautioned by several of the authors in the book, any changes
to assessment regimes can lead to student anxiety and stress. We caution
about offering too many options to students to avoid inappropriately over-
loading them. O’Neill recommends offering two options (or alternatives)
only. However, that change might cause stress should not stop us from
improving assessment. Instead, it behoves us to advise and support students
so they understand why changes were made and how their new role in
assessment might benefit their learning. Chapters in the book pay atten-
tion to specific student groups: Indigenous (Chapter 4), mature age students
living in regional and remote areas (Chapter 16), students from low socio-
economic status backgrounds (Chapter 13), international students (Chapter 14),
and students with disabilities (Chapters 19, 20), showing a diverse range of
students and needs. However, we agree with Crawford, Emery, and Baird
(Chapter 16) that this is not about stereotyping “types” of students, rather,
our intention is to highlight diversity, while also acknowledging that stu-
dents have complex identities and can belong to other groups that may
impact their experiences of assessment.
2. Regulatory frameworks of inclusion
Course handbooks and unit guides prompt teachers to construct defensible
descriptions of assessment tasks. If these are not regularly questioned by col-
leagues, traditional practices are perpetuated. This benign neglect can harm
students through unaware exclusion.
Brett and Harvey (Chapter 9), in their policy analysis, show that inclu-
sion is often absent from assessment policy statements and that there are
weak accountability and evaluation frameworks for assessment for inclusion.
Worryingly, they show that reporting frameworks for equity groups have
remained mostly static for the past three decades. These policy frameworks
require augmenting “with a more nuanced understanding of how inclusion
234 R. Ajjawi et al.

and diversity play out within the student experience”. Beyond this, we must
look to how the increasing manifestation of artificial intelligence and edu-
cational technology (e.g., proctoring) in assessment are unwittingly embed-
ding bias and exclusion through taking highly selected groups as representing
the whole. New forms of accountability and regulation might be needed to
prompt ethical decision-making around these new technologies (Chapter 11).
These are not simply administrative tasks. We should have more scrutiny of
assessment practices that are educational rather than bureaucratic.
Any form of scrutiny can be misused and can perpetuate conservative
practices. Whitburn and Thomas (Chapter 7, 76) remind us how “regulatory
compliance is at the fore when compelling students to disclose disabilities to
institutions, as a way to ensure that they can then expect reasonable adjust-
ments to be made to their programs of learning, rather than to consider the
inclusiveness and accessibility of courses”. Following the rules is not good
enough: ethical reflexivity and flexibility are required alongside regulation.
3. Ethical reflexivity, relationality, and flexibility to influence assessment practices
A broad survey of the higher education landscape suggests that student
diversity has increased (Marginson 2016). Assessment philosophy has also
changed, moving beyond testing what was taught to include assessment for
learning and sustainable notions of assessment (Boud and Soler 2016). This
implies that we need a different relationship between students and teach-
ers. Gleeson and Fletcher (Chapter 4) remind us that education is funda-
mentally relational – it occurs through people working together. Strong
student-teacher relationships foster inclusion (Tai et al. 2022b). The big
challenge is to get educators to think differently about assessment. And
to think carefully about who their students are and who is and isn’t being
accommodated by current assessment regimes.
Part of the inertia that surrounds the design of assessment is that assessment
regimes are set within rigid systems of quality assurance. Decisions about
assessment must be made well in advance of knowing which students are
enrolled. These early decisions, made without direct knowledge of who will
be affected by them, cannot be unmade or revisited and so the main recourse
for inclusion are individual accommodations that are peripheral to task design
(e.g., extra time, breaks or rooms). We need more flexibility in the system
and allowance for professional and ethical decision-making by academic and
course teams.
Many authors have argued that assessment should orient towards social
justice, including the key proponent of assessment for social justice Jan
McArthur (Chapter 2). Working out what social justice might involve
requires considerable prompting to encourage conversations about what this
might look like in particular disciplines and how this can be embedded in
courses. The implication that follows is that this would lead to greater satis-
faction for staff as well. Fostering communities of praxis and ethical reflex-
ivity may be needed to reimagine inclusivity not through the lens of deficit
 Mainstreaming assessment for inclusion 235

but through the collective interrogation of whose knowledges, values and

experiences are included and excluded in assessment frameworks (Chapter 8).
There is also a need for better education of institutional staff, from academ-
ics, support staff, and web designers through to senior managers, on the
legislative requirements and moral imperatives of inclusion (Chapter 9).
4. Alternative discourses and ways of knowing
Many authors in the book sought to disrupt hegemonic ableist discourses of
assessment that draw on linear Western models of education (Chapters 2–8),
systematically dismantling practices that might on the face of it appear neu-
tral, but that perpetuate systemic disadvantage. The theoretical frameworks
invoked include decolonialism, critical disability theories, social justice,
Indigenous ways of knowing, ontology, and internationalisation. For exam-
ple, giving all students a fixed length of time assumes that time itself is equal
for all students including those who might have caring or work responsibili-
ties or those with chronic conditions that ebb and flow in severity. The main
recourse for these students at present is through individual accommodation
to make the system seem fairer. And yet this requires more paperwork, doc-
tor visits and emotional work to disclose and convince what may seem to be
unsympathetic ears (Chapter 12). Why have a discourse that creates addi-
tional burdens on those students who may already have the greatest burdens
to bear? An assessment discourse that starts from the premise that all students
should be able to demonstrate how they meet learning outcomes without
additional requirements for some is needed.
Continued adherence to the traditional notions of failure and success as
they are presently embedded within institutional processes can restrict the
capacity for more nuanced, inclusive assessment and risks further excluding
candidates whose understandings fall outside these narrowly defined posi-
tions (Chapter 15). Indeed, O’Shea and Delahunty (Chapter 15) critique
practices of grading as pinning self-worth to a score – which McArthur
(Chapter 2) argues is a degrading act.
Dawson (Chapter 10) tackles the big question of whether our present exclu-
sionary assessments practices are a fundamental threat to the validity of assess-
ment. If assessment misrepresents what some students are capable of, how can
we accept it as valid? He suggests that we need to reconceptualise notions of
fairness in assessment in higher education to focus on equity not equality. Are
assessments able to judge who and who has not met the learning outcomes
of a course rather than who can answer questions oriented to students with
certain characteristics? We need to consider whose notion of validity is valid
and who contributes to the definition of validity. Alongside this there needs
to be reengagement with the discourse of fairness in assessment – beyond
procedural fairness (i.e., transparency) and measurement fairness (i.e., absence
of bias) to being receptive to diversity (Tierney 2013). Research by Valentine
et al. (2021, 2022) suggests that fair assessment should accept subjectivities and
privilege a more narrative approach to assessment.
236 R. Ajjawi et al.

No matter how thoroughly the notion of inclusion is debated and enacted,

there will continue to be a need for both universal design for assessment and
accommodations for individual students (Chapter 12). However, the balance
is currently tipped far towards individual adjustments in our systems (Tai,
Ajjawi, and Umarova 2021) and not enough on what will work for all.
Critical universal design is an on-going process that takes ableism seriously
(Chapter 3).
The book has been mostly silent about the pandemic. That is because
the problems with inclusive assessment well and truly predate COVID-19.
However, it is likely that the shift to emergency remote teaching and assess-
ment highlighted the multiple sources of inequity arising from difficult home
situations and the digital divide (Bartolic et al. 2022). The aftermath of the
disruption caused by the pandemic might be an opportune time to challenge
that which has been taken for granted in our assessment practices. One pre-
diction that is particularly appealing to us comes from Peters et al. (2020, 720):

Universities have the possibility to emerge from this pandemic as places of

compassion, of wisdom and worthiness. … [to] become places where prior
privilege does not give priority in engagement, where international respect
flourishes for their students, not for their bank accounts, where recognition
of diversity, equality and inclusion are the premises of formalised education
and where humanity can flourish with the transdisciplinary humility the
rest of our world is owed. The opportunity is a new educative focus not a
new business model.

In conclusion, we hope that this book opens new conversations and investi-
gations about assessment for inclusion. We ask educators to take courage in
changing assessment and to work with students to take on this challenge. We
urge the sector to fund and support continued research and development in
assessment for inclusion. Finally, we look forward to the flourishing of new
collaborations and conversations about assessment for inclusion.

References
Bartolic, S. K., Matzat, U., Tai, J., Burgess, J.-L., Boud, D., Craig, H., and Archibald,
A., et al. 2022. “Student Vulnerabilities and Confidence in Learning in the Context
of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Studies in Higher Education. http://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2022.2081679.
Biggs, J., and Tang, C. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student
Does, rev. ed. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and the
Open University Press.
Boud, D., and Soler, R. 2016. “Sustainable Assessment Revisited.” Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (3): 400–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.
1018133.
 Mainstreaming assessment for inclusion 237

Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Boud, D. J., Hall, M., Molloy, E. K., and Bennett, S. 2013.
“Assessment Might Dictate the Curriculum, But What Dictates Assessment?” Teaching &
Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL 1 (1):107–111. http://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.107.
Marginson, S. 2016. “The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education:
Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems.” Higher Education 72 (4):
413–434. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x.
McArthur, J. 2016. “Assessment for Social Justice: The Role of Assessment in Achieving
Social Justice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 967–981. http://
doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429.
Nieminen, J. H. 2022. “Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Inclusive Assessment in
Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.
2021395.
Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., and Hwang,
Y., et al. 2020. “Reimagining the New Pedagogical Possibilities for Universities Post-
Covid-19.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 54 (6): 717–760. http://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2020.1777655.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Dargusch, J., Dracup, M., Harris, L., and Mahoney, P.
2022a. Re-imagining Exams: How Do Assessment Adjustments Impact on Inclusion? Perth,
Australia: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.
ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Tai_Deakin_Final.pdf.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., and Umarova, A. 2021. “How Do Students Experience Inclusive
Assessment? A Critical Review of Contemporary Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
Tai, J., Mahoney, P., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Dargusch, J., Dracup, M., and Harris, L.
2022b. “How Are Examinations Inclusive for Students with Disabilities in Higher
Education? A Sociomaterial Analysis.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2077910.
Tierney, R. D. 2013. “Fairness in Classroom Assessment.” In SAGE Handbook of Research
on Classroom Assessment, edited by James H. McMillan, 125–144. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Valentine, N., Durning, S. J., Shanahan, E. M., van der Vleuten, C., and Schuwirth,
L. 2022. “The Pursuit of Fairness in Assessment: Looking beyond the Objective.”
Medical Teacher 44 (4): 353–359. http://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2031943.
Valentine, N., Shanahan, E., Durning, M., and Schuwirth, S. J. L. 2021. “Making It Fair:
Learners’ and Assessors’ Perspectives of the Attributes of Fair Judgement.” Medical
Education 55 (9): 1056–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14574.
INDEX

ableism 31 competitive view 113; conceptual

academic integrity 110–119 tools for reimagining 88; conflation
access skills 186 with grading 174; created by human
accommodations 10, 63, 64, 132; limita- and non-human agents 81; criteria
tions of 131–141; see also adjustments 89; culturally inclusive model 56, 59;
Adam, T. 55, 56, 75, 76, 88, 147 decisions 21, 76; deconstructed 57;
adjustments 104, 111, 112; see also design 12, 22, 65, 66, 78, 211, 232;
accommodations demotivating 144; diversification 199;
Adorno, T. W. 21 employability skills 153–164; exclu-
Ahmed, S. 94 sionary 90; First Nations context 41;
Ajjawi, R. 10, 14, 15, 64, 65, 66, 69, 147, for inclusion 12, 59, 222–224; for social
178, 204, 236 justice 11, 19–29; fostering engage-
Akaaboune, O. 116 ment 148; generated in communities
Akinbosede, D. 105 of practice 89; impacts on students’
Alahmadi, T. 105 experiences 184; inclusive 110, 111,
Alessio, H. M. 116 194; inclusive and exclusive 178–188;
algorithmic bias 122 inclusive definition 11; informed
Alonso-Tapia, J. 192 by material-discursive practices 80;
Althaus, C. 98 interdependence in 34; mainstream-
Anderson, L. 100 ing choice of 203; mainstreaming for
Annamma, S. A. 31 inclusion 231; norm-referenced 113,
Arbon, V. 41 202; normalising alternatives 189–198;
Archer, L. 92 ontological 74–84; policy 103; princi-
Arkoudis, S. 148 ples for co-creating change 175; privi-
Armstrong, L. 199, 206 leges dominant cultural practices 143;
Artificial Intelligence 121, 122; enabled programmatic 15; purposes 21; signals
disadvantage and discrimination 125 importance 147; social justice 202;
Ashwin, P. 25 standardisation 131; standards-based
Ashworth, M. 13 113; student experiences 180; sustaina-
assessment: AI-enabled 120–130; as a ble 21, 190, 192, 196; unclear tasks 180;
technology 89; as centre of inclusion underlying meritocratic ideology 66;
work 71; as social justice 53; authentic unequal power relations 87; value to
25, 68, 69, 70, 191; choice 199–210; learners 148
 Index 239

authentic restrictions 115 Brown, S. 25, 117, 199

authentication 115 Bullen, J. 143
Bunbury, S. 76, 80
Baglieri, S. 30, 35 Burgstahler, S. 187
Baik, C. 148 Burke, P. J. 9, 20, 53, 54, 75, 77, 88, 89,
Bailey, M. 31 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 142, 187
Baker-Bell, A. 53 Burnheim, C. 98
Bali, M. 61 Butterfield, K. D. 110
Ballard, B. 154
Barocas, S. 120, 122, 126 Cakitaki, B. 99
barriers to success 168 Camp, W. 168
Bartolic, S. K. 236 Campbell, F. K. 31
Barton, G. 155 Campbell, M. 157
Bates, P. 55 Carless, D. 70, 110, 111, 113
Bathmaker, A.M. 168 Carroll, D. R. 9, 142, 143
Bearman, M. 68, 69, 11, 110, 144, Castrodale, M. A. 36, 37
212, 219 Cederberg, M. 158
Beauchemin, E. L. 134 Celce-Murcia, M. 156
Becker, S. 228 Chaudhry, M. A. 127
Behling, K. 36 cheating 110–119; ethical dimensions 114
Bennett, A. 75, 77, 88 Cheng, M. 102
Bennett, C. 205 Chibnall, J. T. 191
Bennett, D. 142, 143, 147 Cho, M. H. 43
Bessant, J. 211 Cho, Y. 43
Bevitt, S. 199, 206 Chu, G. 173, 174
Bhabha, H. K. 55 circle of knowledge 93
Biermann, S. 46 Cizek, G. J. 114
Biggs, J. 185, 232 Clanchy, J. 154
Blacklock, B. 34 Clarke, V. 179
Blackmore, J. 155, 157 Clements, M. D. 157
Blanchard, J. 116 code-switching 53, 59
Blomeke, S. 154, 155, 156 Coghlan, S. 120, 124
Bloxham, S. 13 communities of practice 89
Blum, S. D. 174 communities of praxis 87, 92
Bolt, S. 133 Connell, R. 23
Bones, P. D. C. 36 Connor, D. 31
Boucher, S. 99 Cook-Sather, A. 175, 190, 203, 212, 219
Boud, D. 9, 20, 21, 69, 142, 143, 145, 146, Cope, B. 120, 125
147, 190, 192, 234 Corcoran, T. 79, 81, 82
Bourdieu, P. 158 Cord, B. A. 157
Bourke, R. 78, 191, 192 Cortazzi, M. 157
Bouville. M. 113, 114 Cotarlan, C. 112
Bovill, C. 175, 176, 190, 196, 203, 213, Craddock, D. 200
219 Cramer, L. 99
Boyd, D. 127 Cramner, S. 154
Bracken, S. 222 Crane, L. 146, 147
Braun, E. 154, 156 Crawford, N. 178, 179, 183, 186
Braun, V. 179 Creswell, J. W. 179
Bretag, T. 111, 116 crip theory 32
Brett, M. 98, 99, 101 criping assessment 30–40
Bridgman, P. 98 cripistempology 33, 34
Briguglio, C. 155 critical disability studies 30–40
Bronfenbrenner, U. 179 critical pedagogy 112
Brothen, T. 117 critical questioning 157
Brown, P. 147, 155 critical theory 20, 21, 23
240 Index

Cross, B. E. 57 equity: group participation 99; of

Crozier, G. 93, 94 opportunity 9; procedural 200, 201;
cultural capital 158 reporting frameworks 105
cultural interface 42, 46 esteem recognition 22
Cultural Savvy 158 ethic of reciprocity 219
Czaika, M. 153 ethical reflexivity 90
Evans, A. 36
D’Ignazio, C. 122 evidence-based interventions 79
Dargusch, J. 219 evidence-making intervention framework
Davis, A. B. 116 75, 78
Davis, G. 98 exams, closed-book 115
Dawson, P. 68, 70, 75, 76, 110, 113, exclusion, unintentional 10
115, 232 Eynon, R. 120, 122
de Oliveira Silva, J. H. 149
de Vries, V. 191 Fadel, H. 54, 57
de-emphasising grades 173 failure: as-success 171; contestation of 171
deadlines and extensions 181 fairness 12, 19, 76, 113, 124, 153, 199,
Dean, A. 168 200, 212; algorithmic 126; at the
decolonisation 43; assessment 14; expense of equity 145; international
curriculum 23, 52–62; praxis 34 students 158
deficit discourse 10, 53, 89 Falchikov, N. 20
Dei, G. J. S. 23 Felten, P. 175, 190, 203, 212, 219
Delahunty, J. 168, 174, 175 Ferri, B. 31
Dendir, S. 116 First Nations learning spaces 41
Denzin, N. K. 23 Fishman, T. 110
Devlin, M. 59, 142, 144, 145 Flavell, H. 143
disability 132; higher education policy Flint, A. 175, 212
104; medical model of 65 Foucault, M. 89
disabled students 64 Fraser, N. 21, 53, 93, 201
discrimination 104; algorithmic sources Freire, P. 30, 56, 58, 59, 89, 90
of 123 Fricker, M. 25
distinctiveness, valuing 147, 148 Funk, J. 57, 58
Dodo-Balu, A. 185
Dolan, R. P. 136 Gardner, J. 120, 121, 123, 125
Dollinger, M. 223, 228 Garland-Thomson, R. 38
Dolmage, J. T. 31, 36, 63, 67, 75, 76 Garside, J. 199
Donovan, M. 44 Garvis, S. 155, 157
Dörnyei, Z. 156 Gerdes, H. 134
Douglass, J. A. 197 Gibbs, G. 205
Doyle, E. 143, 145, 147 Gibbs, L. 174
Drew, S. 105 Gidley, J. 187
Dunbar-Goddet, H. 205 Gigliotti, A. 175
Dunning, D. 192 Gilovich, T. 76
Dwyer, A. 212 Gilpin, L. H. 126
Glover, C. 57
Easterbrook, D. 199, 200 Goldstone, R. 211
Eaton, S. E. 196 Gonzalez, J. M. 55
Eccles, J. 145, 148 González-Calatayud, V. 120
Elish, M. C. 127 Goodley, D. 31
Elkington, S. 222 grade inflation 202
Elliott, C. J. 157 Grant-Smith, D. 99
Ellis, C. 78 Gray, S. J. 102
Emery, S. 179 Green, B. 126
epistemic: hegemony 54; injustice 25 Greenbank, P. 143, 145
eportfolio 191 Gribble, C. 155, 157
 Index 241

Griful-Freixenet, J. 138 Jackson, A. Y. 74, 78

Grimes, S. 12, 13, 15, 211 Jackson, D. 154
Grosfoguel, R. 54 Jain, N. R. 33
Gustafsson, J.-E. 154, 155, 156 Jansen, J. 55, 57
Jarmai, K. 127
Hailikari, T. 144 Jarvis, L. 186, 190, 196
Hamraie, A. 35, 36 Jauregui, J. 34
Hanafin, J. 64, 66, 133, 138 Jin, L. 157
Hanesworth, P. 222 Johnson, E. 69, 142, 143, 145, 146,
Haraway, D. 95 147, 149
Hardt, M. 120, 122, 126 Johnson, M. L. 33
Harper, R. 111, 116 Johnstone, C. 14, 66, 186, 187
Harrington, K. 175, 212 Johnstone, C. J. 135
Harris, L. R. 219 Jones, A. 154
Harris, S. 54 Jones, E. 191, 194, 195
Harrison, M. 79 Jordan, L. 203
Harvey, A. 98, 99, 100, 126, Jorre de St Jorre, T. 69, 142, 143, 145,
143, 145 146, 147, 148, 149
Hathcoat. J. D. 78 Jung, J. 19
Healey, M. 175, 212 justice: as-content 56, 59; as-pedagogy 56,
Heath, C. 192 60; as-process 56, 60; recognitive 53
Heinonen, A. 68 Justus, J. 124
Hepworth, S. 143, 145
Hesketh, A. 147 Kafer, A. 33
higher education financing 101 Kahn, S. 191, 196, 199, 207
Hillage, J. 154 Kahu, E. R. 148
Hinchcliffe, T. 175, 176 Kalantzis, M. 120, 125
Hockings, C. 11, 211 Kang, H. 102
Hogan, A. 122 Kapsalis, G. 203
Holmes, A. 65, 68 Karabel, J. 88
Honneth, A. 22 Kazim, E. 127
honour code 110 Ke, Z. 124
Houghton, A.-M. 187 Kelly, A. 123
Hounsell, D. 20 Kerr, M. 76
Howells, S. 155, 157 Ketterlin Geller, L. 14, 66, 136, 186, 187
Hu, L. 126 Kettler, R. J. 136
Huang, Q. 126 Kift, S. 142, 186
Hughson, E. 66, 71 Kim, W. H. 134
Hundley, S. P. 199, 207 Kinash, S. 146, 147
Kirkland, K. 199, 203, 206
inclusion: politics of 120; regulatory Klein, L. F. 122
frameworks 233 Knight, P. 20, 143
inclusive higher education assessment knowledge: as-entanglement 55; circle 47;
policy 105 co-creation 78; entitlement to 44
Indigenous: knowledge 23, 34, 58; Korkeamäki, J. 67
perspectives 41–51, 54 Koshiyama, A. 127
Ingram, N. 168 Koutsouris, G. 12
Inoue, A. B. 55 Kryger, K. 30, 36
intermediaries, use of 34 Kunttu, K. 67
international students, assessing Kurth, N. 14
employability skills 154
internationalising curricula 159 Lambert, S. R. 54, 57
intersectional analysis 38 Lambert, T. 134
Irmer, B. 99 Lancaster, K. 75, 79, 80
Islam, M. 212, 213, 219 Lancaster, T. 112
242 Index

Larkin, S. 190 Maxwell, R. S. 116

Lather, P. 89, 90, 93, 96 May, R. 185
Lau, T. C. W. 33, 36 Mayeda. D. T. 190
Lave, J. 89 Mayes, R. 99
Lawrie, G. 211 Mayfield, E. 122, 124
layered learning 43 Mazzei, L. 74, 78
Lazendic, G. 124 Mbamalu, S. 55
learner’s biography 47, 146 McArthur, J. 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
learning outcomes: formulation 232; 25, 26, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 200,
informed by material-discursive 201, 202, 203, 207, 222, 232
practices 80 McCabe, D. L. 110
Leask, B. 157 McCarthy, J. 121
Leathwood, C. 143, 144, 145, 204 McCulley v. University of Kansas School
Leavy, S. 122 of Medicine 34
Lee, J. 134 McDermott, D. 57
Lee, P. P. W. 70 McDowell, L. 20, 117
Lewandowski, L. J. 65, 134 McGillivray, L. 146, 147
Lewis, T. A. 31 McKay, J. 142
Li, W. 9, 142, 143 McKinney, C. 37
Lillis, T. 88, 94 McManus, J. 91
Lillywhite, A. 122 McNay, L. 94
Lincoln, Y. S. 23 McRuer, R. 31, 32, 33
Lingard, B. 77 Medland, E. 66, 199, 206
Linton, S. 31 Medvec, V. H. 76
Lipnevich, A. 13 Mehrens, W. A. 117
Littlewood, W. 158 Mellard, D. 14
Lodge, J. 228 Mercer-Mapstone, L. 212, 213, 214, 219,
Logan, C. 14, 112 220, 228
Lohr, S. 125 Meyer, A. 136
Lombardi, A. R. 134 Meyers, S. 224
Louie, K. 157 Miller, K. K. 148
Lovett, B. J. 65 Miller, R. 33
Lowden, K. 154 Miller, T. 120, 124
Lowitja Institute 44 Milton, E. 211
Lucey, C. R. 143 Mingus, M. 34
Luckman, M. 99 Mirraboopa, B. 41
Luttenberger, S. 135 Mishra, S. 154
Misiaszek, L. I. 93, 94
Macfarlane, B. 114 misrecognition 20, 22, 91, 92, 93
machine learning 120, 124 Mitchell, D. T. 32, 33
Madriaga, M. 112 Mittelstadt, B. 123
Magyar, A. 157 Mize, M. 57
Manathunga, C. 66, 71 Mobley, I. A. 31
Marginson, S. 9, 234 Moll, L. 159
Mariño, M. P. 154 MOOCs 56, 58
Marsh, B. 196 moral imperative 67
Martin, K. 41 moral obligation of universities 9
Martin, L. 98, 105 Moriña, A. 63
Mason, G. 154 Moro, J. 112
Masschelein, J. 75 Morozow, E. 122
Mathias, H. 200 Morris, C. 211
Matthews, K. 175, 176, 212 Morrison, A. 155
mature-aged students, experiences in Motz, B. A. 113
regional and remote areas 178 Mubin, O. 124
Mavrou. K. 203 Murray, C. 134
 Index 243

Nakata, M. 41, 42, 45, 49, 50 Rabinowitz, S. 124

Narayanan, A. 120, 122, 126 Raciti, M. 142, 149
National Forum 199, 200, 201, 203, Raevaara, T. 68
205, 207 Raffaghelli, J. E. 127
Naylor, R. 148 Rahimi, M. 155, 157
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. 54 Rainier, C. 191
new materialism 78 Rand, R. 116
Newton, P. M. 110 recognition of prior learning 58
Ng, V. 124 Reeve, D. 34
Ngoc, B. D. 155 Reid, T. 212, 213, 219
Nguyen, H.-H. D. 143 Reimann, N. 74, 79, 80
Nieminen, J. H. 11, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, Reisenwitz, T. H. 116
70, 71, 132, 222, 233 Reisman, D. 127
non-verbal communication 156 relational subversion 46, 48
not grading 173 remote proctored exams 116, 117
Nussbaum, M. C. 21, 222 representational justice 53
Reynolds, M. 157
O’Dea, G. 149 Rhodes, T. 75, 79, 80
O’Leary, M. 120, 121, 123, 125 Rice, J. 149
O’Neil, C. 122 Richardson, S. 142, 143, 147
O’Neill, G. 12, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, Riddell, S. 12, 66, 67, 70
204, 205, 207 Roberston, K. 190
O’Shea, S. 10, 53, 59, 142, 143, 168, 174, Roberts, L. 142, 143, 147
175 Robinson-Pant, A. 157
O’Sullivan, B. 122 Rogerson, A. M. 112
Oliver, B. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149 Rogoff, B. 196
Orr, J. L. 102 Röhner, J. 156
Roig-Vila, R. 120
Padden, L. 199, 200, 201, 202, Rose, D. H. 136
203, 204 Rundle, K. 111, 116
Paechter, M. 135 Russell-Mundine, G. 100
Palladino, J. 228 Russell, C. 123
Palmer, D. 201, 202, 203, 204 Ryan, A. M. 143
Palmer, E. 201, 202, 203, 204 Ryan, J. 157
Panadero, E. 192
Parker, M. 199, 200 Saari, J. 67
Paterson, J. 120, 124 Sadler, R. 20, 74, 79, 80, 144
Pearce, L. 13 Said, E. 89
peer collaboration 113 Saito, E. 154
Peetz, D. 185 Salehi, K. 68
Perelman, L. 124 Sambell, K. 25, 117
personal histories 47, 146 Samuels, E. 33
Pesonen, H. V. 63, 64, 65, 71 Sancho, J. M. 157
Pesonen, T. 67 Santoro, N. 46
Peters, M. A. 236 Schindler, D. L. 191
Pham, T. 154, 155, 156, 158, 159 Schulz-Bergin, M. 174
Phongsirikul, M. 189, 191 Schütz, A. 156
Pitman, T. 99, 106 Schuwirth, L. W. T. 15
policy, higher education 98–109 Scott, G. A. 133
Polish, J. 36 Searsmith, D. 120, 125
Pollard, E. 154 Seay, R. 116
Potter, J. 122 Sebok-Syer, S. S. 34
power relations 88, 90, 219 self-assessment 191, 192, 193
Prendes-Espinosa, P. 120 Selwyn, N. 125
Price, M. 33, 38 Sen, A. 21
244 Index

Sharmil, H. 43 Sutch, D. 199, 203, 206

Shavelson, R. 154, 155, 156 Sveiby, K. E. 43
Shay, S. 143, 144 Swauger, S. 112
Shin, J. C. 19 Symeonidou, S. 203
Siapera, E. 122 Szalkowicz, G. 99
Silvestri, R. 65, 68
Simons, M. 75 Tai, J. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 64,
Singh, M. 159 65, 66, 178, 204, 212, 213, 214, 232,
Sins Invalid 30, 34 234, 236
Sjoberg, D. 57 Tan, K. 192
Skuthorpe, T. 43 Tang, C. 232
Slavin, S. J. 191 Tannock, S. 202, 207
Slepcevic-Zach, P. 191 technological solutionism 122
Smith, G. 122 temporality 33, 76
Smith, J. A. 190 Tholen, G. 155
Smith, K. 190, 196 Thomas, M. K. E. 75, 77, 79, 81, 82
Smith, R. 155 Thompson, C. J. 69
Snyder, S. L. 33 Thompson, G. 77
social closure 144, 145 Thompson, S. J. 135
social constructivism 79 Thomson, G. 197
social design epistemology 66 Thorius, K. A. K. 30
social justice 21–23; framework 93; threshold standards 100, 105, 178
outcomes 19 Thurlow, M. 14, 66, 133, 135, 186, 187
social model of disability 66 Thurrell, S. 156
social roles, of higher education 20 Tierney, R. D. 219
Sokhanvar, F. 68 timescapes, lens of 88, 90, 92, 95
Sokhanvar, Z. 68 Tinto, V. 168
Soler, R. 190, 192, 234 Tobin, T. J. 36
Spina, N. 74 Tomaszewski, W. 9, 142, 143
St. Pierre, E. A. 74, 78 Tomlinson, M. 154
Stanback, E. B. 37 Townsend-Cross, M. 46
standards, higher education 100 Treviño, L. K. 110
Stapleton, P. 116 Tummons, J. 114
Stentiford, L. 12 two-way learning 55
Stephens, N. M. 55
Stephenson, B. 126 Ubuntu 23
Stewart, B. 127 Uditsky, B. 66, 71
stigmatising barriers 132 Ulriksen, L. 186
Stock, M. 191 Umarova, A. 10, 14, 15, 64, 65, 66, 178,
Stommel, J. 174, 175 204, 236
Stowell, M. 146, 201 universal design, critical 35
Strachan, G. 185 Universal Design for Assessment 14, 66,
students-as-partners 173, 174, 191, 200, 135, 137, 139
203, 212, 222; designing inclusive Universal Design for Learning 30, 136,
assessment 219; students evaluate their 137, 187, 203, 204, 211
experience 218
students: as agentic 232; first in family validity 10, 114; as a goal and a mediating
169–172; with disabilities 132, 211; low concept 110; consequential 117; impact
socio-economic status backgrounds 142 of cheating, inclusion and assessment
success: as a construction 168; alternative security 115
conceptions 169; assessing for 167–177; Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. 15
assumptions of 167–177; concept of 167 Vanderlelie, J. 223
Sullivan, P. 168 Vostal, F. 77
Suls, J. M. 192 Vuorento, M. 67
 Index 245

Wachter, S. 123 Wolbring, G. 122

Waiari, D. A. K. 34 Woldeab, D. 117
Waitoller, F. R. 30 Wollack, J. A. 114
Wallace, M. J. 110 Wong, A. 34, 138
Waller, R. 168 Wood, T. 33
Wang, P. 121 Wood, W. 134
Wanner, T. 201, 202, 203, 204 Woolf, H. 144
Ware, L. 33 Wu, Y.-C. 133
Warner, J. 173
Waterfield, J. 11, 199, 200 yarning 44
Weedon, E. 12, 66, 67, 70 Yazedjian, A. 168
Weerasinghe, L. A. A. P. 102 Yeung, K. 122, 127
Weis, R. 134 Yorke, M. 144, 154
well-being, mental 179 YouTube clip assessment 193
Weller, M. 122 Yuan, L. 120, 121, 123, 125
Wellings, P. 153 Yunupingu, M. 54
Wenger, E. 89
West, B. 11, 199 Zacharias, N. 98
Westerveld, M. 155, 157 Zegwaard, K. E. 157
Whitburn, B. 75, 77, 79, 81, 82 Zeide, E. 127
Wickey, T. 58 Zhao, C. M. 197
Willems, J. 12 Zimitat, C. 124
Williams, G. 154 Zimmerman, G. X. 30, 36
Williams, S. 147 Zipin, L. 159
Williamson, B. 120, 122 Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O. 154
Wimmer, S. 135 Zola, I. K. 33
Witte, A. E. 202 Zuboff, S. 126