Abstract

Authentic assessments have been suggested as one way to make assessment practices more inclusive. Although there is no singular definition, authentic assessments typically involve an element of realism and require students to link their knowledge with everyday life and work (Villarroel et al., 2018). In this chapter, I examine the results of a small-scale research survey undertaken with students studying a Civil Litigation module grounded in authentic learning and assessment techniques. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from the study, I explore how authentic assessment can increase inclusivity by enhancing student employability and skill development, and by allowing students to showcase their learning in a range of different ways. I then examine some arguments against the proposed connection between authentic assessment and inclusivity, before discussing the interplay between authentic assessment, inclusivity, and generative artificial intelligence (genAI).

Keywords

Authentic assessment, inclusivity, employability, skills, generative AI

Introduction

It goes without saying that the university experience is not the same for all students. Widening participation (WP) students may experience barriers at several points in the higher education process, including their access to higher education, their ability to continue their studies once at university, their assessment results, and their graduate destination (Harris & Dargusch, 2020, p. 96). In law, there is a substantial awarding gap, both at undergraduate level and on entry to the profession (Bosch et al., 2023). For example, research demonstrates that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic students are much less likely to receive a 2:1 or first-class degree in law compared to their white peers (Bosch et al., 2023, p. 14). Several factors have been suggested to explain the awarding gap for WP students, one of which is the inclusiveness of assessment practices in law school (Bosch et al., p. 26). Assessments in law schools have been characteristically traditional, usually involving a combination of essays and unseen examinations. However, traditional assessments can negatively impact WP students: for example, research shows that test anxiety is higher among racial and minority ethnic students, who “feel inadequately prepared for traditional forms of academic assessment at university […] resulting in dissatisfaction with assessment compared to White students” (Bansal, 2022, p. 357).

Authentic assessments have been suggested as one way to increase inclusivity in assessment practices. Although there is no single definition of the term, authentic assessments typically involve an element of realism and require students to link knowledge with everyday life and work (Villarroel et al., 2018, p.841). Well-designed authentic assessments require students to contextualise their knowledge analytically and thoughtfully, and there should be a sense that learning can be used to solve a real problem (Villarroel et al., 2018, p. 841).

In this chapter, I examine the results of a small-scale research study undertaken with students on an optional Civil Litigation module at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. The module is grounded in authentic assessment. Using quantitative and qualitative data from the student survey, this chapter examines how authentic assessment can enhance inclusivity by increasing employability and skills development, and by allowing students to showcase their knowledge in a range of different ways. I then consider some of the arguments against the proposed correlation between authenticity and inclusivity, before finally discussing how authentic assessments can be both a pragmatic response and an opportunity to increase inclusivity in the age of generative artificial intelligence (genAI).

Case study

In 2020, I introduced an innovative Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution module at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. This optional module is open to second- and third-year law students; students follow a simulated commercial case from the first client interview through to trial. The module is grounded in authentic learning and assessment. For example, students are asked to draft simulated legal documents as the case progresses, and they participate in a simulated mediation and cross-examination.

The assessment for the module is also authentic and students are assessed by an advocacy assessment (which makes up 40% of their final grade) and a take-home portfolio assessment (which makes up 60% of their final grade). The advocacy assessment is authentic because it helps students develop essential employability skills such as oral communication, resilience under pressure, and critical analysis. The advocacy assessment is scaffolded; students have workshops on advocacy skills, informal opportunities to practice in groups in workshops, and a non-credit-bearing mock advocacy exam on different case study facts, after which students receive extensive feedback. This scaffolding is important because advocacy is unfamiliar to most students undertaking the module and giving students the opportunity to practice in a risk-free environment helps to alleviate some of the student anxiety often associated with novel forms of assessment (Sokhanvar, 2021, p. 2).

In the take-home portfolio assessment, students are presented with a new case study and they are given one week to complete certain tasks. By way of example, these tasks might include drafting a letter of advice to a client, drafting a court document, or answering a mini problem question. This assessment is authentic because students have one week to complete the portfolio and they can access all their resources during this time, including practitioner databases and precedent documents. The requirements, timeframe, and conditions of the assessment simulate the working environment for a trainee solicitor in private practice.

The student view: Do authentic assessments increase inclusivity?

To try to determine whether authentic assessments can enhance inclusivity, I conducted an optional, ethics-approved study^[1] with Civil Litigation students in academic years 2020/21 and 2021/22. Of the 78 students who took the module across those years, 36 students completed the survey (a c.46% response rate). Considering the relatively small number of students who participated in the module and the survey in those years, the analysis that follows does not aim to draw any firm conclusions. However, the quantitative and qualitative survey results do shed light on the potential connection between authentic assessments and enhanced inclusivity.

Key Themes

Enhancing inclusivity by developing employability

The survey results strongly suggested that participating in modules that embed authentic learning and assessment opportunities can enhance student employability. Quantitatively, 35 students (97% of respondents) agreed that participating in the Civil Litigation module enhanced their employability. This was also supported by qualitative insights. For example, one student said: “This module […] has provided me with experience of the day-to-day activities completed by trainee solicitors. This module will be a great talking point for future applications”. Similarly, another student commented: “This module gave me experience in doing tasks that a typical trainee lawyer would do when I was struggling to gain legal work experience”, while a third said: “I feel after the Civil Litigation module I am more employable as it has altered how I write a CV, cover letter and conduct interviews […] [The module has helped me] to be more concise and [write] in the manner a law firm searches for. The spoken elements of the course means students are better equipped for a […] interview”.

The potential of authentic learning and assessment to enhance student employability is particularly important for WP students. The legal sector is extremely competitive and gaining work experience opportunities is a challenge for many law students. However, research demonstrates that it is uniquely difficult for students from a WP background to gain high quality work experience in comparison with their non-WP counterparts (Francis, 2015). The suggested reasons for this are manifold. First, students from WP backgrounds may lack the social capital to gain work experience opportunities. Many WP students do not have direct connections with members of the legal profession, so they cannot gain informal work experience opportunities, for example through a parent or family friend, in the same way that their non-WP peers can. In addition, many WP students have the additional burden of working in a full- or part-time job alongside their studies, and they may also be balancing various personal obligations (Harris & Dargusch, 2020, p. 102). Due to these competing factors, WP students may have limited time to complete low-paid or unpaid work experience opportunities. Factors such as paid work and caring responsibilities may also prevent WP students from having time to engage in employability-enhancing extracurricular activities, such as mooting and negotiation competitions, or membership on the executive of a student society. Therefore, while most universities offer a suite of employability-enhancing initiatives, the only opportunities that we know are open to all students equally are those that are embedded in the curriculum (University of Sussex, n.d.). Finally, WP students may struggle to gain work experience as they are unfamiliar with the unspoken, tacitly understood ‘rules of the game’ to enhance employability. For example, research shows that more affluent students may be more aware of the value of internships and have the financial backing and the social networks to access the most prestigious internship opportunities (Budd, 2017). In contrast, WP students may be excluded from valuable work experience opportunities due to a perceived lack of ‘polish’. A report considering social mobility in the legal, accounting, and finance professions observed that the qualities valued by employers in their assessment of students, including “drive, resilience, strong communication skills and above all confidence and ‘polish’, are typically associated with the middle class” (Ashley et al., 2015, p. 6). By requiring these qualities, employers therefore perpetuate inequalities such as class privilege and white privilege (Zimdars, 2010).

Introducing authentic assessment and learning opportunities in the curriculum therefore presents a powerful opportunity to reduce the barriers to graduate employment for WP students. Student qualitative feedback from the research study demonstrated that students felt more confident applying for graduate roles after they had in-curricular experience of required graduate competencies (for example, drafting legal documents and conducting advocacy). Interestingly, some students commented that they could use the module to evidence their employability to prospective employers. This is particularly beneficial for WP students who have not had access to formal work experience, as they can draw on their experience of legal drafting, conducting research, participating in simulated negotiation or advocacy exercises, etc., to demonstrate their professional skillset. In an increasingly competitive graduate job market, introducing authentic learning and assessment opportunities in the curriculum can enhance inclusivity by giving all students – irrespective of background – the opportunity to develop valuable professional skills that they can draw on in graduate job applications and interviews.

Increasing inclusivity through wider skills development

Authentic assessments can also increase student employability and enhance inclusivity by promoting skills development. Employability is largely based on skills development, and employers increasingly expect that graduates will be ready for employment. The legal profession has recently emphasised the importance of law graduates having a wide-ranging skillset. For example, the UK QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for Law, which sets out what can be expected of a UK law graduate at the end of their degree, states that law graduates will have a comprehensive range of skills, including “clear, effective and precise verbal and/or non-verbal communication”, “self-management”, the “willingness and ability to work collaboratively” and an “understanding of ethical conflicts” (QAA, 2023, pp. 8–9). Similarly, the O Shaped Lawyer project has highlighted the soft skills needed to thrive in the legal profession, stating that key attributes for success include emotional intelligence, communication, collaboration, courage, and resilience (O Shaped, n.d.). The challenge here is that most law school assessment methods, which typically involve a combination of unseen examinations and essays, do not promote this wide-ranging skills development in graduates. This is particularly problematic for WP students, who are often perceived as lacking the more polished skillsets of their non-WP contemporaries (Ashley et al., 2015). One possible solution to this is to embed authentic learning and assessment opportunities in the curriculum, so that all students can develop the skills and competencies required to thrive after their degree (Sotiriadou et al., 2019).

Students who completed the Civil Litigation research study confirmed that they had gained a wide-ranging suite of skills by participating in the module. For example, 29 students (81% of respondents) confirmed that working on authentic tasks had enhanced their communication skills, while 28 students (77% of respondents) strongly agreed that completing authentic tasks had enhanced their teamworking skills. Student qualitative comments also highlighted the extent of student skill development. For example, when asked what skills, if any, they had gained from the module, one student commented: “I gained more confidence as we had to do mock trials and talk in front of peers. Learnt how to engage a professional tone which is necessary for the real world”. Another student stated: “I developed key skills such as teamwork, organisation and communication but also legal practice skills such as attention to detail and the ability to draft key documents”. Finally, one student commented that the skills they gained included: “confidence, problem-solving, teamwork, communication, advocacy, organisation, commercial awareness, knowledge of the profession, drafting skills, writing proficiency, grammatical skills, critical analysis, eye for detail”.

A common theme across the student feedback was that engaging in authentic assessments had enhanced their communication and teamwork skills. This is particularly important, because oral and written communication skills are consistently ranked highly by employers (Gray et al., 2005). However, students often fail to properly assess the strength of their oral communication skills. In a study by the Harris-Chegg foundation, researchers compared college student perceptions of their own communication skills against hiring manager perceptions. The research found that while 70% of students said that they were effective at communicating with clients and managers, only 44% of employers scored the students as effective in this area (Chegg, 2013). Developing strong communication skills can be particularly challenging for WP students; as stated above, excellent communication skills and confidence are typically associated with the middle class (Ashley et al., 2015). Similarly, while 78% of college students said that they were effective at completing a project as part of a team, only 63% of hiring managers agreed with this assessment (Chegg, 2013). Introducing authentic tasks in the curriculum is therefore one way to help all students develop a holistic range of skills that will benefit them after their degrees.

Increasing inclusivity by allowing students to showcase their learning in different ways

In the qualitative student comments of the research study, a common theme emerged that one of the things students most enjoyed about the Civil Litigation module was the lack of examinations. For example, one student commented that they most enjoyed “the lack of exams and heavily scholarly based exercises”. Similarly, several other students stated that they most enjoyed “drafting legal documents”, while another reflected that their favourite part of the module was “the advocacy assessment [because] it allowed me to develop my communication skills and [learn] how to use all the facts of the case to develop my arguments”. This student feedback is important because it illustrates that students learn in different ways and value having a range of different methods to demonstrate their learning.

Despite student diversity, in law degrees unseen examinations and essays are still the dominant forms of assessment. This is problematic, as the focus on exams and essays excludes students who do not perform well on these types of assessments. For example, closed book examinations benefit students who can quickly recall information under pressure (Tai et al., 2023). Similarly, examinations with strict time limits benefit students who can concentrate quickly and maintain that concentration for the duration of the assessment (Tai et al., 2023). Unseen, closed book exams can therefore disadvantage students who have physical or mental conditions that prevent them from focusing quickly, for a sustained period, and under conditions of stress.

As students are diverse and excel in different conditions, the way that we teach and assess students should reflect this diversity and allow students to showcase their strengths and capabilities in different ways. In addition, assessment should be designed in a way that ensures that students are not discriminated against by anything other than their ability to meet the required learning outcomes (Tai et al., 2023). Tai et al. (2023) describe this as “assessment for inclusion”. Introducing authentic learning and assessment opportunities can enhance inclusivity by allowing students to showcase their knowledge in a multitude of ways. If we rely on only one or two types of assessment, there are fewer opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of their learning. However, by introducing a range of authentic assessments, such as oral presentations, podcasts, and take-home portfolios, we acknowledge student diversity and help students with a range of skillsets to excel.

Authentic assessments can also be designed inclusively by considering the conditions in which the assessment is taken. For example, on the Civil Litigation module, students are given one week to prepare their answers for the take-home portfolio assessment. In this time, they have access to all their resources, including practitioner databases, their notes, and tutor exemplars. Creating realistic conditions for the assessment better simulates what happens in practice and adds to the authenticity of the exercise. For example, in legal practice no junior lawyer is expected to prepare polished legal drafts without access to any resources in a very short time period in an exam hall. In addition to increasing the authenticity of the exercise, considering the conditions of assessment also enhances inclusivity. By giving students a week to prepare their answers, students have flexibility about when and where they complete their assessment. This is particularly beneficial for students with other commitments, such as those who work alongside study or have caring responsibilities. Having a week to complete the assessment allows these students to work at a time that is convenient for them. Providing a realistic timeframe is also more inclusive for students with physical or mental conditions, such as ADHD or depression, who might find it challenging to focus immediately and for a sustained period in exam conditions. Similarly, giving students access to all their resources ensures that students are not penalised for being unable to quickly recall information under pressure. By considering the conditions in which authentic assessments are taken, we can ensure that assessment is inclusive by design.

When might authentic assessments not be inclusive?

So far, this chapter has considered how authentic assessments can be more inclusive forms of assessment. However, some commentators argue that the assumption that authentic assessments are aligned with inclusion has not been sufficiently tested (Fawns et al., 2024). For example, one argument is that authentic assessments can be overly onerous on students who do not have prior experience of them (Wake et al., 2023). Similarly, other commentators argue that authentic assessments may not be inclusive because they can create “new barriers, more pressurised situations, higher safety risks, time restrictions, inaccessible buildings, unforgiving cultures” (Fawns et al., 2024, pp. 400–401). As Fawns et al. (2024) note, “the ‘real world’ is not a naturally inclusive context, and workplaces or broader societal contexts do not readily accommodate the diverse needs of all learners” (p. 401).

However, these criticisms are not insurmountable. Students may, of course, be anxious about completing authentic assessments, particularly if the assessment type is unfamiliar. It is therefore essential that authentic assessment tasks are properly scaffolded, so students have the opportunity to practice in a risk-free environment and slowly develop the skills and competencies needed to excel in the assessment (Sotiriadou et al., 2020). For example, in the Civil Litigation module, advocacy is an unfamiliar form of assessment for all students. However, the assessment is appropriately scaffolded, and students have a workshop session on advocacy, a formative advocacy exercise involving peer review, and a non-credit-bearing mock advocacy examination on different case study facts. The mock advocacy assessment is held in the mock courtroom (the same location as the summative assessment) to allow students to get used to the unfamiliar environment. Students also receive detailed feedback following their mock advocacy assessment, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement in advance of the summative advocacy assessment. This is important because feedback is the key component of effective formative assessment, and research shows that feedback has the most powerful single effect on student achievement (Fraser et al., 1987). After this extensive, detailed scaffolding, that allows for slow learning in a risk-free environment and feedback opportunities from both peers and the tutor, students are finally given new case study facts and have one month to prepare for their actual advocacy examination. Appropriately scaffolded authentic assessments that follow a similar model should therefore not feel overly onerous or overwhelming for WP students. In addition, it is important to note that student anxiety is not limited to authentic assessments; we know that many students find traditional forms of assessment such as unseen examinations to be onerous and pressurised (Villarroel et al., 2020). Tests can cause anxiety and affect student self-esteem, particularly if the student has already had negative experiences of exams (Harlen, 2005). In contrast, authentic assessments are generally perceived by students as being fairer and more effective (Pereira et al., 2017).

However, it should be noted that although authentic assessments are often considered more inclusive, little research has been conducted to understand whether authentic assessments actually impact the awarding gap for WP students. This gap in the research was highlighted in a recent Advance HE report, which stated that “very few studies [into assessment] sought to determine differential impacts on historically disadvantaged or marginalised students. To close attainment gaps and ensure educational equity, researchers need to consider who benefits most from specific assessment and feedback policies” (Pitt & Quinlan, 2022, p. 80). Further research is needed that goes beyond student satisfaction-based studies, to examine the impact of authentic assessments on the awarding gap for WP students. Without this information, we cannot definitively conclude that authentic assessments are more inclusive and the ‘gold standard’ in higher education.

Generative AI, authentic assessments, and inclusivity

Authentic assessments aim to ensure that students acquire the skills that they will require for future workplaces (Upsher et al., 2024). Many professions, including the legal profession, are increasingly adopting AI tools to help employees complete their jobs more efficiently and optimise routine tasks. For example, large global law firm Allen and Overy has adopted the artificial intelligence platform Harvey which can, among other things, draft legal documents and conduct legal research (The Law Society Gazette, 2023). As genAI is now being extensively used in the workplace to revolutionise and automate a variety of tasks, we do our students a disservice if we ignore genAI in higher education. If we are aiming to produce graduates that have the skills necessary to thrive in the workplace, we need to embrace genAI in education. Of course, this is not without its challenges. GenAI raises questions regarding how we can ensure deep student learning and maintain academic integrity. However, authentic assessment can be both a response to these challenges and an opportunity to enhance student learning and promote inclusivity (Upsher et al., 2024).

Authentic assessments can help ensure deep student learning and maintain academic integrity because well-designed authentic assessments typically involve higher-order tasks that require skills such as decision-making and oral communication (Upsher et al., 2024). Higher-order tasks are less vulnerable to genAI than lower-order thinking tasks, such as those that require students to recall facts. For example, although students may use genAI as a tool to help them prepare for an advocacy exam in law, genAI cannot complete the assessment for them. For example, in the Civil Litigation advocacy exam, students are still required to make spontaneous arguments in response to queries from the tutor (sitting as judge), adapt to arguments made by the opposing advocate (another student), and demonstrate the competencies expected of an advocate in a courtroom setting (for example, knowledge of the relevant procedure). Some higher-order authentic assessments tasks can therefore circumvent academic integrity concerns that genAI has produced the output with limited student input or learning.

To be truly authentic, assessments should acknowledge the existence of genAI and the reality that most students are now using genAI to help with their work and assessments. Rather than banning the use of genAI in assessments, students might instead be invited to explain how they have worked with genAI in preparing their assessment response. For example, students might be asked to produce a ‘processfolio’ as part of their assessment, explaining how they produced their final assessment product (Pearson, 2021). This could require students to explain how they have used genAI in producing the final output. The ability to articulate how they have used genAI, and to critically appraise the output of genAI, is an important skill, and is one that will be particularly relevant in the workplace. For example, although many Allen and Overy lawyers use Harvey to help them in their legal work, Harvey still sometimes ‘hallucinates’ (i.e., makes up information), and the output is therefore subject to ‘careful review’ by lawyers (The Law Society Gazette, 2023). Although genAI will inevitably improve in accuracy, the ability to carefully review the output of genAI will be an important skill for current undergraduates as they enter the workforce.

In addition to enhancing the authenticity of the student experience, embracing genAI in the curriculum can also increase inclusivity. GenAI has the potential to bridge student language gaps, and it can democratise knowledge (Upsher et al., 2024). However, to increase inclusivity, students must receive proper training on how to use genAI tools. In addition, institutions must recognise that there is a digital divide among students. For example, some WP students may be unable to afford premium genAI subscriptions, which leaves them disadvantaged compared to their non-WP counterparts (Bozic, 2023). To try to ameliorate these potential inequalities, institutions should train students on how to use genAI to enhance their AI literacy (which will be a key skill in workplaces) and this training should be using free versions of genAI in an attempt to level the playing field (Upsher, 2024).

Conclusion

Introducing authentic assessments in the curriculum has the potential to increase inclusivity. Quantitative and qualitative student comments from my small scale research study, conducted with students taking an optional Civil Litigation module, highlight that authentic assessment can increase inclusivity by enhancing student employability. Authentic assessments can enhance student employability by acting as a proxy for real work experience and by promoting wide-ranging skills development. In addition, student qualitative comments demonstrate that authentic assessments can increase inclusivity by acknowledging diversity and allowing students to demonstrate their learning in a range of different ways. Some commentators have challenged the assumption that authentic assessments enhance inclusivity on the grounds that they can increase student anxiety. However, this problem is not insurmountable, and with appropriate scaffolding and feedback that allows for slow learning, authentic assessments are no more anxiety-inducing than traditional forms of assessment such as unseen examinations. Finally, authentic assessment can be both a response to the challenges caused by genAI and an opportunity to increase inclusivity by embedding genAI in the curriculum. To enhance inclusivity, institutions need to acknowledge that genAI is the new normal in both education and the workforce, and students should be provided with appropriate genAI training to futureproof their skills.

References

Ashley, L., Duberley, J., Sommerlad, H., & Scholarios, D. (2015, June). A qualitative evaluation of non-educational barriers to the elite professions. Digital Education Resource Archive. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/23163/1/A_qualitative_evaluation_of_non-educational_barriers_to_the_elite_professions.pdf

Bansal, D. (2022). Open book examinations: Modifying pedagogical practices for effective teaching and learning. The Law Teacher, 56(3), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2021.1999151

Bosch, G., Sealy, R., Alexandris-Polomarkakis, K., Makanju, D., & Helm, R. (2023, April). The ethnicity attainment gap in legal professional assessments: A systematic literature review and next steps. Solicitors Regulation Authority. https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/sra/research/ethnicity-attainment-gap-legal-professional-assessments-literature-review.pdf

Bozic, V. (2023). Artificial intelligence as the reason and the solution of digital divide. Language Education and Technology, 3(2), 96–109.

Budd, R. (2017). Disadvantaged by degrees? How widening participation students are not only hindered in accessing HE, but also during—and after—university. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21(2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1169230

Chegg. (2013, Fall). Bridging that gap: Analyzing the student skill index. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/files/Bridge%20That%20Gap-v8.pdf

Fawns, T., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Nieminen, J. H., Ashford-Rowe, K., Willey, K., Press, N. (2024). Authentic assessment: From panacea to criticality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, pp. 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2404634

Francis, A. (2015). Legal education, social mobility and employability: Possible selves, curriculum intervention, and the role of legal work experience. Journal of Law and Society, 42, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2015.00704.x

Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the salient factors of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 187–212.

Gray, F. E., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005). Meeting the demands of the workplace: Science students and written skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-8087-y

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning—Tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16, 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136093

Harris, L. R., & Dargusch, J. (2020). Catering for diversity in the digital age: Reconsidering equity in assessment practices. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world (pp. 95–110). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_8

The Law Society Gazette. (2023, February 15). Magic circle firm rolls out ‘gamechanger’ ChatGPT-type platform. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/magic-circle-firm-rolls-out-gamechanger-chatgpt-type-platform/5115150.article

O Shaped. (n.d.). Mindset and attributes: The foundation for being O Shaped. https://oshaped.com/the-o-shaped-mindset-and-attributes

Pearson, J. (2021). Assessment of agency or assessment for agency? A critical realist action research study into the impact of a processfolio assessment within UK HE preparatory courses for international students. Educational Action Research, 29(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1829496

Pereira, D., Flores, M., & Barros, A. (2017). Perceptions of Portuguese undergraduate students about assessment: A study in five public universities. Educational Studies, 43(4), 442–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1293505

Pitt, E., & Quinlan, K. (2022, May 19). Impacts of higher education assessment and feedback policy and practice on students: A review of the literature 2016-2021. Advance HE. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/advance-he/AdvHE_Assessment%20and%20Feedback_Literature%20Review_2016-2021_1652888346.pdf

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2023, March). Subject Benchmark Statement: Law. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/sbs/sbs-law-23.pdf?sfvrsn=c271a881_6

Sokhanvar, Z., Salehi, K., & 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, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101030

Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2019). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 1, 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2023). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451

University of Sussex. (n.d.). Authentic Assessment. https://staff.sussex.ac.uk/teaching/enhancement/support/assessment-design/authentic#BuildIn

Upsher, R., Heard, C., Yalcintas, S., Pearson, J., & Findon, J. (2024). Embracing generative AI in authentic assessment: Challenges, ethics, and opportunities. In S. Beckingham, J. Lawrence, S. Powell, & P. Hartley (Eds.), Using generative AI effectively in higher education: Sustainable and ethical practices for learning, teaching and assessment (pp. 106–114). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396

Villarroel, V., Boud, D., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., and Bruna, C. (2020). Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882

Wake, S., Pownall, M., Harris, R., & Birtill, P. (2023). Balancing pedagogical innovation with psychological safety?: Student perceptions of authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49 (4), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2275519

Zimdars, A. (2010). Fairness and undergraduate admission: A qualitative exploration of admissions choices at the University of Oxford. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 307–323.