2 Concepts to guide assessment for inclusion
Why should we make assessment inclusive?
What purposes are important, and what impact do we want to achieve?
Concepts which have been developed with respect to assessment and learning are helpful in developing ideas around the purpose and intended impact of inclusive assessment. In this chapter, we introduce you to a select few which have been driving recent conversations and action. These are: social justice (which has strong philosophical roots), the distinctions between assessment design, adjustments or accommodations; the promotion of sustainable assessment, assessment for cultural inclusion, Universal Design for Learning, and assessment validity.
Assessment for Social Justice
Professor Jan McArthur discusses the evolution of these considerations in the presentation linked below:
CRADLE Symposium Keynote by Professor Jan McArthur for the Centre for Research and Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University
McArthur also offers a written overview in this open-access book chapter: Reflections on Assessment for Social Justice and Assessment for Inclusion (2023) where she suggests that assessment for social justice is an umbrella concept under which ‘different possible practices, dispositions and beliefs can coalesce and find meaning’ (p. 21). She started this work as a response to the procedural views of fairness and justice that were predominant in assessment, and added to this that the outcomes of assessment should also satisfy calls for social justice. This can be thought of both as how students (who are naturally a heterogenous or diverse group) experience assessment, but also how assessments have the power to change what happens in the world, through the validation of particular forms of knowledge, and the ways that people subsequently think and act: how assessment shapes future graduates and their values. This broader call for social justice through acts and experiences of assessment can help to inform the goals of what is intended by assessment for inclusion. It helps us to identify which groups might benefit most from an inclusive perspective, and also opens up opportunities for different perspectives on what might be the result of including particular student groups through assessment design.
This work asks us therefore to consider: What capabilities are facilitated in students through assessment design? Can accommodations be useful if the assessment design inherently alienates the students’ capabilities? Addressing the particular capabilities students use in assessment- or cannot use due to intersecting characteristics; (physical, social, cognitive, and otherwise) – can provide conditions for more socially just assessment procedures and practices.
Assessment Design, Adjustments, or Accommodations?
Commonly, for students with particular characteristics, circumstances, or identities (e.g. students with disabilities, students with an acute medical condition), some kind of special consideration is made, which leads to an adjustment or accommodation with respect to an assessment task. This could be extra time on a task, assistive technology (e.g. voice to text), or a different environment to take the assessment in. In many jurisdictions, this is required by anti-discrimination law (as we outlined in Chapter 1) as part of an education provider’s obligations. Such adjustments or accommodations are usually perceived as helpful, yet in many cases they might not necessarily address a particular student’s problem or concern (Waterfield & West, 2006). Furthermore, while accommodations might support students in the shorter term by ‘removing’ a barrier, it may be better to design tasks which instead scaffold their capability and improve their performance, in alignment with students’ future imagined careers (Tai, 2023).
Adjustments or accommodations can also be problematic, where the range of options readily available (i.e. satisfies the ‘reasonable’ aspect of reasonable adjustments) do not actually mitigate the problems the student has with the task. In a research project focussing on high-stakes assessments (such as exams), Tai et al. (2022) highlighted the range of student experiences relating to assessment adjustments: while at times they help students feel included, at other times, they did not. The seminar below offers an overview of the project findings, including how pre-emptive and considered assessment design could be changed to improve inclusion and mitigate the need for adjustments.
Re-imagining Exams: How do assessment adjustments impact on inclusion? by Dr Joanna Tai for the Centre for Research and Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University. Image attribution list
This work asks us to consider how necessary accommodations and adjustments are, if there might be other assessment designs that do not require adjustments for students with particular conditions or characteristics. Given the administrative burden (for both students in accessing and staff in implementing) of adjustments, it is also worth considering adjustments might have an impact across a whole system of assessment. Although there will always be a need for adjustments (Johnstone, Ketterlin, Geller, & Thurlow, 2022) they also have limitations which Universal Design for Learning (see below) might be better able to address.
Sustainable assessment
Different stakeholders (e.g. academics, students, employers) have different priorities for the reasons that we do assessment within universities. For instance, university administrators and employers might both want to be sure that graduates can actually do the things that a university degree warrants they can. This is the assessment of learning purpose, which is about certification. Students, academics, and even broader society might also expect that assessment, as part of a broader curriculum, supports students to learn relevant knowledge, or develop particular skills, including through formative feedback opportunities. This is commonly called assessment for learning.
However, potentially even more important is sustainable assessment, which contributes ‘to learning beyond the timescale of a given course […] that meets the needs of the present in terms of the demands of formative and summative assessment, but which also prepares students to meet their own future learning needs’ (Boud & Soler, 2016, p.400). This perspective asks us to consider how students might benefit from what they do in the assessment task beyond the immediate university setting.
The key question to ask then, to understand if the assessment is sustainable, is what’s in it for them? In the context of student diversity and supporting inclusion, this requires us to think with greater imagination and more broadly about what students might do outside of the university environment, and particularly to consider the multiplicity of goals they might have. While it might seem obvious in some areas – e.g. not all law students become solicitors or barristers – sustainable assessment has a central focus on ensuring that students are able to operate in the world without requiring teachers or assessors (other than themselves) to inform them of when they’ve done a good job, and when they need to pursue further development.
Discover more about these distinctions between the purposes of assessment in the video below.
Some critical issues in enabling impactful assessment, by Professor David Boud and Professor Geraldine O’Neill for Quality and Qualifications Ireland
The concept of sustainable assessment prompts questions such as the following:
- Aside from exams mandated by accreditation and professional bodies, what happens to assessment after the unit or course is completed?
- What portion of it is transferrable beyond the course students are studying, and further, outside of the higher education system?
- What elements of assessment are ‘disposable’?
Assessment for cultural inclusion
We acknowledge that the term ‘inclusion’ can be problematic in itself, implying an underlying power dynamic that allows for some to include ‘others’, and thereby reinforces the structural inequalities that exist in education. Because admission to and participation in higher education and its culture embodies this dynamic, we see assessment for inclusion as a way to ameliorate and transform these problematic aspects of existing power relations.
Inclusive assessment includes a strong alignment to cultural considerations. This means that students need to ‘see themselves’ in the assessment task if they are to demonstrate their learning. Cultural considerations mean incorporating diverse assessment methods that acknowledge students’ cultural knowledge(s), and, importantly, that students with Indigenous heritage are able to stand strong in their Indigenous knowledge. Collaborating with students using familiar contexts in applying their leaning can create a more relational dynamic between institutional and student cultures. Alongside developing a better understanding of the cultural groups we are working with, gaining a better understanding of the epistemological assumptions and cultural biases inherent in our own practice is a positive move towards assessment for inclusion.
Critically disrupting dominant narratives in education that promote exclusion of any form of culture can help transform practices and show respect for the lived experiences of students, and culturally distinct ways of learning. Lambert, et.al. (2023) posit a Culturally Inclusive Assessment Model, mapping across the justice dimensions which Adam (2020) defined. The model suggests different ways cultural justice can be developed in assessment content, pedagogy, and processes.
| Dimension | Common themes |
| Justice-as-content: decolonising what is taught. |
Removing deficit discourse from learning materials, texts, discussions, assessment examples and feedback. Correcting under-representation or misrepresentation. |
| Justice-as-process: decolonising education processes: a plurality of thought is designed into the course curriculum, assessment, and content |
Two-way learning; relational processes; personal positioning and critical consciousness; student co-creation of decolonised learning materials as an assessment task |
| Justice-as-pedagogy: students are encouraged to critically engage, reflect on, and even challenge what is being taught; assessments or whole subjects designed to teach the ideas of socio-cultural justice, decolonisation or cultural competence. |
Modelling and scaffolding critical thinking and reading skills to challenge deficit discourses and power difference; learning how to apply socio-cultural justice, diversification and decolonisation to new experiences and contexts. |
The Culturally Informed Assessment Model, (Lambert, et al., 2023) CC-BY-ND-NC., adapted from Adam, 2020 CC-BY 4.0
Developing a deeper systemic appreciation and dismantling of injustices can lead to more meaningful inclusive practice that acknowledge, if not ameliorate or eventually transform, cultural misrecognitions baked into conventional practices (Hodgkinson-Williams and Trotter, 2018).
An example from New Zealand is in the concept of ‘aromatawai’. In Te Reo Māori aromatawai (assessment) means ‘Aro’ or to take notice of, and matawai (to examine closely). Assessments from a Māori perspective are underpined by six dynamic kaupapa that are inextricably linked. You can read about these in the resource Aromatawai and the Principles of Assessment (NZQA, 2022). The six principles are: Te reo (the value and importance of te reo and tikanga Māori is recognised); Manaakitanga (respectful relationships between teachers and students, and enhancing the wellbeing of students); Kaitiakitanga (quality teaching and learning); Whanaungatanga (student success is supported and encouraged by positive relationships that are mana enhancing, or lifting up the student); Rangatiratanga (students’ world views are reflected and achievement supported); and Pūkengatanga (tasks are authentic and contextualised). The resource attached can provide you with more detail on how these are used.
Universal Design for Learning in assessment
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one way to positively impact students’ experience of assessment. How units and assessment tasks, along with related communication, are designed directly impacts on student and staff experience and outcomes of assessment, especially during asynchronous attendance.
Universal Design for Learning suggests that a multi-mode approach will support the majority of students in their learning and foster individual agency. There are three main domains to consider: engagement, representation, and action or expression. These can be enacted with respect to access, perceptions, and executive function. Assessment design usually encompasses aspects of all these domains, from the topics that are chosen in the assessment, to how instructions are communicated, and the ways in which students are invited to respond.
Therefore, efforts to make assessment more inclusive include offering students choice, programmatic approaches to assessment and co-design of assessment, and policies that promote inclusion. Universal Design for Assessment has yet not been widely implemented within the sector and may be insufficient alone since there may always be cases where legally, we are required to make accommodations (Johnstone, Ketterlin, Geller, & Thurlow, 2023).
Furthermore, limited theorisation and operationalisation of inclusive assessment and assessment design processes mean tradition and taken-for-granted assumptions about how assessment should be done continue to be the norm. Re-designing assessment and curriculum entirely can also be a daunting task for incoming staff, who may not have resources allocated to such endeavours.
One proponent of UDL, Thomas Tobin, instead suggests a pragmatic “plus one” approach:
Applying Universal Design for Learning by Thomas Tobin for Disability Awareness
The Australian Disability Clearinghouse for Education and Training has many resources that can help you better understand and implement UDL. These resources can be accessed on their website.
Assessment validity
Does the assessment actually measure what it purports to measure? This is assessment validity, and it has long been thought of as relating to psychometric properties of various standardised tests. However, this core idea of validity should apply across all forms of assessment and is important from the perspective of inclusion: if the assessment doesn’t actually measure what it intends to and instead measures or tests other aspects of performance or capability, then this is a problem since decisions will be made to exclude individuals or prevent progression on the basis of irrelevant data.
Messick (1994) argued for six integral aspects of validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential. He argued that all aspects needed to be accounted for (rather than being substitutable) and highlighted the importance of the quality and relevance of the content, the substantive rationales for the underlying theoretical processes demonstrated, the scoring structure and relevant weighting, the generalizability across different groups, settings, and tasks, relationships to other external measures or patterns, and outcomes of the use of the test and how they might perpetuate problems of bias or injustice.
Modern perspectives on validity also emphasise the processes within assessment, the types of evidence considered, and also in terms of consequential validity – the impacts of the assessment on learning. Dawson (2022) offers the following example:
“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.” (p 117).
Therefore, validity is important to consider not just to ensure that assessments are appropriate with respect to the outcomes or capabilities they intend to assess, but also to support learners in their lifelong learning journeys.
This chapter has offered some different perspectives on approaching inclusion and assessment. Depending on local context and practice, some of these concepts may be more useful than others in any given situation.
Questions for Reflection
- What values are important to you when you design, create, or implement assessments?
- What disciplinary or professional values and principles inform the way that assessment is conducted? How might these interface with equitable experiences and outcomes for students?
- What adjustments or accommodations have you made to your assessment tasks?
- How might you avoid having to make adjustments through design changes to assessment?
- What makes your assessment design sustainable beyond the course or unit?
- How could you design tasks so the main goal is supporting student learning rather than assessing their achievement?
- What might a “plus-one” approach to accessibility look like in your assessment tasks and the forms of assessment scaffolding you provide in your course?
- How do you ensure validity in your assessments?
- Who would you approach to learn more about inclusion and assessment? Are there colleagues who are already working or leading in this space? What communities of practice already exist?
References
Adam, T. (2020) ‘Between Social Justice and Decolonisation: Exploring South African MOOC Designers’ Conceptualisations and Approaches to Addressing Injustices’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), p. 7. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.557
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133
CRADLE Deakin (2022, March 17). CRADLE Seminar Series 2022 #2: Re-imagining Exams: How do assessment adjustments impact on inclusion. [Video] YouTube. https://youtu.be/jUyU6UR1-yw?si=p2BB96DmC6egvvoa
CRADLE Deakin (2021, October 25) CRADLE symposium Keynote: Jan McArthur [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFE7qxqCVFY
Dawson, P. (2022). Inclusion, Cheating, and Academic Integrity. In R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, D. Boud, & T. Jorre De St Jorre (Eds.), Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education (1st ed., pp. 110–119). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003293101-13
Disability Awareness elearning (2021, November 8). UDL plus-one – Thomas Tobin. [Video] YouTube. https://youtu.be/FDt1r3FcCQU?si=xM8lolf7yA449k2X
Hodgkinson-Williams, C.A., & Trotter, H. (2018). A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South. Journal of Learning for Development. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v5i3.312
Johnstone, C., Ketterlin Geller, L. R., & Thurlow, M. (2022). Opportunities and Limitations of Accommodations and Accessibility in Higher Education Assessment. In R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, T. Jorre De St Jorre, & D. Boud (Eds.), Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003293101
Lambert, S., Funk, J., & Adam, T. (2022). What Can Decolonisation of Curriculum Tell Us About Inclusive Assessment? In Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education (pp. 52-62). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003293101
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. (2022). Reflections on Assessment for Social Justice and Assessment for Inclusion. In R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, T. Jorre De St Jorre, & D. Boud (Eds.), Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003293101-4/reflections-assessment-social-justice-assessment-inclusion-jan-mcarthur
Messick, S. (1994). Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning. ETS Research Report Series, 1994(2), i–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1994.tb01618.x
New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2022). Aromatawai and the Principles of Assessment. https://www2.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Tertiary/Resources-for-tertiary-providers/Aromatawai-and-the-Principles-of-Assessment.pdf
Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). (2023, March 16). Some critical issues in enabling impactful assessment. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ0D0kRGIaU
Tai, J. (2023). Moving beyond reasonable adjustments: Supporting employability through inclusive assessment design. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 14(2), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2023vol14no2art1785
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Dargusch, J., Dracup, M., Harris, L., & Mahoney, P. (2022). Re-imagining exams: How do assessment adjustments impact on inclusion? National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. https://www.acses.edu.au/research-policies/assessment-adjustments-impact-inclusion-2/
Waterfield, J., & West, B. (2006). Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: A Resource for Change. University of Plymouth. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315045009
