Assessment and Feedback Resources Hub

Inclusive assessment and feedback mean that all students have equitable opportunities to learn through assessment, and are treated equitably throughout the assessment and feedback process.

Information and resources are available on the University’s Assessment & Feedback Resources Hub. These web pages are articulated around the four pillars of the Learning Through Assessment framework, i.e. that assessment and feedback should be designed to be meaningful, iterative, programmatic, and inclusive.

The Learning Through Assessment (LTA) framework sets out the University’s approach to assessment and feedback based on the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy. At its core is an emphasis on assessment for learning. While assessment of learning remains a perfectly valid activity when there is a clear need to measure what students know, assessment for learning means that assessment is seen as an activity that is fully embedded in the learning. In other words, students learn by engaging with assessment activities and by receiving feedback on their assessments. For this to work, assessment and feedback should be meaningful, iterative, programmatic, and inclusive.

Even though the full LTA can look like a long read, it has been kept fairly simple and offers ideas of how to implement each pillar in practice. The benefits of the LTA are numerous for students and for staff. Of course, it is recognized that nothing happens by magic; inevitably, some work is required and this document outlines how to get started.

Perhaps the most compelling argument to implement inclusive assessment practices is that of fairness to all students; recognizing that we have a diverse student body. A one-size-fits-all solution for assessment, where degree programme and course learning outcomes are assessed by relying heavily on a narrow range of assessment types, ignores the diversity of our student body. That includes not only disclosed disabled students, but significant numbers of students:

• with undisclosed/ undiagnosed dyslexia or other learning differences
• who have unassessed ADHD or are autistic/ neurodivergent;
• who have low-level but impactful mental health difficulties (such as cycling anxiety and depression);
• who have caring and/or parental responsibilities;
• whose first language is not English;
• from non-traditional backgrounds, who may be the first in their family to attend HE.

Assessment formats that are not inclusive place complex demands on resources available to make necessary adjustments for some students. Assessments where some groups of students do well, and other groups of students do not do well, may indicate that there are  issues with the assessment design pre-disposing some students to poor performance.

When assessment is designed with inclusivity in mind, fewer adjustments are required. All students have a fair chance to demonstrate their learning achievements, and the resulting grade distribution across a cohort is a better reflection of students’ academic abilities.

While all pillars of the LTA are equally important and valid, a focus on inclusivity will ensure we meet our obligations and exceed the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. This approach is detailed in the University’s Accessible and Inclusive Learning Policy.

Diversity of assessment

The most logical step we can take to account for the diversity of our student body is to use a reasonably diverse range of assessment types. There will be a number of aspects to consider, and that is where general advice becomes of limited value, and  a conversation between subject  and pedagogical experts becomes increasingly necessary.

Briefly, some of the key considerations are:

• Authenticity: Assessments must be meaningful for the discipline and prepare students well for the world of work
• A programmatic approach: Take a broad look at the range of assessment types that a student will meet within a degree programme. This also helps to consider when assessment tasks might fall to limit the points where assessments are piling up across courses in one or more subjects, noting that dense exam diets are specifically disadvantaging to a significant number of disabled students.
• Assessment literacy: Students need to be well prepared for the types of assessment that they will encounter., An iterative approach with timely assessment and feedback opportunities will develop the students’ abilities to become self-regulated learners.

Thus, we see that even with our focus on inclusivity, the other pillars of the LTA play a vital role.

Choice in assessment format

In addition to using a wider range of assessment types across a degree programme, inclusivity can be significantly enhanced by offering choice to students. E.g. in some courses, where learning outcomes can be assessed using various methods, it may be possible to let the students choose which methods they would like to use for their assessment. This approach is already in use in some areas of the University, and some examples are given in the appendix.

Student involvement in assessment design

Students could be collaborators on assessment format including choice of tasks assessed and determination of the marking criteria.

Student involvement in feedback design

Students can be offered different types of feedback formats; or be involved in the decisions around how feedback will be provided, and against what criteria.

There are signs that assessment can be made more inclusive when one or more of the observations below are made:

• A significant fraction of the class fails the course;
• A bimodal distribution of grades is often found;
• A significant fraction of the students fail to engage as expected (e.g. start working on assignments much later than expected, or struggle to submit by the deadline, or have high levels of anxiety that are triggered by assessments);
• Students who had showed promising signs of success fail to demonstrate their learning as well as expected;
• A significant number of requests are received to make adjustments to the assessment (deadline extension, setting attempt aside, changing format or duration etc), with or without Good Cause.

The above is not an exhaustive list but contains some of the most common issues observed. These issues become even more critical when the assessment is high-stake. Reducing the number of high-stake assessments in a degree programme supports inclusivity.

A high-stake assessment is when a student can fail the course by failing that particular course assessment. Typically, assessments weighing more than 70% can be considered to be high-stake.

Failing to achieve a threshold grade in a course will have various impacts depending on the degree programme, year of study, and requirements of the subject. At the most extreme, this can prevent a student from graduating with their intended degree (particularly at PGT level). Some degree programmes require specific courses to be passed for accreditation (which can be problematic if there are no resit opportunities). Failure to do well in one or more courses can affect progression to honours / masters level.

More broadly, even if a student’s degree outcome is not too badly impacted by not performing well in an individual course, one has to consider the psychological impact on a student who is awarded grades below a certain threshold for no reason other than an assessment that was not designed with inclusivity in mind.  In other words, we must avoid any situation where students  are unable to demonstrate their learning achievements because of the way the assessment is designed. Assessments should not be hard for the wrong reasons.

Unless there is a specific need for it, it is preferable to avoid high-stake assessments where possible. High-stake assessments in a degree programme should therefore be limited.

No. But it is worth considering carefully, in light of what we know about inclusive assessments, where in-person invigilated written exams are essential, and if they truly are the only way that course learning outcomes can be assessed. There is a growing body of literature to evidence that traditional pen and paper final exams are flawed (Moosvi and Bates 2023). In particular, they do not help students learn since it is well established that students forget what they learned very quickly (even, unfortunately, sometimes during the exam itself). In other words, written exams are less about testing learning, and more about testing how good someone is at taking exams.

Please refer to the appendix with a few examples of alternative assessments. You may also want to check our Zotero library.

Perhaps the most important consideration is that this is about enhancing student learning and fairness. More inclusive assessment practices have a positive impact on student learning and engagement, leading to a more rewarding teaching experience. Adopting a more inclusive assessment practice also implies that after assessment has been redesigned in your course or programme, the number of assessments would decrease. This brings the potential for a reduced workload, freeing up time for other activities.

Inclusivity can be assessed through student feedback (e.g. via the accessibility and inclusivity EvaSys question set), grade distributions, and engagement levels. Improvements in these areas can be used as indicators of successful inclusive practices. This can also be commented on within e.g. course reviews, Annual Quality and Enhancements Reports, or Periodic Subject Reviews. Inclusivity of assessments should be incorporated into a continuous improvement cycle where assessments are regularly reviewed and updated based on feedback and data.

It is possible that not all employers have adopted inclusive practices in the workplace. Much work remains to be done. But just like at the University of Glasgow, all employers are required to abide by the Equality Act. So, everyone is moving in the same direction. Inclusivity has become a key topic in many sectors of employment, and the number of employers who put in place adjustments that are offered more systematically to all employees continuously increases. And just because there are still areas where things are unfairly challenging to some individuals does not mean that we should not review and enhance our own practices.

More broadly, while this might be accurate in different contexts to the university, it is a false equivalency to use this argument to structurally disadvantage a large number of our students and thus prevent them from demonstrating their learning to the best of their ability.

Inclusive assessment practices directly align with the expectations commonly found in professional accreditation guidelines. For instance, the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) specifies several elements that are relevant for many accrediting bodies:

A Range of Assessment Methods

Diverse assessment tasks (e.g., open-book tests, presentations, practicals, oral exams) accommodate different abilities, an important aspect of inclusivity.

Clear Alignment With Learning Outcomes

Accrediting bodies require assessment methods to be mapped explicitly to intended learning outcomes. Inclusive approaches can ensure tasks are both valid (accurately assessing what they are intended to measure) and reliable (consistent across different cohorts).

Robust Quality Assurance and Academic Standards

Institutions must demonstrate rigorous processes to maintain academic integrity. Inclusive assessments can be designed to include more authentic or personalised tasks, making it more difficult to plagiarise or engage in other forms of misconduct.

Reasonable Adjustments and Anticipating Needs

Accrediting bodies require that programs make adequate provisions for students with disabilities or other special circumstances. Inclusively designed assessments proactively incorporate flexibility and diverse formats, minimising the need for last-minute accommodations.

Overall, a well-planned inclusive assessment strategy can help your program meet multiple accreditation standards by ensuring equitable learning opportunities, maintaining rigorous academic integrity, and aligning with professional requirements.

A carefully designed inclusive assessment strategy at programme level that support students to engage meaningfully in their assessment tasks – and use assessment as a tool for learning – must incorporate academic integrity. This is best discussed in the context of your specific course and programme with the IAQD Lead.

Dawson et al (2020) provide useful, research-informed guidance around academic integrity and assessment security. Cheating and academic misconduct can happen even during exams, and research shows that these instances are likely to remain undetected. According to these authors and other research, assignments that are least likely to be cheated on include reflective tasks, personalised and unique tasks, in class tasks and vivas. They also recommend using lower-stake assessments to: develop students’ assessment literacy (helping them understand the purpose of assessment as a learning tool); and develop their academic integrity. It is logical to enhance the security of academic integrity in the most important assessment activities which contribute most to the degree outcome. This can often be done without increasing workload, by making small, thoughtful adjustments, like adding reflective components, using oral explanations, or tailoring tasks to be more personalised. Where programme learning outcomes are assessed on multiple occasions, academic integrity matters most at the final assessment opportunity.

If some assessment tasks can be undertaken remotely by students, it is best to relax usual restrictions and allow students to work with others, consult resources, and use tools that will most likely reflect authentic situations – rather than trying to add restrictions which cannot be feasibly enforced (Dawson et al 2020).

The final consideration from Dawson et al (2020) is to aim at assessing higher-level outcomes where possible, as these are less vulnerable to cheating than lower-level outcomes.

In parallel to carefully considering how assessment design can reduce cheating opportunities, it is important to educate students about the risks of cheating (Dawson et al 2020):

• Cheating reduces the value of the degree, therefore the university takes this extremely seriously with very serious potential penalties.
• Cheating will negatively impact on their ability to succeed in their professional career.
• Getting others to complete an assignment (like contract-cheating, or using GenAI) will lead to poor quality assignments that will not reflect the true abilities of the student.

The University provides useful guidance to students on how to avoid various forms of academic misconduct, offering a basis for a frank conversation between students and staff.

A carefully designed inclusive assessment strategy at programme level that support students to engage meaningfully in their assessment tasks – and use assessment as a tool for learning – requires some upfront thinking, especially as you reflect on what you’re already doing and where small shifts could make a big difference. But many of these changes can actually reduce workload over time.

For example, instead of marking long written submissions from every student, some programmes have moved to using shorter, more frequent, low-stakes tasks like reflective journals or short video submissions. At first, this feels like more marking, but when structured well (e.g., with a clear rubric or selective sampling), it often takes less time to mark and gives you a much better sense of where students are at.

Even simple tweaks like allowing students to choose from a list of task formats (written, audio, visual, etc.) don’t necessarily require creating more marking criteria. You can often use the same rubric across different formats, and students tend to be more engaged with the format they choose, which can actually improve the quality of what you’re marking.

Some time will however be required at the start to consider the current assessment strategy and how it can be modified to increase inclusivity. This is best discussed in the context of your specific course and programme with the IAQD team.

A carefully designed inclusive assessment strategy at programme level that support students to engage meaningfully in their assessment tasks – and use assessment as a tool for learning – may change, but should not increase, their workload. Learning through assessment aims to integrate the assessment into the students’ learning process. It won’t increase their workload, instead it replaces rote learning with meaningful engagement.

Good assessment design requires a good understanding of how learning works for your students: when in the Semester are they realistically able to engage in your course and what is the course load across their programme; how much time should students spend on different tasks taking into account that not all students work at the same pace. If assessment is not designed with inclusivity in mind, some students will be systematically disadvantaged, e.g. student carers, students with long commutes, or neurodiverse students requiring additional time in comparison to other students.

The key consideration in all this is to have reasonable estimates of the time needed to complete each assessment activity in a course, and how that tallies with the number of credits associated with the course and the associated notional learning hours.

It is unlikely that overall student performance will decline. Research and data indicate that grade distribution may shift and lead to overall improved performance. If you are concerned that performance issues arise, consider offering alternative assessment formats to give students a choice. This can help accommodate different learners’ preferences.

I don’t want to make changes that could badly impact on our students. That is of course a key consideration, and students must be on board – they will naturally be concerned with any change to assessment practice. But the literature is clear: a more inclusive assessment practice, with careful assessment design along what is outlined in the LTA, will benefit ALL students. Clear communication with and for students is paramount to explain the rationale behind the changes.

An open bibliography on Zotero for inclusive assessment in quantitative disciplines is available at https://www.zotero.org/groups/5358794/inclusive_assessment_in_quantitative_disciplines/library.

Contact directly your School representative:

• Chemistry: Soler@glasgow.ac.uk
• Computing Science: maguire@glasgow.ac.uk
• Economics: cheng@glasgow.ac.uk
• Engineering: grey@glasgow.ac.uk
• Geography and Earth Sciences: mathers@glasgow.ac.uk
• Mathematics and Statistics: belk@glasgow.ac.uk
• Physics and Astronomy: speirits@glasgow.ac.uk

Alternatively, get in touch with Nicolas.Labrosse@glasgow.ac.uk (University Lead for Inclusive Assessment in Quantitative Disciplines), or errol.rivera@glasgow.ac.uk (Academic and Digital Development).

You have the professional experience to make assessment more authentic and meaningful, and that will enhance the inclusivity of your assessment. The IAQD working group can work with you to identify possible ways to administer and mark different types of assessments.

Resources are available on the Assessment & Feedback Resources Hub with suggestions on different types of assessment and how they can be graded with useful feedback given to students.

There is also specific support from the Academic and Digital Development team to help with the inclusive constructive alignment methodology - ensuring that your assessment is constructively aligned with the course learning outcomes in an inclusive manner. This includes a resource deck (presented in PowerPoint) and an interactive booklet (presented as an Excel app) with prompts, tips, automated reference material, and an “Assessment Method Search Engine”, allowing you  to complete the Inclusive Constructive Alignment design process on your own, even if you have a minimal background in pedagogy and assessment design (found here in the University’s Assessment and Feedback Hub).

As a lecturer on the course you are well placed to suggest ways to enhance the course, including how students are assessed on what you teach. Contact the IAQD Lead to discuss your course and its context. A discussion with the course coordinator, programme convenor, and learning & teaching committee members could then be scheduled.

Please get in touch with the IAQD Team to discuss the context of the course / programme.

Generative AI brings many challenges but also opportunities as part of a continuous improvement process. The University provides updated guidance on how to consider Generative AI in the context of learning, teaching and assessment, fully aligned with the Learning Through Assessment framework. The Academic and Digital Development team organises College-specific workshops on assessment changes to discuss adjusting or changing assessment and creating more inclusive assessment considering the growing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI).

Start by identifying colleagues who are happy to discuss with you the advantages and disadvantages of current and alternative forms of assessment in your course. The IAQD team for example has several subject experts who are available to support you. You may want to begin with small, manageable changes rather than overhauling the entire assessment system. This could involve modifying a single assignment or introducing a new type of formative assessment. You may also want to focus on areas where current practices are already less effective or where there is room for improvement. This lowers the risk and makes it easier to demonstrate positive outcomes.

The IAQD team can also help by sharing examples of successful inclusive assessment practices from other courses or institutions. Furthermore, the IAQD group offers support to colleagues who are putting forward proposals for new courses, or changes to existing courses. This support is provided by subject experts and experts in course and assessment design, and can be made available in any form that would be most helpful, e.g. one-off drop-in sessions, or a repeat of scheduled meetings.

Learning Through Assessment (March 2023) (sharepoint.com)

University of Glasgow - MyGlasgow - Academic Policy & Governance - Policy, Strategy and Regulations - Student Support - Accessible & Inclusive Learning Policy - AILP Policy

Dawson, P., Sutherland-Smith, W. & Dullaghan, K. (2020). CRADLE Suggests… Academic integrity, assessment security and digital assessment. Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12585443  

Moosvi, F. and Bates, S. (2023) ‘Authentic and inclusive (summative) assessments’, in Effective Teaching in Large STEM Classes. IOP Publishing, pp. 5–1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-5231-4ch5.

University of Glasgow - MyGlasgow - Student Conduct - Student Conduct (students) - Avoiding Academic Misconduct

Inclusive Assessment in Quantitative Disciplines Zotero library https://www.zotero.org/groups/5358794/inclusive_assessment_in_quantitative_disciplines/library

Based on examples at the University of Glasgow

In Economics

Rather than assessing project work through a dissertation, students on Business Economics programmes have the option to be assessed with a shorter dissertation (70%), and a practical skills assessment from which the format will be selected jointly by students and their supervisors from a predetermined list.  This list incorporates various formats of assessment, including but not limited to Policy brief, Podcast and Presentation.

Formal support (by teams from SLD, College Student Experience Team) is available for some of the alternative formats to help students who choose the flexible assessment.

In Psychology

In the Professional Skills course (PSYCH4011/5030), students complete 2 out of 4 tasks and a reflective rationale added for why people chose what they chose.

Another example of a Professional Skills course preparing students for academic research is PSYCH5017: https://sway.cloud.microsoft/9acniKTOlpBwngmC. Examples include preparing CVs, grant applications, videos (based on the 3-minute thesis example), producing a portfolio, and giving choice to students on what assessments they will choose.

In Critical Studies

Courses have offered students the option of either a final exam or a portfolio of short essays (in addition to other course-work submitted mid-term).

Assessment and Feedback Resources Hub

An extensive list of different types of assessment that might be considered is available from https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/learningandteaching/afresourceshub/.

Based on examples outside of Glasgow

From the literature

Authentic Assessment Through Professional Conversations: An AI friendly assessment method? | Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice (jpaap.ac.uk)

Although from a study not initially based in a quantitative discipline, the oral assessment format used here is applicable to courses where students have to demonstrate higher-order cognitive skills. The author (Cole, 2023) provides a number of suggestions that help with inclusivity as well as authenticity:

• Providing some of the questions asked in the oral assessment prior to the assessment
• Allowing students to listen to previous oral assessments and discussing with them how they were graded to help them better understand how they can successfully demonstrate their learning
• Guiding students on how to prepare for the assessment
• Preparing assessors to ensure an equitable experience for all students and an academically rigorous and fair assessment outcome
• If multiple assessors are involved, aim for a comprehensive and collaborative moderation – this could include allowing assessors to listen to previous oral assessments and agree on a grade

Reference: Cole, D. (2023) ‘Authentic Assessment Through Professional Conversations: An AI friendly assessment method?’, Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 11(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.56433/jpaap.v11i3.586.