Inclusive Assessments: Are we on the right track?

Many universities in the UK, including Russel group universities indicate they want inclusive assessments in their Learning and Teaching strategies, and the QAA of UK has given a framework for inclusive Higher Education (HE). In this blog, we revisit some of the progress been made so far and highlight some myths and pitfalls about inclusive assessments.  

Purpose of Assessments 

Core academic skills and knowledge are developed with necessary Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) guiding students to progress in their degree programme. The purpose of assessments is to assess the level of learning outcomes achieved. Examiners use a range of assessments throughout a degree programme to assess not only subject knowledge, but also graduate skills. 

Some assessments need expertise beyond the knowledge and skills the ILOs are assessing. These are secondary skills needed for the assessment and being indirectly assessed without mentioning. For instance, writing speed, fluent English speech. While these are useful skills and need to be acknowledged, it would be incorrect to roll these in with other ILOs which the assessment is actually trying to assess when these are not the ILOs for the particular assessment. 

Ultimately, an assessment should not unnecessarily disadvantage students by asking them to overcome barriers created by assessments first, and then demonstrate attainment of ILOs in the process.  

Current state 

The current discussion on inclusive assessments centers around moving from individual accommodations to designing inclusive assessment from the outset (Bain, 2023; Tai et al., 2024). This involves removing unnecessary barriers, offering appropriate flexibility and choice (Rose and Strangman, 2007; Hitchcock et.al., 2002), and helping students develop assessment literacy through practice and feedback (McConlogue, 2020). Inclusive assessment also encourages authentic opportunities for students to apply knowledge and demonstrate learning in different ways (Forsyth and Evans, 2019). Inclusive assessments originally considered disability; however, some students may also be disadvantaged whose circumstances do not fit neatly within standard categories.  

Drawing on our own experiences and conversations with colleagues, we reflect on some of the myths and pitfalls that we believe deserve further thought.  

Myths  

Diverse assessments  

A diverse assessment portfolio across a degree programme enables students to demonstrate their strengths across different formats. This diversity balances the evaluation of the student's achievement over time. However, such a programme-level diversity does not eliminate the disadvantage that some students may still experience in a particular assessment format. This raises the question of whether students should be given greater choice in how they demonstrate their learning within individual assessments. 

Authentic assessments 

Another misleading idea is that authentic assessments require students to use different skills and hence, claim they are inclusive. In fact, despite their immense value an authentic assessment could be ‘excluding’.  

For example, students required to enact a boardroom discussion to identify and debate solutions to a company’s liquidity crisis. Some students may thrive with this assessment, while others may be equally capable through a poster, policy brief, or one-to-one discussion. What the boardroom scenario introduces is an additional element, i.e. the assessment of a specific professional skill set and the ability to demonstrate it. This may be authentic, but it is not necessarily inclusive. Are we assessing a student's ability to address liquidity crisis, or their ability to perform effectively as a board member?  

Further, authenticity itself may also vary according to social and cultural context. What feels authentic and meaningful to one group of learners may not necessarily be experienced in the same way by another. 

Pitfalls  

Should assessments be standardised? 

Degree programmes have a variety of ILOs, including disciplinary knowledge, specific skills, and general graduate skills. The requirement is for the students to show they have achieved the ILOs and there will be a range of assessments to assess this.  

One pitfall facing teachers is the need for the assessment format to be standardised across students to ensure ‘fairness’ and ‘quality’. But is it fair by the students who could have shown their learning outcome better in another format?  

Avoiding assessments that are not inclusive  

Another pitfall is that examiners are focussed on ensuring no one is excluded, which may result in avoiding some useful assessments. For example, avoiding field trip because not everyone could attend, or not use vlogging because not all students can afford or have the skills; not use oral exams because some students maybe feel anxious and not fluent; not have group presentation because of potential social anxiety etc. At least, it can be quite difficult to convince the course approval committees that the assessments are inclusive enough. 

Accommodate Diverse skills and ambitions 

We should bear in mind that in fact, every person has strengths and weaknesses in different areas, with different ambitions in the skills they wish to develop. Shouldn’t all students be allowed flexibility in the way they show the achievement of ILOs and given a choice to learn skills that they perceive as important for them?  

This adds to the reason we should have inclusive assessments, beyond disability. We should accommodate students' who wish to develop and use certain skills and not others for a variety of reasons, giving them agency over their own development, while the core ILO profile of the programme is preserved. 

From inclusive assessment to inclusive ecosystem 

Moving from reactive to a proactive approach, Stentiford & Koutsouris (2021) explain that this entails bringing down barriers and structures that create exclusion in the first place. Specifically, educational frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (Hitchcock et.al., 2002) and involving students in design phase (McConlogue, 2020) may be helpful.  

Rather than placing responsibility solely on individual courses, lecturers, or assessment tasks, we advocate for a broader consideration of how universities can cultivate inclusive learning ecosystems. Such ecosystems would ensure that voices from all backgrounds are heard and valued, foster a sense of belonging, support students’ agency, enable educators to shift perspective for change and empower students to become agents of positive change in an increasingly complex world. 

Concluding thoughts 

We have highlighted some myths and pitfalls about inclusive assessments. We have also suggested a more accommodating way of assessing and giving more agency to students to develop themselves. For this, we need to consider fewer assessments, co-creation, manageable workload, with more flexibility to achieve the programme ILOs.  

References 

Bain, K. (2023). Inclusive assessment in higher education: what does the literature tells us on how to define and design inclusive assessments? Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (27). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi27.1014 

Fereire, P. (1978). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Towards a Sociology of Education. Chapter 33, 374 – 386. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429339530-34/pedagogy-oppressed-paulo-freire 

Forsyth, H., & Evans, J. (2019). Authentic assessment for a more inclusive history. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 748-761. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1581140  

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching exceptional children, 35(2), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203500201  

LSE. (2026). Assessment and feedback Toolkit: Inclusive assessment. Eden Centre, London School of Economics. https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/Eden-Centre/Assessment-and-Feedback-Toolkit/Inclusive-assessment  

McConlogue, T. (2020). Assessment and feedback in higher education: A guide for teachers. UCL Press. http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/39430  

Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Individual Learning Differences through a Neurocognitive Perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5, 381-391.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0062-8 

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., & Umarova, A. (2024). How do students experience inclusive assessment? A critical review of contemporary literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(9), 1936–1953. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441  

Universal Design for Learning. (2026) Constructive Approach to Smart Technologies.. https://www.cast.org/what-we-do/universal-design-for-learning/  

QAA (2026). The inclusive education framework. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education https://www.qaa.ac.uk/become-a-member/make-the-most-of-your-membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/the-inclusive-education-framework