1

PROMOTING EQUITY AND SOCIAL

JUSTICE THROUGH ASSESSMENT
FOR INCLUSION
Joanna Tai, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud,
and Trina Jorre de St Jorre

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

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

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

outcomes at the requisite level. Underperformance in assessment is frequently

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

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

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

Positioning assessment for inclusion within

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

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

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

How assessment can exclude

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

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

Perspectives on assessment for inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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