How do you know if your assessments are inclusive? How can you reconsider your assessments to make them more inclusive? Last week, we learned from K. Supriya, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Researcher in the ASU School of Life Sciences, on ways we can assess our assessments for inclusiveness. 
During the webinar we discussed the purpose of assessments in class, examined the various assessment practices we have experienced as students or teachers in various STEM courses with a critical lens, and then came up with an assessment plan for a course we will/might teach in the future. Watch the discussion here.
"...design and use of fair and effective assessment methods and practices that enable all students to demonstrate to their full potential what they know, understand and can do" (Hockings, 2010).
Purpose of Assessment
Let's consider the differences between assessment and evaluation. The purpose of assessment is to increase quality, as seen in formative quizzes, building upon each other. The purpose of evaluation is to judge quality, which is seen more as summative or at the end of the unit or course.
Define Inclusive Assessment
Two definitions that Dr. K. Supriya shared, which helped to focus the discussion included:
"...inclusive assessment is not about 'easier assessments,' the aim is to assess students equitably, and for them to achieve and demonstrate all aspects of their learning with as limited a hindrance from their personal circumstances as is practical" (Plymouth University).
What the Literature Says
- Taking tests improves long-term retention (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006)
- Students who engaged in self- or peer-grading performed better on subsequent tests (Sanchez et al, 2017)
- Curving grades discourages student learning and leads to biased assessment (Reyes, 2011)
- Students score higher on exams with more constructed response questions, but socio-economic status (SES) disparities increase (Wright et al, 2016)
- Both types of testing (open or closed book) produced equivalent retention on a delayed test, as well as testing enhanced long‐term retention more than restudying (Agarwal et al, 2006)
Create Your Assessment Plan
Answer these six questions as you reconsider assessments in your course.
- How frequently will you assess students?
- Who will grade the assessments and how?
- What types of assessments will you use?
- How will you weigh the assessments?
- Who will write the exams (i.e. develop the questions)/assignments?
- What kind of learning goals will you be able to evaluate?
Then, consider the following...
Which grading/assessment methods:
- might benefit students with some social identities and/or harm others?
- did students like/dislike and why?
- allowed students to demonstrate the breadth of their learning?
- promoted deep learning (higher-order thinking)?
Resources
- Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H., Roediger III, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open‐and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(7), 861-876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391
- Cotner, S., & Ballen, C. J. (2017). Can mixed assessment methods make biology classes more equitable? PLoS One, 12(12), e0189610. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189610
- Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453-468. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
- Hockings, C. (2010) Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. Higher Education Academy resource.
- Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
- Reyes, M. E. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from community colleges to universities. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 241-263. https://www.hepgjournals.org/doi/abs/10.17763/haer.81.2.324m5t1535026g76
- Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017)Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of researchSelf-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1049. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/edu0000190
- Wright, C. D., Eddy, S. L., Wenderoth, M. P., Abshire, E., Blankenbiller, M., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Cognitive difficulty and format of exams predicts gender and socioeconomic gaps in exam performance of students in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar23. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/pdf/10.1187/cbe.15-12-0246
Post author
Sarah Prosory is an Instructional Designer within the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University. She has worked in higher education for 10 years, supporting faculty in law, engineering, and biological sciences. Her experience includes assisting faculty with in-person, blended, and hybrid courses, as well as making the leap to fully online courses. She provides training to faculty and teaching assistants on how to use educational technologies, and shares best practices in course design to improve the student experience.
Comments
Post a Comment