This #Take5 blog is written by Katrin Bain, a senior lecturer in social work at London Metropolitan University who shares insights from a literature review and teaching practice of how assessments can be inclusive and meaningful to students to ensure deep learning, student success and satisfaction. While the examples are from the social work courses, the insights are transferable to other subject areas.

Introduction

A few years ago, I asked myself the questions: ‘What makes higher education assessments inclusive?’ and ‘How to design inclusive assessments in higher education?’ I conducted a literature review and analysed 14 articles. The full review is available open access (Bain, 2023). In this post I am presenting selected findings and my experience in applying them in practice. Assessments have gained a lot of attention this year with the rise of students using generative AI to complete them (Freeman, 2025). As academics and departments respond to this development and review existing assessment formats, it is important to take a holistic view and not lose sight of other aspects of assessments including whether they allow all students to succeed. 

Why do we need inclusive assessment?

The diversity of university students has increased. In our classrooms we find first generation students, students from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, disabled students, mature students and international students. And of course, there is intersectionality between these and other characteristics. Within the literature review authors applied different understandings of ‘inclusive’ and student groups that should receive particular consideration in developing inclusive assessments: disabled students (Sharp and Earle, 2000; Jackson, 2006; Keating, Zybutz and Rouse, 2012; Morris, Milton and Goldstone, 2019; Gibson, Clarkson and Scott, 2022; Nieminen, 2022; Reason and Ward, 2022), distance learners (Collins, 2010; Gibson, Clarkson and Scott, 2022), all students within the context of widening participation (Forsyth and Evans, 2019), students with diverse characteristics and intersections between them including gender, ethnicity, language, ability, experience, social background, disability, sexuality, mature students and international students (Kaur, Noman and Nordin, 2017; Kneale and Collings, 2018; McConlogue, 2020; Tai, Ajjawi and Umarova, 2021; Paguyo, Sponsler and Iturbe-LaGrave, 2022).

It is well documented that degree results vary between different student groups. We speak of a degree awarding gap when differences in results are not due to individual ability. The degree awarding gap exists between White students and Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority students (BAME), students of higher and lower socio-economic status, between younger and older students, and between those with and without disabilities (Mountford-Zimdars et al., 2015; Universities UK and National Union of Students, 2019). Assessments play a key role in closing the degree awarding gap as “[s]tudents can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment” (Boud, 1995, p. 35). 

What makes higher education assessments inclusive?

One response to enhance student success has been to offer individual, reasonable adjustments (for example: extra time, quiet exam room etc.) to disabled students and those with learning differences. Access to reasonable adjustments often depends on a medical diagnosis and/or assessment through services that can have very long waiting times. This option is also not available to all student groups where the attainment gap exists. It is therefore not inclusive and can create a sense of othering for those receiving the adjustments. 

Inclusion in this context therefore means the provision of assessments that allow all students to do well without receiving alternative or adapted assessments. Where assessment variants are offered, they are offered to all students.

How to design inclusive assessments?

There was no straightforward answer in the literature of how to design inclusive assessments, and that’s why I want to share some of the experiences of implementing inclusive assessments in the BSc social work at London Metropolitan University.

Choice in assessments

A key  purpose of assessments is to test knowledge and professional skills. However, assessments often also test the mastery of the assessment instrument. Sometimes that can be relevant; for example, social work includes a lot of report writing and essays can be a proxy for that. However, where the assessment instrument is not relevant to the assessment of the skills and knowledge, then we can offer choice.

Example 1: Research mindedness for practice – final year dissertation module

In the final year research mindedness for practice modules BSc and MSc social work students need to show an understanding of the research process by completing an independent research project (see figure 1) that follows all stages of the research cycle (see figure 2). Traditionally the documentation of this process has been a written dissertation. However, in our case this is not so relevant as we are not assessing their dissertation writing skills but whether they understand the research process and have completed an independent research project. We therefore give the students choice in the following areas:

• Choice of research question, as long as it links to social work and is ethically feasible to conduct within the time frame
• Choice of the type of research. Students can choose a literature review or small-scale primary research
• Choice in how the research process is documented. Students can choose between a written dissertation or an audio or video dissertation with a written reflection.

Is choice of assessment formats fair?

Within the literature concerns are raised by students and authors that choice can be unfair, because tasks are not equivalent (McConlogue, 2020). The worry is that one option is easier. I do not think that the risk is as big as it is described. We must remember that some students already find traditional assessment formats easier, so ideally choice will allow more students to play to their strengths. This is reflected in the research by Morris et al. (2019, p. 443): “Interestingly, there was wide variation in which mode of assessment students felt was the most challenging, with the four suggestions (presentation, oral examination, written assignment, or exam), being equally weighted as challenging, in the responses”. This shows that we perceive things that come easier to us as easier whereas things that do not come easy to us as more challenging. But it does not mean that objectively one is easier than the other. 

What is however crucial is to ensure that choice in assessments does not limit the skills development of students. Therefore, assessments need to be mapped across the course rather than on a module-by-module basis. Otherwise, we might suddenly find out that students have missed out on developing essential skills, disadvantaging them in placement or employment. 

We introduced choice in the modules three years ago. Prior to this all students completed a literature review and presented it as a written dissertation. Now 10-15% of students conduct primary research and 5-10% present their research as either an audio or video dissertation and written reflection. Interestingly the probably biggest change has been for those students choosing a literature review and written dissertation. The student satisfaction is generally higher and results better. Maybe most surprisingly several students, who had previous educational experiences of ‘not being good at writing’ including dyslexic students and those who felt as an imposter in higher education chose the written dissertation as a challenge to prove to themselves that they can do it and – with guidance from their supervisor – got distinctions.

Creativity

Example 2: Social work within my culture poster

Image 1: Social work within my culture poster presentation

First year students prepare posters about social work within their culture. Culture is intentionally kept wide, and students determine what it means to them. As a result, posters might cover social work within countries, cultures, religions but also smaller areas like ‘Hackney’ for example. This gives a rich insight into how social work can look in different settings and with different groups. A selection of the posters is presented within the university for social work week (see image 1). Students can get creative in how they design their posters. 

What do students think about creative formats?

Students arrive at university with an idea of what university learning and assessment looks like and tend to expect traditional assignment formats. Alternative and creative assessments might not be seen by students as legitimate assessments (Forsyth and Evans, 2019). In the reviewed literature students have raised concerns about how alternative formats are marked (Kaur, Noman and Nordin, 2017). Alternative assessment, especially in groups or if new skills need to be developed, can be really time consuming and we have to be very aware of this as many students are already stretched for time. Module leaders therefore need to ensure that assessments develop transferable skills that prepare students for the workplace or develop necessary academic skills and not put unnecessary pressure on students by including creative formats for the sake of it.    

Despite the concerns raised in the literature our experience with the poster assignment has been very positive. Students enjoy creating the posters and learning from the posters of their peers.

Authentic assessments  

“[A]ssessment must feel meaningful to the students being assessed. They must understand its processes, its vocabulary, its purpose. Without this, assessment becomes something done to students in a mysterious and almost violent manner.” (Reason and Ward, 2022, p. 141)

Authentic assessments are meaningful to students, personal, local and aligned with workplace skills. In designing them it is important to not replicate existing discriminatory structures, especially at a time when universities might be moving faster towards social justice and to overcoming some of the structural disadvantages than some employers. But equally students need to have the best possible employment chances.  

With that in mind the social work degrees do not assess students through exams as there is no situation in employment where all knowledge needs to be available without an opportunity to check information, take notes or consult colleagues. With the rise of generative AI there might be a temptation for departments to return to exams, and I do not think this would be the right move. Another assessment that has been presented as “AI proof” is the viva voce. Viva voce has many advantages; however, one disadvantage is that it requires a lot of personnel resources. The example below shows how authentic assessment can be integrated into modules. 

Example 3: A student taught optional module

The final year optional module ‘International relationship-based practice for social change’ is attended by social work, youth and community work students and 100% taught by students. Within the overarching topic of the module each student chooses a practice approach that interests them and prepares a presentation that they then present to class. The task also stipulates that they need to initiate and moderate a discussion and contribute to discussions throughout the module. This assessment is genuine as the purpose is not just assessment but module content. Some students also use the presentations in their placements to meet the PCF 9 Leadership requirements (BASW, 2018), which is often evidenced by doing a presentation to the team. And I can tell you this is the most interesting module I have ever led. The students have responded really well to it. The presentations are of a high standard and lead to engaging and interesting discussions. 

It’s not (just) the assessment format that makes assessments inclusive

In designing modules that are inclusive and eliminate the degree awarding gap it is worth considering that module results depend on many more variables than just the assessment instrument. Assessment literacy needs to be integrated into the module and learning scaffolded to allow students to develop skills (Bruner, 1977). Early formative feedback and assessments that are distributed equally throughout the year allow students to use feedback constructively.

What about belonging, interest, enthusiasm?

One thing that was not discussed in the literature I reviewed and that I’ve been thinking a lot about, is the role of belonging, interest and enthusiasm in student success. The optional module I introduced above not only included student presentations but also student-led activities that can be used to build relationships with people they might work with. These activities created a really strong sense of belonging within the group. Giving students ownership of the module also overcame issues that are present in other modules, including another final year module I teach that the same students attend. There was very little lateness in the module and students who cannot afford peak time train travel found a way to arrive punctually at 10am, because it was important for them to be there. Attendance was high and students arrived prepared. There is no awarding gap in this module and according to the external examiner it is a demanding module for 15 credits, yet there were no complaints from students, no one mitigated, and everyone enjoyed taking part in the module.

Do inclusive assessments lead to better outcomes?

None of the publications in the literature review addressed grades, whether inclusive assessments had improved grades or whether the degree awarding gap has been reduced or eliminated. This is a major omission given that grades are one of the most important outcomes of assessments and how inequalities beyond the university years manifest. 

So, what do our numbers say?

There is a delay in the publication of official numbers, which makes it difficult to work with up-to-date numbers. Official numbers also do not distinguish between students who attend the modules regularly and those who do not. Yet, we see differences between those groups. For example, in the optional module in the past two years everyone attended and everyone passed, this year two students enrolled but did not attend so the pass rate reduced to 95%. 

Across the social work degree, the average pass mark has risen to 67.5 in 2022/23. The rate of fails at first attempt reduced from 24% to 11% from 202/21 to 2022/23 and the attainment gap has been reduced to 3.2% with it being non-existing in some modules.

So, while these aren’t complete numbers, there’s definitely an indication that inclusive assessments can lead to higher student satisfaction, more meaningful learning experiences and better degree outcomes for students.

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 [Preprint], (27). Available at: https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi27.1014.
• Bain, K. (2024) Forschendes Lernen im Studiengang Sozialarbeit: Theoriegeleitete Konzeption eines unterstützenden Lehrangebots. Masterarbeit. Hamburg.
• BASW (2018) The Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF), www.basw.co.uk. Available at: https://www.basw.co.uk/professional-development/professional-capabilities-framework-pcf/the-pcf (Accessed: 9 June 2023).
• Boud, D. (1995) ‘Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary?’, in P. Knight (ed.) Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Kogan, pp. 35–48.
• Bruner, J. (1977) The process of education. Harvard University Press.
• Collins, P. (2010) ‘Inclusive team assessment of off-campus and on-campus first year law students using instantaneous communication technology’, The Law Teacher, 44(3), pp. 309–333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2010.524032.
• Forsyth, H. and Evans, J. (2019) ‘Authentic assessment for a more inclusive history’, Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), pp. 748–761. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1581140.
• Freeman, J. (2025) Student Generative AI Survey 2025. Available at: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/02/26/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/ (Accessed: 4 August 2025).
• Gibson, P., Clarkson, R. and Scott, M. (2022) ‘Promoting potential through purposeful inclusive assessment for distance learners’, Distance Education, 43(4), pp. 543–555. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2143321.
• Jackson, C. (2006) ‘Towards inclusive assessment’, Educational Developments, 7(1), pp. 19–21.
• Kaur, A., Noman, M. and Nordin, H. (2017) ‘Inclusive assessment for linguistically diverse learners in higher education’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5), pp. 756–771. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1187250.
• Keating, N., Zybutz, T. and Rouse, K. (2012) ‘Inclusive assessment at point-of-design’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(3), pp. 249–256. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.703022.
• Kneale, P.E. and Collings, J. (2018) ‘Towards inclusive assessment: The journey at the University of Plymouth’, in N. Auferkorte-Michaelis and F. Linde (eds) Diversität lernen und lehren – ein Hochschulbuch. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich, pp. 31–43.
• McConlogue, T. (2020) Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education: A Guide for Teachers. 1st edn. London: UCL Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787353640.
• Morris, C., Milton, E. and Goldstone, R. (2019) ‘Case study: suggesting choice: inclusive assessment processes’, Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), pp. 435–447. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1669479.
• Mountford-Zimdars, A., Sabri, D., Moore, J., Sanders, J., Jones, S. and Higham, L. (2015) Causes of differences in student outcomes. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/23653/1/HEFCE2015_diffout.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2023).
• Nieminen, J.H. (2022) ‘Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), pp. 1–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395.
• Paguyo, C.H., Sponsler, L.E. and Iturbe-LaGrave, V. (2022) ‘Centering theories of learning to design humanizing pedagogies and inclusive assessments’, New Directions for Student Services, 2022(178–179), pp. 175–183. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20438.
• Reason, M. and Ward, C. (2022) ‘Improving, achieving, excelling: developing inclusive assessment processes for a degree-level learning disability arts programme’, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 27(1), pp. 137–146. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2021.1997581.
• Sharp, K. and Earle, S. (2000) ‘Assessment, Disability and the Problem of Compensation’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), pp. 191–199. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/713611423.
• 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, 0(0), pp. 1–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441.
• Universities UK and National Union of Students (2019) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK Universities: #CLOSINGTHEGAP. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-07/bame-student-attainment.pdf.

Author profile