In my work around the awarding gap, I have the privilege of working on a number of collaborative projects across different schools. A consistent feature of this work has been listening to students talk about their learning experiences, and, almost inevitably, assessment comes up. 

What students tell us is rarely straightforward. Their views on assessment are mixed and nuanced: how prepared they feel, whether the timing feels manageable, how clearly they understand the criteria, and how anxious (or relaxed) assessments make them. As with most things in education, there is no single “silver bullet” assessment format or approach that works for everyone, all of the time. 

However, if we start from the principle of inclusion, and align our practice with Bristol’s Designed for All assessment strategy, we can improve the assessment experience for a much wider range of students. Importantly, this allows us to move away from reactive, last‑minute adjustments and instead embed inclusive practice from the outset. 

In trying to understand differential outcomes in assessment, I’ve found it helpful to think about influences operating at three interconnected levels: macro, meso and micro (Mountford-Zimdars and Moore, 2024). Below, I outline what each level means, explore the implications for assessment practice, and share examples from recent BILT‑funded work on inclusive assessment showcased at our Show, Tell and Talk event. 

The Macro Level: Backgrounds, Capital and Context 

The macro level relates to the wider context in which higher education exists. Here we consider the diverse backgrounds students bring with them, particularly: 

• Economic capital – material resources and financial security 

• Social capital – access to networks and support 

• Cultural capital – familiarity with academic systems, conventions and expectations 

These forms of capital shape how confident and prepared students feel when they encounter assessment tasks. 

Implications for practice 

Supporting students at the macro level can feel challenging because many of these factors sit beyond our immediate control. However, assessment design is one area where we do have influence. 

As educators, we need to reflect on what our assessments implicitly assume students already know. This goes beyond disciplinary content to include expectations around structure, genre and academic conventions. How self‑evident are these expectations? Who might already understand them, and who might not? 

If we assume that all students arrive equally familiar with the “rules of the game”, we risk disadvantaging those for whom these rules are unfamiliar. Making expectations explicit is therefore a core inclusive practice. 

The Meso Level: Institutions, Disciplines and Transparency 

The meso level focuses on the institution, school or discipline a student is part of. This includes curriculum design and the support mechanisms that sit around it, such as personal tutoring, library provision and academic skills support. 

Implications for practice 

At this level, transparency is key. Students need to understand the whole learning and assessment process, not just what they are being assessed on, but how and why. 

Practical steps include: 

• Writing assessment briefs in plain language 

• Breaking complex requirements into more manageable components 

• Clarifying what success actually looks like 

Providing high‑quality exemplars can be particularly powerful. When students are encouraged to compare exemplars with assessment criteria, they gain a clearer sense of standards and expectations. It’s important that these exemplars are strong ones, setting ambitious expectations while making success visible and achievable. 

Another useful strategy is a ‘fit to submit’ checklist: a short list of key requirements students can use before submission. Co‑creating this with students ensures it reflects their perspectives and highlights what they find most challenging or unclear. 

The Micro Level: Relationships, Identity and Belonging 

The micro level brings us to relationships and identity. This includes relationships between students, between staff and students, and even students’ relationships with their subject. It also encompasses how safe and comfortable students feel being themselves within the academic environment. 

Implications for practice 

For educators, being mindful of student diversity and actively building positive relationships matters enormously. While this can be more difficult with large cohorts, small shifts can still make a difference. 

Framing learning in terms of where it can take students helps them see its value beyond the immediate assessment. Being explicit about how disciplinary knowledge connects to future pathways supports students in setting their own goals and developing a sense of purpose. 

Equally important is resisting stereotypes and maintaining an open, reflective stance in all interactions. Students are more likely to engage, and to take intellectual risks,  when they feel seen and respected. 

Inclusive Assessment in Practice: BILT‑Funded Projects 

At our recent Show, Tell and Talk on Inclusive Assessment, several BILT project holders shared work that brings these ideas to life: 

• Fatima Lopez Castellanos (Business School) and Satadru Mukherjee (School of Economics) are exploring how choice within assessment affects student engagement and outcomes. 

• Dave Gatrell (BILT)  is examining the role of video-annotated self-reflection and feedback in improving communication skills, clarity and connection in health sciences education. 

• Elena Borodina and colleagues in CALD are focusing on making subject‑specific language explicit, visible and usable for students in inclusive learning and assessment contexts. 

• Oghale Ayetuoma (Business School) is working across universities to explore inclusive approaches to group work. 

• Sheila Amici‑Dargan is leading a long‑term project on making feedback more accessible – a crucial issue, as students who don’t engage with feedback have far fewer opportunities to improve future assessments. 

Designing for All, Benefiting Many 

Taken together, this work reinforces an important message: inclusive assessment is not about lowering standards or creating bespoke solutions for individual students. It is about thoughtful, intentional design that anticipates diversity and supports all learners to demonstrate what they know and can do. 

If we design assessment with inclusion at its core, across macro, meso and micro levels,  we not only improve experiences for students most at risk of being marginalised, but enhance learning and engagement for everyone. 

References 

Mountford-Zimdars, A. and Moore, J., 2024. Addressing awarding gaps through assessment design. In Research handbook on innovations in assessment and feedback in higher education (pp. 253-277). Edward Elgar Publishing. 

‘This piece was written by the author with support from Microsoft Copilot as an editing tool.’