We all like to think our classes are inclusive, but as Dr. Jo Hartland recently pointed out, we need to examine the moments when our practices unintentionally exclude. Some practices might be creating barriers for students.
Hartland was one of many academics from around the university who has inspired me to think more deeply about inclusive assessment and designing for all. The University of Bristol course on ‘Leading Inclusive Assessment in a Time of Generative AI,’ funded by the Academic Portfolio Board, brought staff from around the university together to share and reflect on promising practices. I recently shared what I learned in a workshop in the Centre for Academic Language Development.
Combining discussions on inclusive assessment and Generative AI is timely, as generative AI adds a new layer of complexity to the paradoxes Nieminen (2025) identifies within inclusive assessment. GenAI has the potential, for example, to “democratise access [to academic ideas], particularly for students who face epistemic barriers to traditional engagement” (Corbin et al., 2024, p. 6) but access to GenAI is not distributed equally. There are economic and technical barriers which create unequal opportunities. Educators must grapple with these and the other paradoxes around inclusive assessment to find practical ways forward.
With an eye towards practicality, I gathered inspiring ideas from the literature and from champions around University of Bristol into a deck of Inclusive Assessment Idea Cards that were the basis of the workshop I led. These cards explore five main themes around inclusive assessment. The first is about proactive inclusion, building on ideas related to Universal Design of Learning (UDL) (Cast, 2024), student choice (Bain, 2023; O’Neil, 2017; Tai et al. 2023) and students as partners (Nieminen et al., 2025; Evans, 2022). The second, also related in part to UDL, is about being culturally responsive (Cast, 2024; Gay, 2002). The next two themes are assessment and feedback literacy so that all students understand assessment expectations and can fully engage with feedback (Evans, 2022; Nieminen & Carless, 2023). Finally, there is a section on groupwork, as inclusive assessments often are more authentic and interconnected (Nieminen, 2025) and because groupwork presents its own challenges around inclusion. Together these themes cover a range of practical ideas; each idea has an ‘effort’ rating so there is a starting point for everyone no matter how much time they have.
Explore the Inclusive Assessment Idea cards for yourself. These cards aim to inspire action, encouraging educators to move towards designing-for-all in their assessments.
In my recent workshop, about 20 participants from the Centre for Academic Language Development perused the cards and discussed the ones that resonated with them. Some popular ideas were around offering students choice in mode (or alternatively ‘requiring’ students to develop a breadth of skills before offering some choices). There was also interest in the idea cards that were data-driven, asking participants to explore late penalty, extension requests, and alternative exam arrangements as a way of identifying assessments that were presenting possible barriers to engagement. Finally, the idea cards that suggested using AI to help staff writing more concisely or accessibly were popular. Most importantly, there were ideas that were applicable to all the participants.
Whether it is a small tweak to a group assessment or a larger project analysing the achievement gap in your school, I hope these cards encourage you to think more deeply about inclusive assessment. Just as vital, I hope these cards show that there is a community of inclusivity champions at University of Bristol that are working to ensure all our students can thrive. I hope you’ll join us as a champion for inclusive educational practices.
Reference List
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, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi27.1014
CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org
Corbin, T., Liang, Y., Bearman, M., Fawns, T., Flenady, G., Formosa, P., McKnight, L., Reynolds, J., & Walton, J. (2024). Reading at university in the time of GenAI. Learning Letters, 3, 35–35. https://doi.org/10.59453/ll.v3.35
Evans, C. (2022). The EAT framework. Enhancing assessment feedback practice in higher education. Inclusivehe.org.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of teacher education, 53(2), 106-116.
Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2023). Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept. Higher Education, 85(6), 1381–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9
Nieminen, J. H., Dollinger, M., & Zou, T. X. (2025). Student partnership in assessment: What works, for whom, why, and under what circumstances?. Review of Education, 13(1), e70059.
Nieminen, J. H. (2025). The paradox of inclusive assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(4), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2419604
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
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2023). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 483-497.
Leave a Reply