CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 164Student Assessment and FeedbackHigher Education Practises and EngagementDisability Education and Employment

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education

Open access
Nieminen, Juuso Henrik·2024·Teaching in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How could assessment inclusively consider the diversity of students? In higher education, the most common answer is: through individual assessment accommodations. Inclusive assessment design has also been promoted to foster accessibility for all students. However, both of these approaches have largely drawn on the procedural understanding of ‘inclusion’ as ‘enhanced academic outcomes’. In this conceptual study, a critical, socio-political approach to inclusive assessment is taken instead, considering assessment in its wider context of academic ableism. The rationale for Assessment for Inclusion (AfI) is formulated to harness assessment to promote the inclusion of marginalised students as fully accepted, agentic members of academic communities. Five practical principles for promoting AfI are introduced: rethinking accommodations, anti-ableist work, celebration of human diversity, student partnership, and interdependence. This study suggests that if mass higher education truly wishes to include students from increasingly diverse backgrounds, assessment needs to be rethought from the viewpoint of inclusion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nieminen, J. H.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Nieminen, Juuso Henrik
ORCID
Nieminen, Juuso Henrik
Venue
Teaching in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-01-05
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
841-859
ISSN
  • 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1294
DOI
10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395
OpenAlex
W4205544579
Cited by
164
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17
FWCI
67.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Disability Education and Employment
Keywords
inclusive assessment, assessment accommodations, student diversity, marginalized students, anti-ableism, student partnership, interdependence, accessibility, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review