Strategy 5: Creating Anti-Racist Assessments

Defining Classroom Assessment  

In general, classroom assessment refers to the strategies that faculty use to understand what and how well their students are learning. Assessment strategies are wide ranging and vary greatly - from informal (pausing for questions during a lecture) to formal (high-stakes exams). Assessment is done at a variety of levels:

• the course level, measuring whether or not students have met course outcomes
• the program level, determining whether a series of courses has 
• the college level, understanding whether students have mastered our college-wide abilities before they graduate

As faculty are most often connected to course-level assessment, this module will primarily focus on that level. 

There are more general resources around assessment in this TLC module. When we add the term antiracist to assessment, the focus then turns from simply measuring student learning to creating assessment measures that impact all students equitably. 

 

Get the Facts

One of the most important aspects of becoming a more equitable assessor of student work is a frank and honest understanding of how different groups of students succeed in your and your colleagues' classes. It is easy to look at the faces of successful students in front of us and believe that our efforts are working well. Why? Because they work well for most of the students who succeed. But, those people are not the whole picture of success - without a more accurate understanding, we rely on limited anecdotal information. 

To learn more, every faculty member should be regularly reviewing course success data. You can access the SCOR report and other dashboards through SCC's Data Central. Start at the Employee Portal, and then login to the SCC Intranet (usually automatic if you are on campus, but may require an additional login if you are off campus). Look for Data Central and access the dashboard of your choice. The SCOR report and the Equity dashboards both provide success information on specific student populations. Equity issues differ by department. You can look up the pass rates for students of color, low-income, or by gender in specific departments, providing a better understanding of the bigger picture. 

 

General Classroom Antiracist Assessment Tools and Strategies

While all classroom strategies must be adapted to the discipline, most tools and strategies share general principles. A few include variety, student voices, transparency, and scaffolding. 

A. OFFER A VARIETY OF ASSESSMENT MEASURES: If the majority of your course grades are based on direct assessments (exams, papers, presentations, etc.), then you should design courses with multiple learning measures. Using only one assessment type can limit success. Of course, math students must demonstrate understanding of math problems to pass, but offering only two or three timed, problem-based, high-stakes exams is problematic. There are many ways for students to show math mastery: presentations, concept maps, quizzes, verbal explanations, error correction, group work, portfolios, and more. Creating multiple assessments opens up the door for people with a variety of skills. 

B. ASK FOR STUDENT VOICES: Some of the most important and useful approaches encourage faculty to simply ask students about their experiences. When we are open-minded and willing to accept the fact that students experience our courses in different ways than we intend, we can learn a lot. It is not always enjoyable to hear that students are disengaged and unmotivated by our course policies and our teaching styles, but we can only change and improve when know there is a problem. Of course, we take all student comments in put them in the larger perspective. And, when we consistently hear feedback from multiple groups of students, we should pay attention. For resources on gathering more student feedback, here are several suggestions: 

• the TLC's feedback module
• Stephen Brookfield's "The Classroom Critical Incident Questionnaire Links to an external site."
• Tuft's "Minute Paper Links to an external site."
• Carnegie Mellon's Eberly Center's "Using Classroom Assessment Techniques Links to an external site."

C. CREATE TRANSPARENT ASSESSMENT: A first step to creating equitable assessment is ensuring that students understand expectations for their classroom assessments. For students with limited past academic success, the "unwritten rules" of college may prevent them from attempting to do college work. Transparency include faculty efforts to make clear all aspects of completing assignments, providing quality, intentional support. The TILT (Transparency in Learning and Teaching) framework provides clear directions for faculty to communicate high expectations and high support - see the TLC module on TILT. Additionally, the inclusion of rubrics increase assignment transparency. Articulating your grading criteria and weight is a useful process for faculty as well as students, and using rubrics can increase student engagement - see the TLC's module on Rubrics. or listen to the podcast "Intentional and Transparent Assessment Links to an external site., Links to an external site." interview with Natasha Jankowski, Teaching in Higher Ed (May 2019).

D. SCAFFOLD KEY SKILLS: Provide opportunities for students to practice key skills throughout the quarter. Make sure that you have low-stakes, frequent assignments that provide feedback in your courses. If you have a final video presentation in your course, start the process of posting videos to the class the first week of the quarter to answer tech questions early. Include several video presentations with few points attached and specific grading criteria so that all final evaluation criteria are familiar for students. Formative assessment is designed specifically to increase student learning, and you can find the TLC module on Formative Assessment and lessons from How Learning Works, both of which address connected practices. 

E. UNGRADE: One philosophy of assessment recognizes the lack of fairness, transparency, and equity in standardized grading approaches. "Ungrading" is a broad term for non-traditional and innovative grading approaches - from portfolio assessment, to student-developed grades, to labor-based contracts. If you have concerns about the limitations of traditional grading systems, there are alternatives. For more information, see Jesse Stommel's "How to Ungrade Links to an external site." and Colleen Flaherty's "When Grading Less is More Links to an external site.." 

But, it is also important to understand the limits of these types of equity-based approaches. If an assessment is fundamentally flawed and steeped in racist assumptions, then providing rubrics and scaffolding does nothing to achieve antiracist outcomes. There will need to be reframing of the actual learning outcomes to address the underlying deficits. This is a long-term goal; in the mean time, we continue whatever equity methods are available to support learners.

For more information, I recommend the article, "DU Inclusive Teaching Practices Links to an external site." by C.H. Paguyo and V. Iturbe-LaGrave. And, as assessment is tightly tied to curriculum, I encourage you to review Strategy #3: Culturally-Responsive Curriculum.

 

One Example of A Discipline-Specific Approach: Anti-Racist Writing Assessment

Several fields have worked to uncover biased assumptions at the heart of established assessment measures. One of the best examples of antiracist assessments contextualized within a specific academic discipline is the antiracist writing ecology work developed by Asao Inuoe.

Inoue challenges traditional grading approaches that promote Standard Edited American English (SEAE) as "correct." From grammar details to organization, Inoue argues that grading for dominant language mastery unfairly privileges white, middle-class students and those familiar with the language associated with it. "Racism in schools and college writing courses is still pervasive because most if not all writing courses, including my own in the past, promote or value first a local SEAE and a dominant white discourse, even when they make moves to value and honor the discourses of all students" (Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies Links to an external site. 14). White supremacy is at the heart of the standard SEAE, and the only way to ensure equity is to reject it. 

Inuoe offers alternate classroom assessment structures that move beyond equity into fully realized antiracist assessment. Rather than  grading on traditional "academic standards," Inuoe offers labor-based contract grades and collaboratively developed, one point rubrics Links to an external site. to calculate grades. To learn more, you can listen to a podcast interview Links to an external site., read his book, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies Links to an external site., or watch his powerful 2019 CCCC (Conference on College Composition and Communication) address:

 

College-Wide Antiracist Assessment

There are also efforts to rethink college-wide assessment efforts. The National Institute for Learning and Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) recently published an article, “A New Decade for Assessment: Embedding Equity into Assessment Praxis” by Erick Montenegro & Natasha A. Jankowski (National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) January 2020, No. 42). To read the entire article, click here Links to an external site.. 

For an overview, SCC faculty member and Student Learning and Assessment Co-Coordinator, Andrea Reid, prepared this summary Download summary

for the Student Learning and Assessment Committee (SLAC). 

Equity-minded assessment is a convergence of a variety of assessment practices, including:

1. 1. 1. Culturally responsive assessment
      2. Socially just assessment perspective
      3. Conceptualized through a critical perspective

“At its core, equitable assessment calls for those who lead and participate in assessment activities to pay attention and be conscious of how assessment can either feed into cycles that perpetuate inequalities or can serve to bring more equity into higher education” (9).

1. 1. Culturally responsive assessment

“. . . culturally responsiveness calls for practices which respond to. . . the contexts in which we teach and learn; including the needs of the students we serve” (6).

We need to be reflective and intentional about considering the assessments we use, and to:

• • • Be mindful of the student population(s) being served and involve students in the process of assessing learning;
    • Use appropriate student-focused and cultural language in learning outcomes statements to ensure students understand what is expected of them;
    • Develop and/or use assessment tools and multiple sources of evidence that are culturally responsive to current students; and
    • Intentional[ly] improve student learning through disaggregated data-driven change that examines structures, demonstrations of learning, and supports which may privilege some students’ learning while marginalizing others (7).

2. A socially just assessment perspective

In order to understand “why our students are achieving, persisting, or stopping-out in the ways they are. . . . there must be an understanding that learning and assessment operate under dynamics of power and oppression” (7).

The end goal of socially just assessment is to advance social justice, which includes:

• • • Recognizing that assessment is not an apolitical process
    • Selecting representative voices and involving students in the assessment process to check that the assumptions in play “are real, appropriate, or meet their needs” (8)
    • Being mindful of how data is analyzed to avoid privileging or oppressing specific student populations
    • Using assessment as “a mechanism that helps close opportunity, persistence, and attainment gaps between different student populations” (8).

3. Conceptualized through a critical perspective

“Both culturally responsive assessment and socially just assessment operate from a critical perspective. They strive to challenge the status quo; raise questions of privilege, power, and oppression; and work to remedy injustices whether purposeful or accidental” (9).

Critical assessment attempts to understand and reflect on the multiple contexts at work in assessment, including the institution/program, the person(s) conducting the assessment, and the learners (9).

Critical assessment includes these four tenets:

• • • Disregarding the objectivity myth and accepting that assessment is inherently subjective and guided by the biases and experiences of those conducting assessment;
    • Varying the types of evidence used to assess learning outcomes to not privilege specific ways of knowing or preferred ways to demonstrate knowledge;
    • Including the voices of students, especially those who belong to minoritized populations or those whose voices can often be left unheard, throughout the assessment process; and
    • Using assessment to advance the pursuit of equity across previously identified institutional parameters that demonstrate disparate outcomes across student populations (9).

Equity-minded assessment—principles and elements:

Equity-minded assessment brings together aspects of culturally responsive assessment, socially just assessment, and critical assessment, including the following (for more details, read the summary Download summary

or article Links to an external site.):

1. 1. 1. Meaningful Student Involvement
      2. Data Disaggregation, Exploration, and Action
      3. Context-Specific Approaches and Responses
      4. Embedded in All Things Assessment

Barriers and Challenges to Equity in Assessment:

• • • Discomfort with conversations about privilege, power, oppression, and marginalization (14)
    • Choosing not to “see” the connection between assessment and equity (14)
    • Initiative fatigue (15)
    • Institutional culture, especially the culture around assessment (15)
    • Discomfort with involving students in assessment and/or logistics about including a wider representation of students in assessment design, administration, and analysis (15).

Looking to the Decade Ahead:

• • • Ultimately this work is about “being responsive, aware, and intentional in order to not perpetuate inequalities” (16)
    • “Equity focused professional development should be communicated as important and supported with targeted incentives to engage all stakeholders, not just the willing” (17).
    • “. . . [W]hile the use of multiple sources of evidence can be helpful to culturally responsive assessment, it should not be taken as a simple solution, and instead an opportunity to explore equity in design and measurement and how to offset different sources of bias, if possible” (18).

 

Equitable Faculty Assessment

Before wrapping up, it is worth noting that antiracist faculty assessment is also a worthy goal. Many faculty are assessed, at least in part, by student evaluations. It is also clear that faculty of color, along with female faculty, often receive lower evaluations from students. "Moreover, student evaluations represent the most prevalent means to assess classroom teaching despite research revealing the biased and unreliable nature of such tools (Uttl, White, & Gonzalez, 2017), with disproportionately negative feedback about women and people of color (Pratt, 2015; Schmidt, 2015)" (cited in "Inclusive Assessment Links to an external site."). While it is not the focus of this particular module, if you are interested in learning more about antiracist faculty assessments, the following resources can be helpful:

• Pratt, C.D. (2015). Teacher evaluations could be hurting faculty diversity at universities. The New York Times.,
• Schmidt, B. (2015). Is it fair to rate professors online? The New York Times.
• Uttl, B., White, C.A., & Gonzalez, D.W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teacher ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22-42.  

 

Additional Resources

National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment Links to an external site. (NILOA) 

AAC&U's "Resources for Institutions Working on Developing Authentic Assessments Links to an external site."

Fitzpatrick, J.L. Sanders, J.R., & Worthen, B.R, (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Third Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.: White Plains, N.Y.

Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., & Hughes, G. B. (2010). A guide to conducting culturally-responsive evaluations. In Frechtling, J., The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation (pp. 75-96). National Science Foundation.

Hood, S. (2004). A journey to understand the role of culture in evaluation: Snapshots and personal reflections of one African American evaluator. In M. Thompson-Robinson, R. Hopson, & S. SenGupta (Eds.), In search of cultural competence in evaluation: Toward principles and practices. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 102. (pp. 21-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hopson, R.K. (2009) Reclaiming knowledge at the margins culturally responsive evaluation in the current evaluation moment. In K. Ryan and B. Cousins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing Company.

King, J. A., Nielsen, J. E., & Colby, J. (2004). Lessons for culturally competent evaluation from the study of a multicultural initiative. In M. Thompson-Robinson, R. Hopson & S. SenGupta (Eds.), In search of cultural competence in evaluation: Toward principles and practices, New Directions for Evaluation, Number 102 (pp. 67-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kirkhart, K. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens: Reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. In S. Hood, R. Hopson & H. Frierson (Eds.), The role of culture and cultural context: A mandate for inclusion, the discovery of truth, and understanding in evaluative theory and practice (pp. 21-39). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2010). Reframing evaluation: Defining an Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Canadian Journal of Evaluation, 23(2), 13-31.