FRANCINE MCMAHON, AMBER DUIVENVOORDEN AND KATHERINE KINSHAW, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, BATH SPA UNIVERSITY, UK
Introduction
Inclusive practices in higher education institutions (HEIs) have been exploring different academic assessment practices to meet the diverse needs of cohorts. This has been in response to the Bristol vs Abrahart case (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2024) and a growing awareness of the rise in mental health issues. The Office for Students (2023) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC, 2024) have both published guidance to promote more inclusive practice, which includes the removal of the burden of proof, the offer of alternative assessment methods within academic assignments and being proactive in recognising trainees who need support. The purpose is to eliminate barriers and give students every opportunity to show their learning.
Our initial teacher education (ITE) employment-based programme has been updating its inclusive academic assessment processes to reflect the above guidance, through implementing a range of reasonable adjustments that ‘reduce the barriers that they may face to their learning’ (OfstedThe Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills – a non-ministerial department responsible for inspecting and regulating services that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills, 2025) so that trainee teachers can become successful classroom teachers. This makes it more difficult when they are in schools for most of their time but need support with the academic side of their course. This process has included:
- offering trainees alternative assessment methods
- prioritising trainee agency and choice in assessment adjustments and support
- proactively anticipating, supporting and monitoring trainee needs
- providing emotionally intelligent trainee feedback
- maintaining authenticity in alternative assessment methods.
This article will outline the inclusive practices that underpin our assessment processes, with the aim of improving trainees’ achievement, retention and overall experience.
1. Offering alternative assessment methods
Within our ITE programme, the provision of alternative assessment options is crucial to address the diverse circumstances of our trainee cohort (EHRC, 2024). Our trainees are on full-time placements, managing both professional and academic demands, with some requiring additional support due to disabilities and protected characteristics. O’Neill and Padden (2021) emphasise that a reliance on traditional written assessments limits inclusivity and fails to reflect the varied experiences and learning differences present within diverse student cohorts. Their research highlights that diversifying assessment methods (such as incorporating presentations, projects or choice-based formats) can enhance engagement, fairness and motivation, even within resource-constrained environments. This corresponds with the Department for Education’s (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2025) recent evaluation of the ECF (early career framework), which emphasises the need for flexibility and more tailored experiences to support participants’ varied learning journeys.
These expectations resonate closely with our context, where flexibility is crucial to those requiring additional support (O’Neill and Padden, 2021). On our programme, trainees can choose from a variety of alternative assessment methods, which include a live presentation, pre-recorded video presentation or a hybrid essay-presentation. These methods are accompanied by scaffolds (templates with prompts and key coaching questions) so that trainees can choose how best to show their learning. When creating these, we worked with our external examiners and sought their feedback about their design.
Both external examiner and marker feedback commented on how rigour was maintained irrespective of trainees’ preferred assessment format, debunking views that different types of assessment, including oral assessments, are less rigorous. We found that presenting an assignment orally can increase authenticity, reliabilityIn assessment, the degree to which the outcome of a particular assessment would be consistent – for example, if it were marked by a different marker or taken again and validityIn assessment, the degree to which a particular assessment measures what it is intended to measure, and the extent to which proposed interpretations and uses are justified (Race, 2020; Osbourne, 2022).
2. Prioritising trainee agency and choice
Fostering agency within ITE is essential, as it shapes how trainees develop professional identity and autonomy. When trainees are encouraged to make informed decisions and reflect critically (and think about what will work best for them in terms of support), they become more adaptable and confident practitioners (Coker, 2017; Priestley et al., 2015). Conversely, overly prescriptive programmes risk limiting creativity and independence. Embedding opportunities for active participation and trainee voice ensures that trainees enter the profession as reflective, empowered professionals (Philpott and Oates, 2016).
To ensure that agency underpins their support, trainees with disabilities or protected characteristics are initially given a questionnaire that asks them to identify the assessment method and strategies that will help them to learn and progress. This is not definitive and can be adapted throughout the year. Following the questionnaire, the trainees meet with a reasonable-adjustments adviser to discuss the choices above. With this process, trainees are shown models and templates of alternative assessment methods (written and verbal), so that they see concrete examples that show what is expected (Sambell et al., 2017, in Race, 2020), which supports them in their decision-making. As Race (2020) notes, such exemplars encourage students to revisit their work in self-assessment mode and use the models as a reference point for the standards that they are aiming to meet.
The above process helps advisers to build a picture of the trainees’ strengths, avoiding assumptions about what trainees should know and be able to do (Hockings, 2010). It also enables trainees to make an informed choice about their assignment method, whilst further promoting trainee agency (Philpott and Oates, 2016). In inviting trainees to shape their assessment pathway, we position them as active decision-makers in their learning, promoting autonomy and confidence.
3. Proactively anticipating, supporting and monitoring trainee needs
The EHRC (2024) notes that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory, requiring providers to consider necessary adjustments for all students before being informed of any individual’s disability. We achieve this in two ways. Firstly, we proactively promote the reasonable adjustments and support available through every resource in the assignment toolkits and in every interaction. Every aspect and part of the programme refers to the reasonable adjustments available. This means that every colleague working on the programme actively promotes this offer of support in their interactions or training sessions, removing misconceptions about reasonable adjustments. It encourages trainees to tell us about the support that they may need and overcomes the view that the support might not apply to them. Secondly, our programme schedules two formal formative feedback opportunities prior to the summative submission. This provides valuable data and enables the team to proactively identify and address possible issues before they escalate. The data that we collect in this process gives us the opportunity to reach out to trainees who do not submit when expected and identify the obstacle and solution. When trainees submit, formative feedback helps markers to identify those who are struggling and provide clear next steps. Recording and tracking these interactions enables the team to build a support profile and determine appropriate reasonable adjustments. These may include using coaching questions, signposting to relevant research or models, offering opportunities to practise and redraft in their chosen format, or creating bespoke timelines and milestones. Whichever it is, it must be timely and swift (Ofsted, 2025).
4. Providing emotionally intelligent trainee feedback
Research on trainee responses to feedback indicates that feedback that appears overly critical can be demotivating (Boud and Dawson, 2019) and is unlikely to be used, while Winstone and Carless (2016) reported that positively framed feedback is more likely to be acted upon. Pitt and Norton (2017) emphasise the importance of emotionally intelligent feedback, noting that students’ emotional reactions strongly influence how they act on it. To address this, we reflected on how feedback could be more specific, personable and accessible, and this led us to the research from Professor Sally Brown and her FEEDBACK acronym (in Race, 2020).
As a result, our comments and feedforwards in assignment feedback now consider trainees’ emotions and likely reactions when reading their feedback. We rephrase all Formative negatives into positives so that the wording is Benevolent, Constructive and Kindly; we use coaching questions, ensuring that they are Energising and Dialogic; and we insert weblinks from the assignment toolkits in the feedforwards so that the written feedback is Actionable and Efficient. This feedback, overall, must link to trainees’ authentic purpose so that it is linked to their vision. This practice is now visible in all interactions, with staff noting an increase in trainees acting on feedback with an enthusiasm to improve their practice.
5. Maintaining authenticity in alternative assessments methods
Our programme follows the principles of ‘authentic’ assessment (Brown and Sambell, 2019; Osbourne, 2022) to create assignments that connect academic knowledge with real-life application work in schools. McArthur (2022) argues that authentic assessment requires three key shifts: moving beyond a narrow focus on the ‘world of work’ to a broader understanding of society; looking past the task itself to its wider value; and designing assessment that challenges rather than reproduces the ‘status quo’, enabling transformative social change. In our context, the programme and its assessments are linked to the commitment of reducing educational inequity. It gives trainees a strong sense of purpose and a clear moral imperative to work towards narrowing the gap in their context. In addition, this recognises and values trainees’ professional and individual learning experiences within their assessment context. Staff have noted that trainees did not give up when struggling, as they could see how their assignment(s) would enhance their practice and they were not seen as a tick-box exercise. It also helped trainees to see themselves as contributors to (and belonging to) a wider professional community.
All of the above practices link to the programme’s broader inclusive practice, which embeds the four threads of inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life (Krischler et al., 2019). The four threads ensure that trainees can access academic study, that the assignment represents them and that it gives them a sense of belonging to their research-informed teaching community, so that they aspire to be what makes a great teacher for the communities that they serve.
Overall impact
The impact from the above inclusive assessment practices have included:
- Improved achievement and retention: Last year’s results showed a 10 per cent increase in top grades for one module and a 30 per cent increase in top grades for a second module. The fails on first attempts decreased to below one per cent, while withdrawal rates decreased to pre-pandemic levels.
- An increase in the number of reasonable adjustments earlier in the year: Being proactive and emphasising trainee choice and agency has led to more trainees applying for reasonable adjustments earlier in the academic year (rather than waiting until a crisis moment). They also proactively seek out support now. Thirty per cent of trainees have accessed their reasonable adjustments, with 43 per cent of these trainees choosing an alternative assessment method. This continuous proactivity has contributed to the trainees’ success, as it identifies issues early, where we could ‘recognise’ trainees needing support (EHRC, 2024). It has enabled targeted support and reduced the need for crisis interventions.
- Improved trainee confidence, motivation and engagement: Staff and external examiners’ feedback noted an increase in trainees’ motivation due to increased agency in choosing alternative assessments and reasonable adjustments, following the FEEDBACK acronym and authentic principles.
It is the above learning about inclusive assessment that has enabled our team to balance academic rigour with compassion and flexibility. Moving forward, we will continue to maintain the principles above through being bespoke, responsive, proactive, timely, emotionally aware and authentic – to produce tangible benefits for trainees.
