Chapter 9 – Creative performing arts: ways of witnessing practice

Introduction

Through a case-study approach, this chapter shares the practical thinking and solutions developed in 2021 when having to re-consider usual assessment methods of practical dance work, due to pandemic restrictions on personal movements and spaces. Student perspectives are included through responses to an ethically approved qualitative questionnaire that took place once assessment of the case-study module was over. This autoethnographic account of ongoing action research seeks to additionally highlight non-pandemic related reasons for reconsideration of assessment design, such as improving overall access and equity for academic excellence for all participants. As such, the chapter is supported by literature and discourse on subject area development, critical disability studies and diversity of both students and assessment itself. It is hoped that the experiences and applications detailed could be useful to the many other example subject areas that are based in practical work such as outdoor education, events management, and healthcare. These 2021 activities and findings face forwards to a future of enhanced in-person and remote delivery from a social, not only technological point of view.

Scenario

It is February 2021, we are in a third national lockdown in the UK, campus (in England) is closed. We cannot use the dance studios; all must be done from home and online. Zoom and home dance studios are going well; however, as an assessor, I become aware I cannot always fully see the dancers’ bodies in full due to movement out of the camera frame as a result of choreographic patterns in the limited space. It would usually be integral to the assessment of the performance of dance style and technique, to be able to appreciate a whole use of body in the space. In case the lockdown persists, I begin to consider how practice is represented in other ways than the traditional emphasis on witnessing dance visually.

The module and challenges

The challenge was to deliver level 6 learning experiences (6 hours/week, 11 weeks) that would facilitate assessment of all three intended learning outcomes of the 40-credit module in the subject area of dance. The learning outcomes required skills of evaluation, contextualisation, and discussion through the requisite practice of dance techniques and styles in the contexts of rehearsal, performance, and exploration of praxis. All these aspects needed to be built into the learning experience and assessment design to give students the chance to fully meet the requirements of the module. The module launched in an emerging environment of online delivery using primarily home study spaces for both practical and non-practical work. Home dance studios and seminar rooms were created in sitting rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, and conservatories with furniture moved and cameras positioned for optimal capture of the student dancer in the space as they performed. Throughout the course of this 2021 version of the module, these learning outcomes were never altered, but rather the method of assessment reconsidered and adapted in the fluctuating circumstances of the time.

The cha(lle)nge from in-person to online

Usually, when not in a pandemic lockdown, this module would be facilitated through access to purpose-built dance space, that is large, with sprung floors for safety (absorbing impact from the body) and mirrors that aid studio communication and learning. Any activity that does not engage with the specialist studio space through bodily movement, feels contrary to the culture, traditions, and ‘heritage’ (De Keersmaker, 2021) of ‘doing’ dance. In non-Covid-19 conditions, learning occurs through the setting of and responding to practical dance tasks. Importantly, these are witnessed as the basis of a continuous teacher and student dialogic feedback and exchange that instigates and constitutes the ‘happening’ and ‘space’ of practice. Ordinarily – as is apparent from the presence of mirrors in studios – the visual aspect of dance as an art form is reliant upon group exchange to the point that significant parts of communication and time spent together are reflected non-verbally (facial expressions, hand signals, absorbing information from a physical demonstration, a knowing look between two practitioners). Delivering this module online instead of in-person meant that one of the cha(lle)nges was to find practical alternatives for these interactive, sometimes non-verbal or minimally verbal communications, without the usual resources that a specialist physical, in-person space provides.

Epistemological modes at play in dance

Dance, as a subject area, is one of embodiment. Preston-Dunlop & Sanchez Colberg (2002) highlight this phenomenon, and detail the scholarship and research journey the subject area has made within the academy. Although dance can be theorised, written about, and discussed – both during and after it happens – dance primarily exists experientially in embodied form. On accepting the Helena da Silva Award 2021, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker spoke of protecting the heritage of dance, in relation to its origin as an embodied entity.

…thinking about the heritage of dance and choreography and how that should be protected. It’s a difficult one to dissect, because as live art […] live dance isn’t made up of objects that can be destroyed…sold…speculated on…can’t be destroyed by time or the change in climate. Dance itself can’t be washed away in a flood; it can’t be burned to ash in fire. […] Protecting the heritage of dance is a matter of first and foremost protecting the people.

In the 2021 lockdown scenario, although module content and learning activities included archival and contextual research, conceptualisation, and discussion (finding, reading, talking, watching, thinking using internet, online books & videos, word processing, presentation slides), it was still not possible to escape the requirement to ‘do’ dance, in accordance with its roots as an embodied and time-based entity. This differs from the ‘about’ dance and ‘what do we know’ from dance approach that can exist in enduring forms within the subject area, such as writing, photography or film. ‘Doing’ dance endures in ‘the people’ that De Keersmaker outlines as key in protecting the heritage of dance.

Practical solutions

In planning discussions with the students in advance of the module’s launch, a main aim was to use these talks with students to reassure them, particularly about assessment (where typically a lot of stakes are upheld). Responses showed clearly that weekly dance practice was the desired learning approach, despite the prospect of video conferencing from home dance studios as the only way to do this. When a bunching-up of the learning content that could exist through talk and text modes in the first four weeks was proposed, (i.e., without need for bodily movement in space, in anticipation of being able to soon return to in-person in studio), the students declined. So, the unstoppable force of the subject area saw home dance studios come to life and the act of training, crafting, creating, and performing ensued. Nonetheless, chances to present research orally and discuss the given topics from the very start of the module, could not be avoided in the delivery design, so were also regularly available through use of video conferencing. As detailed earlier, the unchanged learning outcomes to be met, required the critical discussion of practice as well as the performance of dance itself.

The module started with an agreed weekly programme of three, two-hour sessions per week; two hours to be discussion-based, and four hours to be practical dance-based. Being in the third national lockdown (campus had closed multiple times before, in line with government measures) meant that the generally adopted stance, more than usual, was one of agility and adaptability. At the time, it was generally predicted that by the assessment points dated April and May 2021, the campus would be open and dancing in the studio and theatre spaces would be allowed again. Even so, I felt it best practice to allow the assessment design to emerge along with the changeable course of the pandemic restrictions, developing what work was possible to be generated over the weeks in the reality of the circumstances. On beginning a module (pre-Covid), I would usually have outlined a pre-defined assessment brief. However, in this situation, it was not realistic, and it yielded an exciting learning approach to the creation of more functional assessment designs.

My concept for Course Work 1 is coming together after experiencing the past two weeks so will be exploring that asap next week. Think ‘Diamonds’ (music choice) by Sam Smith and ‘How Do Your Sleep’ (extra style influence) by Sam Smith. I hope you like it. Any inspirations, let me know. (Loughran, 2021)

My Blackboard (Virtual Learning Environment) announcement demonstrates how the research and development of teaching and assessing online are integrated into the delivery as well as the significant chance for collaboration with the students.

In higher education (HE), it is essential to assess the outcomes of learning for the awarding and qualifying of academic achievement. Where the module requirements, along with the epistemological setting of the subject area, forced a need for ‘doing’ dance (in this case, presented), it was more key than ever to be precise in defending assessment designs that measured the learning ‘outcomes’, rather than generally ‘the learning’ itself, given that this was happening in many respects differently to usual. In this way, the constraints of the pandemic on the academic subject area of dance, in my view, really allowed the epistemology of the subject area stand out more than ever. As was demonstrated by the students’ polite but firm refusal to accept non-practical work as a solution for the lockdown weeks, the subject area evolved and survived successfully through different ways to come together, different dance studios, and different ways to interact with audience. However different, the spirit of dance was by no means broken or lost in any way.

At the time, I recalled pre-pandemic thinking that considered and questioned precision around the assessment of the contexts and environments of the learning (for example rehearsal, performance, exploration of praxis) versus assessing the prescribed skills in the learning outcomes (evaluate, contextualise, discuss), and how the two areas can seemingly become unnecessarily muddied together. The pandemic provided good conditions for problem solving; questioning and innovation were more obviously required and more readily accepted.

Eventual design

I set about investigating if I could fulfil assessment requirements by designing assessment submissions that would not involve the performance of bodily movement, but would rather provide critical accounts of these experiences, knowledges, and abilities instead. The dance training, creative movement practice, rehearsal and performance would still constitute the learning environment and activities, but my idea was to collect critical accounts of practice through documentary methods (oral presentation, documentation of practice, written accounts), in place of bodily practical ones (performance of dance). To clarify again, these adaptations were potentially needed based on the possibility of assessing dance performances via video conference call (Zoom) and therefore a need to sustain integrity as an assessor that was at risk of being compromised for a module that focused on the performance of technical and stylistic performance skills in dance. ‘Fairness’, in how the students could fully demonstrate the learning outcomes through the video conferencing tool, was also a factor for consideration, given the loss of a unifying campus space (the specialist dance studio), where now, each home studio was uniquely shaped, sized and additionally populated with people and pets. In my view, the idea to use critical accounts of practice as assessment submissions meant that all learning could be interesting and critically approached, as each student’s practice was discovered in these unique locked-down dance spaces and dance bodies. My proposal was that unity and parity could be found in a space of critical expression of the subject area through a development and application of appropriately levelled academic skills.

In continuation of the process, I sought discussion with an academic development colleague in my institution’s Centre for Advanced Practice Enhancement, regarding suggestions around the eventual marking approach to submitted work. With the re-opening of campus looking more likely as the weeks passed, it seemed that in the end, I would not assess practical dance work via video conferencing tool, but that I would be live in the space with the students to watch them perform in-person. Therefore, I chose to continue with the most expected and usual assessment designs of witnessing live performance; however, given the lack of guaranteed outcome regarding Covid restrictions, I still felt a strong need to have alternative options in place should in-person viewing or performance for assessment become unavailable again.

The subsequent assessment design proposed to ask for live dance performance plus oral presentation across two pieces of course work (CW1: performance of staff led choreographic creation plus contextual oral presentation and CW2: performance of student-led choreographic creation plus creative, process-based, contextualised discussion) but, in both cases, the dance performance and oral presentations would not be assessed as separate components. Both constituted and represented the knowledge and experience of practice together, in a blended way. This was a palpably functional outcome of the assessment design process at the centre of which was this thinking into the notion of assessing practice through critical accounts of practice.

Whether it was a performance of the work in question, a researched presentation of it, or a critical discussion of it, I felt comfortable that should one of these elements fail due to pandemic restrictions, the remaining elements would sufficiently represent practical performance as well as critical discussion of praxis that was also requisite. It was decided that the presentation – that was, in part, featured in order to support assessment of dance performance if it remained online – would only be able to add marks to the practical aspect of the submission. In other words, the blending of this presentation with the practical performance meant this was a joint submission of work where both elements counted equally in arriving at one single and 100 percent weighted mark; neither part could negatively affect the other in terms of assessment grading.

Finally, after some restrictions were lifted, the practical details of the assessment were:

• Practical performances assessed live in-person on campus. One in studio without an audience (a teacher-led choreography that was constructed remotely on Zoom in home dance studios) and the other live-streamed from the theatre with remote live audience (a student-led choreography that was created upon the return to campus studios).
• The two oral tasks were done as recorded submissions of video links using the online presentation tool Loom, and Microsoft Teams.
• The teacher-led assessment piece was weighted at 40% and the student-led assessment piece at 60%.

I was glad that the latter point reflected at least some influence of the earlier consideration around using other ways to assess practice, instead of solely the practical performance, given pre-pandemic existing thinking on ‘fair assessment’ in performing arts subjects.

Findings

Using an ethically-approved questionnaire to gather participant perspectives once the assessment was over, the following details were revealed towards a potential future development of the idea to keep assessment submissions of practical performance work in the realms of critical accounts of practice only. Feedback from two students of a small cohort of four showed the following perspectives regarding the delivery and assessment experiences:

• positivity that learning and assessment were made possible, and a sense of normality could continue.
• learning activities were expressed as being both challenging and enjoyable, with pointed comments that expressed value in the opportunities presented for independent discovery and creativity, seen as areas for high levels of development.
• skills learned transferred well to subsequent modules that were not restricted by lockdown conditions at later points in the year.
• the chance to work both individually and as a team were valued, with the inclusion of independent decision-making within the group cited as an added value.
• the chance to perform on stage, after online choreographic devising processes was both another opportunity to develop as well as somewhat ‘nerve-wracking’ with time-limited preparation for working in this new space that was different to the online home spaces.
• when considering other outcomes and eventualities, one student expressed that it would have been beneficial to maintain some assessment tasks in the online setting due to interest and development based in that setting.
• before the final design of the assessment was set, the students, like me, also had concerns about the fairness and integrity of the assessment process, and receiving fair grades.
• a commuting student fed back that the online sessions carried a benefit of less travel time which gave them more time to focus on accompanying theory work such as reading and presentation work preparation. Another student did not miss the online classes at all and much preferred in-person, campus studio-based taught sessions.
• When presented with a future prospect of only being assessed via critical accounts of practice instead of the performance itself, one student gave a mixed response that recognised the need for adaptation in certain circumstances whilst they thought they might feel a sense of disappointment not to be assessed in a performance that had been worked hard for.

In my experience to date, the most salient realisation from this ongoing action research into the viability of using critical accounts of practice as assessment submissions, is the importance of distinguishing between assessment of learning activities as opposed to assessment of learning outcomes from these experiences. The questionnaire responses show the building work that is needed in making a case for an assessment idea that is controversial to the culture of the subject area, as earlier mentioned. If it were possible to convey that the idea would allow for more practice and more succinct assessment, I propose that assessment be ‘reduced where feasible’, as in Tai et al. (2022) where students suggested the idea, in relation to the overly emotional burden of assessment. This is an aspect also adroitly highlighted by the Tai et al. 2022 study.

At this point I continue in conversation with other studies researching diversity in assessment including O’Neill and Padden (2021) who found that student engagement and empowerment were key benefits of diversification of assessment (providing a range of submission options) that is echoed in the responses to my questionnaire here. They additionally substantiate an existence of a general fear around grade inflation that they comment ‘appears to run counter intuitive to supporting student success in assessment’. In another study, Shpigelman et al. (2021) analyse experiences of students with disabilities in terms of ‘…access, stigma, identity and power’ in higher education, giving compelling insights to how things must change towards better equity. With these examples I aim to show how the problem-solving around the constraints of the pandemic, is but a more universally understood example of the same issues that existed before it and ongoing afterwards, around access and equity in assessment in higher education among marginalised communities.

Conclusion: the treatment of embodied knowledge for assessment

Where it has been a common feature for some time that student cohorts in universities are made up of participants with diversely experienced starting points, and assessment practice for academic award is ultimately a metric exercise, I relate my case to Northedge (2003). In both matters of diverse student cohorts and how they encounter academic discourse with varying starting points, as well as shifting the role of the teacher in this situation, moving away from an expert transmitting knowledge and more towards an expert guide, supporter and facilitator among the students as they encounter and make sense of their own lived experiences in relation to knowledge presented. In a similar way, Guyotte (2018) calls teachers to action to educate ‘relationally/critically/responsibly’ with a perspective ‘…grounded in Greene’s aesthetic pedagogy and the social imagination, [that] explores how encounters with and through the arts can nurture more relational, critical, and socially responsible education’ (p. 62). Guyotte’s theory here highlights the reality that each student brings a lived experience and therefore an essentially unique embodied knowledge, arguably therefore, on a cutting edge of new knowledge and innovation. Knowledge and innovation that is undoubtedly capable, then, of breaking systemic patterns and structures of prejudice and discrimination, as was called for by the 2020 Black Lives Matter uprising, for example. Following Tai et al.’s adoption of ‘students-as-partners’ approach to their research I am reminded of Hobson and Morrison Saunders’ (2013) ‘(r)e-framing [of] teaching relationships: from student-centred to subject-centred learning’, where a relational pedagogy is argued for in which ‘embodied teaching is guided by listening for and to the subject’ (p. 773). As with Northedge (2003), the subject experiences are laid out for new and diverse meaning to be made by student explorers on the excursion around the ‘sights’ and ‘views’ laid out. Notably, a key feature is it being possible together in a group of people with diverse starting points and experiences. Academic skills in handling, generating and communicating knowledge then become the uniting knowledge gap to fill during the university education, whilst the engagement and participation in a specific subject area and discipline ensues in the learning experiences.

Imrie (in Adams et al., 2015), discusses ‘space’ from a critical disability theory perspective, tracking the lines of daily lived realities such as the primacy of ocular values, geographical positioning, the body’s emplacement in space, and architectural design processes that fail to engage with the complexities of corporeal form and performance (pp. 170-172). This theoretical perspective is an effective illustrator of the ongoing need for equity in the practice of assessment in higher education whether it is physical or more conceptual barriers needing to be addressed. I endeavour for equity as a principle in creating equal access assessments that avoid singling-out and marginalisation of individual. Tai et al. (2022) state that ‘even when accommodations are provided, these can result in students being treated differently’ as they cite Shpigelman et al. (2021) who describe a student with multiple disabilities feeling shame about sitting his examination in a different location from the rest of his friends. They continue to substantiate how not wanting to be treated differently and indeed perceived to have an advantage, are common reasons for students not to disclose their situation and in the end, then, receive no accommodations. The perspective of Tai et al. (2022) here, also includes the Madriaga (2010) notion that students with and without disability can also face similar challenges in assessment (in Lightner et al., 2012; Grimes et al., 2019) to make the point that ‘changes which improve the inclusivity of assessment may benefit all students’.

Spatz (2015) argues for stable documents of knowledge as a way to archive ‘embodied research in the university’ and too illuminates a way that art forms, crafts, and techniques can exist in their own culture and epistemology without then a tension of ‘calling on academia to recognise the ephemerality and transience of live performance’ (p. 235), for example. If critical accounts of dance practice were used for assessment submissions instead of the practice itself, the dance practice could exist as epistemology in its own culture and then be free for diverse access and remain in its own spirit, where individuals could develop, discover and synthesise in a limitless number of ways together, whilst on diverse journeys. Perhaps in Hazelle & Dean (2009), Mottram’s critique of using ‘personal creative expression of individuals’ (p. 248) as potentially not the most effective for communicating with metrically orientated structures such as return for financial investment, or indeed in this case, graded assessment for degree award, is useful. It helps the idea that critical accounts of practice offer an equitable solution in an embodied and practice-based subject like performing arts, through a concept that all experiences will be different, yet it is the knowledge gained and able to be transmitted that locates the knowledge gained alongside academic standards.

Academic subject areas in higher education are constituted by events in the emergence of their histories and the particular epistemologies then at play within culture of their disciplines and practices. I suggest that assessment is but a sampling tool or technique to test the emergent outcomes of the laboratorial findings of learning in all the diverse flourishes and finishes, in the spaces of say the dance technique classes, rehearsals, performances or even movement research sessions which do not gear towards final outcome performances. Using Imrie’s (in Adams et al.) critical disability theory treatment of ‘space’ as an analogy for assessment design, I suggest that ongoing, ‘architectural’ assessment design that excludes, precludes, or even limits access to maximal excellence for any student, must be avoided so that regardless of time, place, body, or mind all who have earned a place on a programme can be welcomed into discourse. As a result, then students are also welcomed to make up-to-the-minute, cutting-edge contributions to the knowledge of universities that otherwise might be missed if critical perspectives remain unformed and unheard.

The practical suggestions and imaginations I have shared regarding witnessing practice undoubtedly have potential. The most important, however, is the harnessing of access and equity as essential principles for the creation of innovative solutions for assessment in higher education, no matter the situation of the time, the people or place.

Recommendations for educational developers

1. Encourage genuine collaboration and agency between students and academics in the quest for knowledge as a university. Hobson and Morrison-Saunders (2013) substantiate that ‘they are the university’ and relationship considerations like the subject-centred learning approach and Northedge’s (2003) ‘rethink’ of teaching in the context of diversity (where neither traditional ‘knowledge delivery’ models of teaching, nor a purely student-centred approach are adequate in addressing diversity), appear to be useful perspectives in influencing the design of accessible and equitable assessments. Tai et al.’s (2022) study employing a student co-partners method of discovery along with the questionnaire approach I used with my students, evidence how essential genuine involvement and consultation of students is in finding all round functionality and optimal experience.
2. In light of the subject-centred approach I have referred to, and the ‘listening for and to it’ (Hobson & Morrison Saunders, 2013) I recommend an up-to-the-minute assessment or dissection of the subject area epistemology and discipline in question especially for the consideration of practice-based ones. Many high stakes are upheld in student assessment, most notably due to varying kinds of financial investment, as such the learning environment and community can become dominated by this force. Can the perspective of the co-partner student researchers from Tai et al. (2022) be explored to ‘reduce [assessment] where viably possible’? What kinds of assessment design can give way to a grading criterion that can cater for all learning journeys to excel as a result of hard work and commitment? Should the ‘personal creative expression of individuals’ (Mottram in Hazelle & Dean, 2009) be protected and defended in the reality of its time-based nature so an accessible learning community of practice can be fostered, meaning that prior experience and opportunity does not become an inequitable influencing factor of academic achievement? In this case, can a design such as critical accounts of practice become an equitable and efficient assessment design that gives space to participants and the subject area itself to grow, flourish and move with the times?
3. Consider the resources called for in practice-based subjects and disciplines. If those resources are not available, activities will need to be adapted. For example, dancing in a home studio, the floor will be non-impact-absorbing and small, meaning that large travelling sequences of choreography with lots of jumps would not be possible. Low impact dance movement (no jumping) contained to the available space whether directed or self-created through improvisation, would work much better for home dance studios where risk assessments must be carried out in accordance with current safety guidelines of the time before activities commence. There are many subject areas that necessitate specialist spaces and equipment such as in science laboratory work, outdoor education and healthcare. In the promotion of remote learning in in non-lockdown circumstances, additionally consider working with partner organisations in locations away from the university campus who can collaborate to provide delivery options in terms of specialist spaces, discipline experts and even validators in the case of qualifying the health and safety of processes such as in health care. Home spaces are still viable for a rich learning experience, along with adherence to health and safety, if that is the preferred option of cohorts and institutions. If remote on-line academic assessment, as per the specialty of higher education institutions, is to be meaningful, I pose that the critical accounts of practice for remote assessment are a viable practical solution that importantly foster an overall integrity of intention towards open access and equity.

References

Adams, R., Reiss, B., & Serlin, D. (Eds.). (2015). Keywords for Disability Studies. NYU Press.

De Keersmaker, A. T. (2021, November). Helena Vaz da Silva European Award acceptance speech [Speech]. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.

Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2019). University Student Perspectives on Institutional Non-Disclosure of Disability and Learning Challenges: Reasons for Staying Invisible. International Journal of Inclusive Education 23(6): 639–655. doi:10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507

Guyotte, K. W. (2018). Aesthetic movements of a social imagination: Refusing stasis and educating relationally/critically/responsibly. Critical Questions in Education, 9(1), 62-73. https://academyedstudies.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/guyotte-final.pdf

Hazelle, A., & Dean, R. T. (2009). Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Hobson, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2013). Reframing teaching relationships: from student-centred to subject-centred learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(7), 773-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.836095

Lightner, K. L., Kipps-Vaughan, D., Schulte, T., & Trice, A. D. (2012). Reasons University Students with a Learning Disability Wait to Seek Disability Services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 25(2): 145–159. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994283

Northedge, A. (2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052302

Northedge, A. (2003). Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052429

O’Neill, G., & Padden, L. (2021). Diversifying assessment methods: barriers, benefits and enablers. Innovations in Education and teaching International, 59(4), 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1880462

Preston-Dunlop, V., & Sanchez-Colberg, A. (Eds.). (2002). Dance and the performative: A choreological perspective – Laban and beyond. Verve Publishing.

Shpigelman, C. N., Mor, S., Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2021). Supporting the development of students with disabilities in higher education: access, stigma, identity, and power. Studies in Higher Education, 47(9), 1776–1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1960303

Spatz, B. (2015) What a body can do: technique as knowledge, practice as research. Routledge.

Tai, J. H. M., Dollinger, M., Ajjawi, R., Jorre de St Jorre, T., Krattli, S., McCarthy, D., & Prezioso, D. (2022). Designing assessment for inclusion: an exploration of diverse students’ assessment experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2082373