Index
Race and Assessment in Higher Education
ISBN: 978-1-83549-743-2, eISBN: 978-1-83549-740-1
Publication date: 9 October 2024
This content is currently only available as a PDF
Citation
Campbell, P.I. (2024), "Index", Race and Assessment in Higher Education, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 185-191. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83549-740-120241011
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Paul Ian Campbell. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
INDEX
Access and Participation Plan (APP), 122
Active Group Marking Exercise (AGME), 75–76, 165, 170
impact on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
Assertion, 66
Assessment For Learning (AFL), 156–157
AFL-based learning principles, 68
Assessments, 7–8
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of, 91–96
black students’ experiences of, 35, 43, 47
blueprint for making, 121–124
British South Asian Students’ experiences, 50–52
coursework, 7
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of, 79–80
dissertations, 22
effects of lack of racially and ethnically diverse faculty on, 159
equitable for students of colour, 162–166
essays, 20
exams, 19–20
experiences of, 23–32
guidance intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
issues with accessing assessment support provided prior to completing, 52–54
lab reports, 20–21
literacy, 63
impact of making, 127–132
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of, 86–91
open book, 20–21
practice and students’ experiences of, 172
preferences and access, 152–155
presentations, 21–22
process, 86, 98, 119, 129
quality processes, 171–172
racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for, 158
racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
research projects, 22
RIPIAG impact on, 167–169
undergraduate students from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
undergraduate students’ lived experiences of, 169–171
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, 19–23
Black British citizens, 48
Black British students’ experiences
assessment support processes and practices prior to, and after, completing assignments, 43–47
of different types of assessment, 35–43
Black children, 2
Black law and sociology students, 44–45
Black law students, 37
Black Lives Matter, 142
Black racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
Black sociology students, 38–40, 154–155
Black students, 42–43
participants, 61
Blueprint for making assessment measurably more racially inclusive, 121–124
Britain
race and progress in, 133–136
racial exclusions in, 115–118
British Bangladeshi, 122
British Black students, 60–61
British East Asian students, 79
British education system, 2–3
British society, 61–62, 128–129
British South Asian biology students, 50–51
British South Asian community, 49
British South Asian students, 60–61
in, and of, different types of assessment, 50–52
experiences of feedback and feed forward, 54–56
issues with accessing assessment support, 52–54
Class
capital, 119–120
currency, 68
habitus, 63
middle class, 69–70
working class, 63
Colonial systems, 4
Colour peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
Conversational approach, 30
Coursework, 38, 51, 61–62, 154, 159–160
Covid-19 pandemic, 135
Criminal justice system, 116–117
Critical Assessment Schedule (CAS), 79–80, 128, 162, 164
Critical Assignment Brief (CAB), 75, 84–85, 164, 169
and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
Critical Assignment Brief, The, 128
Critical Assignment Schedule (CAS), 75
impact on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
Curriculum Consultants, 107–108
Decolonised curricula, 60
Decolonization, 125
Dialogic pedagogy, 87–88
Digital media scholars, 147–148
Dissertations, 22, 40
and research projects, 155
Diversity bargaining, 144
Educators understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Epistemological distance, 3
Essays, 38, 51, 154
Ethnically diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Exams, 152–153
Exercises, 95
Feed forward, British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
Feedback, 29–32
British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
oral feedback, 66, 157
process, 47, 73, 75
written feedback, 157
First in their family (FIF), 26
Focus groups, 14
interviews, 173
Gaslighting, 143–144
Grading process, 38
Higher education (HE), 146
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in, 79
teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 73, 75, 156
uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of, 159–162
Inclusion, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice, 105–110
of exposition, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach, 67–68
Inter-marker variables, 170–171
Interest convergence, 162
Intervention, 162
Interviews, 14
Lab reports, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Access and Participation Plan (APP)
, 122
Active Group Marking Exercise (AGME)
, 75–76, 165, 170
impact on students’ experiences of assessment
, 91–96
Assertion
, 66
Assessment For Learning (AFL)
, 156–157
AFL-based learning principles
, 68
Assessments
, 7–8
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of
, 91–96
black students’ experiences of
, 35, 43, 47
blueprint for making
, 121–124
British South Asian Students’ experiences
, 50–52
coursework
, 7
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of
, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of
, 79–80
dissertations
, 22
effects of lack of racially and ethnically diverse faculty on
, 159
equitable for students of colour
, 162–166
essays
, 20
exams
, 19–20
experiences of
, 23–32
guidance intervention training workshops for staff
, 165–166
issues with accessing assessment support provided prior to completing
, 52–54
lab reports
, 20–21
literacy
, 63
impact of making
, 127–132
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of
, 86–91
open book
, 20–21
practice and students’ experiences of
, 172
preferences and access
, 152–155
presentations
, 21–22
process
, 86, 98, 119, 129
quality processes
, 171–172
racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for
, 158
racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules
, 97–100
research projects
, 22
RIPIAG impact on
, 167–169
undergraduate students from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds
, 152
undergraduate students’ lived experiences of
, 169–171
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for
, 19–23
Black British citizens
, 48
Black British students’ experiences
assessment support processes and practices prior to, and after, completing assignments
, 43–47
of different types of assessment
, 35–43
Black children
, 2
Black law and sociology students
, 44–45
Black law students
, 37
Black Lives Matter
, 142
Black racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from
, 152
Black sociology students
, 38–40, 154–155
Black students
, 42–43
participants
, 61
Blueprint for making assessment measurably more racially inclusive
, 121–124
Britain
race and progress in
, 133–136
racial exclusions in
, 115–118
British Bangladeshi
, 122
British Black students
, 60–61
British East Asian students
, 79
British education system
, 2–3
British society
, 61–62, 128–129
British South Asian biology students
, 50–51
British South Asian community
, 49
British South Asian students
, 60–61
in, and of, different types of assessment
, 50–52
experiences of feedback and feed forward
, 54–56
issues with accessing assessment support
, 52–54
Class
capital, 119–120
currency, 68
habitus, 63
middle class, 69–70
working class, 63
Colonial systems, 4
Colour peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
Conversational approach, 30
Coursework, 38, 51, 61–62, 154, 159–160
Covid-19 pandemic, 135
Criminal justice system, 116–117
Critical Assessment Schedule (CAS), 79–80, 128, 162, 164
Critical Assignment Brief (CAB), 75, 84–85, 164, 169
and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
Critical Assignment Brief, The, 128
Critical Assignment Schedule (CAS), 75
impact on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
Curriculum Consultants, 107–108
Decolonised curricula, 60
Decolonization, 125
Dialogic pedagogy, 87–88
Digital media scholars, 147–148
Dissertations, 22, 40
and research projects, 155
Diversity bargaining, 144
Educators understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Epistemological distance, 3
Essays, 38, 51, 154
Ethnically diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Exams, 152–153
Exercises, 95
Feed forward, British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
Feedback, 29–32
British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
oral feedback, 66, 157
process, 47, 73, 75
written feedback, 157
First in their family (FIF), 26
Focus groups, 14
interviews, 173
Gaslighting, 143–144
Grading process, 38
Higher education (HE), 146
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in, 79
teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 73, 75, 156
uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of, 159–162
Inclusion, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice, 105–110
of exposition, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach, 67–68
Inter-marker variables, 170–171
Interest convergence, 162
Intervention, 162
Interviews, 14
Lab reports, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Class
capital
, 119–120
currency
, 68
habitus
, 63
middle class
, 69–70
working class
, 63
Colonial systems
, 4
Colour peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of
, 77–79
Conversational approach
, 30
Coursework
, 38, 51, 61–62, 154, 159–160
Covid-19 pandemic
, 135
Criminal justice system
, 116–117
Critical Assessment Schedule (CAS)
, 79–80, 128, 162, 164
Critical Assignment Brief (CAB)
, 75, 84–85, 164, 169
and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 81–86
Critical Assignment Brief, The
, 128
Critical Assignment Schedule (CAS)
, 75
impact on students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 79–80
Curriculum Consultants
, 107–108
Decolonised curricula
, 60
Decolonization
, 125
Dialogic pedagogy
, 87–88
Digital media scholars
, 147–148
Dissertations
, 22, 40
and research projects
, 155
Diversity bargaining
, 144
Educators understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Epistemological distance, 3
Essays, 38, 51, 154
Ethnically diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Exams, 152–153
Exercises, 95
Feed forward, British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
Feedback, 29–32
British South Asian students’ experiences of, 54–56
oral feedback, 66, 157
process, 47, 73, 75
written feedback, 157
First in their family (FIF), 26
Focus groups, 14
interviews, 173
Gaslighting, 143–144
Grading process, 38
Higher education (HE), 146
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in, 79
teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 73, 75, 156
uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of, 159–162
Inclusion, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice, 105–110
of exposition, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach, 67–68
Inter-marker variables, 170–171
Interest convergence, 162
Intervention, 162
Interviews, 14
Lab reports, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Educators understanding of racial inequities in assessment
, 101–105
Epistemological distance
, 3
Essays
, 38, 51, 154
Ethnically diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of
, 159
Exams
, 152–153
Exercises
, 95
Feed forward, British South Asian students’ experiences of
, 54–56
Feedback
, 29–32
British South Asian students’ experiences of
, 54–56
oral feedback
, 66, 157
process
, 47, 73, 75
written feedback
, 157
First in their family (FIF)
, 26
Focus groups
, 14
interviews
, 173
Gaslighting, 143–144
Grading process, 38
Higher education (HE), 146
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in, 79
teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 73, 75, 156
uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of, 159–162
Inclusion, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice, 105–110
of exposition, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach, 67–68
Inter-marker variables, 170–171
Interest convergence, 162
Intervention, 162
Interviews, 14
Lab reports, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Gaslighting
, 143–144
Grading process
, 38
Higher education (HE)
, 146
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in
, 79
teachers, staff and lecturers
, 166–167
Higher Education Providers (HEPs)
, 73, 75, 156
uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of
, 159–162
Inclusion, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice, 105–110
of exposition, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach, 67–68
Inter-marker variables, 170–171
Interest convergence, 162
Intervention, 162
Interviews, 14
Lab reports, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Inclusion
, 49
barriers to inclusion in assessment for racialised undergraduate students
, 59–62
discourse to racially inclusive assessment practice
, 105–110
of exposition
, 83–84
Indian heritage British citizens, The
, 49–50
Inductive methodological approach
, 67–68
Inter-marker variables
, 170–171
Interest convergence
, 162
Intervention
, 162
Interviews
, 14
Lab reports
, 154
Marginalisation, 67–68
Marking criteria, 76
Marking process, 21, 32–33
Meadow University, 73–75
Metropolitan Police, 143–144
Minority ethnic student, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW), 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The, 128
Non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Non-modified modules, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Marginalisation
, 67–68
Marking criteria
, 76
Marking process
, 21, 32–33
Meadow University
, 73–75
Metropolitan Police
, 143–144
Minority ethnic student
, 68
Modified Active Seminar Workshop (MASW)
, 75–76, 86–87, 164–165, 170
effect on students’ everyday experiences of assessment
, 86–91
Modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules
, 97–100
Modified Seminar Workshops, The
, 128
Non-anonymised assessments
, 154–155
Non-modified modules
, 97–100
Office for Students (OFS), 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback, 66
Open-door forum, 30–32
Oral feedback, 66, 157
Participants, 105, 107
Pattern coding, 14
Physics students, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for, 172
Pilot RIPIAG, 172–173
Policymakers, 151
Portfolios, 154
Post-assessment support, 157–158, 161
approach, 66
and racialised habitus, 64–67
Postblackness, 147–148
Postracism, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS), 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments, 154–155
Psychological violence, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Office for Students (OFS)
, 6, 122
One-to-one oral feedback
, 66
Open-door forum
, 30–32
Oral feedback
, 66, 157
Participants
, 105, 107
Pattern coding
, 14
Physics students
, 24–25
Pilot, suitable modules for
, 172
Pilot RIPIAG
, 172–173
Policymakers
, 151
Portfolios
, 154
Post-assessment support
, 157–158, 161
approach
, 66
and racialised habitus
, 64–67
Postblackness
, 147–148
Postracism
, 147–149
Pre-assessment guidance
, 29–30, 156
Pre-assessment support (PrAS)
, 46, 62, 64, 155, 157, 160–161
Presentations
, 21–22
and non-anonymised assessments
, 154–155
Psychological violence
, 143–144
Psychosis of Whiteness
, 145
Qualitative assessment, 61–62
Qualitative assignments, 38
Qualitative data, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 4–5
Quantitative data, 13, 77, 167–168
Race, 7–8, 131
inclusion, 133–136
inequities, 103
and post-assessment support, 157–158
and pre-assessment support, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century, 133–136
race-based barriers, 160
race-based inequities, 7
Race award gaps (RAG), 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
Race Equality Charter, 137
Racial barriers in assessment, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States, 115–118
Racial inclusion, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment, 101–105
in education, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes, 158
Racialised habitus, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG), 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
intervention, 127
intervention training workshops for staff, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of, 171–172
pilot, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour, 79
resources, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to, 124–127
Racism
covert, 9
gaslighting, 155–156
institutional, 146
microaggression, 49
overt, 9
systemic, 146
Research projects, 22
Russell Group institution, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Qualitative assessment
, 61–62
Qualitative assignments
, 38
Qualitative data
, 13, 166, 173
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
, 4–5
Quantitative data
, 13, 77, 167–168
Race
, 7–8, 131
inclusion
, 133–136
inequities
, 103
and post-assessment support
, 157–158
and pre-assessment support
, 62, 64, 155, 157
and progress in Britain in new century
, 133–136
race-based barriers
, 160
race-based inequities
, 7
Race award gaps (RAG)
, 6–8, 77, 123, 166
attempts
, 6–7
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on
, 167–169
between students of colour and white peers
, 77–79
Race Equality Charter
, 137
Racial barriers in assessment
, 118–121
Racial exclusions in Britain and White Western Nation States
, 115–118
Racial inclusion
, 103, 126
Racial inequities
in assessment
, 101–105
in education
, 166
Racial literacy
efficacy of RIPIAG for improving levels of
, 166–167
making measurable improvements to racial literacy of lecturing staff
, 124–127
Racialised disparities in accessing curricula and consequences for assessment performance and outcomes
, 158
Racialised habitus
, 64–67
Racialised students on modified modules and students of colour on non-modified modules
, 97–100
Racialised undergraduate students, obvious’ barriers to inclusion in assessment for
, 59–62
Racially diverse faculty on assessment, effects of lack of
, 159
Racially hostile spaces, uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPs as
, 159–162
Racially inclusive assessment
impact of active group marking exercise on students’ experiences of assessment
, 91–96
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students
, 97–100
critical assignment brief and changes in students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 79–80
effective tool for helping staff to move from ‘inclusion’ discourse to
, 105–110
effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of colour and white peers
, 77–79
effect of modified active seminar workshops on students’ everyday experiences of assessment
, 86–91
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour in HE assessment
, 79
Racially Inclusive Assessment Guidance
, 4–5, 160
Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPIAG)
, 4–5, 12, 73, 75–76, 101, 114, 121–122, 127–128, 131, 162, 172
efficacy for improving levels of racial literacy among HE teachers, staff and lecturers
, 166–167
impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level
, 167–169
impact on students from teachers’ perspectives
, 110–113
impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 169–171
intervention
, 127
intervention training workshops for staff
, 165–166
limitations of efficacy of
, 171–172
pilot
, 172–173
on practice and students’ experiences of assessment
, 172
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of students of colour
, 79
resources
, 128
results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for students of colour
, 162–166
as tool for improving educators’ understanding of racial inequities in assessment
, 101–105
Racially inclusive practice of lecturing staff, making measurable improvements to
, 124–127
Racism
covert
, 9
gaslighting
, 155–156
institutional
, 146
microaggression
, 49
overt
, 9
systemic
, 146
Research projects
, 22
Russell Group institution
, 146
Scaffolded approach, 90–91
Scatter gun approach, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students, 56
STEM-based subjects, 7
Science-based programmes, 65
Sociologist, The, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
South Asian Britons, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The, 51
South Asian students, 156
Staff, 112–113
participants, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for, 165–166
Standard English Tests, 32
State education, 68
Steeper learning curve, 37
Structured sampling method, 9–10
Students, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on, 91–96
frustrations, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on, 86–91
participants, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level, 167–169
stories, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives, 110–113
testimonies, 59–60
Students of colour, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on, 79–80
Talking Race podcast, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from, 110–113
Testimonies, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO), 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Scaffolded approach
, 90–91
Scatter gun approach
, 95–96
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
, 27, 118–119, 153
STEM-based South Asian students
, 56
STEM-based subjects
, 7
Science-based programmes
, 65
Sociologist, The
, 143–144
South Asian, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from
, 152
South Asian Britons
, 49–50
South Asian physics student focus group, The
, 51
South Asian students
, 156
Staff
, 112–113
participants
, 110
racially inclusive practice in assessment guidance intervention training workshops for
, 165–166
Standard English Tests
, 32
State education
, 68
Steeper learning curve
, 37
Structured sampling method
, 9–10
Students
, 40–41, 53–54, 90, 157
impact of active group marking exercise on
, 91–96
frustrations
, 47
effect of modified active seminar workshops on
, 86–91
participants
, 62–64, 159
RIPIAG impact on assessment performance of students and on RAG at module level
, 167–169
stories
, 60–61
from teachers’ perspectives
, 110–113
testimonies
, 59–60
Students of colour
, 97–98
contrasting experiences of assessment between racialised students on modified modules and
, 97–100
direct and measurable improvements in lived and everyday assessment experiences of
, 171
effective tool for reducing general RAG between
, 77–79
qualitative impact of RIPIAG on everyday lived experiences of
, 79
RIPIAG results intervention for making experience of assessment equitable for
, 162–166
Students’ lived experiences of assessment
critical assignment brief and changes in
, 81–86
impact of critical assignment schedule on
, 79–80
Talking Race podcast
, 133–134
Teachers perspectives, impact of RIPIAG on students from
, 110–113
Testimonies
, 66, 86–88, 91–92, 97, 101–102, 114, 169
Transforming Assessment and Student Outcomes (TASO)
, 6–7
Turf Moor Football Ground
, 134
UK education system, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs), 4–5
UK housing law, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces, 159–162
University of Borne, The, 73–75
Waffly approach, 95–96
White biology students, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support, 23–32
feedback, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment, 19–23
White colonial spaces, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of, 77–79
White physics students, 20–21
White psychosis, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from, 152
White secondary school teachers, 124
White sociology, 24–25
White STEM students, 30, 157
White students, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in, 115–118
Wiseman University, 73–75
Written feedback, 157
Young people of colour, 117
UK education system
, 61–62
UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs)
, 4–5
UK housing law
, 116
Undergraduate students
RIPIAG impact on undergraduate students’ lived experiences of assessment
, 169–171
from South Asian, Black and White racial backgrounds
, 152
Uneven assessment support as facilitator for perceptions of HEPS as racially hostile spaces
, 159–162
University of Borne, The
, 73–75
Waffly approach
, 95–96
White biology students
, 20
White British students’ experiences of assessment
experiences of assessment support
, 23–32
feedback
, 29–32
white students’ experiences in, and preferences for, different modes of assessment
, 19–23
White colonial spaces
, 66–67
White peers, effective tool for reducing general RAG between students of
, 77–79
White physics students
, 20–21
White psychosis
, 145
White racial backgrounds, assessments experienced differently by undergraduate students from
, 152
White secondary school teachers
, 124
White sociology
, 24–25
White STEM students
, 30, 157
White students
, 28–29, 158
White Western Nation States, racial exclusions in
, 115–118
Wiseman University
, 73–75
Written feedback
, 157
Young people of colour, 117
Young people of colour
, 117
- Prelims
- 1 Introduction
- Part 1 Exploring the Lived Experiences of Race and Assessment in HE
- 2 White British Students' Experiences of Assessment
- 3 Black British Students' Experiences of Assessment
- 4 British South Asian Students' Experiences of Assessment
- 5 Conceptualising Inter- and Intra- Race-Based Barriers in Assessment
- Part 2 What Difference Does Racially Inclusive Assessment Make, and For Who?
- 6 THE EFFECTS OF RACIALLY INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT ON THE RACE AWARD GAP AND ON STUDENTS’ LIVED EXPERIENCES OF ASSESSMENT
- 7 Racially Inclusive Assessment and Academic Teaching Staff
- 8 Discussion and Concluding Comments
- Afterword: 12 Years a Black Race Inclusion Academic – Some Reflections on Working in a ‘Postracism’ Space
- Appendix
- References
- Index