Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 2024)
Liv Marken, Contributing Editor, CWCR/RCCR
This is Part Two of two in this series. You can read Part One, The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism here. CWCR/RCCR Editor
My previous post discussed the resurgence of traditional handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams as a response to pandemic-era cheating and GenAI. While some post-secondary instructors return to these assessments, they risk moving backwards: the nature of these exams is inconsistent with commitments to equity and inclusion practices. Accommodation gains, it seems, were a corollary of pandemic remote learning, and these gains have gradually diminished due to an attitude of “returning to normal.”
I acknowledge that instructors are contending with heavy workloads, large class sizes, post-pandemic stressors, and increased cheating. They may find reassurance in a return to traditional assessment methods. However, the assumption that a return to tradition is a return to quality is unfounded. Handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams introduce unnecessary and irrelevant constraints for all students. They can disadvantage Indigenous students, multilingual students, disabled students (Gernsbacher, Soicher, & Becker-Blease 2020), and even those who are left-handed (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998) or not adept at cursive writing (Summers & Catarro, 2003).
Traditional assessment as a reassuring solution to overwhelming problems?
Many post-secondary instructors noted a rise in cheating over the pandemic, including a rise in contract cheating (Friesen, 2023). As instructors grapple with this development, challenges common to neoliberal post-secondary institutions continue: growing class sizes, disconnection, unreasonable workloads, and performance pressure (Helmes 2022; Knoetze 2023; Reed 2023). In light of these challenges, redesigning assessments or providing in-depth, formative feedback represents considerable added work. However, while a return to tradition may alleviate some anxiety, it is not the way to go. Institutions recruit and admit greater numbers of equity-deserving and non-traditional students, and they create strategic plans around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and Indigenization; however, they often fail to make necessary systemic adjustments to tuition, classroom sizes, housing, methods of assessment (Tai et al., 2023), and appropriate learning supports for these students. Instructors, programs, and departments would do well to consult the extensive research on effective, equitable assessment for learning and nurturing a culture of academic honesty.
Tradition can be harmful
I have heard instructors sentimentalizing their own experiences who, as students, survived the rigours and anxiety of traditional exams. A fondness for a tradition of anxiety and distress can lead to decisions led by the fallacy of appeal to tradition, which, in this context, may be paraphrased as, “While a student, I faced emotional distress and succeeded; therefore, my students can and should as well.” This sounds like a bootstrapping refrain, connected to the myth of meritocracy, a part of the capitalist, colonial enterprise of Canada, which infuses education systems at every level (Schick & St. Denis 2003; McLean 2017; Bergen 2021).
I have also heard instructors echoing a wider cultural assertion that students “lack resilience these days,” which leans on a superficial pop-psychology interpretation of “resilience” as individually determined. In reality, resilience does not just come down to individual toughness and positivity; it is intricately tied to circumstance and systemic challenges (Hutcheon 2015; Traynor 2018). Students are extraordinarily resilient these days. They face pandemic learning loss (Volante & Klinger, 2023); the rising cost of living (Statistics Canada, 2023); tuition increases (Canadian Federation of Students, 2022); debt concerns (Piper & Wong, 2022); food insecurity (Macdonald, 2022); a nation-wide urban housing crisis (Macdonald & Tranjan, 2023); intensified discriminatory rhetoric toward marginalized groups (Moran, 2023); and reduced access to mental health services (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2022). Many instructors of previous generations were traditional students without such significant interfering commitments or barriers and, therefore, should not apply their experiences to those of students today. And for those who “survived” rigorous university examination experiences, we must ask why we normalize education as emotionally distressing and scarring.
The inefficacy of handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated assessments
Handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams are not a silver bullet against cheating. The literature is clear: they are an ineffective and inequitable form of assessment (Gagne, 2019; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021; Vu & Dall’Alba, 2013; Waterfield & West, 2006; Woldeab & Brothen, 2019). Here is a summary of how these exams are inequitable and ineffective:
They are a test of the body, not knowledge.
Writing by hand differs greatly from using a word processor or voice-to-text software. Handwriting is a complex skill that orchestrates motor skills, such as fine motor control, and perceptual features, such as visual perception, bilateral coordination, and sustained attention (Feder & Majnemer, 2009). In a post-secondary student body unaccustomed to note-taking or composing on paper, or for those students who have handwriting difficulties due to poor ergonomics, written exams can cause significant physical discomfort (Chang, Chen, & Yu 2011). Cursive writing remains in the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island curricula (Mulally, 2017), but is not required in British Columbia or Newfoundland and Labrador and has only very recently returned to Ontario (Pugh, 2023). Combined, the latter three provinces represent over 4 million residents aged 14-25 (Statistics Canada, 2022).
They introduce unwarranted temporal constraints.
The pressure of working against the clock can induce anxiety levels that go beyond the activation of “good stress,” hindering a student’s capacity to perform analytic and creative tasks (Parr, Levi, and Jacka, 1995; Roskes, Elliot, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2013). Timed tests disadvantage those who have slower writing speeds, such as those who are left-handed (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998) and those who print instead of using cursive or a mix of printing and cursive (Summers & Catarro, 2003). While many disabled students receive extended testing time as an accommodation (Sokal & Wilson, 2017), typical extensions are set at 1.5 times the original exam duration. For instance, a three-hour exam would be extended to 4.5 hours. Despite the lack of empirical evidence for extended time as an appropriate accommodation for disabled students, it is widely used in nearly 50 Canadian institutions surveyed by Sokal and Wilson (2017).
Beyond the drawbacks it imposes on many disabled students, timed testing is incompatible with common Indigenous cultural norms. For example, Claypool and Preston (2021) argue that time restrictions on tests can penalize Indigenous students whose culture values reflection rather than quick responses as a measure of intelligence. Indigenous academic Evelyn Steinhauer advocates for assessments valuing diverse analytical processes, writing that she “had been socialized to wait, to be invited, to really think through what we need to say rather than just throw out a quick response “(78), a cultural norm at odds with timed assessment (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 82). Formative feedback, not often provided after a final exam, contributes to Indigenization by leading to critical and reflective thinking rather than a singular focus on grade attainment (Louie, Poitras-Pratt, Hanson, & Ottman, 2017).
They perpetuate a culture of distrust.
In-person, invigilated examinations communicate distrust, a dynamic which harms student learning and engagement. Carless (2008) argues that post-secondary institutions create an atmosphere of distrust when they default to exams as the main form of assessment and argues that “cultures of surveillance and accountability” (p.1) distract instructors from their primary responsibilities as educators and researchers. Post-secondary institutions should be guided by research-backed approaches to preventing academic dishonesty (Eaton, 2021; Eaton & Christensen Huges, J., 2022), and increasingly, these approaches should inform adjustments to assessment in the wake of GenAI (Bens & Berdahl, 2023).
The formation of trust is also a two-way street, and students from particular backgrounds are more likely to have formed a distrust of educational institutions and instructors. For example, Poitras-Pratt and Danyluk (2019) point out that “educators must understand that a strong distrust and fear of schooling from Canada’s First Peoples stems from previous negative experiences in schools where these adverse feelings are passed on to their children,” and that “[b]y creating positive experiences . . . educators can begin to rebuild trust and a sense of belongingness essential to reconciliation” (p.4). Listening to communities’ perspectives on schooling is crucial. For instance, feedback collected in a study by Claypool and Preston (2011) showed that First Nations organizations’ representatives in Saskatchewan discussed schools as locations of “incessant testing” (p. 89).
As one of the most fear-inducing assessment modes, in-person, timed exams hinder the process of rebuilding trust and fostering a sense of belonging. Cardinal advocates for a focus on “mutual trust” in post-secondary assessment due to remarkable levels of fear “at all levels” in our educational system (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 82). Poitras-Pratt and Gladue (2022) assert that when it comes to defining Indigenous principles of academic integrity, it is crucial to remember the cultural importance and complexity of relationships, especially amid power dynamics and “individualistic tendencies” (p.117) in the academy.
They lack authenticity, failing to replicate real-world professional research, writing, and analytical processes.
Multiple studies question traditional exams’ efficacy in skill development and employability (Keppell & Carless, 2006; Vu & Dall’Alba, 2014; Sotiriadou et al., 2019; Tai et al., 2023). Increasingly, industries and accreditation bodies are considering how assessments connect to outcomes, meaning that professional colleges, in particular, will need to attend to quality assessment design (Montgomerie, Czapalay, & Smith, 2021). Students value and prefer challenging, practical, and authentic assessment (Ibarra-Sáiz, Rodríguez-Gómez & Boud, 2021). Typically, professionals do not compose with pen and paper while being surveilled. In a study on instructors’’ assessment design approaches, Bearman et al. (2017) found that instructors wanted students to show, think, act, and write like professionals, to shape not only their careers but also their broader personal development. This wider applicability to life skills fits with Indigenization and decolonization goals; Indigenous education scholar Noella Steinhauer’s suggestion of a shift from assessing students based solely on their test-taking abilities to evaluating those who can effectively apply knowledge in authentic, everyday scenarios (Steinhauer et al., 2020). A focus on grades over learning can disconnect students from their accountability to community, “los[ing] sight of their responsibility as learners” (p. 79).
They can result in marker bias related to neatness, penmanship, non-content errors, and common errors in language learners’ writing.
Repeated studies reveal negative and positive biases and assumptions related to the evaluation of a student’s abilities based on neatness and penmanship (Marshall & Powers, 1969; Klein, Joseph, & Taub, 2005; Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011). Even the assumed gender of the writer, as judged by the style of handwriting, has been shown to trigger marker bias (Baird, 1998; Eames & Loewenthal, 1990; Ruusuvirta, Sievänen, & Vehkamäki, 2021). A review by Meadows and Billington (2005) reports that numerous studies show that handwritten exams are marked more harshly than typed exams. “[N]on-content errors,” such as poor spelling, have been identified as sources of bias in evaluations (Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011, p.9), particularly when to comes to judging a student’s overall abilities (Jansen, Vogelin, Machts, Keller & Moller). Nairn (2003) found that instructors penalize non-native English writers’ grammatical errors more harshly than they do for other students. Handwritten exams are more prone to include grammar and spelling errors, increasing the probability of these students encountering unfair or biased grading.
They can disadvantage Indigenous students.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action (2015) addresses human rights violations related to residential schools, including a call for culturally appropriate curricula. Writing about curriculum reform, Battiste (2010) urges educators to recognize, acknowledge, value, and nurture Indigenous students’ various ways of knowing, values, and beliefs. Assessment redesign is both a part of and a consequence of curriculum reform. STEM education expert Marc Higgins notes that in mainstream assessment, what “count[s]” as knowledge does not align with Indigenous beliefs, assumptions, and practices about how knowledge should be represented (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 76). He argues that an Indigenous theory of evaluation and assessment should contribute to educational changes that align with Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and community needs.
Ways to demonstrate knowledge can be at odds with family and community needs and expectations; for example, Noella Steinhauer explains that mainstream assessments value memorization and marks over deep learning, which were at odds with her grandmother’s expectation that she respect social and cultural norms by sharing her stories of learning and supporting siblings through the education system (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p.79). Indigenous learning models stress non-individualistic, holistic approaches to learning. For example, the First Nations Holistic Lifelong Learning Model (Canadian Council for Learning, 2007, p. 19) is represented by a tree, its branches representing collective well-being; leaves representing collective well-being; and roots that represent the sources and domains of knowledge: traditions and ceremonies, the natural world, languages, ancestors, family, self, community, clan, nation, and other nations. Raindrops nurturing the tree of learning are not only teachers but also parents, mentors, counsellors, and Elders. The tree rings represent stages and forms of learning, both informal and formal: workplace, post-secondary, early, elementary/secondary, and intergenerational learning. The tree’s core depicts western and Indigenous knowledge in balance, surrounded by the learner’s physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental selves.
Mainstream forms of assessment neglect students’ physical, emotional, and spiritual selves, and written quizzes, tests, and exams prioritize “rational, linear, and accountable tasks” focusing on achieving curriculum objectives (Preston & Claypool, 2021, p. 4). Misty Underwood puts it well, explaining that mainstream assessment is based on “what the person knows now . . . not how they live” (Steinhauer et al., 2020, p. 81). By creating fear, distrust, pain, and imbalance, assessments such as timed, in-person, and invigilated examinations are highly limited when viewed through the First Nations Lifelong Learning Model — one of many holistic Indigenous learning models. Holistic, inclusive, or alternative assessment models are helpful not only to Indigenous learners but also to most other learners, including non-traditional students (Butcher, McPherson, Shelton, Clarke, Hills, & Hughes, 2017)
What can writing centres do to support students?
As students navigate a wide range of writing projects and assessments, including final exam preparation, writing centre professionals can provide them with space, feedback, resources, time management strategies, and referral to complementary services such as wellness services or library research support. Although they typically do not have a direct influence on assessment design, they can, where appropriate, support students through the process of preparing for handwritten, timed, in-person exams. And writing centre professionals are not alone in imagining and enacting interventions to help students as they contend with poorly designed and inequitable forms of assessment. In their study on inclusive assessments, Nieminen (2023) argues that educational institutions need to look at the idea of “inclusive assessment” as a “communal project between students, teachers, researchers, administrators, policymakers, and other crucial stakeholders” (p. 633). We are more effective when we are part of a community of support (North, 1982, p. 44-45). Below is a list of potential collaborations with various members of campus communities:
-
- Units or programs for Indigenous student engagement and support: co-facilitate dedicated Q&A and preparatory sessions in Indigenous student centres.
- Student wellness units: to ensure informed advice and referral for students experiencing mental health challenges, consult with health peer mentors and program and service coordinators on stress and anxiety management strategies. Collaborate or cross-promote on social media.
- Health and safety experts: request ergonomics education and resources, such as posters for the writing centre.
- Rehabilitative medicine students and experts: solicit occupational therapy resources on pencil grip (see Selin, 2003) or physiotherapy resources for stretches and strategies to reduce hand cramping.
- Student caregiver groups: provide tutors, toys, games, and space for child-friendly study and writing sessions.
- Learning centres: assist with mock or rehearsal exam events with the involvement of peer study mentors.
- Student unions: collaborate on information campaigns and learn from what student leaders are hearing from students.
- Education student groups or student bullet journal or “BuJo” clubs: provide space and promotion for practice with penmanship, cursive, and writing speed, legibility, and cursive variations.
- Academic peer mentors: share student exam experiences via testimonials and tips via posters, screens, or social media. Collaborate on learning community and structured study session instruction, support, and resources.
- Faculty developers: co-facilitate workshops and co-develop resources for high-stakes assessment design.
- Access and equity services units: request accommodation resources and advice, tutor training, and collaborate on providing space, services, and programming for particular student groups preparing for high-stakes assessments, such as student caregivers and disabled students.
As writing centre professionals, we have a moral imperative to work toward equitable education. To achieve this, we can collaborate with campus partners and advocate for students. This includes helping them prepare not only for the consequences of a return to outdated and ineffective assessment methods but also for the challenges presented by emerging and innovative assessment forms. Drawing insights from students’ experiences in the context of both the introduction of GenAI and the pandemic’s impact on in-person activities, we can avoid perpetuating an ‘us vs. them’ mentality between students and teachers. By doing so, we work against the continuation of mutual distrust and other harmful dynamics that are antithetical to learning.
References
Battiste, M. (2010). Nourishing the learning spirit: Living our way to new thinking. Education Canada, 50(1), 14-18.
Bens, S. and Berdahl, L. (2023, June 13). Academic integrity in the age of ChatGPT. University Affairs. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/the-skills-agenda/academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-chatgpt/
Bergen, J. (2021, October 21). Meritocracy and the cultivation of land/racism on the ‘Canadian’ prairies: Considerations for teachers. Canadian History & Environment | Nouvelle initiative Canadienne en histoire de l’environnement https://niche-canada.org/2021/10/21/meritocracy-and-the-cultivation-of-land-racism-on-the-canadian-prairies-considerations-for-teachers/
Butcher, J., McPherson, E., Shelton, I., Clarke, A., Hills, L., and Hughes, J. (2017). Unfit for purpose? Rethinking the language of assessment for Widening Participation students. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 19(2) pp. 27–46.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2007). Redefining How Success is Measured in First Nations, Inuit and Métis Learning, Report on Learning in Canada. https://education.afn.ca/afntoolkit/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/5._2007_redefining_how_success_is_measured_en.pdf
Chang, S., Chen, C., & Yu, N. (2011). Biomechanical analyses of prolonged handwriting in subjects with and without perceived discomfort. Human Movement Science, 43, 2015. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.008.
Claypool, T.R. & Preston (2011). Redefining learning and assessment practices impacting Aboriginal students: Considering Aboriginal priorities via Aboriginal and western worldviews. [Indigenous Education] in Education, 17(3). 84-93. https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2011.v17i3.74
Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity. ABC-CLIO.
Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1
Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2009). Children’s handwriting evaluation tools and their psychometric properties. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23(3), 65-84. DOI: 10.1080/J006v23n03_05
Fiarman, S. E. (2016). Unconscious bias: When good intentions aren’t enough. Educational Leadership: Disrupting Inequity, 74(3), 10-15. https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Unconscious-Bias_Ed-Leadership.pdf
Friesen, J. (2023, February 17). Hired exam-takers, blackmail and the rise of contract cheating at Canadian universities. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-university-students-cheating-exams/
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steve-Graham-4/publication/291819847_It_Is_More_Than_Just_the_Message_Presentation_Effects_in_Scoring_Writing/links/5d27d7bc299bf1547cad32d6/It-Is-More-Than-Just-the-Message-Presentation-Effects-in-Scoring-Writing.pdf
Heidt, A. (2023, January 24). “Arms race with automation”: Professors fret about AI-generated coursework. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00204-z
Helmes, S. (2022). Critical Pedagogy as a Tool for Resistance in the Neoliberal University? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).
Hutcheon, E. (2015). “Cripping” resilience: Generating new vocabularies of resilience from narratives of post-secondary students who experience disability. (Master’s thesis, University of Calgary). http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2275
Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Boud, D. (2021). The quality of assessment tasks as a determinant of learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 943-955, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1828268
Keppell, M., & Carless, D. (2006). Learning-oriented assessment: A technology-based case study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 179-191. DOI: 10.1080/09695940600703944
Klein, J., & Taub, D. (2005). The effect of variations in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays. Assessing Writing, 10(2): 134–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.05.002.
Knoetze, R. (2023). Cultivating criticality in a neoliberal system: a case study of an English literature curriculum at a mega distance university. Higher Education. DOI: 0.1007/s10734-023-01084-y
Louie, D., Poitras-Pratt, Y., Hanson, A. & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying Indigenizing principles of decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher Education / Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 47(3), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043236ar
Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades reexamined. Journal of Educational Measurement, 6, 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1969.tb00665.x
McLean, S. (2017). “We built a life from nothing”: White settler colonialism and the myth of meritocracy. Our Schools/Our Selves, Fall/Winter, 32-33. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/5e8f9310-00e3-45dc-a643-45566336e2c8?s=u
Meadows, M. & Billington, L. (2005). A Review on the Literature on Marking Reliability. Assessments and Qualifications Alliance Research Report, a commissioned by the National Assessment Agency. https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/content/research/CERP_RP_MM_01052005.pdf
Montgomerie, D., Czapalay, A., & Smith, J. (2021). Supporting quality through collaboration and funding-based policy levers: Nova Scotia’s experience. In S. H. Jones & S. L. Lefebvre (Eds.), Assessing Quality in Postsecondary Education (pp. 165-172). McGill-Queen’s University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv8bt1jw.14
Mulally, R. (2017, September 10). Some provinces don’t teach handwriting in schools but is it necessary? SaltWire. https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/lifestyles/some-provinces-dont-teach-handwriting-in-schools-but-is-it-necessary-240157/
Nairn, L (2003). Faculty response to grammar errors in the writing of ESL students. TESOL Newsletter for the ESL in Higher Education E-Section. http://www.sfu.ca/heis/archive/22-1_nairn.pdf
Intelligent (2023, January 23). Nearly 1 in 3 college students have used ChatGPT on written assignments. https://www.intelligent.com/nearly-1-in-3-college-students-have-used-chatgpt-on-written-assignments/
Nieminen, J. H. (2023). Unveiling ableism and disablism in assessment: A critical analysis of disabled students’ experiences of assessment and assessment accommodations. Higher Education, 85, 613–636. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-022-00857-1
Parr, P., Levi, N. & Jacka, K. (1995). Unspeeded examinations: An equitable and practical method of assessment. Paper presented at the Equity and Access Conference, Melbourne, Australia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED397108
Poitras Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. J. (2019). Exploring reconciliatory pedagogy and its possibilities through educator-led praxis. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.3.9479
Poitras Pratt, Y., Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic Integrity: Embracing Indigenous truths. In: Eaton, S.E., Christensen Hughes, J. (eds) Academic Integrity in Canada. Ethics and Integrity in Educational Contexts, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_5
Preston, J.P. & Claypool, T.R. (2021.) Analyzing assessment practices for Indigenous students. Frontiers in Education. 6. doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.679972
Pugh, J. (2023, July 1). Ontario teachers could be the ones doing the learning as cursive makes mandatory return to curriculum. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/ontario-cursive-reintroduction-1.6893378
Roskes, M., Elliot, J., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Time pressure undermines performance more under avoidance than approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 803-813. DOI: 10.1177/0146167213482
Ruusuvirta, T., Sievänen, H., & Vehkamäki, M. (2021). Negative findings of the handwriting legibility effect: The explanatory role of spontaneous task-specific debiasing. SN Social Sciences, 1(7), 167. DOI: 10.1007/s43545-021-00183-w
Schick, C. & St. Denis, V. (2003). What makes anti-racist pedagogy in teacher education difficult? Three popular ideological assumptions. Alberta Journal of Education, 49(1), 1-14.
Selin, A-S (2003). Pencil grip: A descriptive model and four empirical studies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36190927_Pencil_grip_A_descriptive_model_and_four_empirical_studies
Sokal, L., & Wilson, A. (2017). In the nick of time: A pan-Canadian examination of extended testing time accommodation in post-secondary schools. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1), 28–62. DOI: 10.15353/cjds.v6i1.332
Sotiriadou, P., Logan-Fleming, D., Daly, A. & Guest, R. (2019). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015
Steinhauer, E., Cardinal, T., Higgins, M, Madden, B., Steinhauer, N., Steinhauer, P., Underwood, M., Wolfe, A., & Cardinal, Elder Bob (2020). Thinking with Kihkipiw: Exploring an Indigenous theory of assessment and evaluation for teacher education. In S. Cote-Meek & T. Moeke-Pickering (Eds.), Decolonizing and Indigenizing Education in Canada (pp. 73-86). Canadian Scholars.
Summers, J., & Catarro, F. (2003). Assessment of handwriting speed and factors influencing written output of university students in examinations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50(3), 148-157. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1630.2003.00310.x
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 483-497. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451
Tisi, J., Whitehouse, G., Maughan, S., & Burdett, N. (2013). A Review of Literature on Marking Reliability Research (Report for Ofqual). National Foundation for Educational Research. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81cc0e40f0b62302699360/0613_JoTisi_et_al-nfer-a-review-of-literature-on-marking-reliability.pdf
Traynor M. (2018). Guest editorial: What’s wrong with resilience? Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 5-8. DOI: 10.1177/1744987117751458
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action. Retrieved from https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
Vu, T. T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 778-791. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.795110