Compassionate assessment policy design: Rethinking assessment through a trauma informed lens

“COVID-19 has been a wake-up call on crisis in higher education” (Thompson and Carello, 2021:2). This rupture sparked critical reflections in the sector about how we might “reimagine assessment for good” (Sambell and Brown, 2021 p.11). There has been growing interest in compassionate pedagogies and assessment to respond to ongoing times of crisis, yet there is a gap between wanting an ethos of compassion and the reality of policy and practice (Andrew et al., 2023).

This paper presents research into conceptualising compassionate assessment policy design as part of the 2021 QAA Collaborative Enhancement Project – Belonging through assessment: Pipelines of compassion. It grew from an exploration of how compassionate assessment necessarity acknowledges the unique experiences and histories that everyone in our educational communities brings to assessment. The praxis of compassionate assessment requires an empathic understanding of wider social and emotional contexts, informed by the ways oppressive policies can harm staff and students (Shevrin Venet, 2021).

The research applies trauma informed principles to analyse assessment regulation documents at three UK arts institutions, to determine if the policies embodied compassion for students and members of staff. Influenced by policy archaeology (Scheurich, 1994), we draw upon Hummer et al.’s (2009) principles of trauma informed care to create a framework for compassionate assessment regulations and policies. Each member of the research team read and applied the four fields of the trauma informed care framework to the documents: connect, protect, respect and redirect. The research group conducted two cycles of coding the regulations using a shared document and engaging in an iterative, dialogic process that enhanced the interpretation of the four fields from an arts education perspective.

Four key tensions with trauma informed principles are identified. 1) Regulations often utilise punitive actions to manage the assessment process. 2) Decisions about the assessment process are typically based on a notion of fairness and equality rather than equity. 3) The students’ agency in the assessment process is not facilitated, nor is the student voice apparent in the regulations. 4) Finally, signposting is lacking for students who need to salvage a failing assessment, meaning students are not encouraged to feel hope. We propose a set of reflective questions to provoke a review of policies and regulations that challenge assumptions and normative practices, and support institutions in designing more compassionate assessment policy.

• https://www.qaa.ac.uk/membership/collabo...