going global with assessment: what to do when the dominant culture's literacy drives assessment

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Going Global with Assessment: What todo when the dominant culture's literacydrives assessmentDolly MacKinnon a & Catherine Manathunga ba University of Melbourneb Australia University of Queensland , AustraliaPublished online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Dolly MacKinnon & Catherine Manathunga (2003) Going Global with Assessment:What to do when the dominant culture's literacy drives assessment, Higher Education Research &Development, 22:2, 131-144, DOI: 10.1080/07294360304110

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360304110

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07294360304110

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360304110

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2003

Going Global with Assessment: What todo when the dominant culture’s literacydrives assessmentDOLLY MACKINNONUniversity of Melbourne, Australia

CATHERINE MANATHUNGAUniversity of Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT This article explores how the dominant cultural literacy in a western contextrelies on a western template of knowledge that can inhibit internationalisation of thecurricula unless it is identified, transformed, and broadened to become interculturallyresponsive. As Brian Street has said “literacies may be sites of negotiation and transform-ation” (1994, p. 99). Drawing on the findings of an innovative website, Worldmarks,developed at Queensland University of Technology, as well as qualitative interviews withinternational students and staff, this article addresses the serious implications of assessmentdriven by the dominant culture’s literacy. We identify how and why assessment driven byresponsive cultural literacy enables all students to develop comprehensive interculturalcommunication skills and understandings as part of their lifelong learning in Australianuniversities.

Multiple cultural literacies co-exist within all societies and are prioritised accordingto the nature and function of the society’s social, legal, educational, and govern-mental environment. This creates a literacy hierarchy in which a dominant culturalliteracy emerges (Gallego & Hollingsworth, 2000). University assessment primarilyrequires proficiency in this dominant cultural literacy. While many students may beable to navigate both their own cultural literacy and the dominant cultural literacywithin their broader life experiences, within an educational system this multiplicityof literacies is negated. The result is a dislocation from the educational experiencebecause of a mismatch of cultural knowledge, and lack of familiarity with thedominant cultural literacy (Manathunga & MacKinnon, 2001).

By cancelling all but the dominant literacy from the university curriculum, astudent’s capacity to contribute to the class from their own cultural experience isgreatly diminished, as are their learning opportunities. Furthermore, the assessmentfocus can exacerbate this problem and omit alternate cultural perspectives (Gregory& Williams, 2000). As Sandra Hollingsworth et al. have shown (1994, p. 87) in an

ISSN 0729-4360 print; ISSN 1469-8360 online/03/020131-14 2003 HERDSADOI: 10.1080/0729436032000083599

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4

132 D. MacKinnon & C. Manathunga

American elementary school context, in examining “the relationship between class-room tasks and students’ cognitive and social responses”, the “literature-basedinstruction” using “task formats for [the whole] class … often limited their students’opportunities for meaningful social and personal responses to text …”.Hollingsworth and et al. (1994, p. 87) found that:

their students’ responses to literature tasks were sometimes either non-existent, because they couldn’t read well, or were “school-bound” andartificial. … Moreover, their responses didn’t show their lives. Except tocopy or mimic their better-praised peers, they rarely interacted with eachother when responding. Children were less likely to give the rich and variedresponses to literature—or “multiple literacies”—that they exhibited intheir play, casual conversation, and other social interactions. Such interac-tions revealed their community and personal literacies as well as standardor school literacies [1].

Breaking down the assumption of a link between the dominant cultural literacyand cognitive deficit is also a target area for ensuring successful, culturally respon-sive assessment. Recognising multiple literacies allows staff (Hollingsworth et al.,1994, p. 89) “to hear and value the many ways they [students] were intelligent”in ways “that standard measures didn’t recognise”, and discover “the multipleways children were comprehensively literate”. Assessment that allows and enablesstudents to explore a personal interest and cultural perspective also ensures anengagement that would otherwise be lacking. Hollingsworth et al. (1994, p. 91)described this as students’ “degree of personal ownership” and their “emotionalinterest” in the assessment. Assor, Kaplan & Roth (2002, p. 261) have concluded inprimary and secondary educational settings that “choice is good, but relevance isexcellent”.

Assessment and Learning

Assessment remains a fundamental driver of student learning. It is “a site ofinstitutional power … where [students] must fulfil the requirements of understand-ing, knowledge and skill that grants them formal recognition and validates theirknowing” (Clifford, Nicholas & Lousberg, 1998, p. 3). If our assessment continuesto be based upon a Western template of knowledge that only values Western waysof knowing and learning, all our lip service to developing interculturally competentstudents is meaningless. It also institutionalises discrimination against students fromnon-dominant backgrounds and privileges students from dominant groups. AsKalantzis and Cope (2000) indicate, higher education is a new cross-culturaljourney for all our students but it is a more problematic experience for studentswhose cultural capital (Bourdieu in Meadmore, 1999) does not match the universityculture as easily. This can include working class students as well as those fromdiverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Assessment provides central corelearning opportunity for students and, as such, should automatically incorporate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Going Global with Assessment 133

culturally responsive elements. Currently much assessment distinguishes andrewards certain forms of cultural knowledge, and is constructed using a dominantliteracy paradigm. (See Figure 1: Why we must internationalise our curriculathrough assessment.) While the forms of assessment (essay, class presentation, website) can vary, universities have traditionally focused on the dominant culturalliteracy as the primary means of both communicating course content and assessingstudents’ understanding and engagement with that material through the assessmentprocess. Students from the dominant cultural literacy groups often fare much betterin learning environments constructed around that literacy. By default, students fromnon-dominant and diverse cultural and community literacies are isolated from the“norm”. These students are attempting to learn course content, while also attempt-ing to grasp the cultural and educational requirements of the dominant culturalliteracy, which is not a formally taught part of their educational experience; all ofthis, while simultaneously retaining their own cultural literacy that is deemedredundant. Thus, the focus of the traditional dominant literacy paradigm creates alearning cycle that operates effectively only from the perspective of students from thedominant cultural literacy. We can challenge this paradigm by not only emphasisingthe need to value and incorporate diverse cultural and community literacies but alsoby linking the development of culturally responsive assessment with the develop-ment of intercultural communications skills in all students.

Existing Assessment Literature

Literature about developing socially and culturally responsive assessment in highereducation is only just emerging (McLoughlin, 1995; Biggs, 1999; Kelly, 2000 &2001; Wilson, 1994; Manathunga, 2000; James, McInnis & Devlin, 2002). Thisliterature establishes the need to develop assessment that is “fair and unbiased”(McLoughlin, 1999, p. 3) and that “improves the inclusivity in curricula, teaching,learning and assessment” (Learning Connections website). A University of BritishColumbia website helps academics evaluate their assessment strategies and planchanges to make them more inclusive (Whalley, 1997), but it does not contain anypractical examples.

There are a number of helpful websites in Australia and the United States thatprovide useful examples. The University of Technology Sydney provides a series ofguidelines for diversity on the web, which discuss assessment practices and providebrief examples of how students can be given a degree of choice in assignment topicsand of the importance of including and discussing explicit assessment criteria. It alsoincludes more detailed case studies about flexible assessment practices. The Univer-sity of South Australia website includes some inclusive curriculum examples indifferent disciplines. The University of Oregon’s detailed website focuses on manyaspects of diversity and includes a link to a list of strategies for inclusive teachingthat looks at assessment and provides examples of how some types of assignmentquestions can be problematic for some students. So too, the University of Marylandhosts the DiversityWeb resource hub that contains links to a large number ofresources on diversity issues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Worldmarks: A Context

The website Worldmarks-Guidelines for Socially and Culturally Responsive Assessment(https://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/) formed the outcome of a 12-monthproject, entitled “Advocating socially and culturally responsive assessment in Artscore units”, that was funded by Queensland University of Technology (QUT),Faculty of Arts, Teaching and Learning Development Small Grants Scheme 2000(Manathunga & MacKinnon, 2001). These guidelines, by encouraging reflectivepractice and providing an action research model for reviewing assessment, canassist staff in constructing and fine-tuning, socially and culturally responsive assess-ment.

Our data was compiled through a combination of qualitative and quantitativemethods. Faculty of Arts Core unit Co-ordinators were asked if they would beprepared to volunteer their unit/study guides, including assessment, as well asStudent Evaluation of Unit (SEU) results for analysis. The Project co-ordinatorsinterviewed teaching staff, support staff, and international students as part of theproject. Individual case study evidence provides qualitative feedback on the assess-ment process. Eight international students willingly volunteered their time. Inter-view questions centred on issues of assessment forms, prior knowledge, studentskills, cultural knowledge, and the resources necessary to complete the assessment.An on-line survey, Web On-Line Feedback (WOLF) Survey, was created andgathered data from the overall core unit student cohort. Out of a total of 1111students enrolled, there were 77 respondents to the WOLF survey, a response rateof 6.93%. Table 1 describes the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of thesestudents.

Not one student identified themselves as an Indigenous Australian either fromnon-English or English-speaking backgrounds. The Project co-ordinators discussedthe project findings with members of a Project Reference Group. The ReferenceGroup comprised QUT staff members from Teaching and Learning DevelopmentUnit (TALDU), Language and Learning Support Services, the Oodgeroo Unit, QStep (QUT’s special access program), and the Office of International Students.While every attempt was made to include all of the above staff during each of thestages of the project, some sections were unable to participate.

TABLE 1. Background of survey respondents

Respondents Totals

Students from NESB (international� domestic) 4

Students from ESB (international� domestic) 66

Unanswered 4

Total 77

NESB–non-English-speaking background; ESB �English-speaking background

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


FIG. 1. Why we must internationalise our curricula through assessment.

Guidelines for Developing Culturally Responsive Assessment

Based on these findings, Worldmarks web guidelines were formulated to assistteachers in constructing socially and culturally responsive assessment. It was clearthat assessment provided the ideal vehicle for both developing intercultural commu-nications skills as well as generating culturally responsive assessment experiences forall students. (See Figure 2: Assessment is the nexus where intercultural communi-cation skills are developed within the curricula). The dominant cultural literacyparadigm (Figure 1) ensures that a mono-directional cycle of learning, favouringdominant cultural literacy students, drives the assessment process. An alternativemodel is possible. The intercultural literacy paradigm ensures that the assessment atthe core of the learning cycle is poly-directional, and centres on culturally responsiveassessment practices that require ALL students to develop and then demonstrateintercultural communications skills. It is through assessment that diverse culturalliteracies can be experienced within the teaching and learning environment for allstudents. To ensure the development of culturally responsive assessment, there werefour fundamental aspects that needed to be considered: reflective practice in theconstruction of assessment, the provision of clear assessment guidelines, linkedassessment tasks, and a comprehensive understanding of the forms of assessment inwestern and non-western cultures.

Worldmarks identified that teachers must ask themselves six basic and inter-relatedquestions as part of a reflective process when constructing assessment:

• What am I assessing in terms of intellectual engagement with content?• What am I assessing in terms of generic and discipline-specific skills?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


FIG. 2. Assessment is the nexus where intercultural communication skills are developed within thecurricula.

• Why am I assessing these skills and engagement with content?• How am I going to assess these skills and the engagement with content?• What resources have I provided that both enable and assist the student to

understand the skills and content knowledge they will need to demonstrate tocomplete this assessment?

• Given questions 1 to 5 above, is this question answerable?

Using these questions, teachers could examine the assumptions they hold aboutgender, class, study time, and their students’ prior skills and knowledge and accessto additional resources. Most assessment centres on an end product, rather than theprocess by which that product is researched, constructed and presented. All staffgenerally cover question 2 and 4, but all six questions must be addressed to establishif the assessment IS directly linked to students’ learning in a culturally responsiveand supportive learning environment. Socially and culturally responsive assessmentacknowledges that the student requires not only an understanding of the process ofconstructing an assignment, but also how different cultural knowledge can be bothrelevant and valued. This is a crucial concern in higher education courses thatincreasingly aim to service a global market. These guidelines provide a checklistaimed at identifying assumptions embedded in the basic assessment question designand aim to challenge the dominant literacy paradigm by developing all students’intercultural communication skills as part of the reflective process of assessmentcreation. In addition, the Worldmarks website also provides details of a number ofexperiences course coordinators, students, and support staff encountered that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 2. What am I assessing in terms of intellectual engagement with content? (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/)

* Does my content assume Australian or western cultural or historical knowledge?* Am I explicit about the fact that education in Australia reflects a western worldview?* Does some of my content assume that students know about Australian television and culture?* Have I provided students with a glossary of key terms and phrases?* How will I know students have actually engaged with the content of my unit?* How will I find out?* How can I give students the choice of bringing in their own cultural knowledge and other skills?* Will the material conflict with the students’ cultural background?* How would a student, for example, from a Marxist background be able to write an appraisal of

capitalism?* Can a student with fundamentalist religious views be asked to give a critique of an opposing

religious point of view?

emphasised the dilemmas associated with some forms of assessment for studentsfrom non-dominant groups. Where research was able to identify relevant examplesof effective socially and culturally responsive assessment, these were included.

In exploring the first question about assessing students’ intellectual engagementwith the subject content, a series of reflective questions were designed to assistacademics to explore their assumptions about subject content. (See Table 2: Whatam I assessing in terms of intellectual engagement with content?)

The website examined the following issues: Previous learning styles; Group work;Combating stereotyping; Writing assessment questions; Linked, sequential assess-ment tasks; and Types of assessment. The discussion of previous learning styleschallenged the assumption that the supremacy of information and patterns ofpresenting and structuring information are the same in all cultures: “writing struc-tures vary in different cultures. In many Asian cultures, the expected writingstructure is like an inverted triangle where you start with broad picture and thenmove to specifics”. In western academic writing, the expected writing structure islike a diamond shape where you start with specifics, broaden out, and then narrowin for the conclusion. In western newspaper writing, the expected writing structureis like a triangle where you start with specifics and then go broad (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/). So too, expectations of the role of readersdiffers across cultures. As indicated by our research “[i]n reader-responsible cul-tures, it is assumed that if you don’t understand what is written, it must be great. Inwriter-responsible cultures, it is assumed that if you don’t understand what iswritten, the writing must be substandard” (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/world-marks/).

The question of successful intercultural group work and classroom interaction isparticularly fraught. Academics need to be aware of their propensity to equateproficiency in the dominant language as a positive attribute, while viewingproficiency in a language other than the dominant language as a disadvantage.Silence in the classroom is also considered a “negative”, while student [in]-activitywhile staff talk is considered a positive activity. Alternate learning styles where

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


silence is considered respectful, and part of the thinking process are pushed aside infavour of the “talk-(but not necessarily content)-is-good” principle. Understandingthe diverse uses and cultural meanings of silence is a vital intercommunication skillfor all students and academics to learn (Silin, 1999).

Assessment can operate through a system of binary opposition: good/bad, andpositive/negative. The dominant language in the classroom is “good” and is thelanguage in which assessment is both written and answered. Dominant culturalassumptions about “knowing” and “appropriate knowledge” are then implicit in thedesign of assessment. This not only silences the diverse cultural literacies studentscan bring to the “interactive” environment of the classroom, but also removesthe opportunity for any other ways of knowing to be shared, valued and recognised.Our research revealed that—“silences” (both in the tutorial room and in writtenwork) are often the result of students not being provided with a clearly articulated“space” for the inclusion of their cultural diversity. One student commented thatthey did not realise that they could use examples from their own cultural experiencein tackling a piece of assessment, because the examples provided had all beenwestern.

The provision of clear assessment guidelines is an essential element in creatingculturally responsive assessment. Our research revealed how staff and students’perceptions of assessment requirements are often at odds, and that fundamentalassumptions about the process of researching, constructing, and presenting assign-ments remain unspecified. By exploring this praxis, academics can identify andimplement changes to their assessment. The project findings identified that all unitassessment should comprise clear criteria linked to assessment goals. Dominantculture and non-dominant culture students all stated that what was required ofthem needs to be stated clearly and unambiguously. Academics often assumedstudents would engage with up-to-date research content, while many students didnot realise this. Most assignments required not only research, but also the develop-ment of a research position based on students’ reading and understanding ofcontemporary debates. Many students, including dominant culture students,thought they were expected to provide an uncritical account of these debates.Another implicit requirement was that course resources alone were considered “notenough” by academics who expected but did not explicitly indicate that broaderreading was necessary.

Linked assessment tasks that formed part of a series of connected steps wereparticularly valuable in assisting all students to identify the elements necessary inconstructing large-scale assessment pieces such as essays. For example, the QUTBusiness School has used a linked three-stage assessment model: Annotatedbibliography; Structure of assessment piece; and Assessment piece (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/). It also helped all students if staff providedand discussed examples of previous students’ work. Here cross-cultural examples ofwork provided students with a sense of cultural credibility, ownership, and belong-ing within the subject. In a core-musicianship unit at QUT, previous studentcompositions were played to current students to provide them with examples of thecross-cultural responses to one particular piece of assessment. Previous examples of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


students’ work could even form the basis of a peer assessment activity in class.Students in tutorials could “mark” such examples as a way of not only uncoveringand understanding the elements of successful assessment pieces, and linkingassessment criteria with assessment outcomes, but also as a way of developingintercultural communication skills about different ways of “knowing” and respond-ing (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/).

Certain forms of assessment dominate western education. As academics, we makeso many assumptions about how common these forms of assessment are, such asessay writing. The website contains a list of typical assumptions we all make aswestern academics. (See Table 3: What assumptions do you make about essaywriting?).

Where possible, flexible assessment should be offered and culturally inclusivetopics encouraged. For example, students could be provided with the choice ofeither giving a class presentation using a variety of media (including options likedesigning a website, writing and performing music or drama, preparing a video) orsubmitting a written assignment and could be allowed to negotiate alternative topicswhich have a cultural value and relevance for them (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/).

TABLE 3. What assumptions do you make about essay writing? (http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/)

That all teaching and learning models include essay writing.That all students will have previously written an essay, and know how and what elements it should

contain, as well as the appropriate presentation format.That alternate ways of knowing can be reflected and accommodated in essay structure and content.That the assessment is not only about the content, and analysis, but also about knowing how to write

an essay.That by providing a model of the essay writing process, all students can attempt the assessment

because they have a clear idea of what is expected of them.That assessment in university teaching is only about ideas and content, not about the process of

researching and constructing an essay.That the unit resources and materials provided are accessible to all students and assist students to

complete the essay. That these resources are affordable, and value for money.That language and terminology used in assessment questions is clear and/or defined, and also avoids

unidentified culturally specific terms or colloquialisms upon which the entire meaning of theassignment question might hinge, i.e. Body line in OZ.

That students who don’t understand how to write an essay have not grasped the intellectual contentof the assessment and/or subject.

That students will submit typed essays, have unlimited access to computer facilities, and have thefinancial resources to achieve this.

That students have technological literacy.That a lack of technological or essay writing skill reflects cognitive deficit.That all cultures are writing orientated not reading orientated cultures. That all text is read from left

to right.That essay writing in all cultures is linear, unified and contains no superfluous material.That an essay’s structure in all cultures starts with an indication of the key argument, then provides

evidence to support this argument and ends with a restatement of the argument.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


International Students’ Experiences of Dominant Cultural Literacy in

Assessment

As this study involved international students who generously agreed to be inter-viewed over a number of years, we have included some specific examples of studentresponses to dominant cultural literacy in their assessment experiences. Threestudents in particular, Ramonez, Sandra and Eve [2] clearly stated the problemsthey had encountered with western assessment practices.

Ramonez

In reading the assessment requirements for a humanities subject about music in film,Ramonez considered the subject information was “easy to read” for “Internationalstudents because the language that is used is simple and the structure is good”.Having taught Ramonez in another unit she was able to provide me with a meansof comparison regarding her experience of a number assessment requirements shehad had at university:

I think the explanation of the assignments in this unit … is better thanin … Musicianship … because you give some examples and explain whatthe student’s … [assignment] should contain. Another thing that help[s] usa lot is the reference list. It is much easier for us to do [the] assignment ifwe know what the teacher want[s] (MacKinnon, 1999).

The provision of examples enabled Ramonez to make the connections between staffexpectation, the assessment process and elements, and the end product.

Sandra

It is clear that the cultural capital that students have gained in learning experiencesplays a significant role in enabling them to interact with the dominant culturalliteracy in a university setting, and by default in their abilities to effectively engagewith assessment. For Sandra, as:

a student who had already studied [for] 1.5 terms [overseas], it [the subjectoutline and assessment] is very easy to understand … because there aremany examples for me to understand easier … But I think if this [was] foran international student who has never studied … before, maybe will be alittle difficult. (Because there are some … terms which he/she [has] neverseen before.) If the international student did not read this uni[t]out-linecarefully or slowly, he/she maybe will think this subject is difficult and thenbe scared to … [choose] it. (Because I feel normally international student[s]won’t read carefully when they get it) (MacKinnon, 1999).

For the film review assessment Sandra’s choice was My Fair Lady:

because I have already seen the film twice. (I saw [it] one time in Englishspeaking with Chinese words on it, and another in … [English]. Therefore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


it let me more understand the film.) I also want[ed] to try to write [on]Phantom of the Opera … [which Sandra had also seen] I loved the opera,but I could not understand all of it and all the story of it (MacKinnon,1999).

Sandra found that formal essay questions that required her to research a topic andprovide examples as evidence were “a little bit hard” because she “could notunderstand the following topics very much, and then I do not know how to useexamples from the film to support my argument”. Sandra articulated her fundamen-tal problem with the essay questions: “I do not know where I can start theassessment”. Sandra told us that she researched her essay topics in three languages:English, Chinese and Japanese. She then would write the essay in English. Here theprocess of communicating the assessment with Sandra has failed. Sandra hasdemonstrated that she has a range of interests, which she is keen to pursue, andresearch skills across three languages. Yet the assessment did not enable her toconnect the assessment to her cultural interests and experiences, nor engage herresearch skills with the elements of the assessment in any way (MacKinnon, 1999).

Eve

All of the assessment was problematic for Eve, because of what she considered washer “limited vocabulary”, and having to make the choice about “whether to includejargon or not”. In assessing a subject or class, Eve considered “the aims andobjectives” of the subject and whether the assessment “achieved it or not”. For Evethe way lecturers could improve their units and their approach to responsiveassessment and interaction with students was simply to be “straightforward”(MacKinnon, 1999). Regarding the vocabulary, a glossary of terms written in plainlanguage, which is a resource that can be added to throughout the course, is a wayof combating this problem. It is useful to provide both dictionary and disciplinarydefinitions to assist all students, but particularly non-English speaking backgroundstudents, to enhance their understandings of academic discourses. Furthermore, acentral glossary of terms which units can draw on and add to enables the creationof a common language and usage of terminology across subjects. Since 2002 in theFaculty of Creative Industries at QUT, there is a central glossary available for theFaculty core units. In constructing assessment, and providing the support materialsnecessary for completing assessment, there are also significant cross-cultural impli-cations for concerns regarding plagiarism. Rosemary Clerehan (2002, p. 42) con-cludes that “[m]uch of the hand-writing about plagiarism ignores that learning why,where and how to cite involves fundamental questions of language, culture, powerand identity”. While some universities [the QUT Business Faculty] have preparedbooklets on plagiarism aimed at international students, plagiarism is not confined tothis group, nor is it formally discussed through exemplar in university assessmentpractices per se. Like the acquisition of research skills, staff make assumptions aboutstudents’ pre-existing referencing and other skills when students do not have themor have never had the opportunity to acquire them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Teaching is about effective communication, and if we are not communicating withall of our students effectively then they (and we) may not be learning. The failure ofassessment to communicate and develop comprehensive intercultural communi-cation skills in our students alerts us to the fact that the crucial communication forstudents centres on assessment. If our students are unable to grasp the aims andobjectives, and are unable to position their cultural relevance within this processthen both they, but more importantly we, fail to develop our intercultural communi-cation skills and responsive assessment. Furthermore, the paradigm shift away fromthe dominant cultural literacy driving assessment towards a culturally responsivedriver for assessment ensures we are assessing skill development and cognitiveautonomy in all our students, rather than concentrating on culturally specificcontent and literacies.

Conclusion

As Giroux and Simon (1988, p. 3) concluded “[w]e are not concerned with simplymotivating students to learn, but rather establishing the conditions of learning thatenable them to locate themselves in history and to interrogate the adequacy of thatlocation as both a pedagogical and political question”. Successful assessment isabout successful intercultural communication between students and staff. It is not aone-way process, and the imperative here is to improve communication skills for thebenefit of all participants. (Vervoorn, 1998; Ballard and Clanchy, 1997). Culturallyresponsive assessment demonstrates that flexibility, choice and relevance whencoupled with the development of intercultural communication skills, enables allstudents to choose subjects on the basis of a desire to engage intellectually in theteaching and learning process. By identifying how and why dominant culturalliteracy drives our assessment, and then ensuring responsive cultural literacy formsan integral part of the process of internationalisation of the curricula, we can ensurethat all students develop comprehensive intercultural communication skills andunderstandings so that they can operate effectively in our globalised world.

Address for correspondence: Dr Catherine Manathunga and Dr Dolly MacKinnon,C/-TEDI/Graduate School, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Note

[1] Hollingsworth (1994, p. 144) defines literacies in the following ways: “community litera-cies” are “the appreciation, understanding and/or use of interpretive and communicativetraditions of community and culture”; “school literacies” are “the interpretive and commu-nicative process needed to adapt socially to school settings, maintain a good sense of self,and gain conceptual understanding of school subjects”; and “personal literacies” comprise“ways of knowing and beliefs about self and personal communication norms arising fromhistorical or experimental and gender-specific backgrounds”.

[2] All names have been changed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


References

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagementin schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 216–278.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching International Students a brief guide for lecturers andsupervisors. Deakin, ACT: IDP Education Australia.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, England: SRHE & OpenUniversity Press.

Clerehan, R. (2002). Letter “Cited at the coalface”, Australian, Wednesday 21 August, p. 42.Clifford, V., Nicholas, B., & Lousberg, M. (1998). Practicing feminist pedagogy: Transforming

the didactic culture of the university. Proceedings of the HERDSA international conference,Auckland, New Zealand, 1998. Retrieved August 29, 2001, from: http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDSA/HTML/TchLearn/Clifford.HTM

Gallego, M.A., & Hollingsworth, S. (Eds.) (2000). What counts as literacy: Challenging schoolstandards. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.

Giroux, H., & Simon, R. (1988). Critical pedagogy and the politics of popular culture [unpub-lished manuscript] quoted in M.G. Lewis (1993) Without a word: Teaching beyond women’ssilence. New York: Routledge.

Gregory, E., & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and cultures.London & New York: Routledge.

Hollingsworth, S., & Cody, A. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education: lessons andconversations in a feminist key. New York: Teachers College Press.

James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing learning in Australian Universities: Ideas,strategies and resources for quality in student assessment. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for theStudy of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000). Towards an inclusive and international higher education. InR. King, D. Hill & B. Hemmings, University and diversity: Changing perspectives, policies andpractices in Australia (pp. 30–53). Wagga Wagga, Australia: KEON Publications.

Kelly, P. (2000). Internationalizing the curriculum: For profit or planet. In S. Inayatullah & J.Gidley (Eds.), The university in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of theuniversity. Westport, CT, & London: Bergin & Garvey.

Kelly, P. (2002). First year engineers—Given half a chance. The Pantaneto Forum. RetrievedFebruary 13, 2003, from: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue5/front5.htm.

MacKinnon, D. (1999). Interviews with and written responses by international students at QUT[unpublished].

McLoughlin, C. (1995). Assessment of writing in multicultural settings. In L. Summers (Ed.),A focus on learning. Proceedings of the 4th annual teaching learning forum. Perth: EdithCowan University. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from: http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1995/mcloughlin.html

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally inclusive learning on the web. In K. Martin, N. Stanley & N.Davison (Eds.), Teaching in the disciplines/learning in context. Proceedings of the 8th annualteaching and learning forum. Perth: University of Western Australia. Retrieved February 12,2003, from: http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/mcloughlin.html

Manathunga, C. (2000). Yarı—Sharing knowings: enhancing a culturally and socially responsivecurriculum. In D. Nulty, & P. Kelly (Eds.), The 4th Pacific Rim First Year in HigherEducation, Creating futures for a new millennium. Brisbane: Queensland University of Tech-nology. Retrieved from: http://www.qut.edu.au/talss/fye/papers00.htm

Manathunga C., & MacKinnon, D. (2001). Socially and culturally responsive assessment:Preparing students for the new economy. In F. Beven, C. Kanes & D. Roebuck (Eds.),Knowledge Demands for the New Economy. Proceedings of the 9th annual international conferenceon post-compulsory education and training (pp. 32–39). Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Meadmore, D. (1999). Class counts! Social class and education. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett &P. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding education: Contexts and agendas for the new millennium (pp.56–63). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Silin, J. (1999). Speaking up for silence. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(4), 41–45.Street, B. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on literacy. In L. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional

literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 95–111). Amsterdam & Philadel-phia: John Benjamins.

University of Maryland website, DiversityWeb: an interactive resource hub for higher education.Retrieved August 29, 2001, from: http://www.diversityweb.org/

University of Oregon website, Diversity resource links. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from:http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/diversity/index.html.

University of South Australia website, Inclusive curriculum. Retrieved August 29, 2001, fromhttp://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/flc/.

University of South Australia website, Learning Connections. Retrieved February 12, 2003, fromhttp://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/otl/index.htm.

University of Technology Sydney website, Diversity guidelines for courses and subjects. RetrievedAugust 29, 2001, from http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/diverguide.html.

Vervoorn, A. (1998). Re Orient Change in Asian Societies. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford UniversityPress.

Whalley, T. (1997). Best practice guidelines for internationalising the curriculum. Retrieved September1, 2001, from: http://www.ctt.bc.ca/curric/BP/assessmt.htm

Wilson, A. (1994). The attributes and tasks of global competence. In R. Lambert (Ed.),Educational exchange and global competence (pp. 37–49). Washington: Council on Inter-national Education Exchange.

Worldmarks, Guidelines for developing socially and culturally responsive assessment. Retrieved August23, 2002, from: http://www.olt.qut.edu.au/udf/worldmarks/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

4:46

05

Oct

ober

201

4

going global with assessment: what to do when the dominant culture's literacy drives assessment

Documents