This presentation contributes to recent debates on assessment practices as incentives placed on the everyday encounters with learners in academic environments. It problematises comparability of academic assessment in contexts of diversity. We wish in this paper to rekindle the focus on the role of language in and for education. In doing so, the paper draws on recent empirical data on the instrumentality held by language in assessment within diverse learner communities (Reierstam, 2020). 

The paper interrogates the common conception of assessment as an essential part of teaching and learning, by which for instance, meritocratic societies claim legitimacy in attainment of equal opportunities (Gipps & Murphy, 1994). Global implications of fair assessment can however, be placed under scrutiny at both individual and system levels. We concur that a normative function of assessment in most education systems may be utilised as a measure of quality assurance and comparability in educational grading.  As such, assessment may also be implicated as evidence of student attainment in relation to academic standards in representing quality in education (Chalmers & Partridge, 2013). 

The wider consequences of assessment practices have been shown to influence both future forecasts and further opportunities in students’ lives and careers, but they may also impact on student motivation and well-being. It instils a respect for learning that allows teachers to maintain some insight into their own authority as assessors in striving for fair and equitable assessment practices for all (Kane, 2010; Scott et al., 2014). Bal & Trainor (2016) note that assessment which disregards issues of diversity and equity contributes to inequalities of outcomes. However, assessment that is fair across the board can also serve as a bridging into educational equity and justice (Gottlieb, 2016). All of this amounts to assessment having implications at both individual and societal levels

We contend that language is needed as a device for validating knowledge and making the cognitive thought processes inter-subjectively accessible to an assessing teacher. Language therefore, plays a dynamic role both in access to, and communication of subject content. Equal opportunity of curriculum content therefore allows students to engage meaningfully with the richness of language construction for both learning and assessment purpose (Gipps & Murphy, 1994).

In today’s globalised society perhaps more students than ever are instructed in a language other than their own (Nikula et al., 2016). This may be brought on by mobility and migration, but is also predicated by increasing imperatives to meet the demands of a culturally and linguistically diverse global market. Therefore, in 2003, the European Commission advocated the use of new pedagogical approaches, involving foreign language as the medium of instruction within the subject curriculum. A desired effect of this was the spread of foreign language learning across educational levels (European Commission, 2003). Subsequently, we have seen a surge of international curriculum options at most universities (Leask, 2008). The pedagogical implications mean that many teachers find themselves engaged in a diversity of languages in contact, that may fall short of the advanced language levels of native speakers. It also indicates that English may be used as a lingua franca, in the case where the existing language skills do not cater for the use of a second or foreign language as the medium of instruction. 

We find the need to address the challenges involved in teachers’ assessment of students’ disciplinary content knowledge within such linguistically diverse learning spaces, and where a foreign or second language is used as the medium of instruction. We draw on a recent, mixed methods, data driven multilingual survey/interview study (Reierstam, 2020) which raises questions about the quality of assessment in linguistically diverse settings and which we claim require more scholarly attention. Our claim derives from observing inconsistencies in ontology, policy and pedagogy. The inconsistencies relate to an interesting juxtaposition of two rather disparate concepts which we have identified as, comparability and diversity. Whereas comparability assumes a certain level of standardization in order to compare two similar or equivalent entities, diversity is defined as being composed of differing elements and variety. Hence, the question arises if it is feasible to find comparability in learning outcomes in linguistically and culturally diverse learning contexts. We therefore find a need to problematise, how learning standards, which are designed for the purpose of tracking student progression and enabling achievements as comparable, might be utilised in and for diverse student groups? This is especially the case where cultural and linguistic diversity of students may be overlooked in academic language policies and practices.

We claim that the quality of assessment may require more fairness in judging learning outcomes and further learning opportunities. It has serious implications for linguistically heterogeneous student groups who require new ways of integrating language skills assistance within the (internationalised) curriculum. The paper concludes by discussing some implementational and instrumental suggestions in relation to curriculum design, teacher assessment literacy, responsibility for academic literacy and the educational organization around these.

Bal, A., & Trainor, A. A. (2016). Culturally Responsive Experimental Intervention Studies: The Development of a Rubric for Paradigm Expansion. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 319–359. Chalmers, D., & Partridge, L. (2013). Teaching graduate attributes and academic skills. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus. A learning-centred approach. (pp. 56–73). Routledge. Gipps, C., & Murphy, P. (1994). A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity. Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges to Educational Equity (2nd ed.). European Commission. (2003). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004 – 2006. Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27(2), 177–182. Leask, B. (2008). Internationalisation, Globalisation and Curriculum Innovation. In M. Hellstén, and A. Reid (Eds.). Researching international pedagogies: sustainable practice for teaching and learning in higher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 9-26. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Multilingual Matters. Reierstam, H. (2020). Assessment in Multilingual Schools – A comparative mixed method study of teachers’ assessment beliefs and practices among language learners - CLIL and migrant students. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm University. Scott, S., Webber, C. F., Lupart, J. L., Aitken, N., & Scott, D. E. (2014). Fair and equitable assessment practices for all students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 52–70.