Education reforms in Central Asia aligned with SDG 4.5 aim to eliminate gender disparities and ensure equal access to education for the vulnerable, indigenous and persons with disabilities. Current assessment policy in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in Central Asia, particularly in Tajikistan is going through a reform process. 

The purpose of this study is to examine the perspectives of students and teachers of three universities about equity-minded assessment policy in higher education in Tajikistan. With this purpose in mind, the study will answer the following questions: 

1)    What are the perspectives of students and teachers regarding equity-minded assessment policy of students learning? 

2)    What are the assessment tools/methods used by teachers that include equity elements? 

3)    How is the assessment policy being experienced by students from diverse backgrounds such as gender, ethnicity, language, disability etc.?  

For any form of assessment to be reflective of students, Montenegro & Jankowski (2017) propose equity-minded assessment as the solution. Equitable assessment oversees the possibility to give students opportunity to succeed regardless of gender, disability, ethnicity, and socio-economic wellbeing. The literature considered illustrates that the assessment process that does not include equity can contrarily promote inequities (Montenegro & Jankowski, 2020). Equity-minded assessment calls for main education stakeholders, those involved in policy development and policy implementation be aware of assessment either becoming a source of inequity or the route through which equity can be achieved. While serving a strong conceptual basis for the study, equity-minded concept lacks a political-economy lens. The author strives to combine the concept “equity-minded assessment” with the social justice theory of Nancy Fraser in this study. The theory of social justice based on Nancy Fraser’s 3Rs of learning education inequalities through analysing Redistribution, Recognition and Representation (Novelli, Cardozo, Smith, 2019) and the fourth “R” of Reconciliation added by M. Novelli, M.L.Cardozo and A. Smith is employed. The study will examine the opinions of students based on Redistribution checking whether: a) teachers and students have equitable access to assessment tools; b) resources  are equally distributed to all students and teachers; c) tools of assessment ensure equitable outcomes for students. With the second “R” Recognition in mind, the study will check whether: a) the language of assessment is inclusive, understandable; b) gender and disability are considered in the assessment tools and methods (Montenegro, Jankowski); d) biases and subjectivity do not guide those conducting assessment (Heiser et al., 2017). The third “R” which stands for Representation will help to identify if: a) students and teachers’ voices and perspectives are heard and considered before designing an assessment policy and implementing it; b) the learning outcomes are developed based on the vision and understanding of teachers and students; c)the voices of those historically silenced (ethnic, gender, language, disability) minoritized groups are listened to and heard; c) decision making and university governance processes regarding learning outcomes and assessment involve multiple stakeholders (incl. teachers, students, families, students unions) and their voices.  Finally, the fourth R of Reconciliation will direct the research focus to examine teachers and students’ opinions regarding: a) reconciling the historical experience of having been colonized and how it is reflected in the assessment policy; b) language reconciliation through assessment practices; c) the extent to which the assessment policy is trusted by the students and teachers; d) the content of the summative assessment tests and its compliance with the need and understanding of the students.  

Methods/procedures A mixed research design (Teddie and Tasahkkori, 2009) was employed in the research. A qualitative data collection in the form of semi-structured interviews was undertaken to understand university teachers’ opinions on the assessment policy in higher education in Tajikistan. The rationale to use a sequential mixed method in is to expand the breadth and range (Greene et al. 1989) of examining the perspectives of students and teachers regarding equity-minded assessment. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with university teachers at the three universities. The interviews were online and in person based on the availability of the interviewees and survey questionnaire was fully administered in person. Qualitative analysis is currently being undertaken which includes the interpretation of the replies and grouping them. Nvivo software is used for coding and analyzing the interviews. For the quantitative data, arithmetic average statistical along with correlation analysis will be used to analyze the data determining the mean, median and mode and the correlation of the variables. SPSS will being used for entering, coding, and analyzing the quantitative data. Sampling. The total number of semi-structured interviews was 10. A purposive sampling was used for the interviews with teachers and a quota sampling for questionnaires with students. Criteria for choosing university teachers included their years of professional experience in education. The number of the quantitative questionnaires was 200 with equal representation from each university. The sample sized was defined based on the minimum sample number for statistical significance to make a meaningful analysis. Three higher education institutions were chosen, such as: National University of Tajikistan, Tajikistan State Pedagogical University, and Khujand State University. Data collection period was from October to December, 2022.

The preliminary results show that there is considerably high number of students in higher education with physical and mental disabilities. Assessment tools are still those of the soviet time with some very minor changes. The learning outcomes of students are only partially shaped by the current assessment reform, however the political agenda of the country is totally different in this regard. Based on the analysis of part of the interviews, it is evident that resources are not equally distributed between language minorities and people with disabilities. The codes for assessment policy implementation can so far be themed as self-driven teacher support to vulnerable groups and policy-driven teacher support.

1.Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). Retrieved from https://www. learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OccasionalPaper29.pdf 2.Singer-Freeman, K., Hobbs, H., & Robinson, C. (2019). Theoretical matrix of culturally relevant assessment. Assessment Update, 31(4), 1-2, 15-16. 3.Novelli, M., Lopes Cardozo, M.A., Smith, A., 2015. A Theoretical Framework forAnalysing the Contribution of Education to Sustainable Peacebuilding: 4Rs in Conflict-Affected Contexts. University of Amsterdam. 4.Baxter, A. (1997). Evaluating your students. Richmond Publishing, 1997, ISBN 84-294- 5067- 5.Straková, Z. (2016). Assessment in Higher Education. Promoting learning through assessment. KEGA 065PU-4/2016. 6.Hernández, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education. 64(4), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7 7.Nazirova, M. (2022). Values of education and their role in the life of modern youth. (A sociological analysis in Tajikistan), 127 8.Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage, London. 9.Jennifer C. Greene, Valerie J. Caracelli and Wendy F. Graham. (1989) Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Vol. 11, No. 3 (1989), pp. 255-274, American Educational Research Association