Background

In contemporary European higher education, the pursuit of “social justice” has transcended the initial goal of widening participation to focus on the equity of student outcomes. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA), through successive ministerial communiqués, has consistently emphasised the “social dimension” of higher education, positing that the student body should reflect the diversity of our populations. However, persistent awarding gaps remain a pan-European challenge. Marginalised ethnic (BAME) groups and students from lower socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds continue to experience systemic underperformance (Mountford-Zimdars et al., 2015; OfS, 2023). This study argues that these disparities are not the result of individual student “deficits” but are structurally embedded in the assessment infrastructures of modern universities.

While extensive literature documents performance disparities (Canal & Child, 2025; Yu et al., 2023), there is a dearth of large-scale empirical evidence exploring how the underlying assessment types are associated with students' educational outcomes. This study challenges the “neutrality” of assessment, suggesting that different ways of evaluating knowledge act as structural filters that exclude certain groups of students (McArthur, 2016). Furthermore, it questions the current international policy trend toward reducing assessment loads. In contemporary discourses, lightening the load is advocated to improve student well-being, yet the impact of such reductions on equity remains under-theorised and empirically contested.

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the tripartite taxonomy of assessment standards discourses proposed by Ajjawi et al. (2021):

1. Representational Discourse: This hegemonic mode assumes that written standards are objective and that explicit criteria ensure a “level playing field”. From a Bourdieusian perspective (Bourdieu, 1986), this objectivity serves as a “neutral façade”. It rewards the inherited cultural capital, “institutional savvy”, and elaborated linguistic codes typical of privileged social groups. For students from marginalised backgrounds, this discourse functions as a structural barrier, demanding conformity to tacit academic conventions they have not been afforded the opportunity to inherit.
2. Sociocultural Discourse: This perspective views assessment as a socially situated practice within specific disciplinary communities. While it acknowledges that knowledge is negotiated, it remains susceptible to the power dynamics of professional judgement, where subjective biases can inadvertently marginalise “outsider” perspectives (Reay, 2018).
3. Sociomaterial Discourse: This discourse views assessment as a “material assemblage” of humans, tools, and environments. According to Fenwick and Edwards (2013) and McArthur’s (2023), sociomaterial approaches allow students to leverage their practical agency and lived experiences. By foregrounding relational practices rather than abstract representation, this assessment type may empower historically marginalised groups to bypass traditional cultural gatekeeping.

This research explores how institutional habitus shapes the awarding gap. The central research questions are:

1. To what extent does assessment load and different assessment discourses (representational, sociocultural, and sociomaterial) associate with students’ academic performance across the university?   

2. How does the association between assessment characteristics and academic performance vary systematically across different student subgroups, specifically in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status?    

Methods This study conducts a systematic empirical enquiry using an administrative longitudinal dataset from a research-intensive Russell Group university in the UK. The dataset tracks 52,420 students across 3,606 modules over an eight-year period (2017/18–2024/25). This dataset is comprehensive with information of anonymised student characteristics (sex, ethnicity, POLAR4 quintiles, UCAS Tariff points), and module-level details (credits, assessment types, syllabus and contact hours), which is suitable for a student-module-year level analysis. Data Operationalisation To bridge theory and data, we manually coded 60 unique institutional assessment labels (e.g., timed examination, portfolio, fieldwork report) into the three discourses defined by Ajjawi et al. (2021). We conducted the Inter-Rater Reliability to ensure the rigours of classification. Assessment load was normalised by calculating the number of assessment points per 10 module credits, ensuring a standardised measure for cross-disciplinary comparison. Demographic variables included sex, ethnicity (7-way classification), and SES (proxied by POLAR4 quintiles). Statistical Modelling Given the nested multilevel structure of educational data, where students are nested within modules, and modules within academic schools, we employed Linear Mixed-Effects Models (LMM). This approach is methodologically necessary to partition variance accurately. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) revealed that 33.1% of outcome variation was situated at the student level and 9.9% at the module level, justifying the multilevel approach. The significant results of Likelihood Ratio Tests (LRT) also confirmed the necessity to employ multilevel modelling. Intersectional Analysis A core strength of this methodology is the use of interaction terms between assessment predictors and subgroup indicators. This allowed us to test for heterogeneity of effects, specifically, how the impact of a particular assessment discourse reverses or amplifies depending on a student’s ethnic and socioeconomic background. This rigorous analytical framework ensures that our findings are accessible and robust for an international audience of educational researchers.

Findings and Conclusion The findings identify a striking “direction-reversal” effect. While representational assessments, such as exams, yield marginal advantages for White and high-SES students, they significantly undermine the performance of BAME and lower-SES groups. By rewarding inherited cultural capital, these designs act as a double-gatekeeper that reinforces systemic awarding gaps across the academy. Conversely, sociomaterial discourse offers a transformative “amplification effect”. The positive association between practice-based, relational tasks and performance is significantly stronger for Black students and those from lower-participation backgrounds. This suggests that when assessment focuses on material interaction rather than abstract knowledge, it validates alternative ways of knowing and alleviates the “belonging uncertainty often felt by marginalised learners (Walton & Cohen, 2007). One of the most counterintuitive outcomes is the scaffolding effect of load. While modern policies often advocate for reducing assessment, our results show that high assessment frequency yields significantly greater benefits for disadvantaged students. For underrepresented groups, frequent assessment functions as a navigational roadmap (Harland et al., 2015), providing structured feedback loops that help them decode the “rules of the game” in a high-stakes environment (Jorre & Boud, 2022). These findings contribute to the European dialogue on Inclusive Assessment. They suggest that a unilateral emphasis on reducing burden may inadvertently remove the feedback structures that support equity. Furthermore, it is also vital to advocate for a pedagogical balance that maintains rigorous standards while dismantling structural barriers (Tai et al., 2023). This research provides a robust evidence base for European policymakers to move beyond student-focused support toward a critical redesign of institutional assessment infrastructures, ensuring that assessment serves as a bridge, not a barrier, to success.

References •Ajjawi, S., et al. (2021). Assessment and the sociomaterial. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. •Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. •Canal, M. M., & Child, R. (2025). Impact of the type of assessment on awarding gaps in bioscience undergraduate degrees. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. •Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults. •Harland, T., et al. (2015). An assessment arms race and its fallout: high-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. •Jorre de St Jorre, T., & Boud, D. (2022). Understanding the game: The role of assessment in equity. Teaching in Higher Education. •McArthur, J. (2016). Assessment for social justice: the role of assessment in achieving social justice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. •McArthur, J. (2023). Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society. Higher Education. •Mountford-Zimdars, A., et al. (2015). Causes of Differences in Student Outcomes. HEFCE. •Reay, D. (2018). Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes. Policy Press. •Tai, J., et al. (2023). Assessment for inclusion: rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development. •Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. •Yu, D., et al. (2023). Do assessment loads affect student academic success? South African Journal of Higher Education.