Some students might be amazing presenters but totally freeze up when it comes to taking tests. Others might ace tests but feel anxious about speaking in front of a group. There are students who excel in writing or graphic design. And for some students, being timed just creates a whole lot of stress and gets in the way of actually showing what they know. For many of us, taking a timed, multiple choice test on our area of expertise would be a confounding variable. Some of you are “overthinkers” who can make any answer feel correct! For that reason, some of you even had difficulty passing the test that was part of your teacher certification. And this may be a source of shame for you. But you can let go of that. If you had the skills and understanding but still did poorly on the test, your failure wasn’t about you, it was about the test. The test failed. (Take that, certification office!)

When the way we assess gets in the way of our being able to measure what we want to assess, the way we assessed can be said to be a “confounding variable.” The way we assessed compromised the validity of our assessment. Being timed and calling it a test, alone, might cause us to do poorly. The confounder swings the advantage to those who prefer or are better at expressing themselves in the required way. To be clear, the advantage is not because the students have a higher skill level or deeper understanding on what you taught. They simply are better at that task, the way you’ve asked them to show it. Our assessments will continue to be fraught with inequities as long as we don’t identify the confounding variables and work intentionally to eliminate them—with choice.

Universal Design for Learning

Take a look around the next time you're out and about in your town and notice all the ramps you see. They're everywhere—at the entrances to buildings, outside on sidewalks, and even in some homes. In the US, ramps are a required for accessibility in public spaces. Without them, people who use wheelchairs or other wheeled equipment would have a tough time moving about town. When I visit countries that don't have accessibility laws, I don't see many people who use wheelchairs in public spaces. This is likely because these spaces are inaccessible to them. Even the US, where accessibility laws are in place, historic buildings can still pose accessibility challenges.

In my own town, a friend of mine loved a particular gym and trainer because the trainer had figured out great modifications to the workout movements. But the gym was not very accessible. The bus didn't go all the way there, the sidewalk was uneven, and there were breaks in the crosswalk ramps. Even though my friend wanted to be independent and access the gym on their own, they had to depend on others to take him there.

But crosswalk ramps are not just helpful for people who use wheelchairs—they are for all of us. Have you ever used a ramp to push a stroller, pull a suitcase, or move into a new house? What about riding a bike or skating? The lesson here is that something that may be necessary for a few can be helpful to many. Universal design for learning (UDL) challenges us to find the “ramps” in our instruction and assessment to remove the barriers for all students. Let’s take a look at several examples to understand how UDL looks in the context of assessment.

The most common assessment accommodations found on IEPs and 504 plans are having tests read aloud and extended time (Burns, et al., 2020). But what if we didn’t time any of our students’ on-demand work? Or what if we allowed anyone additional time when they needed it? If speed isn’t critical to the essential understanding of the lesson, extended time for all does not compromise the standard—it does not modify it in any way. And if we offer this for everyone, we now don’t need a special accommodation of extended time for anyone in this class. We have removed a common barrier. This is UDL. It’s still important to document the need for extended time for students who will need this as an accommodation on state or national testing in the future. But there is no need to reserve this accommodation for only students with IEPs. In the case of timed assessments, removing the constraint of time is something that students with IEPs may have a right to, but is just good practice for all students. 

No One Way is Best

There’s no one way of performing that is a valid assessment for everyone. And there’s no one way that’s a confounding variable for everyone. What’s valid for one person may be the worst for another. This variability in performance under certain conditions affects our ability to see what students understand and can do if we only use a single type of assessment. For example, if the only option we give is a timed test, then those students who have test anxiety or need more time for processing are unable to show what they know well, and not necessarily because they hadn’t learned well.

In other words, the validity of the test is compromised because we didn’t offer another option. It’s less fair because the assessment is standardized. Ironic, isn’t it? In our attempt to be completely fair by keeping the requirements the same, we created an inequity. And here is where the phrase, “fair is not equal,” becomes relevant. Imagine how much better students can perform if they have choice in how they show their learning, and barriers, such as timed experiences, are removed. Providing students with options also increases engagement and motivation (CAST, 2018). Students are more likely to be invested in the learning process when they have a say in how they demonstrate their understanding.

I’m in no way suggesting that students have options for the level of proficiency they show, only in the way they show it. If we’re trying to assess a students ability to present an argument and support that argument with evidence, well, not presenting an argument with supporting evidence isn’t an option. But we can have that same expectation for skills and understanding in a class presentation as we do in an online video presentation or a paper. Or the same expectations in a test or an oral conference with a teacher.

There really is only one way to remove the confounding variables from our assessments: giving students choices about how they show their learning. There are countless ways we can assess for any given skill or understanding. If we want to have a valid assessment of learning, we have to remove the confounding variables. But how do we know which variables are the confounding ones for each student? And how do we figure out the choices to give? We don’t want to spend time giving random choices. Deciding on choices takes thoughtful consideration about which choices that, taken together, will remove the barriers for all students. This means reflecting on our assessments and all of the barriers that might present for students, and giving options. Remember, what’s a barrier for one student may be a support for another. Speaking in front of the class may be how one student shows their learning the best, and it may be the worst choice for another student. Having the option is what makes it universally designed.

Summary

Having choices in how students show their learning is critically important to access, equity, and even engagement. In addition to these compelling reasons, having choices for expression is a necessary condition of assessment validity. No one way of showing learning or expertise works well for every student. And we don’t want valid assessment for only some students. This isn’t about grading, either. Having valid assessment is what we depend on for making decisions about our instruction. We have to have a clear understanding of where students are in their learning if we want to respond in effective ways. 

Student choice in assessment, in my experience working with schools, is largely missing from most classrooms.  By not providing students with options for showing what they know, understand, and are able to do, we introduce significant barriers for all students to be able to express their learning. Just like the ramps around us, these choices help all students, but are necessary for some. For students with any risk factors, choices are a basic need for equity. And for many students, we can’t even assess their learning without offering options that remove the confounding variables. What is a barrier for one student is an advantage for another. And this changes from task to task and even day to day. 

Fortunately, once we add to the options in our lessons, we can use these options year after year, building on them for ever-increasing access. In mapping an individual skill from a standard to the numerous ways a student can demonstrate the skill, we respond to individual preferences, personalities, cultures, experiences, and diverse strength and needs each of our students have. By removing the barriers to assessment, every student has the chance to shine. They can build on their areas of strength and interest, express themselves in unique ways, and show what they know, understand, and can do. By celebrating diversity, we can truly understand our students' learning, and appreciate them as individuals on a learning journey.

Lee Ann Jung, PhD, is CEO of Lead Inclusion, Clinical Professor at San Diego State University, and a consultant to schools worldwide. Before beginning a career in higher education she worked in special education in the roles of teacher and administrator. Lee Ann leads the International Inclusive Leadership Program, a professional learning and graduate program for educators in international schools in partnership with San Diego State University. You can follow her on Twitter at @leeannjung.