Towards Culturally Appropriate Assessment? A Contribution to the Debates

Towards CulturallyAppropriate Assessment? AContribution to the Debateshequ_463 231..245

Patricia Maringi G. Johnston, Te Whare Wananga OAwanuiarangi Indigenous University,[email protected]

Abstract

Culturally appropriate assessment in higher educational is premised on factorsthat do not benefit minority groups, because they have no control over theprocesses governing such factors. Significantly, practices to account for studentsfrom different ethnic/minority/indigenous backgrounds are the inclusion ofelements like their language, knowledge and culture into the curriculum.However, assessment procedures are often seen to be ‘a-cultural’, but arepolitical activities that benefit the interests of some groups over others, as‘a-cultural’ approaches tend to be bound within the cultural capital of thedominant group.This article examines the international discussions relating toculturally appropriate assessment through generic themes, assessment practices,cultural inclusions and cultural appropriateness. It argues that there are twodistinct approaches to addressing inclusion:‘centric’ and ‘friendly’, respectively,that result in different priorities and outcomes.Assessment however, is a politicalstruggle between dominant and minority interests, which this article also rec-ognises and explores.

Introduction

The problem with the term ‘culturally appropriate assessment’ is that itencompasses a range of diverse meanings and understandings but isoften thought of specifically as assessment relating to the cultural prac-tices, beliefs and knowledge of ‘ethnic or cultural minorities’ (Afrin,2009). Culture, however, also includes the practices and knowledgesystems of an institution or the practices, beliefs and knowledge associ-ated with assessment as governed by institutions’ policies. These are

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00463.xVolume 64, No. 3, July 2010, pp 231–245

© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,USA.

often not contested as being ‘culturally’ biased towards the interests ofspecific (dominant) groups.

However, what Morehu et al. (2008, p. 2) argued is that the notion ofculturally preferred assessment needs to move beyond cultural practicesto include:

an understanding and acceptance that the transmission and acquisition ofknowledge are not neutral activities devoid of values, particular ideologies andattitudes and isolated from the power relations at the macro and minor levelswhich empower or limit participation and outcome in formal education in itsmany forms.

In mainstream institutions the issue of culturally appropriate forms ofassessment, what is culturally appropriate and how these should beimplemented in practice, is debated throughout the international litera-ture (Padilla, 2001; Verjee, 2003; Philpott et al., 2004). Challenges toassessment practices have occurred on several fronts including gender(Whyte, 1985; Weiner and Arnot, 1987), class (Nash, 1985), culture(Sleeter, 2004; Afrin, 2009) and ethnicity (Morehu et al., 2008). Encour-agingly, indigenous groups are also engaging in those challenges (Bishopand Glynn, 1999; Johnston, 2003; Verjee, 2003; Bevan-Brown, 2005;Morehu et al., 2008).

This article focuses on how assessment procedures for ethnicminorities and indigenous groups are being addressed through prac-tices in higher educational settings. It draws particularly from the NewZealand context where indigenous educators are grappling to use asvalid assessment tools their knowledge systems, languages and ‘culture’within higher education settings as a means to create culturally appro-priate assessment practices. The article takes the view that context isrelevant to assessment practices and in doing so argues that the NewZealand context provides a unique assessment landscape, one that isbicultural in focus, differing considerably from many of the multicul-tural contexts discussed within the literature. Because of that biculturalfocus, there is an opportunity for a closer in-depth examination of howa specific indigenous minority is attempting to make changes in highereducational settings, in search of equitable and fair educational pro-cesses. That is because within the bicultural context there are only twosets of interests: those of Maori and those of the state, with whomMaori have a relationship through a treaty signed in 1840. This hasmeant that the complexities of negotiating with a myriad of other cul-tural interests have been reduced significantly by that primary relation-ship (Simon, 1990).

232 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Discussions about culturally appropriate assessment

Culturally appropriate assessment is a matter for concern because edu-cation has served and continues to service some groups in society poorly.Young (1971) noted that knowledge and what counts as knowledge havebeen highlighted as a political activity that serves the interest of somegroups but that the associated activity of assessing that knowledge hasnot necessarily generated the same sorts of discussions. Assessment is apolitical activity: it serves, just like knowledge, the interests of specificgroups over others.

There are several themes relating to culturally appropriate assessmentoutlined in the literature and discussed under the following headings:assessment tools; cultural inclusion; and cultural appropriateness. Whatthe literature highlights is that specific types of assessment and assess-ment practice have been perceived as neutral, universal and with no needto be qualified. The following discussions challenge those taken-for-granted positions, while further suggesting alternative considerations forassessment practices.

Themes relating to assessment tools

The literature discusses the irrelevancy of certain types of assessmenttool, because they disadvantage and fail students for being ‘culturallydifferent’, as students do not have what Bourdieu referred to as the‘cultural capital’ (Harker, 1985) of the dominant group after whom thetests are modelled.Tests developed and validated with dominant groupsinclude culturally inappropriate test-item content and rely on first-language skills and meta-cognitive test strategies that further exacerbateexisting social, educational and vocational inequities for culturallydiverse participants (Lewis, 1998; Philpott et al., 2004). Multiple-choicequestions, for example, have been identified as culturally biased as dem-onstrated by Intelligent Quotient (IQ) tests, such as the ‘ChitlingTest’ inthe USA (Dove, 1968), Wilson-Miller’s ‘Koorie’ IQ Test from Australia(Craven, 2003) and the MOTIS test developed in New Zealand byArcher et al. (1971). Multiple choice asked students to nominate acorrect answer from a possible selection of four to five possible answers.Correctness, however, is reliant on students having the same ‘culturalcapital’ as that of the test material, which in mainstream institutions isthe culture of the dominant group. Philpott et al. (2004, p. 80) main-tained that these standardised assessment practices for culturally diversestudents are inappropriate because they rely on a ‘cultural’ norm, which

Culturally Appropriate Assessment? 233


is not that of the student being assessed.The likelihood then of culturallydiverse students failing is quite high (Sakrzewski, 1997; Craven, 2003;Verjee, 2003).

One problem of such tests is that they do not take account of students’experiences or knowledge because of the specificity of what studentsare being asked to do (Craven, 2003). Simply selecting a right answershuts down potential conversations, discussion and opportunities forelaboration. In mathematics tests, for example, students are often askedto demonstrate their workings to show that they have an understandingof the process that helped to derive a particular answer, with the processclearly being an important (graded) part of learning and understanding.

According to Gopaul-McNichol and Armour-Thomas (2002),another problem is that such standardised assessment practices reflectwestern, Anglo and Euro epistemologies that are inappropriate for stu-dents of non-dominant cultures. In New Zealand, tests have also beenadopted from other countries where the cultures are foreign to the NewZealand context to begin with (Archer et al., 1971), requiring students torespond to items that require knowledge of an overseas context wherethe test was developed. Verjee (2003) argued that the knowledge andsystems underpinning such practices are based on largely unexaminedand unchallenged assumptions about how education occurs and how itbenefits those who are different.

Themes relating to cultural inclusion

Cultural inclusion calls for culturally appropriate forms of assessment tobe included in assessment practices, which take into account the culturalexperiences and knowledge of students from diverse cultural back-grounds (Christensen and Lilley, 1997; Sakrzewski, 1997; Craven, 2003;Verjee, 2003; Philpott et al., 2004; Cockburn et al., 2007).There are fourpositions highlighted here.

The first is raised by Christensen and Lilley (1997, p. 2). Theyacknowledged that many universities have in place policies that recognisethe cultural diversity of students and are sensitive to the ‘different cul-tural backgrounds, socialisation experiences and living conditions ofindigenous peoples’ but claimed that universities nevertheless do notopenly embrace the idea of ‘varying assessment criteria for culturallydifferent students or other equity targeted groups’ is purely a politicalone. To focus on diversity and equity would require working towards ananti-racist framework (Dei, 1996) wherein racial and ethnic minoritiesmight actually experience equality of outcome (Marshall, 1988), placing



them in positions to be involved in decision making and challengingmembers of the dominant group in areas such as employment. Minow(1985) queried whether the problem of solving difficulties for culturallydifferent students arises from the difficulty of dealing with institutionalracism and Sakrzewski (1997) advocated an alternative equity approachwhereby the goal of assessment is to ensure that students from all groupshave equal opportunity to demonstrate what they know, thus ensuringequitable, if not equal, outcomes. These views clearly identify institu-tional responsibilities to be proactive towards accommodating thecultural differences of their students.

The second relates to perceptions about institutional support as out-lined by Morehu et al. (2008).They argued that sometimes the inhibitingfactor towards producing culturally appropriate assessment practices isindividual perception about assessment. In their example, they collecteddata through a questionnaire that asked indigenous (Maori) staff at ahigher educational institution in New Zealand, called a wananga, whatthey saw as factors limiting their ability to invoke culturally appropriateforms of assessment. Staff identified external rules and regulations asso-ciated with academic regulations, academic knowledge hierarchy, courseregulations and the lack of ability to be able to create alternative assess-ment techniques as limiting their ability to implement the forms andtypes of assessment that would better meet the needs of their students.Notably, it was external pressures of audits, conformity and beliefs aboutassessment that tended to influence staff choices about the types ofassessment that they used. As Morehu et al. (2008) identified, staff wereactually placing limits on their choices based on their perceptions aboutexternal factors.

The third position is one whereby those who are themselves culturalminorities are expected to provide the solution: the voice of how contextscan appropriately include those who are culturally different. As Waitere-Ang and Johnston (1999, p. 16) asked, ‘If all inclusion means is theacceptance of people who look ethnically different but for all intents andpurposes are required to be the same, have you really included us at all?’Inclusion, as they argued, is often interpreted as participation; however,the ability to implement policies and practices in spaces, such as univer-sities, where the knowledge systems and practices of ethnic minoritiesdiffer from those of the institutions’ culture is, once again, one of dealingwith dominant views and perceptions (Johnston and Mika, 2006) aboutwhat counts. Moves away from established assessment norms can alsoresult in stigmatisation (Minow, 1985) as the belief is one that differenceequates to an easier softer assessment option (Johnston, 1998).



The reference to space is an important one and is the fourth positionraised here. Johnston (2003) specifically referred to the notion of spaceas a cultural place that enables important conceptual, theoretical andpractical cultural elements to operate unhindered by other culturalspaces. The importance of such spaces is the possibility to create withina dominant institution culturally appropriate learning, teaching andassessment environments that draw on cultural (ethnic) minorities’cultures. As outlined in the introduction of this article, the biculturalcontext of New Zealand provided an environment that provided Maori(who choose to step outside the dominant educational context) theopportunity to develop indigenous educational initiatives.These institu-tions provided an education system that supported, recognised andendorsed Maori knowledge, language and practices (Smith, 1997;Johnston, 1998; Smith, 1999). At one level, Maori sought to removethemselves from educational contexts that failed them while, at another,they embraced bicultural imperatives that enabled them to have a dif-ferent relationship with the state and a right to their own educationalautonomy.

The educational institutions known as Te Kohanga Reo (early yearsschooling), Kura Kaupapa Maori (primary schooling), Wharekura (sec-ondary schooling) and Wananga (tertiary, higher education) are based ona premise that Maori language, practices, knowledge and world views arenormal in those contexts (Smith, 1997; Johnston, 1998). At the tertiarylevel, the wananga not only deliver within a Maori framework but delivera range of programmes that are immersed within Maori knowledge (andfor some undergraduate degrees Maori language). The knowledge, lan-guage and culture of Maori are taken for granted within the context ofthe wananga, meaning that practices normalise things Maori. This doesnot suggest that other forms of knowledge, language and cultures do notexist in that context. Rather, such forms are often framed or viewedthrough a lens that deconstructs theories and practices of colonisation,oppression, racism and marginalisation, leading to reconstruction, chal-lenge, contestation and development of Maori-centred philosophies,knowledge and practices. Thus, assessments support and endorse thenormality exemplified by those institutions as they are immersed andgrounded by their own ethnic culture (very different from the culture ofother non-ethnic-based institutions) and are, therefore, advantaged bybeing culturally bound within their own dominant cultural signatures.

How then can traditional non-indigenous higher education institu-tions respond to the diverse range of cultural experiences and under-standings of their expanding numbers of students from diverse cultural



backgrounds? One possible way (which is already occurring internation-ally) is for the development of higher educational contexts that areculturally or ethnically specific, for example nationalities universities inChina, institutions in Canada and the United States and wananga inNew Zealand. These institutions cater for the needs of specific ethnicminorities. While it could be argued that such spaces enable dominantmainstream higher educational institutions the opportunity to step awayfrom their responsibilities, equally it can be argued that continual failureof indigenous and ethnic minority students is not an option. The devel-opment of separate ethnic minority or indigenous institutions is as mucha political position as it is a cultural one.

Themes relating to culturally appropriate forms of assessment

Developing separate institutions, however, does not address the issuesfor students who might find themselves in an institution where they arenot the dominant group, where their culture and knowledge are notrecognised or understood or where their language is not spoken, let aloneaccounted for within an assessment context. For these students thereis a real need to be accommodated within those types of institutionalthough such students, who live and study in another country, do soknowing that they will be within institutions where their culture is notnecessarily recognised. This does not, however, excuse the institutionsfrom making provision for the needs of their student population.

Discussions that draw on culturally appropriate forms of assessmentspeak to the provision of changing environments and assessment prac-tices to account for the uniqueness of specific cultural groups. Philpottet al. (2004) argued that there is a need for more comprehensive assess-ments with multiple approaches and indicators that enable a more holis-tic approach to assessment. This would mean, as Lewis (1998) posited,that assessment would more properly reflect a comprehensive processtowards increasing the accuracy of measuring students’ knowledge,understandings and skills; he also challenged the notion that assessmentis a process that can be done by only one person, calling instead for ateam approach.

The literature further identifies collaborative or co-operativeapproaches for assessment or group work that require students to worktogether on a common task, to share information and to support oneanother (Sullivan, 2002; Barkley et al., 2005). One step further is assess-ment that enables students to work together to complete set tasks and tobe graded on those tasks. Difficulties of such approaches range from



discussions about students themselves undertaking responsibility forthe assessment process, as in peer assessment (Zariski, 1996; Falchikov,2002; Bushell, 2006), to difficulties of moving from a collective grade toindividual ones (Sharp, 2006). Despite the challenges, there is supportfor such practice (Falchikov, 2002; Barkley et al., 2005; Bushell, 2006;Sharp, 2006). Sharp (2006) critiqued the use of group learning andassessment, arguing that such practices are aligned to working effectivelywith others (which is a positive factor) and that group assessment ‘by itsvery nature favours the award of a grade to a group of students collec-tively’ (Sharp, 2006, p. 30). The latter point highlights issues aroundpotential unfairness in awarding the same mark to members of a groupwhen students may not have contributed equally to the assessment task,although these problems can be overcome. For example, if the task isdiscussed and agreed upon in advance, this can help alleviate suchproblems: if students discuss their responsibilities within the groupassessment, negotiate how they will contribute and then moderate eachother’s involvement, potentially the group takes responsibility for moni-toring performance. Biggs (2003) suggested that assessors need toexamine their assessment objectives and purposes when choices aremade; he considered that the ‘best’ assessment methods are those thatrealise one’s objectives. Philpott et al. (2004, p. 82) added that assess-ment needs to be ‘valued for its own sake and [one ethnic group] neednot be compared to another group, especially if the comparison is likelyto be biased’. Similarly, Padilla (2001) maintained that the goal ofassessment should be about improving educational opportunities andraising educational standards, not about limiting them.

Where to from here?

What the literature and discussions have revealed are two major priori-ties for culturally appropriate assessment that are distinguished by theirdifferent focuses for addressing educational opportunities for membersof culturally different groups.The first priority is a ‘centric’ one, wherebymembers of ethnic minorities (or indigenous groups) are placed atthe centre of learning politics (rather than on the periphery), thatempowers students and their lecturers or tutors in their struggle againstthe monocultural (or even multicultural) domination within highereducational institutions. This approach is similar in focus to thoseof girl-centred policies and practices (Weiner and Arnot, 1987) andMaori-centred approaches (Johnston, 1998; Durie, 2003), which seek to



change structures and set priorities by placing control for decisionmaking within the domain of those for whom the decisions are oftenmade (Verjee, 2003).

The challenge for centric approaches is one of contending with thepolitics of the dominant group, especially practices that promote equalityof opportunity, that argue for equal access but not necessarily equaloutcomes (Marshall, 1988). All students doing the same types of assess-ment, for example, is seen as a fair and just process but the problem (asoutlined previously) is that assessments already advantage the dominantculture. This is not seen as a problem because the dominant grouprepresents the unspoken and unstated norm against which all others arecompared (Johnston, 1998). Taking this argument one step further, theassertion is that we cannot create culturally based assessments becausesome groups may be advantaged by such practices. Maintaining thestatus quo, however, is neither about fairness nor justice; it is about notwanting to create a position that might shift the balance of power, whichis exactly what centric approaches are about. Such approaches are highlylikely to be stifled, blocked or vetoed in institutions where ethnic minori-ties and indigenous groups have to negotiate with the dominant group.

Maintaining the status quo fits within the second priority, referred to asthe ‘friendly’ approach (Johnston, 2003). These approaches are overlyconcerned with the friendliness of the tertiary environment at theexpense of being beneficial for members of culturally different groups.Verjee (2003, p. 18) referred to these as ‘add-on’ approaches, describedas ‘aboriginal enrichment of mainstream curricula and pedagogy’, alsoknown as the ‘beads and feathers approach’, or what Jenkins (1986)referred to as the ‘window dressing’ approach. These approaches areaimed at creating environments that are supportive and non-hostile tomembers of culturally different groups but do not necessarily address thestructure of power, which results in the oppression or failure of suchgroups in higher educational settings. Nor do such approaches enablestudents to be challenged because often lecturers do not have the cul-tural capital to enable them to engage or delve within the culturalframeworks or knowledge of such groups. As Bishop and Glynn (1999)warned, assessment techniques and tools are not by themselves theanswer to ensuring culturally appropriate forms of assessment; otheraspects also need to be present:

Many educators remain ignorant of the fact that they bring to educationalinteractions their own traditions of meaning-making that are themselvesculturally generated.This invisibility of culture perpetuates the domination ofthe ‘invisible’ majority culture. However it is not sufficient to simply raise



awareness of other cultural backgrounds; it is also important to criticallyevaluate how one set of cultural traditions (their own) can impinge on another(their students). (Bishop and Glynn, 1999, p. 78)

They argued that what is equally important is a ‘working knowledge’ ofthe cultural backgrounds of students and the ways by which individualsand groups make meaning in a given learning situation, including howthis might affect other learners, noting that the culture of the lecturer orassessor can influence what is seen to count as knowledge (or in this caseassessment).

However, outside the stand-alone indigenous and ethnic minorityhigher education institutions, it is the cultural inclusion aspect thatpredominates in practice as critiqued or noted previously by indigenous(and non-indigenous) educators (Christensen and Lilley, 1997; Bishopand Glynn, 1999; Padilla, 2001; Johnston, 2003; Verjee, 2003; Philpottet al., 2004; Bevan-Brown, 2005; Afrin, 2009). If cultural inclusion is thestandard norm, then what can be done to improve on that norm? If oneaccepts that the context is taken for granted and inclusion is an institu-tional commitment, then how can we expand on the context to accountbetter for the needs of indigenous (minority) students?

Towards assessment solutions

Johnston (2003) argued that, although it is important, context is but oneelement for what could be an integrated focus for addressing the need formeaningful cultural inclusions into higher educational activities such asassessment. The other three elements are content, concepts and com-mitment, informed here by the indigenous struggles in New Zealand.

Context is the environment, in this case an assessment environmentthat is conducive to cultural information, knowledge and practices: ‘sucha context helps students make sense of learning interactions by allowingthem their own sense-making processes to bear’ (Bishop and Glynn,1999, p. 158). Morehu et al. (2008) found that staff at the wanangaconsidered that the creation of a context recognising cultural norms,identity, language relevance, cultural relevance and cultural practiceswould be an important contributor to student success, as assessments aregrounded within a culture that is familiar to the students.They identifiedthat culturally appropriate assessment can be put into practice by rec-ognising that some students have a learning style with an emphasis onoral culture; for these learners, staff built oral seminars into the pro-gramme to allow students to shine in an area of strength. Morehu et al.(2008) further noted that in contrast to performing poorly on an



individual basis, some students working in a group can be totally trans-formed rather than being shy, introverted and even failing.

Assessment practices that enable students to draw from their owncultural backgrounds feature significantly towards producing culturallyrelevant and appropriate space or environments for students. Bevan-Brown (2005, p. 152) referred to this as a ‘culturally responsive environ-ment’, one where ‘the learner’s culture is valued, affirmed anddeveloped’. Culturally responsive environments enhance students’ self-esteem, giving them positive feelings about their own worth as individu-als (Montgomery, 2001). This results in a cultural match between theeducational and home environments, enabling the utilisation of familiarlearning strategies (Bevan-Brown, 2005) and enhancing motivation tolearn required academic tasks from a psychologically secure state (Gay,1995).

An important factor to remember about context is that each has theability to develop according to a set of specifications exclusive to eachsite. For example, schools are different (although their focus might be thesame) because they are located in different regions, have different teach-ers, have access to different resources, have students from differentethnic backgrounds and so forth. Each context is therefore unique andwhat works in one context may not necessarily work in another sospecifications need to be worked through.

Content relates explicitly to the information and knowledge thatstudents bring with them to a given context (Johnston, 2003). Forexample, the knowledge that students have and their cultural knowledge,language and practices would be valued and validated by the assessmentprocesses. The notion that indigenous peoples have their own views ofthe world and explanation of their own existence and that these mightnot relate or sit within a scientific framework (Smith, 1999) has beenchallenged by the academy and is often explained away as myths, legendsor just wrong (Johnston, 1998). When such students attempt to articu-late those very views within an assessment context that does not recog-nise or support their cultural norms, the result is often one of rejectionand failure. Verjee (2003) noted however that storying assessments (whatWeber (1999) referred to as authentic assessments and others as semi-nars) are an example of an approach to assessment that enables studentsto engage through oral presentations with their tertiary teachers andother students.These approaches enable students at one level to draw onculturally appropriate forms of presentation and, at another level, toimbue them with culturally appropriate forms of practice in their realworld context. In the New Zealand context for example, students engage



in protocols of mihi (greetings), which outline where they are from(region), who their tupuna (eponymous ancestor) is, the name of their iwi(tribe) and so forth, detailing to others who they are.This allows studentsto establish links based on whakapapa (genealogy) but also helps tocontextualise information in an iwi (specific) framework that sees asimportant such protocols (which can differ from iwi to iwi), thus vali-dating students’ cultural existence. While it could be argued that Maoristudents are themselves a diverse group, the context is fluid enough toallow for students’ tribal differences still to be validated within the overallcontext.The important point is that the context is a safe space (Johnston,2001) that enables students to engage in a positive and proactive mannerand also means that students do not have to defend ‘who they are’.

Concepts are the cultural factors that are necessary for students to beable to make appropriate choices indicating their understanding ofculturally specific practices or information. This is the ‘cultural capital’element alluded to above. While the cultural elements may already bepractised by students, Bishop and Glynn (1999, p. 78) noted that lec-turers also require a ‘working knowledge of the cultural backgrounds ofstudents and the ways by which individuals and groups make meaning ina given learning situation’. It is not sufficient for students to know theseconcepts; their lecturers need to know them as well or risk talking pastone another (Metge and Kinloch, 1978).

Concepts can further be interpreted as the ‘why’ factor, the glue thatbinds together the content knowledge. For instance, in a Maori culturalcontext the practice of giving of koha is often interpreted as the giving ofa gift to thank someone for a task they have undertaken. The conceptof koha however is more than about gift giving; it sits within a process ofreciprocity, an exchange process, one of acknowledgement, responsibilityand accountability for the transmission and receiving of knowledge orinformation. Knowing the cultural concept not only enables students toengage meaningfully with their own cultural practices but enables thelecturer to support those engagements appropriately.

The final aspect relating to culturally appropriate assessment is that ofcommitment. One of the key criticisms aimed at higher education out-lined earlier in this article was that institutional policies and practices,while they might enable culturally appropriate forms of assessment, donot necessarily follow through in practice. Such practices require a levelof commitment by policy makers, institutional systems and most impor-tantly individual educators not only to provide that space but also tofacilitate and monitor it and help it to grow.While institutions may havethe policies in place, it is the level of commitment by lecturing staff that



creates changes within contexts, otherwise the status quo prevails. Indi-viduals and their philosophies, beliefs and practices can go a long waytowards making possible assessment practices that are relevant, safe andconducive to the needs of students who are culturally different. Thismeans that any form of assessment in the hands of someone who iscommitted can be made to work, regardless of what form the assessmenttakes.This is a critical point.What is appropriate for one group, however,may not necessarily be appropriate for another; culturally appropriateforms of assessment, while operating with generic principles and prac-tices, must also be designed for the specific cultural context within whichthe assessment operates.

Conclusion and implications

Significantly, the political context for assessment should not be over-looked.The struggle between dominant and minority cultures exists butsolutions to address the need for culturally appropriate forms of assess-ment also exist. While the literature outlines that there is a growingcommitment to meet the assessment needs of culturally different stu-dents, there is also an understanding that strategies will need to workthrough the tension created by accommodating the needs of culturallydifferent students, including the validity and credibility associated withtheir cultural knowledge frameworks, understanding and interpretationsof the world (Morehu et al., 2008). If the difficulty of producing culturallyappropriate assessment is premised on factors relating to environment(context), educators’ knowledge (content),understanding (concepts) andcommitment, what happens when these factors are understood andsupported by educators? Success for culturally different students willrequire institutional and individual attention to these issues.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by theTeaching and Learning ResearchInitiative, TLRI contract 9233, administered by the New ZealandCouncil for Educational Research and funded byVote Education in NewZealand.

References

Afrin, T. (2009) An Overview from Different Perspectives: Culturally Competent Assess-ment in a Multi-cultural Environment. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H. Anderson, R.Fletcher, P. M. Johnston and M. Rees (eds.), Tertiary Assessment and Higher EducationStudent Outcomes: Policy, Practice and Research. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa, pp.235–244.



Archer, D., Oppenheim, R., Karetu, T. and St George, R. (1971) Intelligence and thePakeha Child. National Education, 53 (577), pp. 258–260.

Barkley, E., Cross, K. and Major, C. (2005) Collaborative Learning Techniques: a Handbookfor College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bevan-Brown, J. (2005) Providing a Culturally Responsive Environment for Gifted MaoriLearners. International Education Journal, 6 (2), pp. 150–155.

Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd edn. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.

Bishop, R. and Glynn, T. (1999) Culture Counts: Changing Power Relations in Education.Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

Bushell, G. (2006) Moderation of Peer Assessment in Group Projects. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (1), pp. 91–108.

Christensen, P. and Lilley, I. (1997) The Road Forward? Alternative Assessment for AboriginalandTorres Strait Islander Students at theTertiary Level. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPrinting Service.

Cockburn, T., Musgrave, J., Matheson, R., Mitchell, D., Reid, P. and Stewart, J. (2007)Enhancing the Effectiveness of Tertiary Teaching and Learning through Assessment: aReview of the Literature. www.nctte.co.nz/assessment-project/pdfs/FinalRepAppendix/AppendixA-pdf, last accessed 10 September 2008.

Craven, R. (2003) Trekking Beyond: Re-imagining a Future Role of Evaluation for Making aDifference for Indigenous Students. Paper presented to the Australasian Evaluation SocietyInternational Conference 14–16 September, Auckland, New Zealand.

Dei, G. (1996) Anti-Racism Education:Theory and Practice. Black Point, Canada: FernwoodPublishing.

Dove, A. (1968) Taking the Chitling Test. Newsweek, 72 (July), pp. 51–52.Durie, M. (2003) Nga Kahui Pou: Launching Maori Futures. Wellington: Huia Publishers.Falchikov, N. (2002) Unpacking Peer Assessment. In P. Schwartz and G. Webb (eds.),

Assessment: Case Studies, Experience and Practice in Higher Education. London: KoganPage, pp. 70–77.

Gay, G. (1995) A Synthesis of Scholarship in Multicultural Education. Oak Brook, IL: NorthCentral Regional Education Laboratory.

Gopaul-McNichol, S. and Armour-Thomas, E. (2002) Assessment and Culture: Psychologi-cal Tests with Minority Populations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Harker, R. (1985) Schooling and Cultural Reproduction. In J. Codd, R. Harker and R.Nash (eds.), Political Issues in New Zealand Education. Palmerston North, NZ: DunmorePress, pp. 25–42.

Jenkins, K. (1986) Reflection on the Status of MaoriWomen. Unpublished paper, Universityof Auckland.

Johnston, P. (1998) ‘Hei Ao Rereke’ Education Policy and Maori Underachievement: Mecha-nisms of Power and Difference. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Auckland.

Johnston, P. (2001) Watch this Spot and Who’s in it: Creating Space for IndigenousEducators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 26 (1), pp. 1–8.

Johnston, P. (2003) Disrupting/Contesting/Creating Space: Challenging Students toThink Maori Education. DELTA – Policy and Practice in Education, 55 (1), pp. 43–60.

Johnston, P. and Mika, C. (2006) Transforming Knowledge, Transforming Lives: the PoliticsFacing Indigenous Tertiary Institutions in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Paper presented at theEuropean Educational Research Association, University of Geneva.

Lewis, J. (1998) Nontraditional Uses of Traditional Aptitude Tests. In R. Samunda, R.Feuerstein, A. Kaufman, J. Lewis and R. Stenberg (eds.), Advances in Cross-CulturalAssessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 218–241.

Marshall, J. (1988) Why Go to School? Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.Metge, J. and Kinloch, P. (1978) Talking Past Each Other: Problems of Cross-Cultural

Communication. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.



Minow, M. (1985) Learning to Live with the Dilemma of Difference: Bilingual and SpecialEducation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48 (2), pp. 157–211.

Montgomery, W. (2001) Creating Culturally Responsive, Inclusive Classrooms. TeachingExceptional Children, 33 (4), pp. 4–9.

Morehu, C., Timutimu, N., Stephens, C. and Johnston, P. (2008) Culturally AppropriateAssessment: a Contribution to the Debates. Paper presented at the Symposium on TertiaryAssessment and Higher Education Student Outcomes 17–19 November, Wellington,New Zealand.

Nash, R. (1985) TOSCA and the Politics of IntelligenceTesting. In J. Codd, R. Harker andR. Nash (eds.), Issues in New Zealand Education. Palmerston North, NZ: DunmorePress, pp. 263–274.

Padilla, A. (2001) Issues in Culturally Appropriate Assessment. In L. Suzuki, J. Ponterottoand P. Meller (eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Assessment, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass, pp. 5–27.

Philpott, D., Nesbit, W., Cahill, M. and Jeffery, G. (2004) Educational Assessments of FirstNations Students: a Review of the Literature. In W. Nesbit (ed.), Cultural Diversity andEducation: Interface Issues. St John’s, NL: Memorial University, pp. 77–102.

Sakrzewski, M. (1997) Accounting for Cultural Diversity: Issues of Equity and Authenticity inAssessment with Particular Application to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students.www.iier.org.au/ajer/djer13/sakrzewski.html, last accessed 10 September 2008.

Sharp, S. (2006) Deriving Individual Student Marks from a Tutor’s Assessment of GroupWork. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (3), pp. 329–343.

Simon, J. (1990) The Place of Schooling in Maori–Pakeha Relations. Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Auckland.

Sleeter, C. (2004) Critical Multicultural Curriculum and the Standards Movement.English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 3 (2), pp. 122–138.

Smith, G. (1997) The Development of Kaupapa Maori:Theory and Praxis. Unpublished PhDthesis, University of Auckland.

Smith, L. (1999) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: ZedBooks, in association with University of Otago Press, New Zealand.

Sullivan, K. (2002) Read,Think and be Merry for in Two Weeks your Assignment is Due.In P. Schwartz and G. Webb (eds.), Assessment: Case Studies, Experience and Practice fromHigher Education. London: Kogan Paul, pp. 121–128.

Verjee, B. (2003) Towards an Aboriginal Approach to Culturally Appropriate AssessmentMethodologies. Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen University College. http//plaza.kwantlen.bc.ca/sites/researchschol.nsf/files/AboriginalProjectreport.april.2003, last accessed 10September 2008.

Waitere-Ang, H. and Johnston, P. (1999) If All Inclusion in Research Means is the Addition ofResearchers that Look Different, Have You Really Included Me at All? Paper presentedat AARE–NZARE Conference, Global Issues and Local Effects: The Challenge forEducational Research 29 November–2 December, Melbourne.

Weber, E. (1999) Student Assessment thatWorks. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Weiner, G. and Arnot, M. (1987) Teachers and Gender Politics. In M. Arnot and G.

Weiner (eds.), Gender and the Politics of Schoolings. London: Open University, pp.355–370.

Whyte, J. (1985) Girl-Friendly Science and the Girl-Friendly School. In J. Whyte, R.Deem, L. Kant and M. Cruickshank (eds.), Girl-Friendly Schooling. London: Methuenand Co., pp. 77–92.

Young, M. (ed.) (1971) Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education.London: Routledge.

Zariski, A. (1996) Student Peer Assessment in Tertiary Education: Promise, Perils and Practice.Discussion paper, School of Law, Murdoch University. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1996/zariski.html, last accessed 17 September 2008.



Documents

Towards Culturally Appropriate Assessment? A Contribution to the Debates