This article, published by Beatty and Manning-Ouellette in 2022, explores short-term study abroad as a leadership development opportunity.  Notable for its integration of leadership development theory with intercultural development theory, it includes the full focus group protocol (question set) used by the authors on the 6th page of the article. It also includes a good example of how to discuss the validity and reliability of this type of data, when publishing.

This form helps you center equity in all phases of the institutional assessment process.

This form helps you think through how to plan for success through all phases of an assessment project.

While conducting a focus group can appear very similar to sitting around and chatting about something, there are guidelines that make it more effective, valid and reliable as research.  The attached methods guide from the University of Reading (United Kingdom) is a good short introduction and suggests further readings. CILMAR's assessment expert is also very fond of the Focus Group Interviewing website  (and books!) of Drs. Richard A. Krueger & Mary Anne Casey, who have over 40 years of experience & with whom she considers herself extremely fortunate to have studied.

This focus group protocol (question set) was developed to probe the learning outcomes of engineering students who have completed junior year abroad programs; it asks open-ended questions about language skills, intercultural skills, engineering skills and professional skills. Questions can be found in the appendix of the article, between the conclusion and the references. The article exists behind a scholarly paywall, so log-in via a scholarly library account if possible.

Otherwise, a similar focus group protocol, somewhat less engineering-focused but open-source, may be found on the website of the University of Minnesota's Learning Abroad Center.

In addition to English and Italian versions of the Rubrica Valutativa della Competenzia Interculturale (see HubICL Tool #467), this toolkit contains a reflection logbook for students, guidelines for a student's capstone presentation about the intercultural learning experience, and a teacher checklist (rubric) for evaluating the presentation. All items available in either English or Italian.

Created by the Transcultural Pedagogical Research Group, a team of Purdue doctoral students who have all gone on to tenure-track glory, this coding system, which includes examples, stands as a shining way to make sense of qualitative data as revealed in students' efforts to become better writers while working together across cultural differences.

This comprehensive qualitative toolkit includes a focus group protocol for measuring student satisfaction with a virtual exchange program (also often known as Collaborative Online Intercultural Learning, or COIL) as well as probing their learning outcomes and behavioral change. It also includes a question protocol for understanding one's collaborative partner's perspective(s) and a checklist for observation by an outside observer of a learning activity. Most of these tools would be very easily adapted for use with non-virtual or blended intercultural exchange programs.

Some researchers feel that a rubric is not, strictly speaking a qualitative research method. Rather, using a rubric is framework analysis, which is a quantified way of rapidly making sense of lots of textual or qualitative data. Others call it "an inherently comparative form of thematic analysis which employs an organized structure of inductively- and deductively-derived themes (i.e., a framework) to conduct cross-sectional analysis" --in other words, a qualitative methodology. Knowing about framework analysis may become important when you are submitting your research article to a journal that tends to favor quantitative analysis methods. (Look it up in Google Scholar or Web of Science for the latest on this debate.)

In the meantime, the above link will lead you to a collection of the rubrics curated into the HubICL.

When one is unfamiliar with qualitative research or when one is trained primarily in quantitative methods, qualitative methodologies may seem fuzzy, obscure and/or biased. Because of a societal focus on numerical or mega-data, it can also often be hard to make the case to upper administration that gathering and analyzing qualitative data is important to institutional research.  Below are links to a few articles that may assist the qualitative neophyte or the institutional researcher wanting to highlight (for example) student voices.

How is validity and reliability realized in qualitative research? (U. of Miami School of Education)

Myths and misconceptions about using qualitative methods in assessment (Harper & Kuh, 2007)

The use of scoring rubrics: validity, reliability and educational consequences (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007)

Is qualitative research more inclusive?  (Santorini, APA Trends Report, 2023)

The Inclusion Competencies Inventory is a proprietary, online, research-validated survey instrument which measures Openness to Change, Adaptability, Connecting with Others, Reading Others, Valuing Different Perspectives and Power Sensitivity.

The Inclusion Competencies Inventory is a proprietary, online, research-validated survey instrument which measures Openness to Change, Adaptability, Connecting with Others, Reading Others, Valuing Different Perspectives and Power Sensitivity.

This handy down-loadable reference sheet lists all of the HubICL assessment tools alphabetically by type (survey, qualitative method, rubric, etc), as well as indicating whether the instrument in question is: (a) cost-free, proprietary, or behind a paywall, (b) suitable for learners under 18, and/or (c) available in languages other than English.

The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory is one of oldest existing formative assessment tools for predicting ability to do well in another culture.  It is a 50 item self-scoring instrument which measures: emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, and personal autonomy.

This focus group protocol (question set) was developed to probe the learning outcomes of students who have completed junior year abroad programs; it asks open-ended questions about language skills, intercultural skills, engineering skills and professional skills. Questions can be found in the appendix of the article, between the conclusion and the references.

Created by the Stevens Institute, a non-profit entity that supports exchange between the US and Middle Eastern nations, this survey instrument measures: Knowledge of Other Country or Culture, Perspective-Taking & Empathy, Cross-cultural Communication & Collaboration, Self-Other Overlap & Feelings Thermometer, and Satisfaction with the Virtual Exchange Experience.

This comprehensive qualitative toolkit includes a focus group protocol for measuring student satisfaction with the virtual exchange program as well as probing learning outcomes and behavioral change. It also includes a question protocol for understanding one's collaborative partner's perspective(s) and a checklist for activity observation by an outside observer.

The Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale measures mood regulation, social skills and strategic use of emotions.  It has been used around the world, translated into multiple languages and is considered one of the best and most reliable of the open-source instruments which address Emotional Intelligence.

The Inclusion Competencies Inventory is a proprietary, online, research-validated survey instrument which measures: Openness to Change, Adaptability, Connecting with Others, Reading Others, Valuing Different Perspectives and Power Sensitivity.

This seven-question survey instrument measures the degree to which a participant is comfortable with being challenged by difference.  See also the Tolerance for Disagreement Scale: https://hubicl.org/toolbox/tools/914

Individuals who use this instrument may learn more about their openness, self-awareness, lack of ego, supportiveness and capacity for self-critique. This research-validated survey instrument has 15 questions.

This proprietary instrument measures individuals' work styles in order to compare with other cultures, colleagues, and team members, and offer professional development coaching. As a result of this assessment, participants will be able to:  Improve productivity when working with others who have different styles & develop strategies for improved collaboration. 

As a result of this reflection tool as a formative assessment, students will be able to: 1. "Reflect upon their own and their home cultural value." 2. "Name, define, and discuss value differences within and across cultures." 3. "Begin hypothesizing about the host culture’s values" (p. 63).

Individuals who use this assessment may learn how much they or their survey respondents: value instruction about implicit bias, are aware that they have bias, & recognize that being able to identify implicit bias is an important professional skill.

This instrument measures willingness to listen to speakers who disagree with one's views and the ability to see lively exchange of differing views as a positive thing. It is a fifteen question Likert-style instrument.

This research-validated tool measures willingness to listen to others even if they are "boring" or their views do not agree with one's own views. There are 24 questions.

Created by the Transcultural Pedagogical Research Group, a team of Purdue doctoral students who have all gone on to tenure-track glory, this coding system, which includes examples, stands as a shining way to make sense of qualitative data as revealed in students' efforts to become better writers.

Originally created and validated in 1997 by noted social psychologist James McCrosky, this instrument measures generalized ethnocentricity, e.g. the idea that your group or culture is better than all other groups or cultures.  There are several versions of this instrument, including one that is specific to US culture.

These two, free research validated instruments measure the degree to which the individual has apprehension about conversational interactions with a person from another ethnicity or another race. Each is about 14 questions long.

Created by Skillify, an online service created by social entrepreneurs at the University of Southern California, to help students transform into young professionals, the myGiide is a free cultural agility assessment, which features action planning for personal improvement. "Cultural Agility" is defined as encompassing the following: tolerance of ambiguity, cultural curiosity, perspective taking, cultural humility, emotional resilience and relationship building.

This instrument was developed to measure capacity for self-regulated learning (also called life-long learning) and reflection among medical students. It measures Insight, Need for Reflection, Intention for Reflection and Engagement in Reflection.

Citation:

This assessment measures: 1. Intellectual empathy, empathetic emotions and the communication between the two. 2. Empathetic feelings and expression; empathetic perspective-taking; acceptance of cultural differences; and empathetic awareness. CAUTION: Some practitioners feel that this instrument, as written centers "whiteness" and privilege, for that reason, it can be an excellent tool for some learners and a harmful tool for others*. We encourage you to read the questions carefully and to think about your learner audience before using this instrument.

Citation: Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of counseling psychology, 50(2), 221.

*A similar tool which may be of interest if the SEE seems inappropriate for your learner group is the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE), developed and validated by Neulip and McCroskey in 1997. [http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/publications/172.pdf]

Intercultural and inter-ethnic communication apprehension is defined as anxiety about communicating across either cultural or ethnic difference. Full question set for both instruments is included in this 1997 instrument.

Citation:

The ATIBI was designed to measure the attitudes of health professional and students to instruction about implicit bias. It measures: [1] the degree to which an individual values implicit bias instruction, [2] acceptance of implicit bias in oneself, [3] self-awareness & perceived self-efficacy, [4] recognition of the importance of implicit bias instruction, and [5] acceptance of the impact of implicit bias instruction on clinical care.

Citation:

This instrument is designed to measure openness, self-awareness, lack of ego, supportive-ness and capacity for self-critique. Questions can be found on page 61 of the attached article. Note that this instrumentwas designed for use in clinical psychology contexts; for the academic advising initiative, the team changed the word "client" to the word "student."  The Purdue study is only using the questions which measure openness.

Citation: Gonzalez, E., Sperandio, K. R., Mullen, P. R., & Tuazon, V. E. (2021). Development and initial testing of the Multidimensional Cultural Humility Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 54(1), 56-70.

Designed to use Legos to lead participants to an understanding of privilege as unearned advantage without initial use of the term (privilege), which can be polarizing or scary for many. Not a board or card game, but we include it here anyway, because stacking the Legos feels playful in nature and also, like many board or card games, it requires purchasing materials.

Rise Up is a board game about building people power and winning together to create social justice—even when the cards are stacked against us. All players are on the same team, collaborating to build a movement and fight an opponent that is trying to crush your efforts. Suitable for ages 10 and up.  Currently listed as costing $37.00 (as of 4-29-2022).

In The Village is a cooperative card game for 3-5 players, who must use nets, medications,and insecticides to stave off the threat of malaria in their village.  In order to win all players must cooperate, discuss, and share limited resources or none will survive.  Suitable for ages 12 and up.  Currently listing as costing $15.00 (as of 4-29-2022).

Two of a series of six short, free, downloadable electronic games which introduce some basic differences about cultures in Europe. Created in 2007 as part of a project funded by the European Union for those who work with youth groups; the series also includes e-games focused on Human Rights and Leadership (project management).

A free card game devised by CILMAR staff to encourage perspective-sharing and facilitate brave discussions following a use-of-force incident in a community. Was "in production" as of 4-29-2022, so you may need to wait a week to access it.

A free card game, developed by CILMAR staff members, in which participants identify statements indicative of various orientations on the Intercultural Development Continuum, as well as reflect on connections between the orientations and their own life experiences.  It works well as part of an IDI group debriefing, to help explain the model before discussing aggregate group results.  May also be used in situations where you wish to help team leaders recognize & uplift effective intercultural behavior without the cost of administering the IDI instrument.

This card game helps participants to develop empathy for people from varied backgrounds and experiences, demonstrate intentional listening, & build relationships through sharing experiences. Currently listed as costing $18.99 (as of 4-29-2022).

A free,downloadable card game, developed as part of a social well-being collaboration of Diversophy Games and JAMK University of Applied Sciences in Finland.  Intended to develop curiosity, openness and understanding.  Be sure to also search the HubICL digital toolbox for other "diversophy" games (cost varies), including diversiSMILES mini-game.

A board game, by the Tesa Collective, somewhat like Monopoly, but intended to reward cooperation. Suitable for ages 10 and up. " Designed for families and friends who want to play together instead of competing against each other, and groups thinking about starting a cooperative or improving skills as collaborators. "  Cost listed at $35 as of 4-29-2022.

A card game (available from Pandasaurus Games) on perspective shifting, suitable for ages 8 and up, with lesson plan developed by a former CILMAR graduate assistant, Margaret Sheble. Cost of the card game is listed on Amazon at $39.95, although some gamer sites may offer it for less.

Free card game created by CILMAR in partnership with Purdue Study Abroad advisors. Downloads include a lesson plan and a printable set of cards. As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Identify effective strategies for succeeding in study abroad programs. 2. Determine whether strategies are best applied before, during, or after study abroad. 3. Discuss which strategies are the best fit for their particular contexts.

Free card game developed by CILMAR staff, adapted from noted interculturalist Bruce LaBrack's "What's Up With Culture" (open source) materials. As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Distinguish between three dimensions of human behavior (universal, cultural, and personal). 2. Identify the dangers of inaccurately identifying the motivations for behavior. 3. Apply this analytical skill to authentic relationships and interactions. Downloads include a lesson plan and the quiz cards.

Board game designed by a talented creative team of First Nations women. Currently available only in a 4-game or 8-game set with teaching notes, designed for K-12 schools or school districts."At-home" edition was said to be "in the works" as of mid-December 2021. Team also offers a "Decolonizing Activity Book" and other inclusion education materials & workshops. 4-game kit listed as costing $280 as of 4-29-2022.  Activity book listed as $8.00.

Board game designed to help players practice the skills of curiosity, openness and self-awareness. Website provides a teacher-student guide & also a virtual version of the physical game.  Cost listed at $65.00. The game is designed for use with learners of US high school age (approx. 15 years old) and above.

Just what the title says.

This document lists the instruments cited in the Smackdown video.  Note that in order to open the HubICL "curation card" about each instrument, you'll need to be logged into a HubICL account.

This assessment measures: 1. Emotions as possible barriers to effective language learning. 2. Emotional baggage that is brought to language learning situations. 

This cross-culturally validated, free, 14-question survey instrument "... was developed to measure individual differences in a stable sense of interdependence and connectedness with nature."  As such, it relates to capacity for mindfulness and emotional resilience.

This free, research-validated 10 question survey instrument measures the intensity of a person's social need to belong.

This 15-question, free & research-validated instrument measures feeling of social interaction anxiety, as opposed to patterns of behavior that might arise from social anxiety.

Many of the methods suggested for becoming more interculturally competent rely heavily on the idea that there must be direct person-to-person interaction (whether physical or virtual), in order for skills to improve.  This can be anxiety-causing for some individuals; thus using this instrument paired with a debrief may be helpful for more introverted learners. 

This assessment measures: 1. How participants feel about the pace & focus of a learning activity. 2. Other possibilities participants imagine that might feel more comfortable.

Each individual online assessment measures the participant's implicit attitudes, stereotypes, and biases related to a specific phenomenon or identity characteristic.  Test options include attitudes/biases as regards skin tone, disability/ability, mental health status, transgender status, sexuality, race, ethnicity, weight, age & religion.  There are 15 tests available.

This free assessment, created by a diverse global team of over 100 experts, measures: 1. The current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion within an organization. 2. Progress in managing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. 3. Feelings of trust, acceptance, and physical/psychological safety. 4. Short and long-term goals for an organization.  As such, it is not so much a measure of learning as a measure of the climate for learning. As of this writing (in late 2021), the instrument is available in English, French, Spanish & Portuguese.

This assessment measures: 1. The extent to which the following elements of a course foster diversity and inclusion: purpose/goals, content, foundations/perspectives, learners, instructors, pedagogy, environment, assessment/evaluation, and adjustment.

Created by Dr. Chien-tsung Lu, of Purdue's School of Aviation and Transportation Technology, in response to an Intercultural Pedagogy challenge, this instrument assesses the learner's self-described stance on Hofstede's cultural value dimensions, such as Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, etc. Instructions for how to facilitate learning from this formative tool are also provided.

Included as a link from an article published in Inside Higher Education, this 4 question open-text assessment,intended to be used anonymously can yield rich qualitative data about inclusivity in the classroom, from the students' perspectives.  The article itself is also thick with good self-education suggestions from the group Learned Scientists for Racial Justice.  We highly recommend both resources!

Created by one of the world's foremost social psychology theorists, Dr. Mark Leary, this validated 10 question open-source survey instrument measures the degree to which an individual adheres to a belief that ".. everything that exists is part of some fundamental entity,substance, or process." Sense of oneness is related to universalism (see also the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale) , to many religious belief systems and, often, to openness to mystical and/or transformative experiences.

The AEM-Cube® is a three-dimensional development instrument that maps the talents and challenges of individuals, teams, and organizations. It is available in multiple languages and has been implemented by more than 2500 organizations worldwide for various purposes, including recruitment, career coaching, team building, leadership, and innovation programs. 

The AEM-Cube® examines three key dimensions of adaptation: Attachment, Exploration and Managing Complexity.

Even folks with Ph.D's and lots of familiarity with experiential learning can be skittish about using rubrics to make sense of authentic artifacts of reflective learning. This explanation is the simplest and clearest we've yet seen about how to code qualitative data.  Using a rubric is a type of deductive coding, so, to get more comfortable with it, all you really need to read is the part of this essay on "Deductive Coding 101."  But the advice on keeping things simple is excellent, too.

Funded by an Alaska Native Education grant, this Culture in the Classroom resource defines 5 standards for culturally responsive teaching, with indicators and rubrics of increasing proficiency!  Although growing out of K-12 education, it also has broad applicability to the higher education classroom and would align well with Dr. Diatta-Holgate's work, mentioned earlier in this collection.

Culturally responsive teaching, as defined by expert Zaretta Hammond, in her book Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, is one of the most impactful tools for empowering students to find their way out of what are commonly known as "achievement gaps." Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) attempts to bridge the gap between teacher and student by helping the teacher understand the cultural nuances that may cause a relationship to break down—which ultimately causes student achievement to break down as well.

This instructors' resource blog post, from 2018, gives concrete and specific examples of using a rubric to give objective and actionable feedback to a student about a piece of writing.  Since rubrics work similarly no matter what type of learning  is being assessed, this resource may also prove helpful to individuals using the rubrics in this collection.  Instructors who use rubrics may also benefit by watching, and sharing with their students, this video on how, as a student, to use the rubric provided by the instructor to get a better grade!

This six-dimension rubric, based in part on the AAC&U Intercultural Competence Rubric, was created by team of experts to assess an institutional learning outcome which stated that "...[our] graduates will be able to analyze topics and human experiences using categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, social status and ability."

This four-quadrant framework with self-reflection questions can help an evaluator or an evaluation team critically self-examine whether they are, in fact, providing "helpful help" to marginalized groups.  This work comes from Dr. Hazel Symonette, a Black American educator & qualified IDI administrator who has served on the board of the American Evaluators Association, and helped craft the very definition of a culturally competent evaluator.

This 37-item survey instrument, created by a multi-ethnic research team, is designed to measure the level of student awareness about issues of culture, intergroup interaction, social justice, and the degree to which these issues are presented in the college classroom.

This 15-question survey, created by a  renowned US scholar of race and ethnicity, asks specifically about one's reactions to and interactions with persons of another race. It measures: 1. Diversity of contact (AAC&U curiosity), relativistic appreciation for differing others (AAC&U empathy), and comfort with difference (AAC&U openness).

This well-known assessment measures: 1. Participants' implicit attitudes, stereotypes, and biases related to cultural identity markers such as religion, race, gender, and sexuality.  The HubICL curation pulls together articles and resources providing context about this fascinating, groundbreaking and also controversial instrument.

This survey instrument, created by a profoundly multi-ethnic and global panel of experts, measures: 1. The current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion within an organization. 2. Progress in managing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. 3. Feelings of trust, acceptance, and physical/psychological safety. 4. Short and long-term goals for an organization.

This survey, by Yamada, Marsella & Yamada, measures: 1. The individual's degree of involvement with a specific, self-identified ethnic peer group. 2. Connections between behavior and cultural identity.

This 31-question survey, created by a multi-ethnic research team, measures one's degree of empathetic perspective-taking ability towards persons of other races or ethnicities. It has been used in educational contexts around the world, and translated into many languages. (This is the english version.) We note that some users feel it "centers whiteness" and therefore we suggest that caution be used when considering it for use with persons or groups of marginalized identity. Its most effective use is probably for gauging degree of privilege in non-marginalized groups.

This framework or checklist is intended to help the instructor or institution gauge the extent to a course aligns on diversity and inclusion across a wide variety of factors: from purpose and goals through pedagogy, participants, assessment methods and content.

This study, by Purdue scholar Horane Diatta-Holgate, describes the creation and validation of a survey which asks the student to evaluate whether the instructor uses culturally inclusive language, pedagogy and behavior in the post-secondary classroom, and to define the degree to which that student feels included. While culturally relevant and culturally competent pedagogy is important to inclusion, this is the first known tool to ask for feedback from the students, as opposed to probing teacher attitudes.

This rubric, created by the American Association of Colleges & Universities in 2010, and endorsed by the Purdue Faculty Senate in 2011, forms the foundational definition and sorting method for the activities & materials in this digital toolbox.  the rubric measures: cultural self-awareness, knowledge of others' cultural worldview frameworks, empathy, communication, curiosity & openness.

In today's world, it is vital to understand teamwork as a frequent source of intercultural conflict and to work intentionally on intercultural teamwork skills! This assessment measures: 1. Participants' level of supportive communication, and the abilities to enact (a) civil conflict resolution, and (b) a group-oriented work ethic.

This assessment measures: 1. Participants' level of intercultural competence in the following areas: curiosity, respect for diversity, cultural self-awareness, knowledge of host-country language, knowledge of host-country context, critical thinking, adaptability, and conflict resolution.

Originally Published in Italian in December, 2019. English translation published in February 2021 (see Links tab).

This assessment measures: 1. The extent to which participants are "advancing just, fair, and conscientious global exchange, learning, and service partnerships" (Hartman, 2015). Downloadable pdf.

This Critical Reflection Rubric draws heavily on Patti Clayton's "Describe, Evaluate & Analyze Learning" (DEAL) model for deepening experiential and service learning outcomes. In this version, Clayton's rubric is mapped onto elements of the AAC&U Intercultural Competence Rubric.  Comes with a lesson plan. 

Scholars have shown a correlation between time spent living and working abroad & creativity.  Of pertinence to successfully negotiating cultural difference, the creativity rubric measures: willingness to take risks, innovative thinking, the ability to embrace contradictions and to synthesize knowledge.

This rubric was adapted primarily from the 2014 article on assessing intercultural content in travel journals, published by Malleus and Slattery. It measures the writer's comments in five categories of data: culture shock, communication challenges, cultural appreciation, cultural comparisons & reports of adaptative behavior.

This rubric was developed primarily from the 1976 Inventory of the same name by Dr. Brent D. Ruben, of Rutgers School of Communication (retired), filtered through the lens of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986). It allows an observer to categorize or "grade" behavior that indicates: respect, openness, empathy, tolerance of ambiguity & posture towards authority. This HubICL tool comes with a lesson plan.

Since publishing their initial think piece on Socially Just Assessment (NILOA, August, 2018), Henning & Lundquist have regularly offered further examples and discussion of the "SJA" concepts at professional educator conferences and on the Campus Labs-Anthology website. This presentation was among the first to offer concrete examples of what the various levels of engagement along their transformational continuum of socially just assessment might look like. (Examples begin on slide 15).

This bibliography encompasses three categories of scholarly production and praxis related to Socially Just Assessment (SJA): citations of calls-to-action dating from 1977 through 2018, citations of frameworks & learning models relating to SJA, and a brief compendium of institutional case studies.  (For a more complete catalogue of case studies, see the Master List in this same HubICL collection.)

"The aim of the project is to engage stakeholders across the field in a conversation about terms, ideas, and practices associated with culturally responsive and socially just assessment. To this end, a series of webinars and podcasts have been produced. The webinars and the podcast series..." are available here.

Additional details and support are available at the Student Affairs Assessment Leaders website (available from link above), including further blog posts, a listserv sign-up form and a repository of presentations, tools and tips about assessment in student affairs contexts.

This paper presents a proposal of a Model of Student’ Assessment for Social Justice that seeks to go further in the construction of an education that contributes to a real and deep transformation of society.

The proposed model considers and learns from several "alternative" student assessment approaches: Inclusive, Authentic, Culturally Responsive, Participatory, Democratic-Deliberative and Critical Assessment. With this, a three-dimensional model is formulated: equitable assessment, participatory assessment and critical assessment.

NOTE: Although the abstract is in English, this paper is in Spanish.

This 2009 think piece on social justice & assessment focuses primarily on the British context & was among the very first to link related fields of assessment thought under the 'social justice' heading. It offers some useful definitions of terms, including of social justice, cultural justice and associational justice, as well as a thorough discussion of classroom & e-assessment.

 Prior to 2009, the few scholars who published on the often biased nature of educational assessment tended to use phrases like culturally-fair, culturally-responsive or anti-racist to describe assessment that looks to avoid and/or dismantle educational inequity.

Socially Just Assessment, somewhat like "flipping" the lecture-based classroom structure to a more active-learning mode, is more of a methodology or a mindset than a set of specific instruments or activities.  That said, the items listed in this resource can be particularly helpful to formative assessment of individual and institutional capacity to co-create more socially just societies.

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Analyze passages for diversity and Intercultural Development Continuum stages. 2. Recognize and discuss Intercultural Development Continuum stages and views on gay rights. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. "Raise new questions about the relationship between individuals, communities, and land. 2. Enhance understanding and empathy for peoples experiencing the loss of connection to home landscapes & new experiences in new landscapes. 3. Build skills for personal resilience in the face of future changes in personal connection to landscape. 4. Begin to consider the role of migration (and associated loss and/or imported preconceptions about landscapes) in past and present land use (e.g. in the American West)" (Ryan, 2012). 

30-question survey that measures just what it sounds like it measures.

This assessment measures: 1. The culturally-responsive classroom primarily in terms of instructor behavior on four factors: diverse language, diverse pedagogy, inclusion, and cultural inclusion. 2. The effect of instructor behavior on the test-taker. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Learn what microaggressions are and be able to identify them. 2. Understand why microaggressions may be harmful or hurtful to others. 3. Understand the importance of rephrasing microaggressions in a way that is respectful.