I haven't really though about this before, so my take will be cold and/or bad.
I guess the options would be to find new assessments that don't have these issues, eliminate the issues in existing assessments, or just control for them. I don't know how to actually achieve any of those things though.
I guess as a starting point, defining what exactly you're trying to assess is important. Is it just knowledge? If so, can you offer multiple assessment formats to suit different students, that still provide a fair comparative assessment of the relevant knowledge. (Is the need for comparative assessment part of the overall problem? Would we serve students better without it?)
If you're trying to assess a competency like report-writing, can that be broadened to "communication" to allow for a variety of formats/styles?
I guess things get progressively more expensive, but if you had an expert assessor who engaged with the students to assess them more dynamically one-on-one, you might overcome some of these issues. It introduces a whole lot of new issues though with subjectivity/corruption/abuse.
As for controlling for the inequity, I guess there would need to be a control assessment (or series of them) in each format with a students own choice of content, to assess their competency in each assessment type and derive a sort of handicap for each. That'd be an easy system to exploit though. Maybe analysis of historical performance by assessment type could be an indicator, but people do change over time.
I guess like accessibility in general, the key is to have options to cater for people's differing needs. There's a cost associated with that, but it's one we have a moral obligation to pay.
View more