The first in a series outlining my concerns with the “two-lane” approach to assessment security. Here, I explain how this approach rolls back years of hard-won progress towards inclusive education.
This argument only holds if you conflate a whole bunch of things.
I can’t speak to the accessibility aspect as it’s well outside my area of expertise. It’s critically important, but the framing of the two-lane model in the article is one of convenience for argument’s sake, rather than an accurate critique.
The long-standing requirement to be able to identify the student completing the work is not specific to the Age of AI. It’s not that we ‘now’ have to do this.
The article claims the ‘two lanes’ approach is disingenuous, but declaring assessments that students need to pass as "high-stakes" is exactly this. The ‘two lanes’ approach doesn’t preclude multiple attempts, feedback, or alternative formats. It doesn't preclude support. An assessment can be secure and support progression without being punitive or high-stakes in nature. Calling assessments "high-stakes" simply because they must be passed misrepresents both the intent and the flexibility of the approach.
The term "invigilated" is (successfully) demonised, but again, it’s not accurate. The article frames an invigilator as an Orwellian ‘watcher’, scowling face, stop-watch and clipboard in hand. In many cases, the person responsible for invigilating the assessment is a critical component of the assessment, and they support the student throughout.
It’s not possible to have an environment that isn’t resource-restricted.
Practically no one who’s thought about this long enough advocates for a return to ‘blue book’ exams. If they do, the exam format is the issue, not the ‘lanes’.
Invigilators aren’t Satan incarnate, being required to pass an assessment doesn’t make it high-stakes, non-resource-restricted environments don’t exist, and Lane One assessments are not hand-written assessments that you get one chance to pass, while you’re stared at in an exam hall, unless you say they are.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate this - and I think your points are really important. Look, "straw man" is a fair effect to take away from this. I've really taken pains not to use the term "exams" over and over, because they're obviously not the whole picture, though it's very difficult to avoid thinking that we're reading about exams when I keep saying "high-stakes supervised time-restricted in-person assessment".
I stand by "high-stakes", because part of the concern I have is that (a) these secure methods are going to be the make-or-break factor in students getting their degrees, and (b) if we know universities, and we do, if 50% of each subject has to be secure, they'll be running single secure assessments worth 50% or more for every subject. Splitting that percentage would lead to vast financial and logistical challenges. That is the definition of a high-stakes assessment.
BUT, I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'm saying we have to work through this, if it is going to be done with inclusion in mind. So maybe a straw man is helpful in this case, because it forces us to articulate what we really do mean.
Mmmm, I would have thought that if you can't speak to the accessibility aspect then you're not engaging with the basic point of this article? I read accessibility in relation to a wide range of students as being the main point here...
This is such a massive concern for me Tamsin! "Accessibility" is quite a specific term, as well, and one which I didn't use as it would speak to legislatively mandated things (at a public education provider, the Disability Discrimination Act is law) like ensuring physical building access, translation alternatives for people with sensory disabilities, and so on.
This argument only holds if you conflate a whole bunch of things.
I can’t speak to the accessibility aspect as it’s well outside my area of expertise. It’s critically important, but the framing of the two-lane model in the article is one of convenience for argument’s sake, rather than an accurate critique.
The long-standing requirement to be able to identify the student completing the work is not specific to the Age of AI. It’s not that we ‘now’ have to do this.
The article claims the ‘two lanes’ approach is disingenuous, but declaring assessments that students need to pass as "high-stakes" is exactly this. The ‘two lanes’ approach doesn’t preclude multiple attempts, feedback, or alternative formats. It doesn't preclude support. An assessment can be secure and support progression without being punitive or high-stakes in nature. Calling assessments "high-stakes" simply because they must be passed misrepresents both the intent and the flexibility of the approach.
The term "invigilated" is (successfully) demonised, but again, it’s not accurate. The article frames an invigilator as an Orwellian ‘watcher’, scowling face, stop-watch and clipboard in hand. In many cases, the person responsible for invigilating the assessment is a critical component of the assessment, and they support the student throughout.
It’s not possible to have an environment that isn’t resource-restricted.
Practically no one who’s thought about this long enough advocates for a return to ‘blue book’ exams. If they do, the exam format is the issue, not the ‘lanes’.
Invigilators aren’t Satan incarnate, being required to pass an assessment doesn’t make it high-stakes, non-resource-restricted environments don’t exist, and Lane One assessments are not hand-written assessments that you get one chance to pass, while you’re stared at in an exam hall, unless you say they are.
You've got yourself a straw man here, Miriam.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate this - and I think your points are really important. Look, "straw man" is a fair effect to take away from this. I've really taken pains not to use the term "exams" over and over, because they're obviously not the whole picture, though it's very difficult to avoid thinking that we're reading about exams when I keep saying "high-stakes supervised time-restricted in-person assessment".
I stand by "high-stakes", because part of the concern I have is that (a) these secure methods are going to be the make-or-break factor in students getting their degrees, and (b) if we know universities, and we do, if 50% of each subject has to be secure, they'll be running single secure assessments worth 50% or more for every subject. Splitting that percentage would lead to vast financial and logistical challenges. That is the definition of a high-stakes assessment.
BUT, I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'm saying we have to work through this, if it is going to be done with inclusion in mind. So maybe a straw man is helpful in this case, because it forces us to articulate what we really do mean.
Mmmm, I would have thought that if you can't speak to the accessibility aspect then you're not engaging with the basic point of this article? I read accessibility in relation to a wide range of students as being the main point here...
This is such a massive concern for me Tamsin! "Accessibility" is quite a specific term, as well, and one which I didn't use as it would speak to legislatively mandated things (at a public education provider, the Disability Discrimination Act is law) like ensuring physical building access, translation alternatives for people with sensory disabilities, and so on.
I'm talking about equity, which again in Australia is a requirement under the HESF, but is a different thing. Mark, this may help: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/guidance-notes/guidance-note-diversity-and-equity