The Road Forward? Alternative Assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students at the Tertiary Level

Abstract

This report looked at the important, but contentious issue of alternative assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people studying at the tertiary level. Presented below, its findings give expression to the views of 47 respondents, chosen from Indigenous communities, Commonwealth and State Government departments, the tertiary education sector and business.

Towards Culturally Appropriate Assessment? A Contribution to the Debates

“…The first is raised by Christensen and Lilley (1997, p. 2). They acknowledged that many universities have in place policies that recognise the cultural diversity of students and are sensitive to the ‘different cultural backgrounds, socialisation experiences and living conditions of indigenous peoples’ but claimed that universities nevertheless do not openly embrace the idea of ‘varying assessment criteria for culturally different students or other equity targeted groups’ is purely a political one.…”

“…Cultural inclusion calls for culturally appropriate forms of assessment to be included in assessment practices, which take into account the cultural experiences and knowledge of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Christensen and Lilley, 1997; Sakrzewski, 1997; Craven, 2003; Verjee, 2003; Philpott et al ., 2004; Cockburn et al ., 2007). There are four positions highlighted here.…”

“…(Bishop and Glynn, 1999, p. 78) They argued that what is equally important is a 'working knowledge' of the cultural backgrounds of students and the ways by which individuals and groups make meaning in a given learning situation, including how this might affect other learners, noting that the culture of the lecturer or assessor can influence what is seen to count as knowledge (or in this case assessment). However, outside the stand-alone indigenous and ethnic minority higher education institutions, it is the cultural inclusion aspect that predominates in practice as critiqued or noted previously by indigenous (and non-indigenous) educators (Christensen and Lilley, 1997;Bishop and Glynn, 1999;Padilla, 2001;Johnston, 2003;Verjee, 2003;Philpott et al, 2004;Bevan-Brown, 2005;Afrin, 2009). If cultural inclusion is the standard norm, then what can be done to improve on that norm?…”

“…However, outside the stand‐alone indigenous and ethnic minority higher education institutions, it is the cultural inclusion aspect that predominates in practice as critiqued or noted previously by indigenous (and non‐indigenous) educators (Christensen and Lilley, 1997; Bishop and Glynn, 1999; Padilla, 2001; Johnston, 2003; Verjee, 2003; Philpott et al ., 2004; Bevan‐Brown, 2005; Afrin, 2009). If cultural inclusion is the standard norm, then what can be done to improve on that norm?…”

Cultural Maintenance, Ownership, and Multiple Perspectives: features of Web-based delivery to promote equity

“…A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the fact that Indigenous learners approach learning with distinct learning styles and that they are not catered for in mainstream educational contexts (Harris, 1990). Additional research has pointed to the inequity of assessment methods, failure to consider Indigenous input into the system, inappropriate lecturing styles and in exible forms of assessment (Christensen & Lilley, 1997). There has recently been a push for institutions in Australia to adopt cross-cultural curricula, exible approaches to delivery and culturally appropriate pedagogies and courses of study (McDonald, 1993).…”