{"id":{"repo_id":"brock","oai_identifier":"oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/19652"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/brock/oai:brocku.scholaris.ca:10464/19652","repository":{"repo_id":"brock","name":"Brock University","base_url":"https://brocku.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Equitable Classroom Assessment Validity: Process or Product? A Mixed Methods Study at One Ontario College","abstract":"Classroom assessment validity is the cornerstone to preparing grading judgments about students. To date, few studies document approaches to classroom assessment validity for college contexts. This participatory, mixed methods research study explored classroom assessment validity for one mandatory, first semester, college communications credit, in Ontario, Canada through the lenses of reconciliation, equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and sustainability. The purpose of this study was for the researcher to come together with students and faculty to explore and describe classroom assessment validity for one final summative assessment using validity concepts and a process that considered building assessment literacy, integrating the values of reconciliation, EDI, and sustainability. Participants included 71 students, seven faculty members, and the researcher herself (as the researcher-participant). Student participants responded to a survey asking about their perceptions of assessments in the college credit; the researcher-participant and faculty participants then entered into a community of practice (CoP) to interrogate classroom assessment validity in the credit. The study converged into CoP Focus Group 6 where student survey results and earlier CoP Focus Groups 1–5 informed the development of assessment validity for the final summative exam. The findings supported the use of the researcher’s seven-part approach for grounding reconciliation, EDI and sustainability in classroom assessment validity and that the following threats to classroom assessment validity needed to be addressed within the communications credit: (1) assessment purpose and use: narrowing the assessment purpose and use to a learning purpose focused on learning first-semester communications skills as identified in the credit learning outcomes while enacting this learning purpose through formative, metacognitive and affective inferences; (2) faculty conceptual framework: offering faculty opportunities to reify their conceptual frameworks towards improved assessment literacy and assessment inferences; (3) cultural validity: integrating student conceptual frameworks into all validity concepts towards improved student self-efficacy, metacognition, motivation, belonging, representation, and socially-mediated learning opportunities; developing a needs analysis for students; (4) construct validity: clarifying credit learning outcomes with the faculty team towards consistent expectations while redeveloping culturally-valid learning outcomes with consideration to reconciliation, EDI and generative AI; (5) instructional validity: constructive alignment of instruction and assessment; integration of assessment for learning and Universal Design for Learning in instructional approach; (6) inferential validity: using assessment tools with students towards improved inferences (exemplars, rubrics etc.); (7) systemic validity: continuing a community of practice for faculty to build assessment literacy, manage assessment change, enhance faculty agency, improve assessment workload and sustainably lead the credit. There was no evidence that the final summative assessment supported summative inferences for faculty. Overall, the use of this seven-part approach identified several supports and threats to assessment validity in the credit’s final summative assessment and recommendations for practice. Findings illuminated the utility of pragmatic approaches to assessment validity in learning-centred college contexts, particularly the value of a CoP towards sustaining assessment validity. The study contributes to a research gap on assessment validity for college classroom assessment and explores an approach to assessment validity grounded in the values of EDI, sustainability, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (as identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 94 Calls to Action).","abstract_html":"Classroom assessment validity is the cornerstone to preparing grading judgments about students. To date, few studies document approaches to classroom assessment validity for college contexts. This participatory, mixed methods research study explored classroom assessment validity for one mandatory, first semester, college communications credit, in Ontario, Canada through the lenses of reconciliation, equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and sustainability. The purpose of this study was for the researcher to come together with students and faculty to explore and describe classroom assessment validity for one final summative assessment using validity concepts and a process that considered building assessment literacy, integrating the values of reconciliation, EDI, and sustainability. Participants included 71 students, seven faculty members, and the researcher herself (as the researcher-participant). Student participants responded to a survey asking about their perceptions of assessments in the college credit; the researcher-participant and faculty participants then entered into a community of practice (CoP) to interrogate classroom assessment validity in the credit. The study converged into CoP Focus Group 6 where student survey results and earlier CoP Focus Groups 1–5 informed the development of assessment validity for the final summative exam. The findings supported the use of the researcher’s seven-part approach for grounding reconciliation, EDI and sustainability in classroom assessment validity and that the following threats to classroom assessment validity needed to be addressed within the communications credit: (1) assessment purpose and use: narrowing the assessment purpose and use to a learning purpose focused on learning first-semester communications skills as identified in the credit learning outcomes while enacting this learning purpose through formative, metacognitive and affective inferences; (2) faculty conceptual framework: offering faculty opportunities to reify their conceptual frameworks towards improved assessment literacy and assessment inferences; (3) cultural validity: integrating student conceptual frameworks into all validity concepts towards improved student self-efficacy, metacognition, motivation, belonging, representation, and socially-mediated learning opportunities; developing a needs analysis for students; (4) construct validity: clarifying credit learning outcomes with the faculty team towards consistent expectations while redeveloping culturally-valid learning outcomes with consideration to reconciliation, EDI and generative AI; (5) instructional validity: constructive alignment of instruction and assessment; integration of assessment for learning and Universal Design for Learning in instructional approach; (6) inferential validity: using assessment tools with students towards improved inferences (exemplars, rubrics etc.); (7) systemic validity: continuing a community of practice for faculty to build assessment literacy, manage assessment change, enhance faculty agency, improve assessment workload and sustainably lead the credit. There was no evidence that the final summative assessment supported summative inferences for faculty. Overall, the use of this seven-part approach identified several supports and threats to assessment validity in the credit’s final summative assessment and recommendations for practice. Findings illuminated the utility of pragmatic approaches to assessment validity in learning-centred college contexts, particularly the value of a CoP towards sustaining assessment validity. The study contributes to a research gap on assessment validity for college classroom assessment and explores an approach to assessment validity grounded in the values of EDI, sustainability, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (as identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 94 Calls to Action).","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Britto, Maxine"],"institution":"Brock University","degree_name":"Ph.D. Educational Studies","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":"Faculty of Education","degree_department":"Department of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies in Education","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Gallagher, Tiffany"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-09-19","date_published":"2025-09-19","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:23:02Z","subjects":["communities of practice","classroom assessment","assessment validity","postsecondary"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"],"rights_urls":["http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10464/19652","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Gallagher, Tiffany"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Department of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies in Education"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Britto, Maxine"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-09-19T14:43:56Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-09-19T14:43:56Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2025-09-19"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Brock University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Faculty of Education"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D. Educational Studies"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["communities of practice","classroom assessment","assessment validity","postsecondary"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10464/19652"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Classroom assessment validity is the cornerstone to preparing grading judgments about students. To date, few studies document approaches to classroom assessment validity for college contexts. This participatory, mixed methods research study explored classroom assessment validity for one mandatory, first semester, college communications credit, in Ontario, Canada through the lenses of reconciliation, equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and sustainability. The purpose of this study was for the researcher to come together with students and faculty to explore and describe classroom assessment validity for one final summative assessment using validity concepts and a process that considered building assessment literacy, integrating the values of reconciliation, EDI, and sustainability. Participants included 71 students, seven faculty members, and the researcher herself (as the researcher-participant). Student participants responded to a survey asking about their perceptions of assessments in the college credit; the researcher-participant and faculty participants then entered into a community of practice (CoP) to interrogate classroom assessment validity in the credit. The study converged into CoP Focus Group 6 where student survey results and earlier CoP Focus Groups 1–5 informed the development of assessment validity for the final summative exam. The findings supported the use of the researcher’s seven-part approach for grounding reconciliation, EDI and sustainability in classroom assessment validity and that the following threats to classroom assessment validity needed to be addressed within the communications credit: (1) assessment purpose and use: narrowing the assessment purpose and use to a learning purpose focused on learning first-semester communications skills as identified in the credit learning outcomes while enacting this learning purpose through formative, metacognitive and affective inferences; (2) faculty conceptual framework: offering faculty opportunities to reify their conceptual frameworks towards improved assessment literacy and assessment inferences; (3) cultural validity: integrating student conceptual frameworks into all validity concepts towards improved student self-efficacy, metacognition, motivation, belonging, representation, and socially-mediated learning opportunities; developing a needs analysis for students; (4) construct validity: clarifying credit learning outcomes with the faculty team towards consistent expectations while redeveloping culturally-valid learning outcomes with consideration to reconciliation, EDI and generative AI; (5) instructional validity: constructive alignment of instruction and assessment; integration of assessment for learning and Universal Design for Learning in instructional approach; (6) inferential validity: using assessment tools with students towards improved inferences (exemplars, rubrics etc.); (7) systemic validity: continuing a community of practice for faculty to build assessment literacy, manage assessment change, enhance faculty agency, improve assessment workload and sustainably lead the credit. There was no evidence that the final summative assessment supported summative inferences for faculty. Overall, the use of this seven-part approach identified several supports and threats to assessment validity in the credit’s final summative assessment and recommendations for practice. Findings illuminated the utility of pragmatic approaches to assessment validity in learning-centred college contexts, particularly the value of a CoP towards sustaining assessment validity. The study contributes to a research gap on assessment validity for college classroom assessment and explores an approach to assessment validity grounded in the values of EDI, sustainability, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (as identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 94 Calls to Action)."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Equitable Classroom Assessment Validity: Process or Product? A Mixed Methods Study at One Ontario College"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Gallagher, Tiffany"],"dc:contributor.department":["Department of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies in Education"],"dc:creator":["Britto, Maxine"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-09-19T14:43:56Z"],"dc:date.available":["2025-09-19T14:43:56Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2025-09-19"],"dc:description.abstract":["Classroom assessment validity is the cornerstone to preparing grading judgments about students. To date, few studies document approaches to classroom assessment validity for college contexts. This participatory, mixed methods research study explored classroom assessment validity for one mandatory, first semester, college communications credit, in Ontario, Canada through the lenses of reconciliation, equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and sustainability. The purpose of this study was for the researcher to come together with students and faculty to explore and describe classroom assessment validity for one final summative assessment using validity concepts and a process that considered building assessment literacy, integrating the values of reconciliation, EDI, and sustainability. Participants included 71 students, seven faculty members, and the researcher herself (as the researcher-participant). Student participants responded to a survey asking about their perceptions of assessments in the college credit; the researcher-participant and faculty participants then entered into a community of practice (CoP) to interrogate classroom assessment validity in the credit. The study converged into CoP Focus Group 6 where student survey results and earlier CoP Focus Groups 1–5 informed the development of assessment validity for the final summative exam. The findings supported the use of the researcher’s seven-part approach for grounding reconciliation, EDI and sustainability in classroom assessment validity and that the following threats to classroom assessment validity needed to be addressed within the communications credit: (1) assessment purpose and use: narrowing the assessment purpose and use to a learning purpose focused on learning first-semester communications skills as identified in the credit learning outcomes while enacting this learning purpose through formative, metacognitive and affective inferences; (2) faculty conceptual framework: offering faculty opportunities to reify their conceptual frameworks towards improved assessment literacy and assessment inferences; (3) cultural validity: integrating student conceptual frameworks into all validity concepts towards improved student self-efficacy, metacognition, motivation, belonging, representation, and socially-mediated learning opportunities; developing a needs analysis for students; (4) construct validity: clarifying credit learning outcomes with the faculty team towards consistent expectations while redeveloping culturally-valid learning outcomes with consideration to reconciliation, EDI and generative AI; (5) instructional validity: constructive alignment of instruction and assessment; integration of assessment for learning and Universal Design for Learning in instructional approach; (6) inferential validity: using assessment tools with students towards improved inferences (exemplars, rubrics etc.); (7) systemic validity: continuing a community of practice for faculty to build assessment literacy, manage assessment change, enhance faculty agency, improve assessment workload and sustainably lead the credit. There was no evidence that the final summative assessment supported summative inferences for faculty. Overall, the use of this seven-part approach identified several supports and threats to assessment validity in the credit’s final summative assessment and recommendations for practice. Findings illuminated the utility of pragmatic approaches to assessment validity in learning-centred college contexts, particularly the value of a CoP towards sustaining assessment validity. The study contributes to a research gap on assessment validity for college classroom assessment and explores an approach to assessment validity grounded in the values of EDI, sustainability, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (as identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s 94 Calls to Action)."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10464/19652"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["Brock University"],"dc:rights":["Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"dc:subject":["communities of practice","classroom assessment","assessment validity","postsecondary"],"dc:title":["Equitable Classroom Assessment Validity: Process or Product? A Mixed Methods Study at One Ontario College"],"dc:type":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Faculty of Education"],"thesis:degree_level":["Doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D. Educational Studies"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:23:02Z"}