Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

Students’ experiences of fairness in summative assessment: A study in a

higher education context
Ali Darabi Bazvand a, b, *, Amirhossein Rasooli b
a
Department of English, Catholic University in Erbil, Erbil, Iraq
b
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Given that assessment outcomes during higher education courses highly determine the recognition students
Classroom assessment receive from their instructors, classmates, and educational community, the scrutiny of fairness in assessments is
Fairness in assessment critical to ensure positive student experiences and psychosocial outcomes. Despite the enormous influence of
Higher education
assessment on student learning, research on various dimensions of fairness in assessment in higher education is
Students’ experiences of fairness
Summative assessment
yet to receive adequate attention. This study has examined the postgraduate university students’ articulated
experiences of fairness in summative assessments within the higher education context of Iran. Based on the
participants’ qualitative responses, two themes were identified that constituted students’ perceptions of un­
fairness: ‘equity’ and ‘interactional fairness’. Furthermore, students reported suggestions to promote fairness of
assessments in higher education contexts that included themes such as ‘the need for balancing power and col­
lective knowledge in the assessment practices’ and ‘the need to create an advocacy body to defend the rights of
students for fair assessments’. These findings highlight the attention to the factors driving students’ perceptions
of unfairness and mechanisms for enhancing fair assessment practices within a university context.

1. Introduction students’ articulated experiences of fairness as the basis to contribute to

Fairness is an underpinning quality of assessment. In higher educa­
tion, fairness in assessment impacts students’ cognitive and socio-
emotional learning (Chory-Assad, 2002; Rasooli, DeLuca, Rasegh, &
Fathi, 2019), perceptions of effective feedback (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008;
Seevers, Rowe, & Skinner, 2014), and evaluation of instructors’ effec­
tiveness (Gotlieb, 2009; Tata, 1999). Given that assessment outcomes
during higher education courses highly determine the recognition stu­
dents receive from their instructors, classmates, and educational com­
munity, the scrutiny of fairness in assessments is critical to ensure
positive student experiences and psychosocial outcomes (Grace, 2017).
Assessment outcomes also certify the knowledge and skills students have
sufficiently mastered in their relevant areas of expertise, opening the
gates for students’ future employment pathways. Thus, it is conceivable
that students would consider fairness in assessment as fundamental to
receive the outcomes and recognitions they deserve during and after
higher education. Despite the enormous influence of assessment on
student outcomes, research on various dimensions of fairness in
assessment in higher education is yet to receive adequate attention
(Grace, 2017; Nesbit & Burton, 2006). This study aimed to explore
addressing this gap.
Prior studies on fairness in assessment in higher education essentially
adopted quantitative survey methods to examine students’ perceptions
of fairness in various domains, including assessment methods (Burger,
2017; Mauldin, 2009; O’Neill, 2017; Sambell, McDowell, & Brown,
1997), feedback (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008), grading (Nesbit & Burton,
2006), cheating (Pitt & Winstone, 2018), test fairness (Zlatkin-­
Troitschanskaia et al., 2019), as well as the relationship between per­
ceptions of fairness and outcome variables. Students’ perceived fairness
of assessment methods has received relatively more attention than other
domains, signaling the major direction of fairness research within
assessment in higher education (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008; Nesbit & Burton,
2006; O’Neill, 2017).
Despite the promising efforts to conceptualize and empirically
investigate fairness in prior studies, more research is needed to focus
directly on fairness in interpreting students’ perceptions using relevant
theories. Recent reviews of fairness research have shown that fewer
studies have employed theories to investigate fairness in assessment
contexts (Nisbet, 2017; Rasooli, Zandi, & DeLuca, 2019; Tierney, 2013),
calling for identifying relevant theoretical foundations. Scholars have

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ali.darabi@cue.edu.krd (A. Darabi Bazvand), amir.rasooli@queensu.ca (A. Rasooli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101118
Received 9 June 2021; Received in revised form 20 November 2021; Accepted 3 December 2021
Available online 6 December 2021
0191-491X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
suggested social psychology theory as a sound theoretical foundation for
examining fairness in assessment (Grace, 2017; Rasooli, Zandi et al.,
2019). Social psychology theory posits that students’ perceptions are
impacted by their fairness evaluations of outcome distributions, pro­
cedures for these distributions, and the quality of interactions (e.g.,
respect) and communication of information during outcome distribu­
tions (e.g., justifications of information (Adams, 1965; Bies & Moag,
1986; Kazemi, 2016; Leventhal, 1980; Resh & Sabbagh, 2016).
Building on social psychology theory, continued studies are needed
to examine students’ perceptions of fairness in higher education con­
texts. Moreover, additional research has called for delineating students’
perceptions of assessment qualities and dimensions, including fairness
across educational cultures (Fletcher, Meyer, Anderson, Johnston, &
Rees, 2012; McMillan, 2016). In line with these research calls, we
explored Iranian university students’ perceptions of assessment fairness
using social psychology theory. As previous studies (Ahmadi, 2021;
Rasooli, DeLuca et al., 2019) have found that students remained silent
and selected inaction as the most frequent response to unfair and un­
democratic assessments due to power imbalance, this study explored
what suggestions students might consider for enhancing fairness of as­
sessments within higher education. To that end, this study was guided
by the following two research questions:
1) What are students’ articulated experiences of unfairness in assess­
ment in higher education?
2) What are students’ suggestions to enhance fairness in assessment in
higher education?
2. Literature review
2.1. Major research directions on students’ perceptions of assessment and
fairness
Research on students’ perceptions of assessment has provided initial
evidence mapping out fairness in various domains in higher education.
Such research is recently growing to examine how students interpret and
engage with assessment processes and outcomes, including fairness as a
basis to enhance their learning (Brown, 2021; McMillan, 2016;
Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2005). In this literature, fairness has been
given scattered attention as a component of students’ perceptions of
assessment. In an early synthesis of 36 empirical studies focusing on
students’ perceptions of assessment, Struyven et al. (2005) reported that
most students, particularly those with poorer learning skills, preferred to
receive multiple-choice tests as they seemed easier. However, other
students considered alternative assessments fairer because they were
more authentic, valued their efforts, promoted effective feedback, and
were more transparent.
In a more analytical review a decade later, McMillan (2016) argued
for additional research to delineate students’ perceptions of assessment,
including fairness and their associated relationships with
achievement-related constructs (see also McInerney et al., 2009).
McMillan (2016) summarized three significant directions of research on
students’ perceptions of assessment. The first direction is conducted by
Brown and colleagues, focusing on investigating students’ conceptions
using the Student Conceptions of Assessment survey to scaffold students’
self-regulation (e.g., Brown, 2011, 2021; Brown, Irving, Peterson, &
Hirschfeld, 2009). Students’ conceptions of assessment included four
dimensions: (a) assessment improves learning, (b) assessment makes
students and schools accountable, (c) assessment is beneficial, and (d)
assessment is irrelevant. Fairness was measured in this survey directly
with an item (e.g., assessment is unfair to students). While not explicitly
stated, unfairness perceptions can also be an underpinning reason for
‘assessment is irrelevant’ dimension (Daniels & Poth, 2017).
The second major direction of research was conducted by Alkharusi
and colleagues (e.g., Alkharusi, 2011) and Dorman and colleagues (e.g.,
Dorman & Knightley, 2006). Alkharusi (2011) has examined students’
2
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
perceived classroom assessment environment using a survey and
included an explicit item focusing on fairness (e.g., In this class, the
assessment results do not fairly reflect the effort put in studying the subject.).
Dorman and colleagues have used Perceptions of Assessment Task In­
ventory and conceptualized students’ assessment-related task concep­
tions into five dimensions: (a) congruence with planned learning (i.e.,
alignment of assessment tasks and objectives), (b) authenticity (i.e.,
tasks reflecting real situations), (c) student consultation (i.e., student
involvement), (d) transparency (i.e., clear assessment tasks), and (e)
diversity (i.e., equal opportunity o complete tasks). Fairness was
explicitly measured in congruence with planned learning dimension
using three items (e.g., My assessment in science is a fair indicator of my
work.). The third major direction of research was developed by Pekrun
and colleagues examining emotions about assessment using Test Emo­
tions Questionnaire and Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (e.g., Pekrun,
Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). While fairness has not yet
been investigated in this major research direction, recent qualitative
research showed that students reported multiple emotions, including
hope, anxiety, and joy in response to assessment fairness (Rasooli,
DeLuca et al., 2019).
Providing his analytical contributions to the literature, McMillan
(2016) contended that students’ perceptions of assessment could be
understood in three phases, including before, during, and after assess­
ment. He placed fairness in the after-assessment phase, articulating that
once students are informed about the assessment results, they develop
fairness perceptions that have been influenced by these results as well as
students’ affective responses such as satisfaction, distress, and/or fear.
However, he did not provide details into the conceptions of fairness,
given that the reviewed three major research directions in his synthesis
had not also provided explicit theories to interpret fairness.
The additional major direction of research identified in this literature
was conducted by Flores and colleagues (e.g., Flores, Veiga Simão,
Barros, & Pereira, 2015; Pereira, Flores, & Niklasson., 2016). In their
study, Flores and colleagues have used multiple methods to investigate
students’ perceptions of fairness as a key assessment dimension. Flores
et al. (2015) surveyed 378 undergraduate students’ perceptions of
fairness, effectiveness, and feedback of assessment methods in two
universities in Portugal. Fairness was measured with two items (e.g.,
learner-centered assessment methods such as portfolios are fairer than
traditional ones.). Students assessed with learning-centered methods
tended to perceive assessment to be more equitable and effective. Per­
eira et al. (2016) reviewed 30 studies published in Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education journal to identify what is known about
assessment in higher education in Europe after installing the Bologna
process. These studies drew attention to three key findings: 1) assess­
ment method, its effectiveness, and assessment fairness influence stu­
dents’ learning, 2) the use of self-and peer-assessment enhances
formative assessment, and 3) assessment practices are influenced by the
teaching and learning environments. This body of research also attests to
the significance of fairness in students’ perceptions, alluding to more
substantive engagement with theories of fairness to empirically examine
this topic in higher education contexts.
2.2. Individual studies focusing on students’ perceptions of assessment
and fairness
A growing body of individual studies has begun to examine fairness
in assessment in higher education empirically. Five of these studies used
social psychology theory to examine students’ perceptions of fairness in
assessment (Burger, 2017; Lizzio & Wilson, 2008; Nesbit & Burton,
2006; O’Neill, 2017; Tripp, Jiang, Olson, & Graso, 2019), with an
additional study identifying fairness as a key component of students’
perceived fairness in inductive analysis of qualitative data (Iannone &
Simpson, 2017). Social psychology theory considers students’ percep­
tions of fairness as influenced by three dimensions of distributive, pro­
cedural, and interactional justice and their impact on individuals’
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118

psychosocial outcomes (Kazemi, 2016; Resh & Sabbagh, 2016).
Distributive justice refers to students’ perceptions of fairness of outcome
distributions such as grades using principles such as equity (Adams,
1965). The principle of equity suggests that students would come up
with the perception of unfairness if they think they did not receive the
outcome (e.g., grade) they deserved based on the analysis of their con­
tributions (e.g., effort) and assessment mechanisms. Procedural justice
refers to students’ perceptions of fairness of procedures for outcome
distributions such as grading procedures, including principles such as
transparency, voice, and consistency (Leventhal, 1980). Finally, inter­
actional justice includes two facets: interpersonal and informational
justice. Interpersonal justice refers to students’ perceptions of the
quality of interactions (e.g., respect) and informational justice refers to
the amount and quality of communication of information during the
outcome distributions (e.g., justifications of information) (Bies & Moag,
1986). Based on specific contexts of judgments (e.g., grading, feedback),
students use the relevant principles in these dimensions to arrive at the
perceptions of fairness.
For example, Burger (2017) examined the departmental-level impact
of assessment methods (i.e., essays vs. examinations) on students’ per­
ceptions of procedural and informational justice of grading. Surveying
around 1500 students from across 48 university departments in Ger­
many, the authors found that students within the departmental culture
of essay-based examinations reported a more positive perception of
control over grading procedures. However, these students reported
lower perceptions of fairness for the validity and accuracy of grading
procedures for essay-based examinations. Perceptions of informational
justice were also higher in essay-based examinations. In another study,
Nesbit and Burton (2006) investigated 88 postgraduate students’ per­
ceptions of fairness in grading and their self-efficacy and satisfaction at a
university in Australia. Students’ perceptions of fairness were found to
impact their self-efficacy and satisfaction significantly. For example,
students with a passing grade but fairness concerns showed lower
self-efficacy. Yet, in another study, Lizzio and Wilson (2008) reported
that students identified fairness (i.e., providing clear, reasonable, and
consistent information) as a key dimension of effective feedback. Ian­
none and Simpson (2017) also qualitatively surveyed the impact of
disciplinary fields (i.e., math vs. education) on students’ perceptions of
summative assessment at a university in the U.K. Students interpreted
fairness of summative assessment to include diverse methods (a range of
methods from multiple-choice exams to projects) to reflect students’
preferences in showing what they know. Combined, these studies pro­
vided initial evidence mapping out students’ perceptions of fairness in
various assessment domains in higher education.
Given the prevalence and significance of fairness in students’ per­
ceptions of assessment, and recommendations to examine students’
assessment perceptions across different educational cultures (Fletcher
et al., 2012), the present study focused on Iranian students’ perceptions
of fairness and their suggestions to enhance fairness in assessment.
3. Method
completion of a thesis. Every semester lasts for 17 weeks, and a credit
system is applied in which one weekly hour of lectures is required for
one credit. In general, M.A. students in ELT should obtain 28–32 credits
for graduation. University instructors offer their courses in line with
ELT’s overall curriculum; however, they have freedom in their syllabi
and approaches to teaching and assessment in the courses. The in­
structors highly rely on summative exams for grading student work
(ranging from 0 to 20) and occasionally use other methods such as
projects, essays, and term papers (Rasian, 2009). In the M.A. program,
the cut-score is 12, and students’ average should not be less than 14 to be
allowed to take the next semester’s courses. It is expected that the ELT
graduates work in the English language teaching jobs within public and
private schools and institutes.
3.2. Research design
This research consists of two parts, namely students’ experiences of
unfairness and their suggestions to improve fairness. For the first part, we
employed phenomenology as a well-established research design to
analyze individuals’ perceptions about a phenomenon, including uni­
versity students’ experiences of fairness in assessment (Creswell & Poth,
2018; Moustakas, 1994). Using this method, we utilized a hybrid
approach with social psychology as a guiding theoretical framework and
inductive analysis to identify the emerging themes. Concerning the
second part, namely participants’ suggestions to enhance fairness, we
conducted an inductive thematic analysis (Patton, 2002) to identify the
themes embedded in the data.
3.3. Setting and participants
After receiving the faculty review of the proposal for research quality
and ethical adherence, the first researcher received clearance from the
relevant Deputy of Education department at a public university to pur­
sue participant recruitment. Students were approached in classroom
time with the instructors’ permission. They were given information
about the study and the email of the first researcher to contact if they
were willing to participate. Adopting a purposive sampling method, we
recruited a total of 18 M.A. students in the ELT program. The use of
purposive sampling allows the researcher to identify and select (groups
of) individuals that are particularly knowledgeable or have ample ex­
periences about a phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Given that
a relatively homogenous group of participants are required for a
phenomenological work (Creswell, Hanson, Clark Plano, & Morales,
2007), second-year participants were recruited because they had expe­
rienced assessments in the first-year course at the graduate level. This
measure was undertaken because first-year students might have had less
exposure to the assessment protocols used in graduate programs. Ten of
the participants were male, and 8 were females, with an average age of
28. More information about students’ demography can be found in
Table 1.

3.1. Context of the study

This study was conducted at a public university in Iran. Tertiary

Table 1
education is divided into four levels in Iran, namely Associate Diploma
Demographic Information of the MA Participants.
(A.A.), Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Master of Arts (M.A.), and Doctor of
Philosophy (Ph.D.). The Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology Participants Gender Age Participants Gender Age

(MSRT) regulates the number of credits, the overall curriculum S1 F 27 S 10 M 33

including courses, and cut-off grading scores for students to be eligible to S2 M 32 S 11 F 42
S3 M 32 S 12 F 32
receive a license of completion in their relevant study programs. Of
S4 F 31 S 13 M 29
relevance to the focus of this study, the M.A. program in English Lan­ S5 M 38 S 14 M 36
guage Teaching (ELT) entails showing sufficient expertise in applied S6 F 26 S 15 M 35
linguistics courses such as language teaching, material development, S7 F 29 S 16 F 24
linguistics, second language assessment, and research methodology. S8 M 45 S 17 F 25
S9 M 35 S 18 M 24
This program lasts two to three academic years and requires the

3
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118

3.4. Data collection readings, the initial significant statements pertaining directly to the
participants’ experiences of unfairness were highlighted based on the
A reflective statement questionnaire was used to collect the data in key quotations. Next, clusters of meaning were identified and formu­
this study. A reflective statement is employed when participants are lated from each significant statement. Then based on the clustering of
encouraged to reflect on and describe an experience about a phenome­ formulated meanings, two important themes (i.e., equity and interac­
non (Moustakas, 1994). This method was recommended and used in tional fairness) were generated. Consider the following example, illus­
prior literature to encourage participants to reflect on and describe their trating the data analysis procedure: “Once we had a final exam and I
experiences and perceptions of fairness in classroom assessment (Gao, arrived late. After I explained the reason, the instructor treated me like kids”
Liu, & Yin, 2021; Horan, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010). This method can be (S6). This experience was characterized as a ‘significant statement’ with
used in verbal or written format depending on the preference of the the formulated meaning of instructors may be inconsiderate of students’
participants. Therefore, we asked about the participants’ preferences to special circumstances, thus representing the sub-theme of administration
share their experiences of unfairness and suggestions to enhance fairness condition within the equity theme. In total, two themes and eight asso­
in the verbal or written format. Ten participants selected to write their ciated subthemes were identified for students’ experiences of unfairness.
responses, while eight chose to provide verbal responses. The first Tables 2 and 3 present the themes, subthemes, relevant examples, and
researcher conducted the verbal questionnaire. Participants were given frequencies for students’ perceptions of unfairness. In Table 2, some
two open-ended prompts and were asked to share their responses. selected examples articulated by students, the significant statements,
Prompts have been used in prior assessment studies to elicit partici­ formulated meanings, and associated subthemes are presented.
pants’ broad and in-depth interpretations of assessment issues such as In Table 3, the frequencies for each theme and associated subthemes
fairness (Cheng & DeLuca, 2011; Murillo & Hidalgo, 2017, 2020; are tallied. The theme frequency is an aggregate of the frequencies of all
Rasooli, DeLuca et al., 2019). subthemes associated with the relevant theme.
To identify themes for students’ suggestions to improve fairness, we
Prompt A: Please report your experiences of unfairness in assessment
conducted an inductive thematic analysis. We followed several steps
that you have had during your graduate courses in higher education.
recommended by Marshall and Rossman (2016). In the first step, we
Prompt B: Please provide any possible suggestions you may think
read and reread the statements to grasp a general sense of the data
useful for enhancing fairness in assessment in higher education.
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Later, we
Participants were first asked to read the prompts and ask questions organized the data by listing the collected information on note cards and
about the clarity of the ideas and vocabulary used. One of the re­ then ‘winnowing’ the data (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012), a pro­
searchers would then provide clarity over the meaning of each prompt. cess of highlighting some important data and discarding the unimpor­
Once participants felt confident in their understanding of the prompts, tant parts of it (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). By way of illustration,
they were asked to provide as many examples as they could recollect in within the present study, we noticed that some of the participants
response to the first prompt and provide their possible suggestions to the offered suggestions for improving large-scale evaluation for graduate
second prompt. The researchers did not provide any cues during the programs in Iran. Since we felt this statement was irrelevant to the focus
verbal and written reflective statements to ensure that students’ in­ of this study, we discarded it. Next, we started coding the actual data (in
terpretations of fairness and assessment were reported inductively, vivo codes) by bracketing text segments (chunks) and writing a word
representing how students conceive of assessment and fairness in higher representing a theme in the margins (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). After­
education. ward, we analyzed the reflective writings and their corresponding invivo
The first researcher met with each participant at a convenient place codes for the data to identify the most important themes and their cor­
at the university campus to collect the reflective statements. After responding sub-themes. The themes that were most relevant to the
gaining their verbal consent to participate in this study, the first students’ suggestions were inductively generated. The following
researcher handed out the prompts in a written format to the partici­ example represents the data analysis procedure: “I think university
pants. Participants were ensured that their responses would remain
confidential, and fully informed about the final results if they expressed
wanted a summary. Table 2
Selected Examples of Themes, and Associated Subthemes for Unfairness
The voices of participants who selected to respond to the prompts
Perceptions.
verbally were recorded, and the written statements were collected from
the participants that selected to respond in the written format. If par­ Significant Formulated Sub-themes Themes
statements meanings
ticipants needed guidance during data collection, the first researcher
was conveniently accessible to offer support. On average, participants Sometimes instructors Instructors may Administration
started talking while disturb some condition
with verbal responses took 5− 10 min, and participants with written
we were having the students while sitting
statements took 10− 15 min to complete their responses. Given that exam. (S1). for exams
Equity
participants were proficient in Persian and English, they were given a In my linguistics exam,
Instructors may use Multiple-
choice to provide their reflections in either language. All participants all of the questions
a single type of assessment
completed the written accounts in English. In the verbal accounts, both were multiple-
assessment procedures
choice. (S12)
Persian and English were used. The researchers who were proficient in After asking a question
both Persian and English with expertise in applied linguistics translated about the exam Instructors may
Disrespectful
the Persian quotations verbatim to English. The researchers ensured the results, our disregard students’
feedback
validity of the back translations by co-translating the quotations. instructor laughed at questions
me (S8).
Once we had a final Interactional
exam and arrived fairness
3.5. Data analysis late. After I
Instructors may be
inconsiderate of Disrespectful
explained the
students’ special treatment
To analyze the first prompt (students’ experiences of unfairness), we reason, the
circumstances
followed Moustakas’s (1994) systematic data analysis procedures in instructor treated me
like kids (S6).
phenomenology. First, the researchers read and reread the participants’
statements to grasp the overall meaning of unfair experiences the par­
ticipants recollected. Once the data were fully grasped by iterative

4
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
Table 3
Theme and sub-theme frequencies for perceptions of unfairness.
Themes and sub-themes
Theme 1: Equity
Sub-them 1: lack of multiple assessment opportunities
Sub-them 2: inappropriate assessment administration conditions
Sub-them 3: a mismatch in students’ interpretations of what grades
should represent
Theme 2: Interactional fairness
Sub-theme 1: treated them disrespectfully
Sub-theme 2: accused them of wrongdoing
Sub-theme 3: were unresponsive to their questions
Sub-theme 4: did not respect student privacy in communicating grades
Sub-theme 5: were untransparent in providing feedback
instructors would refer to additional sources of knowledge for test develop­
ment. I mean that some test makers should put their minds and experiences
with students to design high-quality tests.” This suggestion was character­
ized as containing the sub-theme of collective knowledge in test develop­
ment within the theme of the need for balancing power and collective
knowledge in assessment practices. In total, two themes of balancing power
and collective knowledge and establishing an advocacy body and six asso­
ciated subthemes were identified for students’ suggestions to enhance
fairness. Table 4 presents the themes, relevant subthemes, and fre­
quencies for each theme. Similar suggestions were tallied to calculate
the frequency for each subtheme. The frequencies represent the number
of suggestions articulated by students about each subtheme. The theme
frequency is an aggregate of the frequencies of all subthemes associated
with the relevant theme.
The trustworthiness of the data analysis procedure was supported
through peer debriefing and member checking (Marshall & Rossman,
2016). In peer debriefing, we received feedback from an expert
colleague on fairness and assessment and refined the data analysis
accordingly. The member checking strategy was used by giving
one-third of the final themes and subthemes to the participants to check
if their intended interpretations were closely represented. Five partici­
pants accepted to do member checking and were supportive of the data
interpretations. Combined, this multi-perspective scrutiny of the data
enriched the data analysis procedure and enhanced the quality and
dependability of data interpretation.
4. Results
Results for the overall themes and associated sub-themes relevant to
students’ perceptions of unfairness and their suggestions to enhance
fairness in assessments are presented below (see Tables 3 & 4 for
detailed information). Given that researchers aimed to inquire students’
inductive interpretations of fairness in assessment, it was found that
almost all participants in this study perceived fairness about summative
assessments. While this finding can result from the saliency of summa­
tive assessment in students’ interpretations of fairness, it can also sug­
gest the summative culture of assessments in higher education.
Table 4
Theme and sub-theme frequency for students’ suggestions for fairness.
Themes and sub-themes
Theme 1: Balanced power and collective knowledge
Sub-theme 1: Student voice
Sub-theme 2: Having power to resist defensiveness
Sub-theme 3: Collective knowledge in test development
Theme 2: Advocacy body
Sub-theme 1: Defending the rights
Sub-theme 2: Instructor accountability
Sub-theme 3: Test review body
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
4.1. Students’ articulated experiences of unfairness
Frequency 4.1.1. Equity
Several students articulated equity concerns (18 statements) around
18
7 varied summative assessment issues such as lack of multiple assessment
8 opportunities, inappropriate assessment administration conditions, and
3 a mismatch in students’ interpretations of what grades should represent.
Participants in this study expressed unfairness because the instructors
27
7
relied heavily on using a single assessment type (i.e., exams) in grading
3 student work. They argued for multiple assessment opportunities and
4 methods because they believed that this diversity provides a more
8 equitable portrait of student achievement. Students with different
5
learning styles and characteristics can also show their learning based on
assessment methods fitting with their strengths. A participant shared an
unfair experience from a multiple-choice exam.
In my linguistics exam, all of the questions were multiple-choice. Unfor­
tunately, our instructors, most of the time use multiple-choice questions
instead of multiple evaluations in the end-of-course exams. Some students
and I feel much more comfortable with essay-type questions, and some
others may perform better on multiple-choice tests. So using different
types of questions in the same test or exam may solve this problem. (S11)
Two factors contributed to students’ perceptions of unfairness in
summative exam administration conditions: (a) noise, (b) timing.
Several participants experienced unfairness because a few instructors
would talk to each other during the exam administration that distracted
students. These talks were often about irrelevant issues to the exam
content, and students would also remain silent in response to this un­
fairness due to power imbalance stakes.
Sometimes instructors started talking while we were having the exam.
They discouraged us by talking about business affairs and sometimes
distracted our attention by unnecessary movements while taking the test.
(S1)
Another source of inequity in test administration was timing. Several
participants reported unfair experiences because they were supposed to
sit for the exams for 3 h without any breaks, leading to lower perfor­
mance, frustration, and boredom. A participant stated an experience
where such a lengthy examination provoked an inequitable
performance.
To be honest, I am not satisfied with the timing condition while taking the
final exams. Sometimes, there are many questions to answer with a time
allocation of 3 h. Although we are expected to be tested on multiple skills
and tasks to demonstrate our full potential in our performance, lengthy
time would lead to fatigue and frustration. (S14)
A few participants also pointed out examples where the length of
time for completing the exam was inadequate vis-à-vis exam content and
expectations.
Unfortunately, university instructors, on some occasions, do not allocate
the appropriate time for the exam content they develop. There exists a
mismatch between the amount of time allocated and the real-time needed
to finish the exam. Sometimes the time is not enough, and sometimes it is
more than enough. What I can say is that there is inconsistency. (S7)
While the previous examples represented experiences of inadequate
time for all students, there were comments from a few students with
Frequency accommodation needs that focused on the lack of attention to their
12 needs concerning the time length for an exam. For example, a student
2 complained about inadequate test accommodation such as an inequi­
3 table amount of time allocated and inappropriate facilities in the
7
(summative exam) session that impacted the exam performance.
15
7
Overall my grades are not good though I always do my best on most of the
3
5 final exams. The main reason is that I am a left-handed student and am
5
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118

very slow at writing and answering essay-type questions. Unfortunately, paper. Finally, he was convinced, but I got offended by how he did not
instructors do not consider this and do not give me more time. (S3) trust me. (S9)

A few students also experienced unfairness because there was a Unresponsiveness to students’ questions was another issue that
mismatch in their expectations of what a grade should represent and the several students articulated about unfairness in assessment interactions.
instructors’ interpretations of the meaning of grades. For example, a A student shared an example where an instructor did not care to attend
student reported that she could not attend the classroom regularly but to his question.
performed well in the summative exam. Yet, to her surprise, she received
After our instructor returned the exam papers, I asked a question
a less than deserved grade because the instructor valued student effort
regarding the final exam, which was unclear. The instructor ignored me,
and classroom participation throughout the course.
and at first, I thought he didn’t hear me, but by asking the question for the
Due to some personal problems, I was not able to attend the lectures second time, I understood that he did not care. I got disappointed. (S16)
regularly. However, I performed well on the final exam for the discourse
Privacy of exam information was raised a couple of times by par­
lecture. When our professor returned our exam results, to my surprise, I
ticipants. Students reported experiences of unfairness in which their
recognized that my grade was lower than what I expected. After his
instructors announced the summative exam results in public. Given the
explanation, I understood that he has considered students’ efforts and
recognition messages that grades carry over, a few of our participants
attendance as part of the final grades, which I think is unfair. (S15)
were concerned that a public announcement of grades puts pressure on
Another student perceived unfairness because his grade was students with lower grades.
incomparable to the expectation he had. This student perceived his
I remember that our university instructors announced the scores in the
grade as inequitable by comparing his grade with a similar student with
classroom, making them public to other classmates by reading them. As
a better grade in a different course, presumably having a similar ability
far as I am concerned, it is not fair to publicize students’ scores in front of
level. This student also attributed this inequity to the inconsistency in
the class. I think instructors should consider this and respect the students’
summative assessment decisions across the same course instructors.
privacy. (S13)
Based on my experience of taking the assessment course last year, I My research methodology instructor returned the exam papers. Still,
remember that my friend and I took the same course with two professors. before distributing them, she called the students by names and passed out
After we finished the final exam, our results were released on the uni­ scored papers to students in order of highest to lowest points earned. As far
versity website. As far as I was concerned, I performed well in the exam, as I was concerned, it was no problem, but it was considered unfair for
but my grade was unsatisfactory compared to my friend who had the same some ladies. They did not want their scores to be publicized. (S2)
course as another professor. When I complained, my professor justified
Lack of transparency in feedback marked another subtheme associ­
this by claiming that students’ work is rarely perfect, and therefore we
ated with students’ perceived unfairness in summative assessments.
may not give you perfect scores. (S8)
Several participants shared experiences of lack of transparency in which
the instructors (a) did not return the exam papers with feedback and (b)
4.1.2. Interactional fairness did not provide clear, actionable feedback.
Several participants reported interpersonal and informational expe­
In most of the end-of-the-semester exams in my university, university
riences (27 statements), where their instructors did not treat them
instructors do not return the corrected papers. It is so natural and normal
respectfully, accused them of wrongdoing, were unresponsive to their
that students themselves have accepted this as true. In my view, first, the
questions, did not respect student privacy in communicating grades, and
answers to the test items should be returned to the students. Secondly,
were not transparent in providing feedback. In addition, several students
instructors are expected to provide crystal clear explanations and justi­
shared experiences of disrespectful feedback that they had in response to
fication for their scores. (S5)
their questions. A student, for example, stated that an instructor
embarrassed her because of her question. A few students also shared another important issue resulting from a
lack of transparency in providing information about the exam content
I had a very bitter experience with the final exam when my research
and criteria. These students recollected unfair experiences because the
methodology instructor disrespected me. After asking him a question
instructors had used surprise items at the end of semester examinations.
about the exam results, he laughed at me, saying that you asked one of the
These surprise items undermined transparency and contributed to unfair
most important questions in the world, indirectly saying you are stupid.
student outcomes. The experiences of unfairness were exacerbated when
(S12)
instructors did not take steps to remove these items.
Another student shared an experience of disrespectful treatment
I think the inclusion of any unfamiliar item in the final exam is due to a
because of their late arrival to an exam. This student perceived unfair­
lack of transparency in exam criteria and exam content. I remember once
ness because the instructor did not consider her special circumstances
I was well prepared for the linguistics exam, but when I sat for the exam
and was not flexible in this condition.
and had a look at the first question, I went blank for a couple of minutes.
I remember once we had a final exam in discourse analysis. I arrived late,
At first, I got disappointed because I was not able to answer the first
and the instructor refused to let me sit for the exam. After I explained the bus
question. However, I heard my classmates whispering and complaining
was late, he treated me like a kid by shouting that this is the last time you are
about the first question as a surprise item. Even after the exam results
late. (S10)
were released on the website, our instructor’s feedback about the unfa­
Some participants reported unfair experiences because the in­
miliar items was neither transparent nor justifiable. (S7)
structors accused them of wrongdoing. In the following example, a
student recollected how his instructor did not believe that he had Overall, inequity and interactional unfairness represented the two
completed the term paper. themes influencing students’ perceptions of unfairness in summative
assessment. Students articulated unfairness perceptions due to lack of
When I submitted my research paper, our instructor glanced at it and said,
multiple assessment opportunities, interferences with assessment
this is a very nice piece of work, but I am not sure you have made it by
administration conditions, and the misalignment in grade interpreta­
yourself. He accused me of plagiarism. After a long discussion, he asked
tion. They also shared informational and interpersonal content of
me some questions about the content to make sure I have written that term
grades, exams, and feedback that deteriorated perceptions of assessment

6
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
fairness.
4.2. Students’ suggestions to enhance fairness in assessment
Several students offered two important themes to enhance the fair­
ness of summative assessments: (a) the need to use balancing power and
collective knowledge in assessment practices (b) the need to create an
advocacy body within an institution to defend the rights of students.
4.2.1. The need for balancing power and collective knowledge in assessment
practices
In this theme, students expressed that they were hardly given any
opportunities to voice their complaints about assessment development
process. Students’ lack of power to resent the test misuses and assess­
ment malpractices was an overriding concern. Recognizing the power
imbalance involved, they suggested reconsidering students’ voice in
power relations:
In assessment practices, particularly in the end-of-semester exams, stu­
dents do not have any power. Our rights to talk about test misuses have
largely been ignored. Most university instructors don’t let students express
their opinions concerning tests’ content and methods. So my suggestion is
that university students should be empowered in assessment practices.
(S12)
Moreover, students suggested that they need to have the power to
resist the defensiveness of university instructors. Two participants
commented:
Unfortunately, most university instructors are against criticisms of the
exam methods. That’s why I never criticize my instructors’ exams. For this
reason, I suggest that top management in higher education create policies and
mechanisms to give more power to students to criticize instructors’ assessment
malpractices. (S17)
In the summative assessment practices, university instructors do not value
the voices of students. For example, one of my classmate’s voices about
the summative assessment process was suppressed by our instructor. The
instructor told him, you are not in a position to comment on my way of
assessment. (S6)
Most student participants highlighted that relying on an individual
test maker in the test development process contributes to inappropriate
decisions since an individual’s knowledge is inadequate. Therefore, they
opted for deploying the principle of collective knowledge in developing
assessments. The two following examples illustrate the demand for
collective knowledge in developing assessments.
If university instructors intend to get more satisfactory results, they need
to refer to collective and additional sources of knowledge. I mean that some
instructors should put their minds and experiences with students to design
high-quality tests. (S10)
Based on my own experiences, I can tell you that when instructors benefit
from additional knowledge resources such as colleagues, students, and
parents to design their summative assessments, the effects of these as­
sessments are more positive and constructive. Unfortunately, in our
context, this is not the case. (S4)
4.2.2. The need to create an advocacy body to defend the rights of students
Another important theme emerging from the students’ suggestions
pertained to establishing an ‘advocacy group’ to support students’ rights
for fair assessments. Several students articulated that this advocacy
group is needed because most students are not aware of their rights for a
fair and quality assessment.
It is a reality that most of the students do not know much about the basic
features of a good assessment. When they assess, they may not be aware
7
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
of this question if the assessment satisfies the quality requirements. So an
advocacy body may somehow attend to this problem. (S13)
Some students also stated a void in the university governance for
holding the instructors accountable for the fairness and quality of their
summative assessments. A student did not recollect a memory where an
instructor was held accountable for poor assessment practice.
I do not remember when a responsible agency within the university
scrutinizes the content of the poor assessment developed by an instructor.
Even if we raised the issue in the education office, no one took action to do
so. This may be the main reason for the instructors’ lack of responsibility
for the end-of-semester exams. (S12)
From students’ perspectives, it appeared that university instructors
are only expected to create summative assessments and grade student
work on a scheduled timeline offered by the university guidelines.
Unfortunately, I can say that universities have a low expectation of in­
structors concerning the quality of their assessments. Therefore, they do not
claim any responsibility for the tests and end-of-semester exams they develop
to evaluate students’ achievement for the academic semester in the classroom.
The only responsibility is developing a test, whatever the content, and letting
the students pass without receiving any complaints and criticism from stu­
dents regarding the assessment results. They do not assume responsibility for
the quality of the tests they develop. (S14)
The only thing that the university instructors hold themselves accountable
for is submitting the final exam questions on time. However, they do not
claim any responsibility for the quality of the exam content. They may
also submit the graded papers on time before students complain, but no
matter how many students pass or fail with no responsibility to answer the
students’ complaints about the exam results. (S15)
Some students maintained that an independent body, including some
experts, should scrutinize the quality of assessments and represent stu­
dents’ voices for fairer assessments with university governance. There­
fore, these students argued for a test review body in the university that
could undertake the quality review for summative assessments and
consider students’ voices.
I think an independent body or group is required to defend the rights of
students. My fundamental reason for such a view is that they can scru­
tinize the quality of the test content, test method, and test administration.
They can meticulously go into the test and report the unfair practices of
instructors to the institutions of higher education. Based on my experi­
ences, students are more or less the victims of unfair practices of in­
structors’ assessments. (S18)
Overall, students highlighted mechanisms and suggestions to
enhance the fairness of summative assessments in higher education by
leveraging a balance of power and collective knowledge in assessment
practices and creating an advocacy body to review test content and
consider students’ voices. Combined, these mechanisms provide for
students’ rights for fair assessments.
5. Discussion
Fairness has been a central issue in students’ interpretations of
various assessment domains in higher education (Burger, 2017; Grace,
2017; Sambell et al., 1997). While the current literature signifies the
prevalence of fairness concerns in students’ perceptions across various
domains, additional direct research on conceptualizing and empirically
investigating fairness in assessment is needed within higher education
contexts. This study drew on empirical data and social psychology the­
ory to provide additional evidence in how students perceive unfairness
in assessment and what suggestions they propose to enhance fairness in
assessment in higher education contexts.
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
5.1. Students’ experiences of unfairness
Students’ experiences of unfairness in this study heavily centered on
summative assessment issues and pertained to their perceptions of
inequity and interactional unfairness. Prior research in Iran and inter­
nationally has attested that assessment in higher education contexts is
often summative to grade students’ achievement (Ahmadi, 2021; Pan­
adero, Fraile, Fernandez Ruiz, Castilla-Estevez, & Ruiz, 2019). While a
wide variety of summative assessment methods such as exams, projects,
coursework, and tests are used to arrive at final grades, summative as­
sessments in the form of examinations are prevalent in higher education
institutions worldwide (Brown, 2021; Gan, Leung, He, & Nang, 2019).
Similarly, most participants in this study interpreted fairness in assess­
ments concerning tests and summative examinations at the end of the
course. These findings support that the ‘culture of assessment’ (Shepard,
2001) in higher education is oriented toward summative assessment that
also influences the ways students interpret fairness in assessments.
Participants in this study did not articulate experiences regarding
peer assessment, self-assessment, and other alternative forms of assess­
ment, considering the dominant examination-based culture of assess­
ment they had experienced. Ahmadi (2021) showed that university
student participants in Iran did not consider alternative assessments
such as peer assessment as fair for grading purposes (still showing the
interpretation of peer assessment with a grading lens) and tended to
favor instructor-based assessments. While more efforts are now being
invested into promoting assessment for learning culture in higher edu­
cation using feedback-driven assessment (Carless & Boud, 2018) and
peer feedback versus peer grading (Panadero, 2016), the findings of this
study coupled with prior studies point to additional efforts to move to­
ward this direction. A key component for this direction is actively
considering students’ perceptions and interpretations of assessment and
fairness as mechanisms for creating meaningful changes. While students
in this study did not mention assessment for learning as fairer methods
given the lack of such assessments in their lived experiences, they felt
the need for changes in summative assessments by articulating their
unfair experiences and suggesting directions to enhance fairness in
summative assessments.
Participants in this study interpreted inequity of assessments lacking
multiple assessment opportunities, being exposed to inappropriate
assessment administration conditions, and experiencing misaligned and
inconsistent grading practices. Previous research in assessment has
identified multiple assessment opportunities as a key component of fair
assessments (Gipps & Stobart, 2009; Tierney, 2013). Herman and Cook
(2019) proposed fairness in treatment during assessment (i.e., excluding
inappropriate assessment administration conditions in the context of
this study) as one of the four core issues of fairness in classroom
assessment. Inconsistent and misaligned interpretations of grading
across students and instructors were also found in prior social psychol­
ogy literature and grading literature as a recurrent theme of unfairness
for students (Cheng, DeLuca, Braund, Yan, & Rasooli, 2020; Rasooli,
DeLuca et al., 2019). The results for the interactional fairness theme
were also resonant with prior findings in assessment fairness. Partici­
pants in this study coupled with students in prior studies considered
disrespectful treatment (Cowie, 2015; Tierney, 2015), accusation of
wrongdoing (Čiuladienė & Račelytė, 2016; Horan et al., 2010), unre­
sponsiveness to students’ questions (Buttner, 2004), privacy in
communicating grades (Tierney, 2015), and lack of transparency in
feedback provision (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008) as key components of unfair
perceptions. Overall, participants in this study deemed equity and
interactional justice as relevant social psychological principles in their
evaluation of fairness in summative assessment contexts. Prior studies
have also noted the saliency of interactional justice and equity in
shaping students’ perceptions of fairness in classroom assessment
(Rasooli, Zandi, & DeLuca, 2018).
While the findings of this study in parallel with prior literature have
persistently noted these practices as unfair and recommended practices
8
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
and principles for upholding fairness in assessment literature and stan­
dards, it appears that there is a little mobilization of the existing
recognized principles of assessment fairness into higher education
classrooms. Given the need for the professional development of in­
structors in assessment in higher education instructors, it seems that
centers for teaching and learning or relevant sectors can hold workshops
and courses to promote fairness in assessments within universities.
These workshops are feasible and timely given the repeated empirical
findings suggesting students’ widespread perceptions of unfairness
internationally and educators’ priority in promoting fair assessments
(Rasooli et al., 2018).
5.2. Students’ suggestions to enhance fairness
The need for an advocacy group and collective knowledge for pro­
moting students’ right to fair assessments was highlighted by the study
participants as a mechanism for enhancing fair assessments in higher
education contexts. This advocacy body can, inter alia, promote fairness
in assessment development, review the fairness of assessments, educate
university instructors about fairness in assessments, receive students’
assessment complaints, and supervise institutional and instructor
accountability. One possible justification for establishing such an
advocacy body, as stated by participants, is that students may not have
the fundamental knowledge of the principles of quality to evaluate as­
sessments. Specifically, the educational assessment experts and spe­
cialists can undertake the leadership of this advocacy group and
highlight the significance of assessment education at their universities.
In addition, establishing an expert advocacy group to monitor the
assessment practices creates a “democratic environment wherein test
takers’ vantage points and concerns are counted” (Shohamy, 1997, p.
345).
Given that participants suggested reliance on collective knowledge
and students’ involvement in the assessment process, such involvement
may contribute to democratic and fair assessment in the form of multiple
assessments such as self- and peer-assessments (Klenowski, 2014; Pan­
adero, 2016). In addition, this involvement may enhance students’
power to have agency and control over the assessment methods and
procedures in the classroom. This shift in power balance requires a
cultural shift in how power in assessment is internalized by students and
enacted by university instructors. As stated by a student participant in
this study coupled with prior findings (Rasooli, DeLuca et al., 2019),
university students in Iran seem to have internalized ‘assessment being
done to them’ (Klenowski, 2014) as ‘normal’ and avoid dissenting to the
instructors due to consequential stakes. The shift in existing culture may
need continued conversations with students to understand their assess­
ment rights for fairer assessments. On the other hand, the instructors
who were themselves the student victims of assessment culture that
favored their instructors would need assessment education to get
familiar with how the power can be distributed in the assessment pro­
cess. This cultural shift in understanding the issue of power in assess­
ment can work toward a fairer and democratic assessment that relies on
collective knowledge. This shift is relatively supported by researchers
(Young, 2011), arguing that every individual involved in education is
responsible for reducing bias during classes and during the assessment,
since systemic inequality results from interactions across individuals.
Combined, the identified themes in this study provide additional
empirical evidence into interpreting students’ perceptions of fairness in
classroom assessment and provide suggestions offered by students as a
basis to enhance fairer practices in university assessment contexts.
6. Conclusion
This study leveraged the qualitative data from 18 participants’ re­
flections on their experiences and suggestions on fairness to provide
additional empirical evidence to the growing area of research on fairness
in classroom assessment. This study particularly focused on Iranian
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
university students’ perceptions of fairness to contribute to the theory
and practices of fairness in higher education contexts. Participants’
perceptions of unfairness were largely related to summative assessment,
and they discussed collective knowledge and advocacy group as bases to
promote fair practices in university assessments. These findings point to
further research on fairness in assessment across cultures to identify how
students perceive fairness in assessment as a basis to enhance fair,
equitable, and inclusive practices in higher education.
While the present study’s findings brought into fore some significant
insights for fairness in summative assessment in the context of higher
education in Iran, some limitations may lay the groundwork for further
research. First, as the current study’s participants were only 18 M.A.
students selected from a public university, further studies with larger
samples and different higher education degrees (i.e., B.A. and PH.D.) at
various universities across the country can be carried out to achieve a
more comprehensive understanding of fairness in classroom assessment
in higher education. Additionally, as the present study’s design was
qualitative, future studies can triangulate reflective statement ques­
tionnaire with interview and observational methods to provide deeper
and broader understandings of students’ perceptions of fairness in
higher education. Finally, as the study’s findings highlighted the sig­
nificance of empowering students in classroom assessment, more studies
are needed to identify the critical aspects of democratic and fair as­
sessments based on the suggestions and recommendations offered by
different stakeholders such as policymakers, university administrators,
and university instructors. These suggestions would provide additional
multi-perspective insights for promoting fair assessment practices in
higher education.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Ahmadi, R. (2021). Students’ perceptions of student voice in assessment within the
context of Iran: The dynamics of culture, power relations, and student knowledge.
Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07294360.2021.1882401
Alkharusi, H. (2011). Development and datametric properties of a scale measuring
students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment environment. Online Submission, 4,
105–120.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brown, G. T. (2021). Student conceptions of assessment: Regulatory responses to our
practices. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/
20965311211007869, 20965311211007869.
Brown, G. T. L. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: A review of
the students’ conceptions of assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31,
731–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.599836
Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of
interactive–Informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students’
conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19, 97–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003
Burger, R. (2017). Student perceptions of the fairness of grading procedures: A multilevel
investigation of the role of the academic environment. Higher Education, 74,
301–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0049-1
Buttner, E. H. (2004). How do we “dis” students?: A model of (dis)respectful business
instructor behavior. Journal of Management Education, 28, 319–334. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1052562903252656
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling
uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Cheng, L., & DeLuca, C. (2011). Voices from test-Takers: Further evidence for language
assessment validation and use. Educational Assessment, 16, 104–122. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10627197.2011.584042
Cheng, L., DeLuca, C., Braund, H., Yan, W., & Rasooli, A. (2020). Teachers’ grading
decisions and practices across cultures: Exploring the value, consistency, and
construction of grades across Canadian and Chinese secondary schools. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 67, Article 100928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2020.100928
Chory-Assad, R. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of
student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385646
Čiuladienė, G., & Račelytė, D. (2016). Perceived unfairness in teacher-student conflict
situations: Students’ point of view. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 49–66.
https://doi.org/10.1515/pjap-2015-0049
9
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
Cowie, B. (2015). Equity, ethics, and engagement: Principles for quality formative
assessment in primary science classrooms. In C. Milne, K. Tobin, & D. DeGennaro
(Eds.), Sociocultural studies and implications for science education (pp. 117–133).
Netherlands: Springer.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approach. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative
research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35,
236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
Daniels, L. M., & Poth, C. A. (2017). Relationships between pre-service teachers’
conceptions of assessment, approaches to instruction, and assessment: An
achievement goal theory perspective. Educational Psychology, 37, 835–853. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1293800
Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument
to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational
Studies, 32, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690500415951
Fletcher, R. B., Meyer, L. H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty and
students conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 64,
119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1
Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of
effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2014.881348
Gan, Z., Leung, C., He, J., & Nang, H. (2019). Classroom assessment practices and
learning motivation: A case study of Chinese EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 53,
514–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/test.476
Gao, R., Liu, J., & Yin, B. (2021). An Expanded ethical decision-making model to resolve
ethical dilemmas in assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, Article 100978.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100978
Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2009). Fairness in assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, & J. Cumming
(Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 105–118). London: Springer.
Gotlieb, J. (2009). Justice in the classroom and students’ evaluations of marketing
professors’ teaching effectiveness: An extension of prior research using attribution
theory. Marketing Education Review, 19, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10528008.2009.11489069
Grace, C. C. (2017). Exploring the potential for and promise of incorporating distributive
and procedural justices into post-secondary assessment of student learning. Teaching
in Higher Education, 22, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13562517.2016.1248388
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herman, J., & Cook, L. (2019). Fairness in classroom assessment. In S. M. Brookhart, &
J. H. McMillan (Eds.), Classroom assessment and educational measurement (pp.
243–264). New York: Routledge.
Horan, S. M., Chory, R., & Goodboy, A. (2010). Understanding students’ classroom
justice experiences and responses. Communication Education, 59, 453–474. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.487282
Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2017). University students’ perceptions of summative
assessment: The role of context. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41, 785–801.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177172
Kazemi, A. (2016). Examining the interplay of justice perceptions motivation, and school
achievement among secondary school students. Social Justice Research, 29, 103–118.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0261-2
Klenowski, V. (2014). Towards fairer assessment. Australian Educational Researcher, 41,
445–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0132-x
Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of justice in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 27–55). New York:
Plenum Press.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality
and effectiveness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mauldin, R. K. (2009). Gendered perceptions of learning and fairness when choice
between exam types is offered. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, 253–264.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343191
McInerney, D. M., Brown, G. T. L., & Liem, G. A. D. (Eds.). (2009). Student perspectives on
assessment. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
McMillan, J. H. (2016). Section discussion: Student perceptions of assessment. In
G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in
assessment (pp. 237–260). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.
Murillo, F. J., & Hidalgo, N. (2017). Students’ conceptions about a fair assessment of
their learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.stueduc.2017.01.001
Murillo, F. J., & Hidalgo, N. (2020). Fair student assessment: A phenomenographic study
on teachers’ conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100860
Nesbit, P. L., & Burton, S. (2006). Student justice perceptions following assignment
feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 655–670. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602930600760868
Nisbet, I. (2017). Fairness takes centre stage. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and
Practice, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1358151
A. Darabi Bazvand and A. Rasooli
O’Neill, G. (2017). “It’s not fair! Students and staff views on the equity of the procedures
and outcomes of students’ choice of assessment methods. Irish Educational Studies,
36, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2017.1324805
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer
assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.),
Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York:
Routledge.
Panadero, E., Fraile, J., Fernandez Ruiz, J., Castilla-Estevez, D., & Ruiz, M. A. (2019).
Spanish university assessment practices: Examination tradition with diversity by
faculty. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 379–397. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02602938.2018.1512553
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring
emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
Pereira, D., Flores, M., & Niklasson, L. (2016). Assessment revisited: A review of research
in assessment and evaluation in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 41, 1008–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233
Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2018). The impact of anonymous marking on students’
perceptions of fairness, feedback, and relationships with lecturers. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2018.1437594
Rasian, Z. (2009). Higher education governance in developing countries, challenges, and
recommendations: Iran as a case study. Nonpartisan Education Review/Essays, 5,
1–18.
Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2018). Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment
fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 56, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2017.12.008
Rasooli, A., DeLuca, C., Rasegh, A., & Fathi, S. (2019). Students’ critical incidents of
fairness in classroom assessment: An empirical study. Social Psychology of Education,
22, 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09491-9
Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2019). Conceptualising fairness in classroom
assessment: Exploring the value of organisational justice theory. Assessment in
Education Principles Policy and Practice, 26, 584–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0969594X.2019.1593105
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Justice and education. In C. Sabbagh, & M. Schmitt
(Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 349–367). New York:
Springer.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study of
student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 23, 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3
10
Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (2022) 101118
Seevers, M. T., Rowe, W. J., & Skinner, S. J. (2014). Praise in public, criticize in private?
An assessment of performance feedback transparency in a classroom setting.
Marketing Education Review, 24, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-
8008240201
Shepard, L. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th edition, pp. 1066–1101).
Washington, DC: AERA.
Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they
fair? Language Testing, 14, 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026553229701400310
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation
and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099102
Tata, J. (1999). Grade distributions, grading procedures, and students’ evaluations of
instructors: A justice perspective. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 133, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599739
Tierney, R. (2013). Fairness in classroom assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Ed.). Sage
handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 125–144). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Tierney, R. (2015). Altered grades: A grey zone in the ethics of classroom assessment.
Assessment Matters, 8, 5–30. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0002
Tripp, T. M., Jiang, L., Olson, K., & Graso, M. (2019). The fair process effect in the
classroom: Reducing the influence of grades on student evaluations of teachers.
Journal of Marketing Education, 41, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0273475318772618
Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schlax, J., Jitomirski, J., Happ, R., Kühling-Thees, C.,
Brückner, S., et al. (2019). Ethics and fairness in assessing learning outcomes in
higher education. Higher Education Policy, 32, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41307-019-00149-x
Ali Darabi Bazvand received his PH.D in Applied Linguistics from Shiraz University, Iran.
Currently he is a faculty member at Catholic University in Erbil (CUE), Iraq. His research
interests include language assessment literacy, classroom assessment, academic writing,
and corpus linguistics. He has published in some national and international Scopus and ISI-
indexed journals.
Amirhossein Rasooli received his PhD in Educational Assessment and Measurement from
Queen’s University, Canada. Currently, he is a Killam Postdoctoral Fellow at Center for
Research in Applied Measurement and Evaluation at the Department of Educational Psy­
chology, University of Alberta. He continues his research on exploring fairness and equity
in assessment and education within K-12 and higher education contexts