Have a personal or library account? Click to login
What Stops Fairness from Emerging in Assessment? The Forces on a Complex Adaptive System Cover

What Stops Fairness from Emerging in Assessment? The Forces on a Complex Adaptive System

Open Access
|Aug 2023

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Key features of a complex adaptive system (CAS).

Independence:CAS consist of individual agents [11] who make independent choices about their actions [8].
Adaptability:Each agent adapts to changes in the context, past experience and to each other’s behaviour [67812].
Unpredictability:The independence and adaptability of the agents leads to non-linearity and unpredictability [56912].
Emergence:Interactions between agents create outcomes that are greater than the sum of the individual agent behaviours [6]. The system’s behaviour relies less on the nature of the individual agents than on the quantity and quality of connections between them [8].
Patterns:Despite the unpredictability, principles and patterns arise [12]. These patterns provide understanding to how the system works [9] as they guide behaviours within it [12].
Distributed control:Control is dispersed as a result of a huge number of decisions made by individual agents [13] making the system resistent to centralised control [614].
Self-organisation:Order, innovation and progress naturally arise from within the system [515]. Work arounds and muddling through are central to CAS [58]. Tensions and paradoxes do not necessarily need to be resolved [11].
Embeddedness:Agents and CASs are embedded within other CASs [6]. Therefore, agents or systems cannot be understood without reference to the other systems [1114].
Fuzzy, ill-defined boundaries:The system boundaries are permeable and hard to define [6].
Table 2

The forces preventing fairness emerging from the complex adaptive system.

“COMPLEX”: FORCES IMPAIRING INTERACTIVITY
Assessor and student forces
  • Assessors’ enthusiasm and engagement in the judgements process

  • Assessor self-doubt and lack of confidence in their own judgement

  • Student not empowered to interact with the complex adaptive system

  • Student chooses not to engage

  • Lack of situational awareness

Tool forces
  • Not using evidence or tools to mediate interactions

  • Use of convenience not purposeful sampling to support interactions

  • Lacking information to support meaningful interactions

  • Lack of access to information

System forces
  • System barriers, hierarchical systems and cultural norms can inhibit opportunities for interactions between stakeholders

“ADAPTIVE”: FORCES IMPAIRING ADAPTABILITY
Assessor and student forces
  • Assessor inexperience which impacts their ability to adapt in response to their interactions

  • Assessors not adapting due to fear of change and uncertainty, or of doing wrong

  • Assessors not appreciating need to adapt (I know best) or not wanting to adapt (easier not to)

  • Learners are unaware of how to interact and adapt with the judgement

  • Learners unwillingness to adapt following negative feedback

  • Learners inappropriately adapt their behaviour towards those assessing them to receive a desired outcome

Tool forces
  • Articulation of judgement to facilitate adaption

  • Willingness of assessors to give and receive feedback to each other

System forces
  • System which does not allow for feedback and adaption

“SYSTEM”: FORCES IMPAIRING EMBEDDEDNESS
Assessor and student forces
  • Unsafe for a learner to be vulnerable to judgements

  • Vulnerability of assessors as they have ultimate responsibility for their patients

  • Lack of support for assessor to make a judgement

Tool forces
  • High stakes nature impacts perception of fair

System forces
  • Judgements influenced by bias, such as gender bias, harmful discrimination or specific prejudices which are outside agreed fuzzy boundaries

  • Conflict in the purpose of judgement for the individual: is it a progression judgement or feedback?

  • Conflict in the purpose of judgement for the system: it is distinguishing between learners, ie ranking or determining if meeting a standard?

  • Fear of an external force which will disrupt the system

  • University regulations limit the freedom of assessors to make judgement decisions

  • System ensures some judgements are more intensive than others, ie fail judgements

  • University limitations (ie high student numbers, money, assessor time, inefficient technology) impact how assessors interact with the system

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.994 | Journal eISSN: 2212-277X
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 31, 2023
Accepted on: Aug 7, 2023
Published on: Aug 24, 2023
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2023 Nyoli Valentine, Steven J. Durning, Ernst Michael Shanahan, Lambert Schuwirth, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.