Gender-inclusive assessment design (GIAD): A scoping review

This scoping review synthesizes scholarship on gender-inclusive assessment design (GIAD) in UK higher education and transnational education, (TNE), with a focus on authorial stance/voice, assessment genre (essay vs report), and lecturer positionality. Using a PRISMA ScR–aligned approach and a Population–Concept–Context (PCC) frame, searches of Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO (1998-2025) identified 504 records; 41 sources were included for analysis. Consistent with scoping review aims, no study quality appraisal or meta-analysis was undertaken. Literature consistently reports gendered discourse features in student writing (e.g., first-person usage, hedging, stance adoption) and suggests possible effects of marker expectations yet rarely translates these insights into operational assessment choices that could mitigate gendered disadvantage. Notably, it was found that no recent comparative studies evaluate performance consequences of essay vs report formats by gender, underscoring a critical evidence gap in prevalent genres. First-person permissions emerge as a plausible equity lever where third-person conventions dominate, particularly in business/management programmes. To address these gaps, the review consolidates prior work into five GIAD design levers: genre clarity and stance permissions; outcome sequencing (conclusions first vs last); first-person allowance; brief translation with structured peer feedback cycles; and transfer oriented prompts. The review offers theoretical consolidation, a methodological agenda for quasi experimental and multi-site trials, and practical quality assurance artefacts implementable within routine assurance of learning cycles across home and branch campus delivery.