Assessment That Signals “You Matter”

What if AI isn’t the problem? As a high school English teacher in Vancouver, BC, I spend a lot of time thinking and talking about AI. I feel inundated with fearful messages about the impact of AI on our students and the ways young people are tempted to cheat or outsource their thinking, but I believe we’re looking in the wrong direction. These concerns are symptoms of a deeper problem: educational systems, specifically assessments, that fail to signal to students that they matter and belong. Traditional grades and assessments are not the motivational tool we sometimes believe them to be. We invest enormous time building classroom communities and cultivating relationships, yet much of that work evaporates the moment a quiz or test appears. Conversations with my students reveal how deeply we are caught in a trap of our own design. While shortcuts may be tempting, many of my students have been surprisingly honest, explaining that they use AI because they assume it will earn them a better grade with less risk (and far less effort).

The Real Problem

Many of my colleagues now question whether their assessments measure understanding at all when students can so easily produce work with AI tools. As a result, there is a growing impulse to return to ‘old ways’ of generating grades: in-class tests, timed essays, and assignments seen as ‘AI-proof’, assessments that may increase the perception of validity but which often reinforce inequity and “create a culture of suspicion and competition” (Stommel, 2024, p. 328). When assessment reduces students to scores, it disconnects them from their identity as learners and the purpose of authentic learning. The issue is not merely cheating or disengagement, but I believe that it is the messages our assessments send. Assessment must shift from merely measuring achievement to intentionally cultivating students’ sense of mattering and belonging as conditions that accelerate engagement, growth, and long-term success.

The Research

Belonging, the feeling of being accepted and connected, and mattering, the sense of being noticed and valued (Prilleletnsky, 2020), are central developmental needs in adolescence. They are essential foundations for attention, motivation, and perseverance in the classroom. When students feel they matter, their identity and self-efficacy strengthen, making them more willing to take academic risks. When assessments can support intrinsic motivation and persistence, they become powerful moments that support learning and engagement. Emotion and learning are inseparable, a relationship that “runs much deeper than many educators realize and is interwoven with the notion of learning itself,” (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007, p. 3). When students feel psychologically safe, they participate more fully; when they feel threatened, they withdraw. As Boekaerts (2011) notes, emotions connected to assessments directly influence cognition and performance. Students regulate their emotions more successfully when learning activities align with their goals or sense of self. When tasks feel threatening, because of unclear expectations, perceived difficulty, or lack of support, negative emotions such as fear of failure emerge, leading to avoidance and disengagement. The impact of assessment on both developmental and academic goals should not be overlooked.

Assessment is frequent and highly consequential within a student’s experience of education. It often communicates who is valued, whose knowledge counts, and what ‘success’ means. Traditional assessment systems often signal that mattering is conditional on performance, positioning grades as “anathema to the presumption of the humanity of students,” (Stommel, 2024, p. 334). Humanizing assessment sends a different message: that students matter beyond the score and that their thinking is valued. When these messages shift, students can engage more deeply and perform better. Identity-affirming assessment recognizes effort, strategy, and growth, helping students see themselves as capable learners whose ideas matter. When feedback is timely, specific, and forward-focused, students understand how to revise and persist. Together, these conditions make academic risk-taking feel possible, and as learning feels safer, we are reducing anxiety and helping students regain the cognitive bandwidth needed for productive struggle. If the goal of assessment is ultimately to support learning (and not just ranking and sorting students), I am inspired by the idea that “All of our efforts would be better served by three simple words: I trust you,” (Stommel, 2024, p. 334).

The Shift

Several assessment practice shifts can cultivate mattering and belonging without reducing rigor or generating even more workload for educators. Rather than teachers dictating the expectations for quality, supporting the agency of students to be partners in their learning (Davies & Herbst, 2016), signals an affirmation that they matter. In my assessment practice, implementing triangulation and gathering evidence through multiple means, including observation, conversation, and learning products, generates a more
wholistic and effective picture of what my students know and can do. Co-constructing criteria and examining exemplars with students creates shared understanding of expectations. By offering choice in how my students demonstrate learning (oral explanations, performance tasks, portfolios), I can better honour the diverse strengths and engage the interests of my students. Iterative feedback with opportunities to revise or retake reframes errors as part of learning while self-assessments help build metacognition and ownership. I have found that even short, relational conferences can communicate “I see you” while clarifying next steps to deepen learning and continue growth. Rigor and consistency are maintained through shared rubrics, while the calibration of quality is developed with students through analysis and evaluation of exemplars. Far from protecting my students from challenge or diluting the purpose of assessment, this approach offers high expectations paired with the clarity of expectation and support for continued learning and success. I have been able to keep my assessment workload manageable when supported by predictable routines such as weekly reflections, targeted sampling, and providing brief verbal in-person feedback. Machine-scored tests might feel efficient in the moment, but I have realized the true time and effort savings are from my students taking ownership of their learning, engaging because they’re invested in more than ‘the marks’.

Belonging Leads to Success

Students don’t succeed and then feel they belong; they feel they belong and then they succeed. Assessment is only one aspect of many that contribute to the complexity of educational experience, but we cannot ignore the impact of assessment beyond measuring student learning and achievement. Humanizing assessment strengthens both learning and well-being. A simple place to begin is with one unit: co-construct criteria, build in one revision cycle, and include one student reflection. We may not be able to ‘AI-proof’ education, nor do I think that is as useful as some may hope. Instead, I encourage educators to consider how to shift our assessment practices to communicate “You are capable. Your voice counts. Your growth matters,” supporting students show us what they can truly do.

Reflection Questions

1. What does “success” look like in my classroom, and who gets to define it?
2. How often do I design assessment with students rather than for them?
3. How often do students have a chance to practice with feedback, versus perform for evaluation?
4. What would it mean for assessment to be an invitation into learning rather than just an evaluation of learning?
5. Where am I already doing this well, and how can I build on it?

References

Boekaerts, M. (2011). 26 Emotions, Emotion Regulation, and Self-Regulation of Learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 408–425). essay,
Routledge.

Davies, A., Herbst, S., Sherman, A. (2016). Assessment for Learning: A Framework for Educators’ Professional Growth and Evaluation Cycles. In: Laveault, D., Allal, L. (eds)
Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Implementation. The Enabling Power of Assessment, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
39211-0_14

Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228x.2007.00004.x

Prilleltensky, I. (2019). Mattering at the intersection of psychology, philosophy, and politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12368

Stommel, J. (2024). Ungrading: An introduction. Pedagogy : Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture, and Composition, 24(3), 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-11246255

Meet the Expert(s)

Ellen Nielsen

Teacher, Vancouver School Board and Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Ellen Nielsen (she/her) is an MA student in Human Development, Learning and Culture at the University of British Columbia. She is also a secondary teacher with the Vancouver School Board, where she teaches senior English Language Arts and English First Peoples. Her research explores how ungrading influences students’ self‑regulated learning skills in a rapidly evolving educational landscape shaped by emerging technologies, including AI. By centering student voice, Ellen aims to better understand how assessment practices can meaningfully support student learning, autonomy, and wellbeing. Under the mentorship and supervision of Dr. Johanna Sam, Ellen brings together her teaching experience and research interests to help strengthen assessment approaches for both educators and students.

Read More