Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computer-delivered English proficiency tests frequently penalize multilingual learners whose responses deviate from monolingual academic norms, thereby perpetuating epistemic injustice through rubrics that conflate communicative resourcefulness with linguistic deficit. We propose a schema-responsive rubric interface that mediates between learners’ epistemic resources and assessment outcomes across four interconnected sub-modules. The Epistemic Justice Criteria Module replaces deficit-oriented descriptors with translanguaging recognition and oral narrative structure validation, wherein mixed-language segments are evaluated by pragmatic function rather than grammatical purity, and non-linear storytelling traditions are accommodated through adjusted coherence scoring. The Dynamic Rubric Rendering Engine then visually links response features to epistemic justice descriptors via context-aware highlighting, while an interactive calibration slider allows raters to modulate emphasis on communicative effectiveness against grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, the Rater Cognitive Support Layer embeds mandatory bias mitigation prompts and a standardized exemplar library to reduce inter-rater variability. The Audit and Feedback Loop subsequently ensures accountability through tamper-proof decision logging and generates feedback that explicitly validates recognized epistemic practices. The novelty of this framework lies in its integration of sociolinguistic theory with human-computer interaction design, transforming the rubric from a static judgment instrument into an adaptive mediator of fairness. Significance is twofold: methodologically, it offers a replicable architecture for embedding epistemic justice into assessment interfaces; practically, it fosters learner agency by acknowledging community-referenced reasoning and local idioms as legitimate evidence of proficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaya Sinsinwar (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: