I was struggling to make sense of this as well; the amount of extra
processing needed when using a scribe/reader/practical assistant can be
huge (particularly if there's still that requirement around that all
'unusual'/subject specific words have to be spelt).
Quoting Gerard Conroy <[log in to unmask]>:
> Harriet even for someone using an amanuensis at least 50% extra time is
> not
> unreasonable. I have been an amanuensis for someone and it is very
> stressful
> and time consuming on both parties. As the scribe I had to constantly
> interrupt the flow of ideas since I just could not keep up. I had to
> check
> frequently that what I had written correctly represented the views of the
> student. All of which broke up the student's concentration. I would never
> recommend less than 50% extra time. This brings us back to the timing
> issue,
> why is time important? There can be few subjects which need a timed
> response.
>
> Gerard Conroy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harriet Cannon
> Sent: 18 December 2007 16:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Extra time for visually impaired students
>
> Hi Erin,
>
> The only time I've seen a 50% recommendation queried (also happens with
> 100% extra time recommendations) is when the student is also using a
> reader and/or amanuensis. The argument then has been that, if someone
> is there to read and/or write for the student, then they should not need
> the additional time. Even then, at least 25% is normally recommended to
> allow for the fact that getting someone to read to you or write for you
> is not always as quick as doing it yourself. Readers and amanuenses
> also need breaks building into the exam time, which depends on the
> length of the exam, but I think is something like one 10-15 min break
> for a three hour exam.
>
> 50% extra time is a pretty standard recommendation for our VI students.
>
> Harriet
>
> Harriet Cannon
>
> Disability Coordinator
> University of Leeds
> 0113 343 7538
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jackson, Erin
> Sent: 18 December 2007 14:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Extra time for visually impaired students
>
>
> Many thanks to all who replied, you were very helpful!
>
>
> Erin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian F.
> Sent: 16 December 2007 23:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Extra time for visually impaired students
>
> Somewhere between 25% - 50% is common, depending on the effects of the
> visual impairment, the type of course and the strategies the student
> will
> use during the exam. Too much extra time in itself can cause further
> problems, especially if there are a few exams on the same day. Often
> eyesight tends to deteriorate with fatigue and exams are exhausting even
>
> without a disability. On the other hand, in some cases 100% extra time
> (or
> more) can be justified. Sometimes, no extra time might be a reasonable
> recommendation.
>
> A student who can read comfortably from enlarged print for long periods
> and
> can also sit and work at a computer with magnification for long periods
> might not need as much extra time (assuming these adjustments will be in
>
> place in the exam) as a student who requires braille, audio or
> electronic
> versions of papers and prepares answers using a computer and
> screenreader.
> Students who can use enlarged print / magnification but have a very
> restricted field of vision might need longer than those without this
> problem, to take into account how slow reading can be when you can only
> see
> one or two words at a time irrespective of how large the print is. Exams
>
> that require students to refer to diagrams, images, charts or tables
> might
> require more time than text-based papers.
>
> Maybe the original assessor can provide you with more details about why
> 50%
> exta time was requested in this particular case if it's not made clear
> in
> the assessment report. It's important that tutors understand why
> recommendations are being made so they are confident these are
> 'reasonable
> adjustments' that don't risk devaluing the exam process for the student
> (or
> for other students, if grades are calculated based on relative test
> scores).
> Assuming timed exams are a sensible way of testing people, of course ...
>
> Ian Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Claire Wickham" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Extra time for visually impaired students
>
>
> > Yes, 50% does seem a standard recommendation...but why is the tutor
> > querying this? The extra time is usually justified on a combination of
>
> > additional time required for reading (questions and reading back
> answers)
> > and additional time required for writing the answers. It is true that
> the
> > time taken to perform these tasks is not measured and as a sector we
> can
> > be criticised for lack of evidence-based judgements but the 50% is
> > generally accepted practice.
> >
> > ATB
> >
> > Claire
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> on
> > behalf of Jackson, Erin
> > Sent: Fri 14/12/2007 16:34
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Extra time for visually impaired students
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have had a query from a tutor on a 50% extra time recommendation for
> a
> > visually impaired student. I thought that this was a fairly standard
> > recommendation, and I wondered if anyone else had the same impression?
> >
> > The student's Assessment of Needs states 50%, would you query this?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any advice!
> >
> > Erin
> >
> > Erin Jackson
> >
> > Disability Adviser
> > Student Services
> > University of Bolton
> > Deane Road
> > Bolton BL3 5AB
> > Tel: 01204 903087
> > Minicom: 01204 903490
> > www.bolton.ac.uk/disability
> > Please don't print off this email unless it's entirely necessary -
> save
> > the planet!
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses
> by
> > McAfee anti-virus software and none were detected
> >
> >
> >
> > This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus
> > software and none were found
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date:
> 13/12/2007
> 09:15
>
>
> --
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 2847 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
>
>
>
|