I was assuming that Margy's original suggestion was to cover the majority of students in special exam arrangements who have access to 25% additional time - clearly, there are many disabled students that will need bespoke arrangements, such as blind and visually impaired students and people needing to use scribes and readers.

I have noticed that as the pressures on students increase - more students want higher grades due to the state of the labour market, as well as the fact that they are now paying top dollar for their university education, so the desire from students for any sort of advantage increases. From 2012 this will obviously apply even more. So we now regularly have students with diagnoses of dyslexia challenging why they can't have more than 25% - (and why shouldn't they?) - while more and more students at this time of year start to fixate on the possibility of having more time as a sort of a panacea that will magically get their grades higher and therefore secure access to that job they want or the postgraduate course they are trying to get onto.

I don't blame them at all, but it makes managing the process very difficult. I did a presentation for academic staff here last month and my explanation for why most students end up with 25% additional time is that it is easier to administer than lots of different time provisions and that it has become the norm. Not particularly scientific, is it?

Simon

On 12/05/2011 17:10, Lissner, Scott wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
The fundamental flaw with this plan seems to be who sets the standard time that is "long enough" and how? 

Will every exam be standardized and normed?

Will instructors set the time based on experience, feel and intuition? If so, what occurs if a student feels the instructor was wrong?



________________________________

From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent: Thu May 12 10:15:21 2011
Subject: Extra Time in Examinations 



I agree very strongly that extra time is unnecessary provided the exam itself has been set correctly. As an ex academic I would consider myself to have failed to set a good exam if by dint of sitting in the exam room for a further 15 minutes say a student would do better. The exam should be designed to allow an average student to display their knowledge in the time set. No amount of extra time would be helpful either the student knew the material or not. Therefore allow as much extra time as possible so that students who work slowly are not disadvantaged, one exam per day for instance. This does raise the issue of how many exams are set per day in a given room, the only argument in favour of that is administrative only, you can set two exams in the same room per day.

 

 I argued with a medical school who were setting a 3 hour MCQ exam that certain students could be disadvantaged by this. I was told that students who knew their subject would finish in about an hour, most students would finish in 2 hours and only those needing the extra time might stay for 3 hours. Implicitly this exam guaranteed extra time to those who needed it.

 

One argument in favour of standard timed exams is that this is somehow intended to mimic the “real world”. I had an unexpected vociferous defence of the situation allowing extra time and even study materials in the exam by someone who was in the process of selling their house. The person put the view forward that whoever was dealing with their case should have as much time as possible to grasp any intricacies and they should not have to rely on memory but should check in text books if necessary. The person put the view forward that juggling in memory with say 12 subjects was not acceptable practice – damning the traditional set of year-end exams. I must say that in the “real world” I do not want, say motorway bridges, designed from memory only.

 

Time allowed for exams is spurious and the “real world” never depends solely on memory for any activity.

 

Isn’t it time now to question both timed examinations and the very nature of course work as a “real life” alternative.

 

 




-- 
Simon Jarvis
Head of Disability & Dyslexia Service
Queen Mary University of London

Student and Campus Services
Room FB 2.30, Francis Bancroft
Mile End Road, London E1 4NS
Tel:  020 7882 2765
Fax: 020 7882 5223
www.scs.qmul.ac.uk