 |
 |
I can't help thinking that to be an adjustment, it has to be slightly different, and to be reasonable, it has to be fairly individualised. Coming up with assessment that evades the need for reasonable adjustment is a different kettle of fish, but ultimately (to my mind) pitches us back to constructive alignment and also (going on around me) the kind of outward-facing assessment UCL is doing its best to introduce and embody (lots on this in the free downloads of [Carnell & Fung 2017](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-press/browse-books/developing-the-higher-education-curriculum), *Developing the Higher Education Curriculum* and [Fung 2017](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-press/browse-books/developing-the-higher-education-curriculum), *A Connected Curriculum for Higher Education*, UCL Press, London.) Some kind of project that builds up during the course itself not only gives a lot more room for adjustments not being needed, but means it's a realistic check of whether the student can achieve the learning outcomes (for instance). If it's truly aligned that the students are learning to achieve something with resources at their fingertips in 48 hours, and they get some kind of support before that assessment activity, to get the hang of it, then it's a valid assessment activity. But it's not in itself 'reasonable adjustment'. On 21 Dec 2017, at 14:36, Ruth Brown wrote: > Um, so, Jason, what do you suggest in terms of reasonable adjustment? > > Ruth > > On 21 December 2017 at 16:08, Jason Davies <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone >> >> I'm probably just pointing out the obvious here, but in case you >> wanted to >> be able to say you had consulted and other people said XYZ... >> >> This may well be worse than the original scenario: I can say from >> personal >> experience that being even mildly disabled adds substantially to the >> time >> it takes to do virtually *everything*. 48 hours is long enough to >> *substantially >> magnify* that difference while the department will be claiming to >> *offset* >> it; kind of Orwellian... >> >> To put it bluntly: if I can reasonably do in one hour what someone >> else >> can do in 45 minutes, that person 'gains' an extra 1/4 of 48 hours to >> improve their work, whereas in a three-hour exam they 'gain' 1/4 of 3 >> hours. It will probably widen the attainment gap. >> >> If we are testing a brutal version of 'efficiency' then it's a valid >> assessment approach; but I do hope that is not the only assessment >> criterion here (to put it mildly). >> >> My 2 cents for Xmas;) >> >> Jason Davies >> >> On 21 Dec 2017, at 13:26, Penny Sweasey wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> Here's one to pick up in the New Year perhaps and flood the mailing >> list >> with creative responses after your festive break! >> >> I have a request for a CELT view on 'take-way' exams and how this may >> impact on students with disabilities and specific learning needs. >> >> I wonder if anyone has done some work with students around their >> views on >> whether seen / unseen / take-away exams have a differential impact on >> students with different needs. >> >> 'We have been asked whether PLP reasonable adjustments for exams >> should be >> applied to 'take away exams'. The department have confirmed that they >> were >> advised to consider assessment processes which do not require a >> student to >> attend and sit am exam under exam conditions. Their response to this >> is to >> create a 48 hour exam whereby the student is expected to complete a >> 3000 >> assignment over 48 hours with the brief being provided at the start >> of the >> 48 hours. >> >> We understand this is trying to make an assessment process more >> inclusive, >> however our concern is that it does the opposite. For disabled >> students, it >> is difficult to consider their adjustments and the support they may >> need in >> the exam and ensure that they are administered fairly. Some disabled >> students may also take it to the extreme and work for 48 Hours on the >> assessment. For all other students, there seems to be little >> consideration >> of the commitments that students may have outside of university, for >> example caring responsibilities, work etc. >> >> Do CELT have a view about this as an assessment process?' >> >> I look forward to hearing your views . . . and in the meantime I hope >> you >> have (or if you are resolutely not reading emails over the holidays) >> - I >> hope you had - a wonderful festive break. >> >> BW >> >> Penny >> >> Penny Sweasey PGCE MA Ed. PFHEA FSEDA >> Head of Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching >> 0161 247 1610 PA Lesley Hamoodi 0161 247 3474 >> >> www.celt.mmu.ac.uk<http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/> >> [CELT pale][logo] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should >> read >> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on >> its >> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " >> >>