 |
 |
That is really helpful. Thanks, Jasonâș. On 21 December 2017 at 16:57, Jason Davies <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 " > >