 |
 |
I think more employers are flexible than you might suspect; they recognise that people have different abilities. I know someone who is dyslexic, and rarely expected to do the same volume of written, text-heavy, work than others, and is largely employed because she has a brilliant synthetic approach to things. Your other points I agree with, which is why authentic assessment is better for everyone, but I haven't forgotten the time I rhetorically said to a room of lecturers from across UCL [ie most disciplines] 'when did a job require people to sit in the same room for three hours answering questions they didn't quite expect to be answering?' and the lawyer coughed politely and said 'that's almost exactly what we do for a living'. What is rarely authentic is the lack of access to others' input or being able to look up a few things you didn't expect to know (but I have learned to be cautious about general statements!) I certainly agree it's the way to go (and 'absolutely' to your point about undeclared/undiagnosed issues). On 21 Dec 2017, at 17:01, Edwards, Corony wrote: > Another dimension that I've not heard discussed is the difference in > the way 'reasonable adjustments' might be made in a work environment > versus an education environment. I've never heard of an employer > giving an employee with a disability 25% extra time to complete a task > - though adjustments might be made to workloads, and also to the > equipment and support provided. Then again, I've never heard of a job > in which writing a timed essay (even open book or over 48 hours) or > completing a multiple choice test was set as a task. Which begs the > question of what adjustments might be reasonable for an 'authentic' > assessment that is meant to prepare students for employment as well as > test their discipline knowledge and understanding. It seems to me > there are lots of good arguments for adopting inclusive assessment > practices at the design stage, rather than implementing post-hoc > adjustments (see Plymouth University' materials on this, for example) > but my understanding is that these will reduce the need for individual > adjustments and also cater for those who have a disability that is > undiagnosed or undeclared. > > Your thoughts? > > Corony > > > Corony Edwards PFHEA > Independent HE Consultant > www.coronyedwards.co.uk<http://www.coronyedwards.co.uk> > 07771 923799 > > > > > > From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development > Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Andrew > Sent: 21 December 2017 15:40 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Takeaway exams > > When I was an undergraduate they were experimenting with a variety of > lengths of takeaway exam. I made myself ill using caffeine tablets, > and other drugs to survive. > All assessments discriminate, and favour some people. I did well in > traditional exams, so can't complain as there were lots of them. > I think Jason's point about adjustment is important. It's the old > dilemma, standard testing is easy to administer, and make adjustments > to, other forms of assessment may have value for lots of reasons, but > throw up uncertainties in relation to their discrimination. How much > should they be tested before they are used? As a Psychologist I am > aware of the amount of time it takes to develop a psychological test > (and the ethical framework around them) while in education we seem not > to have the same concerns. > The other question is preparation. Students have been prepared over > years to do standard assessment formats, how much preparation should > they get for new forms of assessment? > David Andrew > HEA CPD Manager > Working days - Monday-Wednesday > Educational Development > Academic Development > Student and Academic Services > Queen Mary University of London > 02078822803 > 02081446753 (incl voicemail) > > ________________________________ > From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development > Association <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on > behalf of Jason Davies > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 2:57:59 PM > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Takeaway exams > > > 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]<mailto:[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 "