 |
 |
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 "