 |
 |
> I am currently investigating provision for students with dyslexia. At > present students here have the usual exam options of extra time, use of a > computer, a reader etc, but as an Art and Design institution, assessment > is usually based on assignments. for this reason, answers to some/all of > the following questions would be much appreciated. > > 1. Is dyslexia taken into consideration when work is marked? Yes, what is less likely to be considered is the effect of any literacy support that may have been given, legitimately, but without the tutor's knowledge. I have known students panic in the face of exams, realising that their own native abilities will be revealed. This is why I ask that such support be not focused on current assignments but I am probably wasting my breath. > 2. If so, is the severity/form of dyslexia taken into consideration or is > a blanket policy operated (for example, X per cent added on to total mark > of degree) Our university, like many it seems, adopts a fairly flat policy where extra time is appropriate. 15 m/h or 25% is added. Without accurate, reliable measures for doing otherwise this is unlikely to change. > 3. If there is a blanket policy, what percentage is applied. See above. > 4. What are the arguments for/againt a blanket policy? For: easy and cheap to operate, lack of objective measures for doing otherwise, appears to be fair to those who run the exams Against: lacks imagination in face of obvious variations in candidates despite inability to measure, > 5. What would you think of 3 percent as a suggested grade in crease? I met a student recently who had been offered 3% and rejected it with disgust as it was going to make no material difference. I was inclined to agree with this at least. Surely this is the wrong approach. Variations in exam arrangements should be to allow the student to show what they know in the manner that best fits them. Theoretically, this could take many forms and be impossible to implement. But the idea is sound, that one wants to give the student the best chance to represent themselves then measure that equitably. It is not about compensatory gestures, which seem to amount to giving higher marks than have been apparently earned, in order to appear fair. There is nothing "fair" about the way nature hands out talent. I am sure that some will be furious with this, but we risk an academic backlash if our actions are not rational, but based on emotional desires to be kind. Dave (Attila) Laycock Dave Laycock Head of CCPD, Chair of NFAC Computer Centre for People with Disabilities University of Westminster 72 Great Portland Street London W1N 5AL tel. 0171-911-5161 fax. 0171-911-5162 WWW home page: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/ccpd/ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%