Aston University

1. Aston University Aligning assessment to student diversity in Higher Education Judith Waterfield NTFHead of DASUniversity of Plymouth6th November 2008

2. Reasons for making assessments more inclusive • Diversity of students entering the sector – HE should reflect and promote this diversity • Equality agendas - positive duties under DDA 2005 • Concerns to make assessments reliable for measuring student achievement and assessing competences • Pressure to fit learning to assessment and employment • Students’ perceptions of themselves as customers/consumers • Concerns about compensatory approach of “exam provisions”, “special arrangements” Economies of scale for summative assessments - the traditional, unseen time limited examination (Elton, Johnson 2002)

3. Aligning assessment practice to meet our positive duties under DDA 2005 • equality of opportunity • removal of barriers • policies that anticipate the requirements of disabled students • looking ahead to provide the necessary adjustments – not simply waiting until a disabled student requests support

4. Our current position • No “transformation of those structural barriers to change” (Barton 2003) • Assessment arrangements of extra time etc, inclusively counterproductive and without proven compensatory benefit • Current arrangements derive from a medical model of disability making students peripheral and marginalised • Students feel that the provision however imperfect is better than no provision[SPACE project student voice]

5. Staff-Student Partnership for Assessment Change and Evaluation (SPACE) • A partnership of 8 HEIs from the South West • Sampled the opinion of around 800 disabled and non-disabled students • Undertook small and large scale pilots of alternative and inclusive assessments - 480 students • Listened to student and staff experience of current assessment practice

6. Conceptualising our approach to assessment • Contingent approach - compensatory arrangements which assimilate students through “special provisions” – extra time, own room etc • Alternative approach - offering a repertoire of assessments embedded into course design as present and future possibilities for a minority of disabled students • Inclusive approach – a flexible range of assessment modes made available to all, capable of assessing the same learning outcomes in different ways

7. Student preference for assessment modes • 47 assessment modes (compiled by SWANDS 2002) • Focus groups and soundings from academic staff - questionnaires were issued annually over three years • Disabled and non disabled students gave a negative value to unseen examinations [exception 10% - conventional A-level route, science based] “We teach for understanding but assess for memory. Teach for creativity and then assess without allowing for individuality” (Elton 2000)

8. Student Preference – disabled students for all phases • continuous assessment • coursework with discussion • essay assignments • multiple choice • oral examinations • personal research projects • portfolios and sketchbooks

9. Student preference – students with dyslexia (62.5% average of disabled students) for all phases • continuous assessment • coursework with discussion • oral examinations • portfolios and sketchbooks • personal research projects • critical diaries, learning logs and journals • exhibition and poster displays Strong interest on modes which reflect oral and visual dimensions, contain feedback and cues to progress – less comfort with written elements

10. Preferences of disabled and non disabled students across all phases of project • continuous assessment (47.3% on average) • coursework with discussion (40.2% on average) • personal research projects (34.0% on average) • essay assignments (33.0% on average) • multiple choice (30.3% on average) • peer and self-evaluation • oral examinations • critical diaries, learning logs and journals • projects, independent and group • portfolios and sketchbooks

11. All students’ preferences are for…… • variety • self-development in the acquisition of learning outcomes • modes which have congruence between ability and the means of measuring it

12. Assessment choice case studies from SPACE

13. Assessment choice – supported by Engineering Subject Centre • Piloted through 3 disciplines. • Chosen following staff and student surveys, questionnaires, data analysis, focus groups and interviews with staff. • Mixed student group – over 23, A level-entry, Access course entry, international students. • Required no contingency or “special arrangements” although over 12% disabled students in cohort. • Choices introduced in the first lecture, week to choose, period for reflection, option to change choice. Six students chose this facility.

14. Assessment choice – supported by Engineering Subject Centre (cont.) • Marks improved. • High level of student satisfaction 99%. • Shift in resources. • Methods evaluated by representative from the industry, academic adviser from Subject Centre School of Engineering. • Further development of a summative weekly test.

15. “Unlike integration the change is not about assimilation but transformation” (Barton 2003) • Make inclusive assessment an institutional responsibility. • Meet our anticipatory duty. “so that only minimal adaptations need to be made for many disabled people” (DRC 2007) “and not simply wait until a disabled student requests support” (DRC 2007)

16. Making the transformation • Revised Code of Practice DDA Part IV 2006; • 9.30 – “If [assessments] are to fulfil their purpose of determining competency in a certain area they must also be flexible regarding the mode of assessment so that each student has an equal opportunity to demonstrate their competencies without compromising standards. In some cases this may mean changing existing examination and assessment practices”. • 9.31 – “Changing the delivery or mode of assessment to one that is accessible to as many students as possible will reduce the need to make numerous reasonable adjustments for individual students” (DRC 2006)

17. Making the transformation (cont.) • Policy level • Focus on organisational change and not solely on individual adjustments. • Place inclusion as a core value considered in all our policies: Assessment Policy, Learning and Teaching Strategic Plan, etc. • Quality assurance – course planning, approval, periodic review. • Put into revisions of the DES Action Plan.

18. Making the transformation (cont.) • Procedural level • Move to designing curricula that remove barriers to equality of opportunity • Pilot in a “champion” department or module • Impact assess student experience of current contingent and alternative arrangements. • Data analysis of diverse students’ results, appeals, complaints with regard to assessment.

19. And finally… • This is a pro-active, coherent, anticipatory approach. • It seeks to tackle institutional discrimination and mainstream equality into the core business of the University. • It enables us to make a real difference to the culture of Higher Education. • It helps us to attract and retain high quality disabled applicants on to professional exit programmes • Broadens the diversity of the workforce mirroring the diversity of client/patients/customers

20. Challenges • Greater opportunities exist for many people with disabilities to train and enter the professions via foundation degrees and WP • Developing an anti-discriminatory approach, examining assessment criteria for unjustifiable discrimination whilst maintaining integrity of courses and required competences • To promote and support the engagement of disabled people into discipline related employment

21. Realising Potential • Need to move away from the bolt-on approach to diverse learners to a more social model approach to education. • See student difference as part of a learning and learner continuum (SPACE,2005). “Diversity is upon us, and we will be changed by it”. (Christine King, ILT Conference 2004)

22. References • Elton, L. (2000) “Dangers of Doing the wrong thing righter”, From ‘Evaluate and Improve’, Humanities and Arts Higher Education Network, University College London. • Barton, L. (2003) “Inclusive Education and Teacher Education – A Basis for Hope or a Discourse of Delusion” Professorial Lecture, Institute of Education, University of London. • Waterfield, J. , West, B. (2005) “Staff-Student Partnership for Assessment Change and Evaluation (SPACE) Project”, www.space.ac.uk, University of Plymouth. • Disability Right Commission (Equality and Human Rights Commission): Revised Code of Practice Post 16 (2006). “Understanding the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA – 2007). www.drc-gb.org (www.equalityhumanrightscomission.com)

23. For further information or support for your own strategic discussions please contact Judith Waterfield NTF judith.waterfield@plymouth.ac.uk