Staff guidance for inclusive assessments & making reasonable

adjustments

CONTENTS

Purpose 2Overview 3Scope 4Guidance 5Key concepts 51. What is anticipatory design? 52. Why should I make reasonable adjustments? 63. What is the process for making reasonable adjustments? 74. What kinds of reasonable adjustments can I put into place? 85. What adjustments might be appropriate for specific disabilities? 96. What is disability informed assessment? 97. What is good practice in marking the work of students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD) or impairments? 10Case Studies 12Student A – Autism and severe anxiety 12Student B – Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and Visual Stress 13Related Policies/Procedures/Advice and Other Resources 14

1 2

PURPOSEThis guidance aims to complement the Policy and Procedures on Inclusive Assessment, making reasonable adjustments and providing for alternative assessment arrangements. It is primarily designed to augment lecturers’ knowledge, skills and understanding about inclusive assessment, reasonable adjustments and alternative assessment arrangements.

The guidance provides exemplification of how these might be realised in practical terms and complements additional resource availability, for example the Busy Lecturer’s Guide to Inclusive Practice and Strategies for Creating Inclusive Programmes of Study (SCIPS). The latter is a web resource for academic staff that illustrates how students with specific learning requirements may be supported in learning, teaching and assessment.

This document is also available in different formats. Please see the Disability and Dyslexia Service for more details.

Disability and Dyslexia Service (DDS)disability@worc.ac.uk01905 855531

1 2

OVERVIEWUnder the Equality Act 2010, and as identified by the Equality Challenge Unit, ‘reasonable adjustments are required where disabled staff, students or visitors personally experience substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled people. The measure of what is a reasonable adjustment in assessment for disabled students will depend on an institution’s circumstances in relation to the:

• Resources available• Cost of the adjustment• Practicality of the changes• Potential benefit to other staff, students and visitors (ECU, Managing Reasonable Adjustments in Higher Education, 2010 p. 2).

This guidance takes cognisance of advice provided by the Higher Educational Academy (HEA). In order to align assessment activities closely with the United Kingdom Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF), an anticipatory inclusive design approach is recommended; this includes providing for alternative assessment items. In adopting such an approach it is expected that the needs of the vast majority of students will be met without recourse to reasonable adjustments, although these may still be necessary in some individual cases.

To strengthen understanding of what alternative assessment items might look like, this guidance highlights other policies, procedures and advice. Thereafter, the guidance suggests the nature of what might be considered as reasonable in terms of adjusting assessment items and conditions. The guidance also identifies when and how alternative assessment modes and arrangements might be required and offers guidance on marking the written work of students with disabilities. Case studies are used to guide thinking and action and by promoting a consideration of how best to engage with learners while considering the nature of reasonable adjustments.

3 4

SCOPEThe guidance is provided for all staff of the University, and particularly to staff who teach and those who provide learning support for students. For example the guidance will be of particular benefit for personal academic tutors (PATs), Disability Advisors, Disability Link Tutors, lecturers and Course Leaders. The guidance has been drawn up with reference to good practice available within the University and across the sector. It is also of relevance to students with learning difficulties or disabilities and those with long-term medical conditions.

3 4

GUIDANCEKey concepts

1. What is anticipatory design?

Inclusive anticipatory design of assessment ensures there is genuine choice offered to all students to enable a variety of ways in which expected learning outcomes and core course competencies can be evidenced through assessment.

Lecturers are encouraged to build flexibility and choice into their assessment design and implementation.

Formative assessments are pivotal in identifying any challenges individual students may face during the assessment cycle. Following learning from engagements with formative assessments, peer and tutor support should be provided to maximise student capacity to evidence learning through summative forms of assessment.

Understanding the nature of students’ disabilities, and the way that these impact on how students may respond to assessment items, should inform an inclusive, and professionally informed, approach during the marking of assessment items.

In marking written work presented by students with dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties (SpLDs), unless otherwise stipulated in module/course competencies, assessment markers should focus on the extent to which learning outcomes are realised rather than considering errors in grammatical, syntactical or spelling expression.

Anticipatory design and disability informed assessment and marking enables students to focus on how best to evidence learning through assessments in an increasingly autonomous and confident way.

REFLECTION: Review one or two modules with which you are familiar.

a) To what extent is there scope for formative assessment? How is formative assessment used to identify and support learning requirements of all students, particularly those with learning difficulties or disabilities?

b) In what ways are students involved in determining the nature of assessment processes?

c) To what extent is there scope for students with learning difficulties to evidence their learning in a diversity of ways?

5 6

2. Why should I make reasonable adjustments?

Ideally, the mode of study should have been designed from the perspective of universal provision – that means consideration is given to all students and their potential to engage with the learning and teaching in advance (for more information see http://www.udlcenter.org/). This ensures an anticipation of the most facilitative conditions that would provide for sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of a wide range of learners. So consideration is given to accessibility of resources, the teaching environment, enabling access to the curriculum and interrogating the nature of formative and summative assessments. In the vast majority of cases, this approach precludes the need to make special arrangements.

Nevertheless, in order to ensure there is no discrimination against individual students, in a minority of cases reasonable adjustments to existing assessments should be considered.

A genuine competence standard applies equally to all students and cannot be modified. However, depending on the needs of an individual disabled student, the means by which that student is enabled to demonstrate attainment of a competence standard or a learning objective can be adjusted or adapted. This might involve, for example:

• Altering assessment arrangements• Adapting materials used in an assessment • Providing assistance during assessment • Re-organising the assessment physical environment • Facilitating the use of assistive technologies.

REFLECTION: Read through the student case studies provided on pages 12-13 and as you do so consider the following questions:

a) In light of these students’ circumstances, and with reference to your own modules or courses, how might you build in an anticipatory design approach to your course or module?

b) In the case studies provided, what recommendations have been made by the Disability and Dyslexia Service (DDS)? How might these recommendations impact on your modules or courses?

c) Who is the Disability Link Tutor (DLT) within your Institute? What recommendations might the DLT make for assessments in your modules or course?

d) What reasonable adjustments have been afforded to other students on your course and what were the processes involved? What challenges have been encountered? How have these been addressed? What has worked?

5 6

3. What is the process for making reasonable adjustments?

The nature of an individual student’s disability will, to a large extent, determine the type of a reasonable adjustment to be considered and put into place. Arriving at the nature of the reasonable adjustment to assessment involves collaboration between students, their lecturers, Course Leaders, Disability Link Tutors and Disability and Dyslexia Services (DDS).

It is not possible to set out all the possible reasonable adjustments that may be required by disabled students. The guidance provided in this document focuses upon the most common adjustments to assessment and some of the modifications that might be required to enhance inclusive assessment practices. In considering all requests for reasonable adjustments, the University will make individual adjustments based on a student’s particular requirements. Consideration will need to take account of the extent to which a requested adjustment is related to the disability and how this may impact upon the evidencing of learning outcomes through current assessment arrangements.

There is no current legal definition of what a reasonable adjustment is, though guidance is available. The Equality Challenge Unit has published guidance on considering inclusion and reasonable adjustments:

a. Whether a student may be disadvantaged by the method of teaching or assessment b. How effective the adjustment will be in overcoming the disadvantage the student facesc. Whether the requested adjustment is related to a disability or is just an expression of preferenced. Whether the adjustments are reasonable in terms of -

i. The practicality of the changes ii. Impacts, or potential impacts, on other students iii.Wider benefits to other students.

Reasonable adjustments in assessments for individual disabled students will usually be determined in conversation with a Disability Advisor, also taking into account the recommendations of any independent needs assessment report where appropriate. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to consult the student’s Personal Academic Tutor/Course Leader and/or Module Tutor with a view to enabling the student to demonstrate their ability to meet the learning outcomes and competence standards.

REFLECTION: Read through the student case studies again.

a) With reference to the case studies, in what ways might these students be able to evidence core competencies in your course?

b) What adjustments in assessment design do you believe might be seen as ‘reasonable’? Do your colleagues agree?

c) Who ought to be involved in the process of determining what assessment options might be reasonable and what are their roles?

7 8

4. What kinds of reasonable adjustments can I put into place?

There are diverse adjustments that might be considered for individual students when anticipatory universal design has not been completely effective. For example, by providing additional time for students who are deaf or dyslexic during examinations, there is scope to ensure these students understand questions being posed. This would also provide additional capacity for these students to check their answers for accuracy in spelling and grammar. Such a reasonable adjustment may also apply to students who, because of their impairment(s), may lack the stamina to write or concentrate for sustained periods. Additionally, in exceptional circumstances, the DDS may recommend extending deadlines for the submission of specific pieces of work or for module assessments. Extensions of this nature should not exceed a maximum of two weeks.

Adjusting planned programmes of assessment to consider student needs could also be regarded as reasonable. For example, during a doctoral level ‘viva voce’ or an examination, or during any prolonged assessment process, there should be provision of rest breaks for students who experience fatigue or discomfort and for those who have difficulties sitting for long periods.

Considering a change in the location of an assessment event would also constitute a reasonable adjustment. For example, enabling an alternative examination location for students who have panic attacks (for which medical corroboration will be required), or for students who need to move around is considered reasonable. In such cases, an approved invigilator must be present.

Depending on the nature of an individual’s learning or physical disability, it may be reasonable to provide an amanuensis (scribe) during assessment events. Given that this is an interpersonal event, reliant upon a trusting relationship between those involved, it would be considerate to enable students time to practice with an amanuensis in advance of formal assessments.

The use of facilitative technology may provide an enabling reasonable adjustment. By encouraging the use of a laptop, computer or iPad, assessors provide avenues for students who may need to activate voice to print technology or those who may benefit from being able to type rather than to write. In examination contexts, this will necessitate ensuring that the technology is ‘clean’, has no access to the internet, and that students are competent in the use of equipment chosen and that a technician is available to deal with technical problems. Facilitative technologies may also include additional specialist software, electronic spellcheckers or coloured overlays for dyslexic students.

REFLECTION: With reference to the two case studies included below:

a) Review the SCIPS Website and suggest what might constitute reasonable adjustments with regard to assessment?

b) How might you ensure that the student was involved in the process of providing input to assessment adjustment?

c) How might you discriminate between ‘assessment preference’ and ‘reasonableness’?

7 8

5. What adjustments might be appropriate for specific disabilities?

Specific reasonable adjustments will ordinarily be recommended by the DDS on discussion with students and these adjustments (or entitlements) are then communicated to staff via an Entitlements Letter (DDS1) and via notes on tutor class lists. Adjustments might include:

• Students who are blind or partially sighted may be permitted to present or request material in Braille, large print, audiotape or in electronic format

• Examination or test papers for blind or partially sighted students should be provided in a medium appropriate to the visual impairment. Formal assessments may be undertaken using adaptive technology, and/or using an amanuensis or reader

• Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (see note 1 below) may be permitted to have examination or test papers ‘overwritten’ to modify the carrier so that the nature of the assessment tasks are communicated in sign language, or by oral rephrasing, or by lip speaking. This must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person, for example a teacher of the deaf

• Students who have a physical disability may be permitted to use a reader or amanuensis, to use adaptive technology or a computer, or to have alternatively presented papers

• Students who have dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties (see note 2 below) may be permitted additional time for examinations or formal tests as appropriate to individual circumstances

• A written examination may be replaced by an oral examination, in which case the oral examination must be recorded so as to be available for internal and external moderation.

In appropriate circumstances, use may also be made of an amanuensis, an audio or digital recording or a transcription response to assessment tasks or examinations.

6. What is disability informed assessment?

University policy permits students who disclose specific learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia, or a disability impacting on spelling, syntax, or structural organisation of written work, such as for pre-linguistically deaf students) the facility to bring the nature of their disability to the attention of the staff who mark their work.This approach accommodates the student’s functional difference, and does not affect academic standards applied in the grading of work or assessment of the achievement of learning outcomes. This is sometimes referred to as ‘disability informed assessment’. Depending on the method of submission, students use a number of ways to alert markers to their entitlement to Disability Informed Assessment. See the Disability and Dyslexia Service website for more details www.worcester.ac.uk/student-services/disability-and-dyslexia.htm.

In making markers aware of a student’s disability, staff should be able to recognise and disregard disability related effects on student’s work where appropriate, and also to ensure that they apply the guidelines for provision of feedback that is helpful to disabled students in facilitating their learning.

9 10

7. What is good practice in marking the work of students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD) or impairments?

GUIDELINE 1: Read fast, looking for ideas, understanding, knowledge and skills

By reading a student’s work fast, it is usually easier to assess the work for the ideas, understanding, knowledge and academic skills that are present. Fast reading is best done by:

• Ignoring any mistakes of spelling, grammar, punctuation or syntax (unless a competency standard)• Avoiding initial correction or comment upon the spelling, grammar, punctuation or syntax.

However, where a student’s work lacks cohesion and clearly fails to address the intended learning outcomes, the tutor is not expected to re-interpret what the student has written.

Students with a SpLD use more time and mental energy than their peers to put ideas into words. The apparent lack of order in the work of a student with a SpLD can be the result of a mismatch between their way of thinking and the expected patterns of academic writing. By reading fast, the reader can more readily find the thought patterns lying beneath the surface.

GUIDELINE 2: Inform students that marks pertain to learning outcomes and marking criteria

Students with a SpLD often retain a strong memory of the ideas that they want to communicate and cannot see that what they have written does not convey their ideas. This retained memory means that during exams, students with a SpLD may be very unlikely to see and correct errors.

While planning coursework and submission of written work, students with a SpLD often choose between providing enough time for review of their assignments, or ensuring that they have engaged in sufficient reading to respond to the task. The resulting submission may therefore evidence paucity of research and reading but with some clarity of structure and presentation. Alternatively, a student may submit a piece of work that is well-evidenced but poorly written in terms of structure, spelling or grammatical expression.

Make it clear to students concerned that marking of assessment items is focused upon the learning outcomes and assessment criteria. These are generally related to core ideas, knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and a capacity to evidence analytical, critical and evaluative or other skills. Unless identified as a core competency, assessment marking should not be focused on the technicalities of spelling, grammar and punctuation.

GUIDELINE 3: Provide clear and constructive comments about strengths as well as areas for improvement

Comments are more formative and constructive when they illustrate where a student has done well and explains why some work is good, rather than if these are solely adversely critical. Comments are most effective when there is an explanation of what is required in order to strengthen future work. Be aware that many SpLD students will have experienced negative reactions to their written work throughout their educational development. It can be helpful to separate marking of transcription/

9 10

communication errors in use of English from marking of content, for example by using different styles of annotation.

The marking criteria for each module should be made clear for all students in the module guide. If criteria are clear the emphasis for students will be to develop the required skills. Where correct spelling, punctuation and grammar are deemed to be legitimate competency standards and made explicit, it is good practice to indicate the marks that may be lost for poor spelling (typically no more than 2%-5%). It may be helpful to correct selected spellings only (e.g. technical vocabulary) and let the student know this.

Where possible it is helpful to discuss the level of correction that the student will be able to use. This will in part depend on the student’s level of understanding of the technicalities of language and presentation. Sometimes students may have a conscious knowledge but an inability to use it while at other times there may be limited basic knowledge. When a student has conscious knowledge of language and presentation, the errors that occur can be marked in the margin against the line where they are found. The aim is to let the student locate the errors and correct them.

It is helpful for all students to use a system of symbols that is convenient, such as: sp for spelling mistake, ss for sentence structure, pn for punctuation, gr for grammar, lt for layout. If some indicative feedback and corrections on spelling and punctuation is provided, this may be restricted to annotation on the first couple of pages within an assignment.

Many problems can remain in disabled students’ work even with the benefit of assistive software and spell-checking, including:

• homophone substitutions (for example; there/their, effect/affect, course/coarse)• phonetic equivalents (e.g. frenetic for phonetic, homerfone for homophone)• incorrect word substitutions (e.g. distance for disturbance)• American spelling (e.g. colorful, fueling).

It may be challenging for students to read individual tutor handwriting, so electronic annotated feedback is preferable.

GUIDELINE 4: Pre-empt difficulties a blind or visually impaired student may encounter in presenting assessments and in accessing feedback

Blind or visually impaired students may not be aware of mistakes in the presentation of their work. For example, there may be poor quality print, and even with the benefit of assistive software there may be difficulties with:

• line-spacing and formatting• incorrect homophone substitutions (e.g. there/their, effect/affect)• American spelling.

Draw attention to poor presentation and make suggestions as to how this might be addressed. However, the marking considerations should be restricted to attainment of learning outcomes and assessment criteria.

Written feedback should be provided electronically to enable blind and visually impaired students to access it through print to voice media. As with all other aspects of inclusive and disability informed assessment processes, tutors benefit greatly from engaging with students concerned and coming to a shared understanding about how best to facilitate learning and assessment.

11 12

CASE STUDIES

Student A – Autism and severe anxiety

Student A is on the autistic spectrum (for information about autism, see: https://scips.worc.ac.uk/?s=autism) and suffers from severe anxiety. He finds it difficult to express himself verbally. He is highly language specific, meaning that he will interpret what is shared quite literally. During social interactions, he often allows others to take the initiative while engaging in dialogue. His concentration varies, zoning in and out. He also has difficulty with orientating himself through a sequence of tasks.

During learning sessions, Student A struggles with taking legible detailed notes. He needs regular prompting to remain on task, and may not always understand the instructions provided for class-based activities.

The student can’t work with a voice recorder and his note-taking skills aren’t sufficient to supplement this. However, more sophisticated types of voice recording software are being explored to see if these will meet his needs.

Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA) funding:

• Specialist one-to-one academic support is provided to help the Student A manage his studies, meet deadlines and organise his academic ideas• Student A receives Mental Health Adviser support.

Assessment Challenges• Group Work is a challenge because of the sensory overload involved, the reliance on social skills, the shared physical space and the unpredictability of the social context.• Presentations are challenging because of the confidence required in presenting information verbally under pressured conditions.• Making choices without any structure may be more difficult for a student on the autistic spectrum, for example choosing from a series of essay questions may be problematic.

11 12

Student B – Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and Visual Stress

Student B has a combination of dyslexia and dyspraxia (for information about dyspraxia see: https://uk.scips.eu/?s=dyspraxia). This aspect of neurodiversity affects her ability to carry out many aspects of reading and writing, remembering messages, planning and multi-tasking. In particular, the processing of visual and verbal information is affected. This means that Student B has to spend far more time than an average student processing and understanding instructions. Visual Stress leads to word glaring or moving on the page and text is therefore more comfortable to read with the use of the coloured overlay.

Student B takes longer than her peers to make notes. She also finds it challenging to synthesise and organise her ideas for written assignments. Her dyspraxia leads to difficulties with spatial awareness, her sense of direction and her engagement in team sports.

DSA funds:• Student B has an entitlement to thirty hours per year (tapering to fifteen hours in final year) of specialist one-to-one academic support to assist her management of her studies, to meet deadlines and to organise her academic ideas

• She has use of specialist technology in the form of a voice-recorder

• She has been provided with assistive software and training, in the form of ‘Audio-Notetaker’.

Assessment Challenges

Understanding tasks: Student B needs time to absorb instructions and requires cross-checking in order to ensure that she clearly understands what the assessment requires and how that might be achieved.

Group Work: 1. Student B requires time to absorb instructions and actively participate in group situations 2. She has a tendency to allow others to dominate and will “watch on” 3. She works better with some (more supportive and patient) people than others 4. Timed tasks – she may need more time to both process and undertake written tasks.

Written work: 1. Student B may not immediately pick up spelling and grammatical errors 2. She has challenges with sequencing in a diversity of contexts, for example of letters, dates, and of the component parts of an argument 3. Student B’s proof-reading skills are limited due to weak visual processing 4. She has difficulty in planning, organising and expressing thoughts clearly.

NotesNote 1 For students who have a hearing loss, written and spoken English can cause significant problems due to a delay in acquiring language in early childhood. This can manifest itself in the student having a limited vocabulary, poor grammar and syntax, and a general poor grasp of the use of language. For students who use British Sign Language, English will, in most instances, be their second language. Care must be taken to ensure that students are not penalised in the assessment process by the use of overly complicated language and some adaptation of the ‘carrier’ or non-technical language may be required.13 14

Note 2 Students requesting alternative arrangements on the grounds of specific learning differences such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, AD(H)D or Asperger’s Syndrome, must provide the Disability and Dyslexia Service (DDS) with a diagnostic assessment and recommendation completed by a suitably qualified psychologist or other specialist. This should normally be no more than two years old at the time of the student making an initial application for alternative assessment arrangements, and should have been conducted when the student was aged 16+. It must be submitted at least four weeks before the first assessment for which an alternative arrangement or adjustment is sought.

Related Policies, Procedures and AdviceUniversity of Worcester

• University Assessment Policy http://www.worc.ac.uk/aqu/668.htm

• Strategies for Creating Inclusive Programmes of Study (SCIPS) https://scips.worc.ac.uk/

• Busy Lecturer’s Guide to Inclusive Practice https://rteworcester.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/busy-lecturer-guide-final.pdf

• Policy and Procedures on Inclusive Assessment, making resonable adjustments and providing for alternative assessment arrangements https://www.worc.ac.uk/aqu/documents/Inclusive_assessment_and_reasonable_adjustments_policy_and_procedures.pdf

• Disability and Dyslexia Service (DDS) http://www.worcester.ac.uk/student-services/disability-and-dyslexia.htm

Other resources• Managing reasonable adjustments in higher education (Equality Challenge Unit, 2010)

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/external/managing-reasonable-adjustments-in-higher-education.pdf

• Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: A Resource for Change www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/3/3026/Space_toolkit.pdf

• Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a route to Excellence (Department for Education, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-teaching-and-learning-in-higher-education

13 14

AuthorsDr Sean Bracken

(s.bracken@worc.ac.uk) Senior Lecturer in Education & Programme Leader

for SENCO PG Cert, Institute of Education

Patrick Clark (p.clark@worc.ac.uk)

Specialist Learning Support Service Manager, Student Services

AcknowledgementsThis guidance augments and builds upon the prior work of Dr Val Chapman. Earlier iterations of the document were

significantly enhanced by critical observations and supporting edits provided by Dr Marie Stowell, Maureen Beckwith,

Alice Kemble-Davies and Dr Richard Woolley.