Defining inclusive assessment

When thinking about inclusive education one could refer back to basics and the right to education as detailed in Article 26 of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to education” and furthermore “… higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit”

This basic human right serves as a starting point when considering inclusion in education.

Inclusion is a process, not a static state. It increases over time as practices change, policies are developed and attitudes towards difference within student cohorts are transformed.

Inclusion is about a disabled student's right to gain access to the same learning opportunities at university that non-disabled students enjoy. They should be provided with the support they need to enable them to achieve and be valued for who they are, regardless of difference or impairment.

In ensuring that all have the right to education, the way and means by which people access learning and are judged on their progress should be fair and inclusive to all. Indeed the QAA code of practice states that “accessible and appropriate provision is not additional but a core element of provision”

In June 2011, Nottingham Trent University adopted the Higher Education Academy definition of inclusion, which reads as;

“Enabling a full and equitable participation in and progression through higher education for all prospective and existing students”.

Background
In the past, attention has focussed on barriers to learning in terms of physical restrictions, this could include difficulty in accessing buildings or required resources and so initial support was focused on addressing these needs, rather than on reviewing learning and teaching per se (Hanafin et al 2006).

However, students themselves may consider barriers they face are perhaps more likely to be related to their learning and teaching experience, i.e. curriculum access and assessment procedures.

An example might be a dyslexic students who has to wait a week for lecture notes to be posted in a learning room, meaning that the time they have to complete an assessment is reduced. This can place the student under unnecessary pressure, have a negative impact on their assessment and learning experience and possibly their assessment grade (Hanafin et al, 2006).

Early attempts to create an inclusive educational environment often resulted in what Hanafin et al (2006, p.437) referred to as the “individual deficit model” where support is offered to the individual “with little concomitant impact on institutional practices”. Such practices could range from, longer time to complete assessments, use of a scribe or a computer in exams. These may be covered under the headings of “flexibility” and “reasonable adjustment”. Many such “reasonable adjustments” will still have focused on the physical aspect of support rather than inclusive pedagogic practice.

Reasonable adjustment and flexibility

While inclusive assessment aims to provide equal access for all, reasonable adjustment and flexibility are opportunities to support individuals.  The NTU definition  of inclusion sets inclusive practice apart from the following approaches to making adjustments for disabled students in assessment contexts as follows:

• Modified assessment - Alternative versions of an assessment available within the programme in anticipation of those students who would be disadvantaged in undertaking the standard assessment;
• Reasonable adjustments - Individual arrangements for students with particular disabilities in order for them to undertake the standard assessment in a different way.

As highlighted by Riddell et al (2007) the terms “flexibility” and “reasonable adjustment” in relation to inclusive assessment seemed to cause some angst amongst academic colleagues. They note (p.625-6) “variances in the willingness to adapt teaching and learning practices” and fears that “accommodating an impairment through adjustment to an assessment might unfairly advantage some students”. In addition to staff attitudes, “reasonable adjustments” do not always receive understanding or acceptance from student peers. Hanafin (2006, p.441) quotes a student, “dyslexia is viewed as a strategy for getting an unfair advantage”.

Ashworth et al (2010, p.211) argue that “reasonable adjustment should not change or lower standards to accommodate disabled students” and that the emphasis should be on adjustments to methods being designed so that students with disabilities “have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their learning against the same standards”.

“Flexibility” can be interpreted in two major ways. Within this resource it is discussed in the context of a flexible range of assessments as opposed to flexibility in the interpretation or marking of a students work by an academic – as the latter could possibly be confused with reasonable adjustment.

Clayton & Booth (2007) state that “incorporating flexibility in the assessment process is one of the principles that underpins good assessment practice. Robson (2005) supports this by saying that genuine alternatives can assess the same learning, but allow students to demonstrate their learning in ways that suit their preferences and furthermore their learning strategies and styles.

The QAA Code of Practice also supports flexibility in how students can meet course objectives. Flexibility within assessment choices can allow all students to select an option which best demonstrates their understanding of a topic, how they have met the assessment criteria and achieved the learning outcomes.

Tynjälä (1998) believed that exposing students to a greater range of assessment methods will also develop their critical thinking which “is more likely to occur when students are assessed by more diverse continuous methods than when assessed by terminal examination.

Whilst acknowledging flexibility in assessment practice can have many advantages, particularly in developing graduate and employability skills, some, for example, Graham Gibbs, warn against too much variety as it may lead to:

• student confusion about demands and forms of discourse
• lack of progression in standard over time as too little practice of each form (of assessment)
• feedback, not feeding forward – i.e feedback from a students' last assessment doesn’t feed into their next assessment as the task is not related (Gibbs N.D.).

The future
The 2012 NTU Curriculum Review proposes an assessment model which is both holistic and coherent, whilst providing an integrated and challenging student experience.  Informed by the work of Gibbs on assessment  the review proposes many, regular, small formative tasks, often in class with a reduced number of summative assessments. Undoubtedly there will always be situations where amendments and adjustments outside of the standard course assessments are necessary but it is felt that this model will encourage the practice of self-regulation, independence and provide a more inclusive environment for all students.

References
ASHWORTH, M., BLOXHAM, S., and PEARCE, L., 2010. Examining the tension between academic standards and inclusion for disabled students: the impact on marking of individual academics’ frameworks for assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 35: (2), 209-223.

CLATON, B., and R. BOTH., 2000. How flexible is assessment in online delivery? Paper presented at NET*working 2000 conference, November 1-14 in Australia [accessed Oct 2010]

HANAFIN, J., SHEVLIN, M., KENNY, M., and MCNEELA, E., 2006. Including young people with disabilities: Assessment challenges in Higher Education. Higher Education, 54, (3), 435-448.

ROBSON, K. 2005. Assessment – The final frontier – Just how valid, reliable and fair are assessments of disabled students? In Enhancing practice: Reflections on assessment, vol.II, ed. Quality Assurance Agency. Gluoucester: Quality Assurance Agency

RIDDELL, S., WEEDON, E., FULLER, M., HEALEY, A., HURST, K., KELLY and PUGGOTT, L., 2007. Managerialism and equalities: Tensions within widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK Universities. Higher Education 54, 615-28

TYNJALA P., 1998. Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students’ learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36(2), 209-230.