SOLSTICE & CLT Conference 2014

5th & 6th June 2014

Assessment Feedback for Learning Disabled Students in Higher Education

Liz RichardsEdge Hill University

Liz Richards 1

The requirements of the PG Cert in HE

My role as SpLD co-ordinator in the Dpt Social Sciences

An interest in widening access to and participation in HE

An interest in the politics of disability poly responses to learning disabled (SEN, SpLD) students

Assessment Feedback Area of increasing interest in HE (Evans 2013)

Liz Richards 2

Considered key to improving student outcomes and raising achievement (Bloxham and Boyd 2007).

Evidence that it outweighs all other elements of the assessment process - consistent across socioeconomic status, race, academic locale; level of study (Orsmond et al, 2013)

Instrumental in increasing student engagement and participation, and reducing student attrition (Lunt and Curran 2010).

Can provide the means by which independent learners might acquire the ability to monitor and evaluate their own performance, both in their academic career and beyond that into their professional lives (Ferguson 2011)

Liz Richards 3

Quality (detail & timeliness) (NUS Connect 2011).

Put down to:

◦ Increasing numbers of students now entering higher education (Moore and Kuol 2005);

◦ Additional administration due to current emphasis on tutor accountability and output measurement (Deem and Brehony 2005);

◦ Lack of opportunity and space for individual tutorial sessions (Bloxham and Boyd 2007).

◦ Belief that it is the mark rather than the feedback that is of utmost importance to students (Carless 2007; Higgins, Hartley and Skelton, 2001).

◦ Claims by tutors that students fail to engage with and respond to feedback, and either misuse or ignore it (Draper 2009).

◦ Predilection of tutors to conceptualise feedback as a ‘single notion that must be understood’ (Boud and Molloy 2013, 699).

Liz Richards 4

To identify examples of ‘best practice’ with learning disabled students through a systematic review of literature

Ethics

Methodology

Method

Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) Framework (Hudson 2010)

Liz Richards 5

In addition to: ‘higher education’, ‘feedback’ and ‘assessment feedback’

Active Learning in Higher Education

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

Higher Education,

Higher Education Quarterly,

Journal of Further and Higher Education,

Quality in Higher Education,

Teaching in Higher Education

Studies in Higher Education.

Dyslexia Dyspraxia Special Educational Need Specific Learning Difficulty Learning disabled Personalised guidance Inclusive Innovative Audio Verbal Student Centred Audio-Visual E-learning Feed-forward

Liz Richards 6

Literature on learning disabled students’ assessment feedback

Literature on higher education

Literature relating to pedagogical approaches

Research of an empirical nature

Literature written in English

Literature that does not focus on learning disabled students’ assessment feedback

Literature on other educational provision

Literature relating to other approaches

Non-empirical research, methodological or reviews

Literature written in other languages

Liz Richards 7

Date parameters: 1st August 2008 -31st August 2013

Identified eighty-nine sources relating to assessment/feedback more generally

Only two that matched the criteria:

Habib et al (2012) The effectiveness of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) in encouraging dyslexic students to engage in online student–student, interaction, providing feedback for co-students’ drafts and discussing academic issues on message boards

◦ Highlights the challenges dyslexic students experience when using in VLEs to access feedback

◦ Information overload,

◦ Being judged by the other VLE users on the basis of their spelling,

◦ The mode of feedback requires thinking through thoroughly to ensure its efficacy

◦ Requires investment to support students, both to engage them and to enable them to become proficient in its use(ibid).

Hughes et al (2010) The use of E-portfolios and personalized learning to feedback to two dyslexic students.

◦ Highlights the advantages of engaging in more innovative forms of communication as a means of enhancing the student experience and constructing interdependence between L/D student and tutor,

◦ Reservations about tensions inherent in the multiple roles of ‘dialoguer, teacher, and assessor”

◦ Success of such an approach very much depends on the “pedagogic awareness of the tutor, their habits and level of practical experience”(ibid:60)

Liz Richards 8

Since 2005 HE Institutions have a ‘Disability Equality Duty’ (DED) …

Legal obligation to have a dedicated disability services unit; must be

‘proactive in ensuring that disabled people are treated fairly and equally’ (Vickerman and Blundell 2010, 23).

But Disability advisers have not been ‘highly regarded’ (Parker, 2000)

Some evidence of resentment from academic staff; that they are required ‘to provide support for students who should never have been admitted to courses in the first place and cannot manage academically or are not interested’ (ibid, 282).

Whilst this is disputed (Mortimore, 2013 ; Smith, 2010) individual lecturers report ‘low confidence and experience in accommodating the needs of students with disabilities’ (Mortimore 2013, 40), and there is little agreement on what inclusive practice actually is (Smith 2010).

Rhetoric of rights… but a needs discourse dominates…

Strategies for inclusion - unevenly implemented (Barnes 2007).

And…‘the rhetoric of support is rarely matched by the reality of provision’ (ibid, 1).

Liz Richards 9

Responsibility for inclusion of disabled students sits squarely with administrators rather than educators….

Little evidence that there is much innovation in terms of improving the feedback experience for learning disabled students

Little done to ensure academics engage with learning disabled students in dialogue regarding their feedback

Solutions advocated tend to be technical in nature and focus on ‘simple and easy ways to implement strategies for managing difference’ (Allan 2010, 609).

Focus remains firmly on traditional forms of written feedback and no indication is apparent that this is monitored for effectiveness.

Little attention paid to the ability of the staff to accommodate the educational needs of learning disabled students (Fuller et al 2004; Smith 2010)

Learning disabled students report an on-going battle with institutions in regard to alternative forms of assessment ‘adjustments in pedagogy and curriculum’ (Riddell and Weedon 2006, 70) and this systematic review of the literature identifies that the efficacy of assessment feedback for learning disabled students too is yet to be addressed in any meaningful way. Liz Richards 10

Evidence suggests that for feedback to be effective it needs to form part of a ‘collaborative discussion’ between educator and student ‘which enables shared understandings and subsequently provides opportunities for further development based on the exchange’ (Blair and McGinty 2013, 467).

Orsmond et al (2013) argue for systems of feedback in higher education that can be delivered in multiple formats which encourage dialogue between tutor and student

Adcroft and Willis (2013, 804) argue that for feedback to be effective academics and students must possess a shared understanding of the purpose and form of feedback.

Research indicates there is little evidence of participatory or innovative working to enhance the experience of learning disabled students and still less this ‘collaborative’ discussion/ dialogue taking place between learning disabled students and academic staff.

Liz Richards 11

Adcroft, A. and R. Willis. 2013. “Do those who benefit the most need it the least? A four-year experiment in enquiry-based feedback.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (7): 803-815.

Allan, J. 2010. “The sociology of disability and the struggle for inclusive education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 31 (5): 603-619.

Barnes, C. 2007. “Disability, higher education and the inclusive society.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (1): 135-145.

Blair, A. and S. McGinty. 2013. “Feedback-dialogues: exploring the student perspective.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (4): 466-476

Bloxham, S. and P. Boyd. 2007. Developing effective assessment in higher education: A practical guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Boud, D. and E. Molloy. 2013. “Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (6): 698-712.

Carless, D. 2007. “Differing perceptions in the feedback process.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 219-233.

Deem, R. and K. J. Brehony. 2005. “Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education” Oxford Review of Education 31 (2): 217-235.

Draper, S. W. 2009. “What are Learners actually regulating when given feedback?” British Journal of Educational Technology 40 (2): 306-315.

Evans, C. 2013. “Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education.” Review of Educational Research 83 (1): 70–120

Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (2010) EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews Available at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=88 accessed 30/8/13

Ferguson, P. 2011. “Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36: 51–62.

Fuller, M., M. Healey, A. Bradley, and T. Hall. 2004. “Barriers to learning: a systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university.” Studies in Higher Education 29 (3): 303-318.

Liz Richards 12

Habib, L., G. Berget, F.E. Sandnes, N. Sanderson, P. Khan, S. Fagernes, and A. Olcay. 2012. “Dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28: 574-584.

Higgins, R., P. Hartley, and A. Skelton. 2001. “Getting the Message Across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback” Teaching in Higher Education 6(2): 269-274.

Hudson, J. 2010 “Programme-Level Assessment: A review of selected material” available at: http://www.pass.brad.ac.uk/wp3litreview.pdf accessed 30/8/13.

Hughes, J., M. Herrington, T. McDonald, and A. Rhodes. 2011. “E-portfolios and Personalized Learning: Research in Practice with Two Dyslexic Learners in UK Higher Education.” Dyslexia 17: 48-64.

Lunt, T. and J. Curran. 2010. “‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 ( 7): 759–69.

Moore, S. and N. Kuol, 2005. “Students evaluating teachers: exploring the importance of faculty reaction to feedback on teaching” Teaching in Higher Education 10 (1): 57 – 73.

Mortimore, T. 2013. “Dyslexia in higher education: creating a fully inclusive institution” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 13 (1): 38-47.

National Union of Students Connect. 2011. “Feedback on Assessment” available at http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/campaigns/highereducation/archived/learning-and-teaching-hub/feedback/ accessed 12/9/13

Orsmond, P., S. J. Maw, J. R. Park. S. Gomez. and A.C. Crooke. 2013. “Moving Feedback forward Theory to Practice.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (2): 240-252.

Parker, V. 2000. “Developing a code of practice for disability coordinators.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 15 (3): 275-284.

Riddell, S. and E. Weedon. 2006. “What counts as a reasonable adjustment? Dyslexic students and the concept of fair assessment.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 16 (1): 57-73.

Rix, J. and K. Hall, M. Nind, K. Sheehey, J. Wearmouth, 2009. “What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review.” Support for Learning 24 (2): 86-94.

Smith, M. 2010. “Lecturers' Attitudes to Inclusive Teaching Practice at a UK University: Will staff “resistance” hinder implementation?” Tertiary Education and Management 16 (3): 211-227.

Vickerman, P. and M. Blundell. 2010 “Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education.” Disability and Society 25: 21–32.

Liz Richards 13