Including young people with disabilities: Assessment challenges in higher education
- 962 Downloads
Within a European context, facilitating the increased participation of marginalized groups within society has become a cornerstone of social policy. In higher education in Ireland this has generally involved the targeting for support of individuals representing groups traditionally excluded on the grounds of socio-economic status. More recently, people with disability have been included in this consideration. This approach has tended to focus on physical access issues and some technical supports. However, access is multi-faceted and must include a review of pedagogic practices, assistive provision (technological and personal), student’s engagement with their workload (e.g. recording) and evaluation procedures: achieving accreditation levels commensurate with ability.
This small-scale Irish study examined the experiences of two groups of young people with physical disabilities and with dyslexia in two higher education institutions. It was apparent that for students with physical disabilities and with dyslexia, assessment practices were fraught with additional limitations. Assessment practices were mediated for these students through the physical environment, the backwash effect of assessment on curriculum, the availability and use of assistive technology, and through the attitudes of staff and students. It can be concluded that access issues within higher education have been inadequately conceptualized and as a result failed to address fundamental issues around assessment for students with physical disabilities and with dyslexia.
KeywordsAccess Assessment Attitudinal issues Assistive technology People with disabilities
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- AHEAD (1994). Students with disabilities in higher education: Survey on provision for students with disabilities in higher education for the academic year 1993/4. Dublin: AheadGoogle Scholar
- Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: Assessment Reform Group, University of Cambridge School of EducationGoogle Scholar
- Black, P., & Williams, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Phi Delta Kappan online. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm.
- Boud D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education. (pp. 35–48). London: Kogan PageGoogle Scholar
- Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of TeachingGoogle Scholar
- Bradley, H. (1995). Fractured identities. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
- Bradley, H. (1997). Social divisions. In C. Ballard, et al. (Eds.), The student’s companion to sociology (pp. 142–151). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Cabrera, A. F. (2001). Developing performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327–352.Google Scholar
- Collins B. (2000). Perceiving success? An investigation into disabled students’ and academic staffs’ perceptions of the factors that inhibit disabled student’s occupational performance in Trinity College Dublin. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Dublin.Google Scholar
- Department of Education & Science (2001). Report of the action group on access to higher education. Dublin: Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
- Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row; (1993) London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
- Gardner, H. (1991). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In Gifford B. R., & O’Connor M. C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction. (pp. 77–120). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
- Government of Ireland (1998). Education Act Dublin: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
- Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: reinventing education for early adolescents. London: The Falmer PressGoogle Scholar
- Hoey, P. (2000). Students with disabilities in higher education: Initial findings of the survey on provision for students with disabilities in higher education for the academic year 1998/9. Dublin: AheadGoogle Scholar
- Hurst, A. (1996). Reflecting on researching disability and higher education, In Barton L. (Eds), Disabilities and society: Emerging issues and insights London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
- Kenny, M., Mc Neela, E., Shevlin, M., & Daly, T. (2000). Hidden voices: Young people with disabilities speak about their second level schooling. Cork: South West Regional AuthorityGoogle Scholar
- Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of postformal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 296–320Google Scholar
- Nitko, A. (1996). Educational assessment of students. New Jersey: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
- Perkins, D. N., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4–7Google Scholar
- Pinar, W., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2000). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
- Priestley, M. (2001). Introduction: the global context of disability, In M. Priestley (Eds), Disability and the life course: Global perspectives Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Reardon, S. P., Scott, K., & Verre, J. (1994). Symposium: Equity in educational assessment. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 1–4Google Scholar
- Reindal, S. M. (1995). Some problems encountered by disabled students at the University of Oslo—whose responsibility? The European Journal of Special Needs, 10(3), 227–241Google Scholar
- Skilbeck, M., & Connell, H. (2000). Access and equity in higher education: An international perspective on issues and strategies Dublin: Higher Education AuthorityGoogle Scholar
- Williams, K. (1998). Assessment and the challenge of skepticism, In Carr D. (Eds), Education, knowledge and truth. Beyond the postmodern impasse. (pp. 221–236). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar