Content uploaded by Joan Hanafin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joan Hanafin on Dec 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Including young people with disabilities: Assessment
challenges in higher education
Joan Hanafin ÆMichael Shevlin ÆMairin Kenny ÆEileen Mc Neela
Received: 29 April 2004 / Accepted: 16 February 2006 /Published online: 3 June 2006
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract Within a European context, facilitating the increased participation of margin-
alized 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 (techno-
logical 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 curric-
ulum, 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 inad-
equately conceptualized and as a result failed to address fundamental issues around
assessment for students with physical disabilities and with dyslexia.
Keywords Access ÆAssessment ÆAttitudinal issues ÆAssistive technology ÆPeople with
disabilities
Introduction
In common with our European counterparts, Irish government policy articulates a com-
mitment to increasing access to higher education institutions for people from traditionally
J. Hanafin ÆM. Shevlin (&)ÆM. Kenny ÆE. M. Neela
Education Department, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland
E-mail: mshevlin@tcd.ie
123
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9005-9
marginalized groups. Within an Irish context this has usually consisted of a variety of
access courses aimed at people who are socio-economically disadvantaged. More recently
attention has focused on the participation of people with disabilities within the education
system and more specifically within higher education. Access to higher education has been
conceived in terms of guaranteeing physical access, providing some limited access through
quotas devised by the higher education institutions usually on a ‘grace and favour’ basis.
Despite these initiatives people with disabilities remain seriously underrepresented in
higher education.
Education for people with disabilities, like other forms of social provision, is shaped
by popular perception and by providers’ understanding of the target population and its
needs. There is little evidence of concerted efforts to ensure that the educational dis-
advantage often experienced by people with disabilities at all levels of the education
system is being seriously addressed. The dominant medical discourse governing provi-
sion for people with disabilities can influence all levels of provision. Facilitating access
is complex and multi-layered, therefore focusing almost exclusively on ‘point of entry’
issues can be misleading and counter-productive. Belatedly, there has been an increased
recognition that higher education urgently needs to address the critical issues of
curriculum access and assessment procedures. This research aimed to document the
experiences of a group of people with disabilities within two Irish higher education
institutions and explore the effects of institutional barriers on their opportunities to
succeed.
Irish context
Guaranteeing access to education for people from historically marginalized communities
has achieved prominence within Irish policy initiatives and legislation in the last decade.
The Education Act (Government of Ireland, 1998), for example, lists among its objectives
‘to promote equity of access to and participation in education and to promote the means
whereby students may benefit from education’. It is increasingly recognized that access
issues cannot be based on the ‘individual deficit’ model traditionally employed to explain
the under-representation of people from marginalized communities within higher educa-
tion (Skilbeck & Connell, 2000). The Report of the Action Group on Access to Third-
Level Education acknowledged that under-representation of people with disabilities in
higher education is ‘‘the consequence of attitudinal and environmental barriers, both within
higher education and external to it, which preclude and diminish the possibility of students
participating within that process’’ (Department of Education and Science 2001, p. 63).
Within this report, there is a limited recognition that access issues are multi-layered and an
observation that ‘‘traditional assessment procedures may not be effective in assessing the
knowledge of some students with disabilities’’ (Department of Education and Science,
2001, p. 65). However, apart from this comment there is no serious consideration of
assessment procedures.
Despite the policy initiatives young people with disabilities remain on the margins of
higher education in terms of representation and participation. Little improvement in par-
ticipation rates was reported from 1994 when students with disabilities comprised 0.7% of
the student population (AHEAD, 1994) to 1998/9 when the relevant figure was 0.8%
(Hoey, 2000). Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, participation rates for students with
disabilities within higher education ranged between 3.9% and 4.5% (Borland & James,
436 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
1999). In addition, students with specific learning disabilities (dyslexia) comprise the
largest group within the designated population with disabilities in higher education (Hoey,
2000).
Barriers to participation
Numerous explanations have been offered to explain the lack of representation of people
with disabilities within higher education. Mc Donnell (2003) and Priestley (2001) point to
the inequitable social structures that inhibit the participation of people with disabilities.
Some commentators emphasize the lack of positive societal expectations for these young
people as experienced in primary and post-primary schools (Department of Education and
Science, 2001; Kenny, Neela, Shevlin, & Daly, 2000). Despite anti-discrimination legis-
lation and pro-inclusion government policies the persistence of attitudinal barriers has been
cited as a major inhibiting factor in the participation of people with disabilities in medical
programmes in the United Kingdom and Australia (Konur, 2002; Ryan & Struhs, 2004).
Within higher education, contributory factors to the lack of participation include pervasive
difficulties such as physical access, lowered expectations and poor levels of awareness
(Borland & James, 1999; Chard & Couch, 1998; Collins, 2000; Holloway, 2001; Tinklin &
Hall, 1999). These pervasive difficulties can result in people with disabilities not achieving
accreditation levels commensurate with their ability and undermine their capacity to
contribute to university life.
Internationally research into the participation of people with disabilities in higher
education is comparatively recent and limited in scope. Researchers often focus on
physical or sensory disability and analyse its impact on rates of entry to, and participation
in, particular disciplines (Ryan & Struths, 2004). Despite increased awareness of the
crucial issue of guaranteeing physical access, the higher education environment can be
essentially disabling (Borland & James, 1999; Collins, 2000; Reindal, 1995; Tinklin &
Hall, 1999). At an institutional level, disability has been conceptualized on an ‘individual
deficit’ model that offers support to the person with a disability though with little con-
comitant impact on institutional practices (Holloway, 2001; Hurst, 1996; Reindal, 1995).
As a result, the effects of existing academic practices on the participation and success
of people with disabilities in higher education has tended to be ignored and rendered
invisible.
Implications for assessment
Context
Although systematic analyses of the range and nature of assessment practices in higher
education are lacking, there is plenty of evidence that prevailing assessment practices are
suitable neither for all students (Beaman, 1998; Birenbaum, 1997; Scouller, 1998; Willie,
1987) nor for all institutional purposes (Astin & Lee, 2003). In addition, research in the
area has tended more towards institutional-level issues such as, assessment and institu-
tional quality and improvement (Cabrera, 2001; Peterson, 2000), student attrition and
retention (Beck, 2001; Kahn, 2001), entry selection (Bridgeman, 1998; Mori, 2002;
Young, 2000), methods and student learning (Minbashian, Huon, & Bird, 2004; Scouller,
1998; Tynja
¨la
¨,1998), and faculty and staff (Grunwald & Peterson, 2003; Heck, 2000;
Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001,2002) than towards research on students’ individual or
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 437
123
group experiences of assessment, particularly from a sociological or social justice
perspective.
Where such analyses have been reported, they have tended to focus on the traditional
social divisions of race, class, and gender (e.g. Bridgeman, 1998; Young, 2000) while the
newer social movements (Bradley, 1995) have received little or no attention. Thus, there is
little understanding about how disabled students experience assessment in higher education
nor of the effects of assessment on them. The ways in which assessment practices may
discriminate against students with disabilities remains unclear although concerns about
cultural, racial, and socio-economic bias in assessment design (Nitko, 1996; Reardon,
Scott, & Verre, 1994; Willie, 1987) suggest a need for similar and extended work in
relation to disability as well as other areas of the new social movements, particularly given
the growing explorations into the social divisions that surround bodily differences
(Bradley, 1997).
Assessment practices are created, not given. They are decided at an institutional,
departmental or faculty level. Every assessment practice represents a selection of one
method of assessment over another. Decisions are made about modes and techniques of
assessment and about the purposes and audiences that are prioritized. It is worth noting the
very wide range of available assessment options from which assessment selections are
made. Decisions about modes include whether the assessment approach is summative or
formative, formal or informal, external or internal, terminal or continuous. Decisions about
techniques—the means through which assessment data are gathered—are made from a
very wide range of possibilities that include, at least, written, essay, multiple choice, thesis/
dissertation, oral, aural, practical, fieldwork, laboratory report, individual project, group
project, profile, portfolio, diary, log, work placement rating, report, skills record, summary,
research project, review, poster, and exhibition. Decisions are also made about whether
referencing systems are norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, or self-referenced. A
commitment to including learners with disabilities requires more analytic consideration of
modes and techniques of assessment. Re-worked understandings of intelligence and ability
require this also (Gardner, 1983,1991). Learners learn differently, people express their
understanding differently (Perkins & Blythe, 1994) but assessment practices do not always
take account of this.
Assessment has both intended and unintended consequences, and consequences are
greater for some students than for others. The modes and techniques used to assess
probably have the most immediate influence on how a learner will experience an assess-
ment practice, and they significantly influence how inclusive an assessment practice is felt
to be. For example, the over-reliance on written techniques of assessment can exclude
many learners from successful assessment experiences as can the practice of requiring
learners to communicate all they know about a topic within a limited and rigidly imposed
time frame. These constraints can affect disabled students even more harshly, particularly
those students who need use of assistive technology, a scribe or extra time.
Research methodology
This project adopted a small-scale qualitative research procedure designed to document the
experiences of two groups of students with disabilities in two higher education institutions.
Students with disabilities in two higher education institutions were informed of the project
through the access officers and invited to participate. A total of 36 students indicated a
willingness to participate and 16 actually attended the sessions. A semi-structured inter-
view schema was devised to ensure comprehensive overview of major issues relating to
438 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
provision in higher education for students with disabilities. Interviews were tape-recorded
and transcribed. Analysis was developed through close textual readings of interview
transcripts and the data were classified under category headings.
There were nine female and seven male participants and relevant details including
participant ages, academic courses and their disability are contained in Table 1. Seven of
the participants had dyslexia, reflecting their dominance within the population of students
with disabilities. Three participants had hearing impairments (one person had a physical
disability also); two had visual impairments; four had physical disabilities (one had ac-
quired her disability in adult life). It was evident that on average the participants were at
least 1 year older than the norm for their peer group. Health and personal reasons appeared
to account for this discrepancy though this issue was not directly addressed with the
participants. Arts degrees were the most popular choice for participants though equal
numbers were enrolled for Science and Business Studies courses.
Findings
Participants in this study wanted to pursue their chosen course to the best of their ability.
Here, access to, and mode of provision of, supports was significant. ‘Supports’ included
process and product: attitudinal changes in college staffs, and provision of assistive per-
sonnel and technology. Participants had by far the most difficulties in the domain of
attitudinal change.
The built and physical environment
The built and physical environment causes access problems much of the time for physically
disabled students, but intensely so during assessments. The terminal, written, once-off,
summative examination caused particular problems for participants. Incidental factors
inherent in this method of assessment, affect many or most students but they cause much
more disruption to students with disabilities. The built environment, a challenge at the best
of times, has additional implications for students with disabilities during examinations.
‘Rationed’ installation—occasional ramps, one toilet—does not open the whole building, or
Table 1 Research participants
Name M/F Age (years) Course Disability
Mike M 20 Business Studies Hearing
Barry M 20 Arts Dyslexia
Ian M 21 Arts Visual
Sinead F 21 Arts Dyslexia
Eleanor F 21 Arts Physical
Kate F 21 Business Studies Physical
Peter M 21 Business Studies Dyslexia
Cormac M 21 Medicine Dyslexia
Shauna F 22 Science Dyslexia
Helen F 22 Science Hearing
Conor M 23 Science Dyslexia
Frances F 24 Arts Hearing/Phy
Moira F 24 Arts Visual
Niamh F 31 Arts Physical (acq)
Mark M 31 Arts Physical
James M 50 Engineering Dyslexia
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 439
123
all that goes on in it, to the physically disabled student. Some participants spoke of
Herculean journeys in mid-examination, to a remote toilet and back. Unacceptable and
unavailable levels of resources of time and energy are demanded in negotiating many
seemingly accessible buildings. Such token inclusion not only constitutes de facto exclusion
but can have a direct effect on the achievement of physically disabled students, being
assessed under pressurized examination conditions where every minute counts, and where
external discomforts and incidental factors get in the way of performance on the day.
Backwash effects of assessment on learning
Difficulties attending one key requirement—getting lecture notes—was a burning issue for
both students with dyslexia, and for students with disabilities that made it difficult to take
notes. Participants were aware from very early in their courses, therefore, of the backwash
effect of assessment on curriculum, teaching and learning. For these students, achieving
success to the best of their potential meant having access to lecture notes, the currency
required for preparation for and delivery of assessments. Several participants had difficulty
getting lecture notes, however.
They (lecturers) wait until two or three weeks to give me the notes and so it is difficult
to keep pace with the lectures. (Barry)
He (lecturer) got a letter at the start of the year stating that I was dyslexic and needs a
copy of all the notes. He didn’t take it seriously. The gloves came off ... we can’t give
you notes as you will give them to all your mates. (Peter)
First year was easier than the rest as all my lecturers in first year were told to be nice...
but as I progressed through the different departments I ran into the more seasoned
academics. One was wondering what I was doing here. (Sinead)
This highlights how the competitive individualism intrinsic to an assessment structure
can be invoked as a way of excluding disabled students and as an anti-learning mechanism.
This model of learning and assessment is so pervasive and unproblematized that the
lecturer could articulate a belief that, rather than interfere with the competitive hierarchy of
the examination by (possibly) ‘‘assisting’’ non-disabled students by (possibly) giving them
access to lecture notes, disabled students with an entitlement to lecture notes could be
denied them, although their assessment could be jeopardized without them.
Thus, the fundamental outcome was not the development of disabled students’ asser-
tiveness, but the removal of a practice (note provision) from its proper structural position,
to the position of a private ‘grace and favour’ arrangement. This both expressed and
reinforced perceptions of disabled students as objects of charity, and nuisances. Though
some participants actively resisted this re-conceptualization of a crucial equity issue:
It shouldn’t be up to lecturers to decide who to give notes to. There should be disability
training for all staff including admin who need to know your needs and entitlements.
(Conor)
It should be explained to the lecturers. I definitely felt like a second-class citizen coming
into the lecture. (Shauna)
Assistive technology
Full access demands that students can ‘engage’ with courses: take notes, read, pro-
duce essays, do experiments. All of these activities are related to students’ assessment
440 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
experiences, either directly or indirectly. To ensure that disabled students can engage, they
require adequate assistive technology; it is obvious that equity demands they have such
provision ab initio. The technology itself can cause problems, but far more often, the
problems lie in the unanticipated demands implicit in the process of using it. Institutional
commitment seems to be limited to providing the support (electronic or personal) though
the student has to learn to effectively use the support. For instance, for the student who
needs to dictate to a scribe, the skill of doing this is the equivalent of writing for another;
but the hitherto unseen scribe arrives at most a few days before the examination. The
dictating student is in a sense, reduced to operational semi-literacy:
I did try the voice-activated software but it is too slow. Your style of writing goes out
the window when you are dictating. It is very difficult to keep your train of thought
when dictating. I always do very badly in my exams whereas in my ordinary essays I
reach a higher standard. (Niamh)
Obviously, this type of examination support does not ensure that students with dis-
abilities can participate on an equal basis to their peers.
The validity of dyslexia is contested at an institutional level is sometimes perceived as a
strategy to confer unfair advantage. As a result students who have dyslexia can attract
suspicion among their peers:
Friends were saying that I did not need support when I got it in school. They treated me
differently. So in third level I play it down. I learnt from past experiences. (Sinead)
Some of the girls thought the extra time was ‘a bit much’. Sometimes I am defending
my case, but most times they’re just happy. (Shauna)
Dyslexia is viewed as a strategy for getting unfair advantages. (Conor)
Attitudes
Attitudes and provision are interconnected: institutions that can afford to respond, can
afford to recognize a difficulty, and are heard as having done so (‘actions speak louder than
words’). As will be seen, the lived experience proved more complex. Negative attitudes
were the single biggest barrier reported by participants:
Someone to come out and say that having dyslexia is not all bad—give them the facts
and the tools to cope. We are told that there are students with dyslexia but the only time
you get to see them is during exams. I was just left on my own. (Conor)
It would help if people stopped pigeon holing people. Not saying to people like me ‘you
cannot do this because you are disabled’, but looking at what I can do, with the
necessary supports in place. (Moira)
One lecturer wouldn’t believe I was deaf, I suppose because I could talk. (Mike)Such
treatment bespeaks a huge lack of awareness. As another participant in this group said:
You have to be forceful, especially if the disability is less visible. (Peter)
In summary, participants found that they received good support from the Disability/
Access Officer; the physical environment was inadequately adapted to ensure full inclu-
sion; their access to lecturers’ notes was erratic; and assistive provision (personal and
equipment) was delivered too late, and inappropriately. The last meant that participants
avoided accessing supports, to escape stigma; or found it difficult or impossible to access
them effectively, due to lack of skill in support personnel or in student.
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 441
123
Participants’ strategies to cope included or resulted in being assertive beyond what is
called for in normal student life; accessing notes: this became part of individualized
student-lecturer relationship; efforts to compensate for this (finding friends whose notes
could be copied, photocopying, which drained energy and impeded academic/social
opportunities; dropping out, for a year or longer; repeating courses; dependency on parents/
siblings for accommodation and transport; disability-related caution in selecting and
evaluating ‘friends’; isolation exacerbated by trying to avoid dependency on friends, by
work load, and by transport and accommodation requirements.
Discussion
Limited assessment options
Many of the difficulties experienced by participants in higher education arose directly from
assessment. In the first instance, the range of assessment practices is limited, often dem-
onstrating a heavy over-reliance, not just on written forms of assessment but on terminal,
once-off assessment by examination. Added to this is an emphasis on summative rather
than formative assessment. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the implications for
individuals or groups of using selected assessment modes and techniques are given any
consideration. Together, this leads to a failure to support learners to achieve as well as they
might, a refusal to use assessment to enhance learning, and the unnecessary exclusion of
many students.
Backwash effects of assessment on learning
Learning and assessment are inextricably linked. Regardless of the modes and techniques
of assessment used, learning of some kind will occur and the pervasive backwash effect of
assessment onto curriculum means that the kind of learning that takes place may be more a
function of the assessment structure than of the aims, objectives, or understanding goals of
the curriculum. As Boud (1995) points out, when arguing that assessment for accreditation
or certification cannot be separated from assessment for learning, assessment always leads
to learning ... the fundamental question is ‘what kind of learning?’ Scouller (1998) found
that different assessment methods were related to distinct patterns in learning approaches
and in students’ perceptions of the levels of intellectual abilities being assessed. Students
assessed by end-of-course multiple choice question examination were more likely to
employ surface learning approaches, while students assessed by assignment essay were
more likely to employ deep learning approaches and to perceive the assessment method as
assessing higher levels of cognitive processing.
Options not alternatives
Under present arrangements, the best students with disabilities may hope for is that some
accommodation may be made in their assessments. This might amount to no more than
assistive technology, a scribe, or a little extra time. In such a scenario and in our quest for
more just assessment practices, the argument for alternative assessments is inevitable. In
calling for alternative assessment, we draw attention first to the nomenclature. We do not
suggest, although the term itself suggests, that there is ‘‘one proper way’’ to do assessment
and that all other ways are alternatives to this. In many instances, the terminal written
442 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
examination might aspire to the position of the ‘‘one proper way’’. Nonetheless, it
represents no more than one option, an alternative invoked at some moment in the past and
re-enacted across disciplines, institutions and generations, its significance a reflection of its
historic weight. Under this weight, it is easy for the needs of disabled students to become
invisible. For students in this exploratory research study, the range of assessment practices
was extremely limited and was felt by them to be entirely outside of their control. In such a
light, we do well to remember that each and every assessment practice is an alternative to
some other one, no matter that such alternatives are not explicitly invoked when assess-
ments are devised.
Hidden curriculum/embedded institutional epistemologies
Assessment practices are not the subject of regular scrutiny and are almost certainly not
scrutinized for how they discriminate against some individuals and groups. Choices made
historically about assessment are contemporaneously implemented but not contempora-
neously interrogated. In the absence of interrogation, apparently good and incontrovertible
characteristics may be conferred on long-standing assessment practices, ‘‘objectivity’’
often chief among them, notwithstanding Elliot Eisner’s urging to recognize objectivity for
what it is: ‘‘a concept built upon a faulty epistemology that leads to an unrealizable idea in
its ontological state and a matter of consensus ... in its procedural state’’ (Eisner, 1992,p.
14). Nonetheless, the taken-for-granted nature of the assessment modus operandi readily
conceals discrimination and makes it easy to explain achievement (and underachievement)
in terms of individual deficit rather than unjust and partial institution practices.
The reliance on a narrow range of modes and techniques derives from an epistemology
of assessment that assumes we can know what learners know, regardless of what we
choose to exclude of their knowing. When we measure what a learner knows through what
he or she can write about a topic in an hour, we assume this to be an adequate measure of
the student’s knowledge or understanding of the topic. This, despite the fact that, through
the enactment of a particular set of assessment choices, we have chosen to disregard all that
the same student might demonstrate of their understanding were he or she to be facilitated
in communicating that understanding through a different set of assessment choices, e.g. a
portfolio, a project, an artefact or visually, orally, kinaesthetically. While we are clearly not
arguing from a position of general relativistic skepticism regarding assessment itself
(Williams, 1998), we believe the dominance of late modernity with its appeal to foun-
dational and universal truths (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2000) is strongly
evident in the use of a limited and limiting range of assessment practices, experienced by
students in this study. At the same time, a post-structural approach, that would resist the
pronouncements of standardized-test makers and emphasize understanding rather than
memorization and recitation (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993), seems more in keeping with
the cognitive ideals of higher education.
There is a strong case for making explicit the embedded epistemologies of assessment
practices. While they are implicit, the effects of assessment practices are erroneously
assumed. Hidden, their effects are assumed to be, at best, neutral and, at worst, homo-
geneously negative; that is to say, dominant thinking assumes that assessment practices
either do not affect students at all, or if they impinge negatively, the harmful effects are
similar for all. In fact, choices made about assessment practices—such as modes and
techniques of assessment; and referencing, purpose and audience priorities—clearly affect
students differentially and frequently negatively. It is difficult to imagine any component
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 443
123
of prevailing assessment practices that would assist students with disabilities and thus, they
impinge even more negatively on disabled students.
Excellence and equity are not mutually exclusive
The seeking of inclusive education in universities may be opposed, challenged and resisted
by university staff; it may be seen as an attempt to undermine academic freedom and
integrity, the science and theory of knowledge, freedom of speech and academic standards
(Nunan, Rigmor, & McCausland, 2000, p. 86). In his seminal paper, Charles Willie argues
that although the excellence movement in education is fundamentally concerned with
‘‘how to exclude rather than with how to include’’, excellence and equity are not mutually
exclusive (Willie, 1987, p. 485).
Much emphasis can be made of standards but the nature of quality implied in those
standards is rarely analysed. Prevailing assessments are not satisfactory (Beaman, 1998)
and there is evidence from the compulsory education sector that formative assessment
raises standards. The importance of formative assessment in student learning is fre-
quently acknowledged, but is not well understood across higher education (Yorke, 2003).
An influential review of assessment in the compulsory education sector on the impact of
classroom assessment on learning, Inside the Black Box (Black & Williams, 1998), found
strong evidence not only that formative assessment raises standards but that a good deal
is known about how to improve formative assessment. It also found that a problem with
much current assessment practice has been that it emphasizes assessment of learning
rather than assessment for learning, missing opportunities to use assessment to improve
learning.
In short, research evidence suggests that assessment as a regular element in classroom
work holds the key to better learning. Improving learning through assessment depends on
‘‘five, deceptively simple, key factors’’ (Assessment Reform Group, 1999), namely the
provision of effective feedback to pupils; the active involvement of students in their own
learning; adjusting teaching to take account of the results of assessment; a recognition of
the profound influence assessment has on the motivation and self-esteem of students, both
of which are crucial influences on learning; the need for students to be able to assess
themselves and understand how to improve.
Notwithstanding arguments that formative assessment may be either constructive or
inhibitory towards learning (Yorke, 2003), these literatures provide a compelling argument
for developing more inclusive assessment practices with their evidence for individual and
institutional improvement. There is good to be gained from assessment reform, therefore.
Although reform assessment alone will not solve the problems faced by disabled students
in higher education, it represents an opportunity to reflect on enduring patterns of
inequality and to ensure that all students have access to the resources, curricula, and
pedagogies they need to learn effectively (Reardon et al. 1994, p. 3).
Inclusive assessment benefits all
More inclusive assessment practices are likely to be of benefit to many students, not least
because current assessment practices are not diverse enough to suit students’ diverse ways
of showing their knowledge, understanding or skill. Students learn in different ways and it
makes sense, therefore, for them to be able to use different methods to show their
understanding of what they have learned (Perkins & Blythe, 1994). Students’ individual
differences in assessment preferences have been found to overshadow disciplinary group
444 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
differences and differences in assessment preferences are strongly related to learning
strategies and orientations (Birenbaum, 1997).
Individual benefits may accrue from the use of more diverse methods. For example, the
kind of learning that higher education aims at—understanding, conceptional change and
the development of critical thinking—has been found to be more likely to occur when
students are assessed by more diverse, continuous methods than when they are assessed by
terminal examination (Tynja
¨la
¨,1998). Institutional benefits may also accrue. The devel-
opment of innovative assessment models in the context of non-traditional teaching tech-
niques such as group learning suggests that it is possible not only to employ a wider and
more inclusive range of assessment practices but, in doing so, to introduce learner-focused
approaches in ways that also improve curriculum design and pedagogy (Quarstein &
Peterson, 2001).
There are common threads in a number of recent assessment literatures in defining and
developing good and equitable practices, including the literatures on performance
assessment, authentic assessment, intelligence-fair assessment, portfolio assessment, and
most recently assessment for learning (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Black &
Williams, 1998). These literatures have common features including the making explicit of
assessment choices, learner involvement, diversity of methods, and coherence between
syllabus aims and assessment approaches. Authentic assessment, for example, refers to
forms of student work that reflect real-life situations and challenge students’ ability to test
what they have learned in those situations. It is based on actual performances of what we
want students to be good at; needs more complex and challenging mental processes;
acknowledges more than one approach or right answer; emphasizes uncoached explana-
tions and real products; has transparent criteria and standards; and involves trained assessor
judgement (Hargreaves, Earl, & Ryan, 1996, p. 129).
In moving towards more inclusive assessment practices, there is no need to re-invent the
wheel. The development of inclusive assessment practices can draw on work carried out in
other contexts. We agree with Peter Knight (2002) who argues convincingly that the
extensive archive of international research about assessment in the compulsory education
sector where many of the same problems have been faced, can illuminate thinking about
quality and curriculum in higher education and inspire better change practices. In relation
to assessment practices and disability, drawing on the experiences of the compulsory
education sector is particularly apposite, since the creative and inclusive nature of
assessment developments in the special education sector has much to contribute to
mainstream education practices (Hanafin, Shevlin, & Flynn, 2002).
Argument for scholarly treatment of assessment and disability
In his influential book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Ernest
Boyer (1990) argued for a re-appraisal of scholarship within the academy to include not
just the traditional research model (the scholarship of discovery), but conceptually new
areas of scholarship: the scholarships of teaching (research on teaching and learning),
integration (across and between disciplines), and application (concerned with the actual,
consequential problems of individuals, groups and institutions). The scholarship of
teaching, with its evidence-based research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher
education, is a relatively recent development. Within this scholarship, some attention has
been paid to assessment issues (e.g. Astin & Lee, 2003; Birenbaum, 1997; Kahn, 2001;
Knight, 2002; Quarstein & Peterson, 2001; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001,2002; Scouller,
1998; Tynja
¨la
¨,1998; Yorke, 2003), including how courses re-designed for scholarship of
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 445
123
teaching initiatives, informed by multiple assessment methods, can improve student
learning and development (Cottrell & Jones, 2003).
Scant attention, however, has been paid to the implications of assessment practices for
students with disabilities. This exploratory study shows that the implications of assessment
for students with disabilities are profound, encompassing ideational, practical and social
justice concerns. The practice of assessment in higher education is mediated for these
students through the physical environment, the backwash effect of assessment on curric-
ulum, assistive technology, and attitudinal factors. Based on the tentative findings of this
paper, there is a compelling argument for a scholarship of teaching, integration and
application in relation to assessment and disability. Such an undertaking would explore the
implications of assessment choices and practices for people with disabilities across a range
of disciplines and at their intersections, and attempt to deal with problems encountered at
individual and institutional level in higher education in relation to disabled students’
assessment experiences.
Changing established mind-sets around traditional notions of appropriate assessment
procedures represents a considerable challenge. It will require a series of initiatives that
address societal issues around assessment and accountability. The current dominant
assessment practices have widespread support within the wider community and in par-
ticular from both employer and professional bodies. In addition, higher education insti-
tutions face internal difficulties around restricted funding and narrow entrenched views
about teaching and learning. Higher education institutions can begin this process through a
proactive approach that explicitly links access initiatives for people with disabilities to
appropriate supports and equitable assessment procedures. Further, higher education
institutions need to be convinced themselves and influence others that these more equitable
assessment procedures will considerably enhance the quality of scholarship, teaching and
learning for all students not just those who have disabilities. The task of effecting real
change is considerable but in our view unavoidable.
References
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: Ahead
Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: Assessment
Reform Group, University of Cambridge School of Education
Astin, A. W., & Lee, J. J. (2003). How risky are one-shot cross-sectional assessments of undergraduate
students? Research in Higher Education,44(6), 657–672
Beaman, R. (1998). The unquiet ... even loud, andragogy! Alternative assessments for adult learners.
Innovative Higher Education,23(1), 47–59
Beck, H. B. (2001). Establishing an early warning system: predicting low grades in college students from
survey of academic orientations scores. Research in Higher Education,42(6), 709–723
Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations.
Higher Education,33(1), 71–84
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.
Borland, J., & James, S. (1999). The learning experience of students with disabilities in higher education.
A case study of a UK university. Disability and Society,14(10), 85–101
Boud D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment
for learning in higher education. (pp. 35–48). London: Kogan Page
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Bradley, H. (1995). Fractured identities. Cambridge: Polity
Bradley, H. (1997). Social divisions. In C. Ballard, et al. (Eds.), The student’s companion to sociology
(pp. 142–151). Oxford: Blackwell.
446 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
Bridgeman, B. (1998). Potential impact of the addition of a writing assessment on admissions decisions.
Research in Higher Education,39(6), 663–677
Cabrera, A. F. (2001). Developing performance indicators for assessing classroom teaching practices and
student learning. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327–352.
Chard, G., & Couch, R. (1998). Access to higher education for the disabled student: A building survey at the
University of Liverpool. Disability and Society,13(4), 603–623
Collins B. (2000). Perceiving success? An investigation into disabled students’ and academic staffs’ per-
ceptions of the factors that inhibit disabled student’s occupational performance in Trinity College
Dublin. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Dublin.
Cottrel, S. A., & Jones, E. A. (2003). Researching the scholarship of teaching and learning: an analysis of
current curriculum practices. Innovative Higher Education,27(3), 169–181
Department of Education & Science (2001). Report of the action group on access to higher education.
Dublin: Stationery Office
Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculm Inquiry,22(1), 9–15
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and
Row; (1993) London: Fontana Press.
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 Publishers
Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M. W. (2003). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and satisfaction with
institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher Education,44(2), 173–204
Government of Ireland (1998). Education Act Dublin: Stationery Office.
Hanafin, J., Shevlin, M., & Flynn, M. (2002). Responding to student diversity: Lessons from the margin.
Pedagogy, Culture and Society,10(3), 411–425
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: reinventing education for early ado-
lescents. London: The Falmer Press
Heck, R. H. (2000). Administrative effectiveness in higher education: improving assessment procedures.
Research in Higher Education,41(6), 663–684
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: Ahead
Holloway, S. (2001). The experience of higher education from the perspective of disabled students.
Disability and Society,16(4), 597–615
Hurst, A. (1996). Reflecting on researching disability and higher education, In Barton L. (Eds), Disabilities
and society: Emerging issues and insights London: Longman
Kahn, J. H. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of first-year college persistence: The importance of proximal
assessment. Research in Higher Education,42(6), 633–652
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 Authority
Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of postformal thinking: The critical
confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review,63(3), 296–320
Knight, P. T. (2002). Learning from schools. Higher Education,44(2),283–298
Konur, O. (2002). Assessment of disabled students in higher education: current public policy issues.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,27(2), 131–152
Mc Donnell, P. (2003). Developments in special education in Ireland: Deep structures and policy making.
International Journal of Inclusive Education,7(3), 259–269
Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in
short-essay exams. Higher Education,47(2), 161–176
Mori, R. (2002). Entrance examinations and remedial education in Japanese higher education. Higher
Education,43(1), 27–42
Nitko, A. (1996). Educational assessment of students. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Nunan, T., Rigmor, G., & McCausland, H. (2000). Inclusive education in universities: Why it is important
and how it might be achieved. International Journal of Inclusive Education,4(1), 63–88
Perkins, D. N., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership,51(5), 4–7
Peterson, M. W. (2000). Organizational practices enhancing the influence of student assessment information
in academic decisions. Research in Higher Education,41(1), 21–52
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2000). Understanding curriculum. New York:
Peter Lang
Priestley, M. (2001). Introduction: the global context of disability, In M. Priestley (Eds), Disability and the
life course: Global perspectives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
High Educ (2007) 54:435–448 447
123
Quarstein, V. A., & Peterson, P. A. (2001). Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal-criterion approach.
Innovative Higher Education,26(1), 59–77
Reardon, S. P., Scott, K., & Verre, J. (1994). Symposium: Equity in educational assessment. Harvard
Educational Review,64(1), 1–4
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), 227–241
Ryan, J., & Struhs, J. (2004). University education for all? Barriers to full inclusion of students with
disabilities in Australian universities. International Journal of Inclusive Education,8(1), 73–90
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher
Education,41(3), 299–325
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2002). Identifying academics’ orientations to assessment practice. Higher
Education,43(2), 173–201
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice
question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education,35(4), 453–472
Skilbeck, M., & Connell, H. (2000). Access and equity in higher education: An international perspective on
issues and strategies Dublin: Higher Education Authority
Tinklin, T., & Hall, J. (1999). Getting round obstacles: Students with disabilities’ experiences in higher
education in Scotland. Studies in Higher education,24(2), 183–194
Tynja
¨la
¨P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students’ learning experiences during an
experiment. Higher Education,36(2), 209–230
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: Routledge
Willie, C. V. (1987). On excellence and equity in higher education. Journal of Negro Education,56(4),
485–492
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice. Higher Education,45(4), 477–501
Young, J. W. (2000). Sex differences on the SAT: An analysis of demographic and educational variables.
Research in Higher Education,41(3), 401–416
448 High Educ (2007) 54:435–448
123
