Disability and Access in the Classroom: Tests and Exams
[i]
According to the 2022 Canadian Census, 28.6% of British Columbians identify as living with a disability; and, currently, at least 12% of the UBCO student population is registered with the Disability Resource Centre (DRC). Our purpose for the Disability and Access in the Classroom series is to provide thought-provoking reflective exercises for instructors as they are considering accessibility in their courses, classrooms, learning, and assessment settings. The aim is to center disabled students’ experiences.
This case study[1] (below) explores accessibility considerations for tests and examinations, recognizing that UBCO policy on exams requires all first and second year undergraduate courses to include exams in the exam periods (with some exceptions).
Case Study Goals
- Reflect on your positionality and perspectives as an instructor and how they inform your understanding and approach to accessibility.
- Explore how principles of Universal Design for Learning can support more accessible and inclusive learning for students with disabilities.
Rationale
While all students can encounter difficulties during tests and examinations in courses, for many disabled students[2] the impact of tests and examinations can be heightened by their condition. Depending on their disability related barriers, a disabled student’s ability to effectively demonstrate their understanding of course material can be impacted by the assessment methodology. Putting careful thought into the purpose, design, and delivery format of the assessment can support disabled students in fully participating in your course and meeting essential requirements.
In the discussion below, we will pose reflective questions and introduce the ‘scenario’. We will then provide a brief exposition to guide your thinking; to close each subsection, we will apply the discussion to the fictional ‘scenario’ and then present “food for thought” which we hope supports your continued engagement with the topic.
Instructor Reflection
To begin, we invite you to reflect on your positionality and perspectives as an instructor and how those inform your understanding and approach to accessibility. Consider the questions below:
- How do my educational experiences and privileges shape my expectations of students?
- In what ways do my experience and privilege influence my perspective on what I consider engaging, equitable, accessible, and inclusive learning?
- What assumptions do I make about the “typical” learner in my course?
- Which students might be unintentionally excluded by my pedagogical assumptions?
- How do I respond when a student asks for accommodation or shares a disability-related need? Do I interpret it through a deficit lens or an inclusion lens? Why do I interpret it this way?
|
Case study: ‘Scorch’ is a student at UBCO. They have a disability that impacts their reading comprehension, executive functioning, and emotional regulation. They do not have approved accommodations, as they have not registered with the DRC but still take medication to manage their neurodiversity and the symptoms they experience as a result. The medication they take causes brain fog, which is particularly difficult to manage in the mornings. Their midterm exam is occurring during the scheduled class time of 9 am. The exam has a time limit of 80 minutes. As the exam begins, Scorch is slow to start, feeling groggy from their medication. Scorch finds themself flipping between pages, and re-reading questions multiple times for comprehension. They start to panic when they realize they are at the halfway point of their exam time, with only a quarter of the questions answered. The student rushes through the remainder of the exam, making errors along the way, or just guessing answers in the hopes of earning a few more points. At the end of the exam, Scorch feels frustrated that they weren’t able to demonstrate their knowledge as they turn in their exam half completed.
|
Food for Thought
- What might the assessment experience feel like for the student?
- Are there aspects of the assessment that might create anxiety, cognitive overload, or barriers to participation for other learners as well?
- What do I want the learning experience in my course to feel like for all students?
- How does or doesn’t the assessment reflect this?
- Can you explain why aspects of your exam format matter (e.g. timed, invigilated)?
Universal Design for Learning & Accessibility
To further the discussion, we invite you to explore how principles of Universal Design for Learning can support more accessible inclusive learning for students like the case study persona and others.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework based on cognitive neuroscience that optimizes teaching and learning by removing learning barriers and designing for learner diversity. UDL offers a proactive approach to accessibility by shifting focus from individual accommodation to inclusive course design. Rather than responding to barriers after they arise, UDL encourages instructors to anticipate learner variability and design learning that provide multiple ways for students to engage with content, access information, and demonstrate their understanding. Guiding this work are three UDL principles: Multiple Means of Engagement (the ‘why’ of learning), Multiple Means of Representation (the ‘what’ of learning), and Multiple Means of Action & Expression (the ‘how’ of learning). By following these principles and embedding accessibility into the learning design from the outset, instructors can create more equitable learning environments that support students with disabilities as well as the broader range of learners present in any course. We provide reflections on each of these, below.
UDL Principle: Multiple Means of Engagement
When we consider this principle as it applies to assessment, we are shifting the focus from what students know to why they are being assessed, and how to motivate them. One way to approach this from an accessibility mindset is to reflect on the learning outcomes of a course and their connection to an assessment. Learning outcomes are typically phrased broadly, so it can help to break them down into three categories:
- Which skills or understandings are essential to assess?
- Which skills or understandings are nice to have?
- Which skills or understandings are habits of tradition? (your own or others’)
Beyond good pedagogical practice, using the essential requirements as the primary design consideration for an assessment allows instructors and students to better understand the “why” of an assessment. By paring back to only the essential requirements, there is also opportunity for a diversity of assessment formats that feel relevant and authentic to students, and in turn motivate students to learn, while maintaining the core program and course components. For example, an essential requirement of a course might be to “demonstrate understanding of chemical elements and their interactions”. Because of its broad framing, this can be achieved by a student in multiple different ways: one can demonstrate understanding by passing a test, but one can also do so in assessment.
| If we consider Scorch, we should begin by asking whether an exam is necessary. An assessment designed around the essential requirements could look like a project or a similar assessment that is not constrained by time (meaning the time frame for when it is completed and the duration of time for completing it in). This would eliminate the barrier-related impacts Scorch experiences in the morning with their medication, as Scorch could complete their work during times when their medication is supporting them. |
Food for Thought
- Think about an exam or test you’ve administered and consider why you chose that as the assessment method. What were the essential requirements that were met by administering the test or exam?
- How else could students have demonstrated their learning of the essential requirement(s)?
- How did the assessment engage students and connect them to the purpose of the assessment?
UDL Principle: Multiple Means of Representation
When we consider this principle as it applies to assessment, the focus is on how the assessment both presents instructions and information and their interpretation by students, as well as how delivery format reduces or eliminates potential barriers.
Tests and exams often i, such as scheduled time and location, time restrictions, invigilation, and individual submission. Often, these parameters don’t measure the student’s ability to demonstrate an essential requirement of the course and instead exist as exam habits of tradition. These parameters can act as barriers for many students, but particularly students with disabilities. For example, time constraints can be more difficult for disabled students to manage because the timeline can exacerbate disability barriers, e.g.:
- Amplified anxiety/panic as time passes, which hinders cognitive processes and recall;
- Loss of time to complete the assessment for students with physical impacts that require active management (e.g., the need to more frequently use the toilet facilities or to take resting breaks);
- Unfair for documented deficits in cognitive processing speed.
To make exams and tests more accessible and reduce barriers, consider the following strategies:
- Remove time and location constraints when possible;
- Build in buffer time for all students (e.g., if the test is meant to take 30 minutes, give 60 minutes for all students);
- Use clear, concise language without unnecessary wording complexity;
- Use consistent structure throughout the exam/test;
- Break questions into smaller parts;
- Provide examples, practice questions, or practice exams in advance to adequately prepare students for the exam format;
- Provide students with appropriate notice about assessments (e.g., no ‘pop’ quizzes).
| If we consider Scorch, many of the above strategies could support them; however, given their reported impacts, the most appropriate approach would be to remove the time and location constraints if possible. The exam could be a take home test or an afternoon exam slot, both of which would alleviate the barrier of morning grogginess they experience with their medication. |
Food for Thought
- If your test or exam has certain parameters, can you explain why?
- Can you provide additional time for all students? Why or why not?
- Does the test have to be completed at a particular time, or can it be a take home?
- Can the test be completed when students choose?
- What additional strategies can you apply to support student success?
UDL Principle: Multiple Means of Action and Expression
When we consider this principle as it applies to assessment, we are shifting the focus from a single method of demonstrating learning to providing students with choice and meaningful options. This does not necessarily mean that the assessment can take any form a student chooses. UBCO policy requires exams for first and second year undergraduate courses; and, in some cases, there may also be practical barriers to other assessment methods: assessing student understanding in larger classes using non-test methods (e.g., term papers) is sometimes not efficient nor would it give timely feedback. Additionally, tests allow instructors to gauge understanding of a wide range of topics (whereas term papers provide the option to explore one topic in greater depth).
With these limitations in mind, one way to consider how choice could exist in an exam is to offer students choice in exams (for example, answer a subset of questions or pick 2 of 3 sections of the exam to be evaluated on). A benefit for all learners, choice carries more value for those with barriers to learning, as even just the presence of such an option can support students with, e.g., mental health barriers that impact recall.
Student choice in the evaluation structure of a course is also possible and desirable given disability barriers. There are more options for assessment than the standard ‘midterm/ midterm/final exam’ structure of a course. Consider the chart below for some possibilities related to exam structure in a hypothetical course:
| Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
Option 4 |
| Midterm – 20% |
Test 1 – 10%
Test 2 – 10%
Test 3 – 10% |
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Best 2 of 3; 15% each |
Test 1 – ungraded
Test 2
Test 3 |
| Final Exam – 35% |
Final exam – 25% |
Final exam – 25% |
Final Exam – 55% |
Those whose disability related impacts are exacerbated by high stress situations may be better able to demonstrate their understanding of course material with multiple assessments weighed equally (option 2), rather than fewer assignments weighed more heavily (option 1). Those with disabilities that ‘flare up’ unpredictably during the term, might require the chance to ‘drop’ a test without penalty (option 3), or to shift all weight to later exams (option 4).
| If we consider Scorch, providing them with choice around their evaluation structure could benefit them. For example, the student might choose option 3, as the final exam has a lower weight than options 1 and 4, and they can drop the lowest test score, so if morning examinations impact their overall success in demonstrating the essential requirements, they aren’t as adversely impacted in their evaluation. Option 3 functions similarly, in that the weighting of the final exam is lower than other options, and the three tests at 10% can act as practice and learning for how to take the assessments. |
Food for Thought
- In your courses, do students have a choice about what to complete and how to complete the tests?
- Are there different ways for students to demonstrate their understanding within the test?
- What evaluation options could be applicable to a course you teach?
Wrap Up
UDL principles, while impactful and valuable for students with (and without) disabilities, are not necessarily going to eliminate the need for accommodation in courses. There is no panacea; nevertheless, applying UDL principles can reduce the number of accommodation requests in your course, which is a win for both students with disabilities and their instructors alike.
If a more traditional test or exam is still needed after thoughtful consideration, then instructors are legally required to accommodate disabled students. To prepare, we recommend instructors consider:
- Create multiple versions of midterms and final examinations which can be administered to students whose examinations need to be rescheduled or adapted for disability-related reasons. Having extra tests versions readily available can decrease the burden on instructors to create additional exams ad hoc; and, it is often easier to create additional versions of tests at the same time as one is creating the ‘initial’ test. In turn, the practice of having multiple tests which can be delivered to students also facilitates creating timely bookings with the DRC for students who may need an Out of Time exam. Multiple versions could even be used for non-DRC students (distributed in alternating fashion) to better ensure exam security; or offered in subsequent years as ‘practice tests’ (see below).
- Create question banks from which exam questions can be randomly drawn, if Canvas tests are used.
- Offer practice exams for all students to set expectations for tests and how to write exams in your course. The evaluation and/or feedback on these practice exams can also inform what adaptations or further accommodations might still need to be made to the summative exam.
Reflection Questions
- Thinking about next year, how would you (re)design your course assessments to be more UDL aligned if time, resources, class size, etc., were not a constraint? How do you think these redesigned assessments would support students with disabilities?
- What small steps could you take now to make progress towards more UDL aligned assessments?
- What is one change you can make to your assessment practices to better accommodate disabled students in the next academic year?
- How has your thinking about disability and accommodations changed? What questions do you still have about UDL assessments?
Further resources
- UDL Foundations Course (open-access resource offered by University of Toronto)
- UDL Tips for Assessment
- Applying Equitable and Inclusive Assessment Principles
- Designing Equitable and Inclusive Assessments
Let’s Connect
Do you have questions about accessibility and accommodation(s) in your classroom? Reach out to the Disability Resource Centre by emailing your assigned Accessibility Advisor Liaison.
Do you want to further your learning and develop your inclusive pedagogy and practice? The Centre for Teaching and Learning has lots of resources to support, as well as 1 to 1 consulting. Reach out to Emily Campbell (Educational Consultant, Inclusion) at emily.campbell@ubc.ca to explore customized opportunities in your classroom.
Stay tuned for our next case study in the series, where we will explore Notetaking.
[1] These scenarios are fictitious – any similarity to actual persons is coincidental – the experiences they relay are congruent with what Accessibility Advisors at the DRC see regularly. No identification with actual persons is intended or should be inferred.
[2] For this thought exercise we use the term ‘disabled students’ to encompass all UBCO learners with disabilities, irrespective of whether they are registered with the DRC or not. We also use the term while recognizing that some prefer to use the phrase ‘student with a disability’.
[i] Our aim with these contributions is to provide thought-provoking reflective exercises for instructors as they are considering accessibility in their courses, classrooms, learning and assessment settings. The aim is to center disabled students’ experiences.
To this end, each topic will provide a unique student ‘Scenario’. While the scenarios are fictitious – any similarity to actual persons is coincidental – the experiences they relay are congruent with what Accessibility Advisors at the DRC see regularly. No identification with actual persons is intended or should be inferred.
Return to top of article
