[Stefanie Acevedo]

A problem that could be raised is this: A skills-based timed quiz presupposes that a student will have “normal” brain processing time. So that inadvertendtly prevents students with delayed processing from succeeding in those quizzes without timing accommodation. (If a student is dyslexic, for instance, they need extra time to process text. That means they’re going to take longer to read a book or write a paper, but that doesn’t mean they can’t, say, succeed as a journalist. In my opinion–not disability services’–the student should also get extra time-management resources so that they learn how to cope with that extra time they’re going to need to take in their day-to-day lives).

Last semester led to intense discussions with our disabilities testing center because we’ve been having a lot of problems with extra timing (and extra absences). For example, two of us had timed openbook/internet exams last semester – time was only used so that students wouldn’t be able to look everything up. Some students qualified for 2X testing time, which threw the whole point of the time restraint out the window (my two hour exam would become a 4 hour exam). We had a long talk about this at our faculty retreat. One example that was brought up was timing for, say, memorizing scales: if a student has a problem with memorization, then maybe you could accommodate so that they only memorize half as many in the same amount of time or something like that. However, that would also compromise the learning outcomes and material for the course/program, delay them in learning other material, etc.

From my experiences this past semester, this is a “battle” you might lose. Extra time on quizzes/tests is one of the main go-tos for disability services (also it really depends on the students’ disability – I am speaking from an abled perspective that has been brought up in a time-based testing culture. I have a reading issue but that doesn’t affect speed drills of this sort). Our disability services won’t allow extra time for test preparation (i.e. giving the student a study guide before everyone else, etc.) or extra time on untimed take-home tests (it’s more like a standard assignment and the student can set their own schedule). But any timed drill/quiz/exam will require extra time. It’s a one-size-fits-all approach for many disorders which I personally think needs to be revised. Advice from our disability services person was to think of alternate ways of testing the knowledge…

The whole point of accommodation is to equal the playing field for the student: if they truly have a problem with timed processing, how can we realistically enable them to do the same task? Maybe allow them a piano keyboard or some tool so they’re better able to visualize/embody the sound? What’s realistic based on your course objectives?

Another example that was used is using a calculator in a math class: a professor may say they don’t want to allow students to use calculators, but a student with dyscalculia might qualify for it. What’s the learning objective/purpose of the course? To be able to do math in their head quickly/correctly, or to comprehend the concepts (and get the right answers in a reasonable amount of time)? If the latter, then the professor must accommodate.

I don’t know the answer to timed quizzes for these types of drills. When we’re expecting students to be fast (why???) but timing is compromised, then it’s really an arm-up-in-the-air moment. We’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. However, sometimes I wonder if the square peg or the round hole is the thing that needs to be changed.

(Sorry I rambled but this is a huge concern for me too. And it’s not an easy thing to fix.)

[Author]

Posts