Blair, Bernadette

Renton, Lucy

Stott, Laura

Ungley, Portia

Kingston University Research Repository

  Clarity and Consistency: Improving Assessment & Feedback for Students with Dyslexia  An Access Working Group funded project.                        Project Leader: Lucy Renton MA (RCA) FHEA            Associate Professor                            School Director of Learning and Teaching            Faculty of Art Design & Architecture                            l.renton@kingston.ac.uk    Acknowledgements  Many people have contributed to our ongoing project in the last two years including: Dr. Bernadette Blair Emeritus Professor Laura Stott Academic Skills Advisor  Portia Ungley Senior Lecturer    With thanks for contributions also from: Joanna Bailey, Gloria Bassoli, Nidia Bissoli- Warwick, Sinead Evans, Kelly Ewing, Terry Finnegan, Justine Langford, Paddy O’Shea, Angela Partington, Paul Postle, Helen Potkin, Martin Rees, Paul Simonson, FADA course leaders and the students at Kingston University London and elsewhere who have participated in the first stage of this project.   Constructive Alignment Social Constructivism Communities of Practice    John Biggs Teaching for quality learning at university (2003)   Lev Vygotsky Mind in Society (1978)   Etienne Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (1998)      How do we assess in Art & Design? Susan Orr Marking Marks: Assessment in Art & Design (2010)  Group marking i.e. marking by many staff – an “artful social practice”   Assessment “Binaries”  The student and the work  Intention and outcome  Process and product        What are the issues for students? • Perceptions of (un)fairness  • Parity amongst staff (many HPLs)  • Lack of transparency  • Conflicting advice  • Not understanding the feedback, or how it can help them progress  • Disconnect between studio practice and theory    FADA Online Assessment & Feedback Project Literature Review  Standardising Assessment Template Marking Criteria Rubric Grids  iPad pilots and audio feedback Student interviews and evaluation  Finding out what support KU offers Checking out other HEI systems and processes Staff debate, deep reflection, revision of LOs.          Key Points for Online Assessment and Feedback Systems from our Literature Review prepared by Laura Stott, Academic Skills Advisor   • Repetition is a very useful tool for embedding knowledge at a deeper level. This is about systems rather than words. It may be about the repetition of the rubrics being used. Perhaps it is about enabling students to repeatedly access feedback as often as they like, and keeping it all in one place which they can repeatedly go to for new feedback.   • Consistency seems to be vital. Certainly the students interviewed in Habib et al. (2012) report that the use of different platforms to disseminate information caused confusion. We can take from this that it is of upmost importance that all assessment and feedback information is in one place and the same system is used consistently.  Forcing students to learn new VLE of feedback systems numerous times can create a reluctance to engage in them, which will inevitably have an impact on their learning and on receiving information in a timely manner (Habib, 2012).  • The volume of text should be as minimal and concise as possible.  • Control, over pace of learning and format, can be of great benefit in helping dyslexic students overcome their own personal and specific manifestations of the condition.  • Positive aspects of having forms of dyslexia  in helping dyslexic students overcome their own personal and specific manifestations of the condition.     The interviews  • Who we asked  • What we asked   • What we found out   Who we asked • Students with dyslexia  • Students who volunteered from open call  • Students feeding back on pilot projects  trialling audio feedback and rubric grids  • From Design School, ADH, A & L and another institution    What we asked • Student understanding and  experience of assessment and feedback in general  •  What electronic device students currently use to access their course material and feedback.  •  Suggestions for how we could improve assessment and feedback to help them in their studies.    What we found out • Confusion about the terms formative and summative, and modules and projects terms of assessment   • Lack of standardization  • Students would like opportunity to clarify feedback – not always possible due to size of cohort   • All wanted prompt, succinct summative feedback, bullet points   • Not always consistent with formative feedback   • Verbal feedback might be hard to understand/mumbled/ difficulty with language and accents   What we found out 2 • HPLs not available for follow up on assessment  • Students would all like comments divided into what they had done well and areas for improvement so they could understand their strengths and weaknesses  • Students would like more regular opportunities for face to face progress tutorials.  • In their contextual studies modules, students found group tutorials useful because of the variety of suggestions from their peers.         What we found out 3 • Email is most common way to receive summative feedback  • Facebook not good as some students miss out  • Don’t assume students have smartphones or access to internet on their phone  • Audio feedback appreciated   Dyslexia – what helps? • Some students liked the audio feedback, dependent on form of dyslexia they have,  would like to have more in future  • All students with dyslexia reported our current VLE difficult to use, not user friendly  • Students want “clarity and consistency, I think that makes anything better”  • Preference for electronic rather than handwritten feedback forms      What students thought of Audio Feedback • Dyslexic students on the audio trial initially found the feedback different but thought this would be an improvement for feedback in the future.    •  “I think there was a lot more feedback. There was some written feedback as well, but to hear it, there was more in there; it was more nuanced. I could tell what was more positive, what was not as positive. And it was easier to understand the module leader’s point of view, rather than just from a blank, flat piece of text. “   • “there’s an issue where the tutors are expecting a certain level of comprehension, which is understandable but our students aren’t always there. So I think in this case an audio feedback, where the student can pause it and go back and listen again, would be very helpful.”  • Dyslexic students welcomed getting feedback electronically, rather than on written sheets.    •  “I find it to be completely advantageous, because I have it in front of me and I can refer back to it, and I don’t have to go flying through sheaves of paper.”    • “I would prefer it written, and the audio kind of falls into that, mostly because I’m socially anxious so face to face interactions can get to be a little too much. ”      A.N. Other college • These students understood terms formative and summative • Formative feedback F2F, then via email through Google Drive • Students noted or recorded verbal feedback on their phones • Laptops and phones used to access feedback, but phones not as useful • Google Drive popular and accessible • Still a preference for F2F  meeting for clarification • Feedback for studio and contextual modules all in same format so consistent.   What next? • Rubric Grids and more standardised templates for assessment and feedback being introduced by the next academic year.  • More trials of iPad marking and audio feedback, more student evaluation.  • Developing new Assessment & Feedback guidelines for staff and students to embed best practice.  • Developing guides for staff and students on best practice and support available in relation to dyslexia.         Example of Criteria developed by Illustration Animation ANALYSIS: critical examination of context and interpretation  EXPERIMENTATION: testing of thinking through making, risk taking and problem solving  COMMUNICATION & PRESENTATION: realisation of intentions and skill in appropriate media  PERSONAL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: planning, time-management, commitment & subject engagement    Interim Conclusions Benefits for us as a faculty  •  deep reflection on how we go about A &F, might not have been the case if we had imposed a rigid structure?  • Finding out more about how we can support students with dyslexia (and Asperger’s)  • Uncovering difficulties with technology for staff with dyslexia that we need to address.  • Saving time on marking, better experience for all our students. • When will results (hopefully) begin to come through?  • Expansion of project this year.         • our templates for UG and PG summative and formative Assessment and Feedback, provide a model that can be adapted by each course, but provide consistency across the Faculty.  References Bird, T., Morris, S. W., Martin, J., Brownbridge, J. and Gill, T. (2006) Using enhanced and video podcasts of lecture recordings to support student learning: implementation and evaluation. Internal Report Bangor University. Unpublished. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/p20080624_Bangor_podcasting_final_report.pdf (Accessed 10 March 2015) British Dyslexia Association (A, no date) Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about (Accessed 3 March 2015) British Dyslexia Association (B, no date) Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexic/definitions  (Accessed 4 March 2015) Connelly, V., Barnett, A. and Sumner, E. (2014) ‘Dyslexia and writing: poor spelling can interfere with good quality composition’, Brookes ejournal of Learning and Teaching, 6(2). Available at http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/paper/dyslexia-and-writing-poor-spelling-can-interfere-with-good-quality-composition/ (Accessed 3 March 2015) Everatt, J. & Zabell, C. (2000) ‘Gender differences in dyslexia’, in I. Smythe (ed.) The Dyslexia Handbook. Reading: British Dyslexia Association. Everatt, J., Steffert, B. & Smythe, I. (1999) ‘An eye for the unusual: creative thinking in dyslexics’, Dyslexia, 5(1), pp.28–46. Exley. Sioned (2003) The effectiveness of teaching strategies for students with dyslexia based on their preferred learning styles.  British Journal of Special Education, 30(4) pp.213-220. Habib, L., Berget, G., Sandnes, F. E., Sanderson, N., Kahn, P., Fagernes, S. and Olcay, A.  (2012) ‘Dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), pp.574-584, Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00486.x/  (Accessed: 23 February 2015). Hick, W. E. (1952). ‘On the rate of gain of information’. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4 (1), pp.11–26. Hickman, R. and Brens, M. (2014) ‘Art, Pedagogy and Dyslexia’, International Journal of Art and Design Education 33(3) pp.335-344, Wiley Online Library. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.2014.33.issue-3/issuetoc (Accessed: 24 February 2015). Higher Education Statistics Agency (2013) ‘Higher Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 2012-13.’Available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/pubs/heuk (Accessed 2 March 2015) McDowell, J. and Catterall, S. (2014) ‘Using Asynchronous Video to Enhance Engagement with Learning, Assessment and Feedback for Learners Affected by Dyslexia’, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Use of New Technologies for Inclusive Learning. Available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/23007/  (Accessed: 26 February 2015) Pino, M. and Mortari, L. (2014) ‘The Inclusion of Students with Dyslexia in Higher Education: A Systematic Review Using Narrative Synthesis’, Dyslexia, 20(4), pp.346-369. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dys.1484/pdf (Accessed: 3 March 2015) Richardson, J. T. E. (2009) ‘The academic attainment of students with disabilities in UK Higher Education.’ Studies in Higher Education 34: 123–38. Richardson, J.T.E. and Wydell, T.N. (2003) ‘The Representation and Attainment of Students with Dyslexia in UK Higher Education’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, pp.475-503. Available at: http://download.springer.com (Accessed: 28 February 2015) Robson, L. (2014) ‘Additional help, additional problem – issues for supported dyslexic students’ The higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/GEN-261-P_0.pdf. (Accessed: 29 February 2015) Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (1999) ‘Cognitive and neurobiologic influences in reading and in dyslexia’, Developmental Neuropsychology, 16(3), 383–384. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0093934X00923927/1-s2.0-S0093934X00923927-main.pdf?_tid=7373325c-be68-11e4-ba6d-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1425031835_98a329a9e54fc411a39e9a32a1d0d9c6 (Accessed: 28 February 2015) von Károlyi, C., Winner, E., Gray, W. and Sherman, G. F. (2003) ‘Dyslexia linked to talent: Global visual-spatial ability’, Brain and Language, 85, pp. 427–431. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0093934X0300052X/1-s2.0-S0093934X0300052X-main.pdf?_tid=9b2f48bc-be68-11e4-be89-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1425031901_ea12eaa90a210b2341c59ff545c2ce98 (Accessed: 28 February 2015) West, T. G. (1997) In the Mind’s eye: Visual Thinkers, Gifted People With Dyslexia and Other Learning Difficulties, Computer Images and the Ironies of Creativity. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books. Wolff, U. & Lundberg, I. (2002) ‘The prevalence of dyslexia among art students’, Dyslexia, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 34– 42.    

Clarity and consistency: improving assessment and feedback for students with Dyslexia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kingston University Research Repository