Should students be given assistance when they have disabilities?

[CharonY]

Given the system here I am almost sure that there will be legal issues, though. Given the fact that we had to arrange a student some prolonged time for her exam as she provided a proof of learning disability. Seriously, the US university system is bloody weird. Small wonder that so many guys are imported here.

[CaptainPanic]

Given the system here I am almost sure that there will be legal issues, though. Given the fact that we had to arrange a student some prolonged time for her exam as she provided a proof of learning disability. Seriously, the US university system is bloody weird. Small wonder that so many guys are imported here.

 

We're going off topic, I know (we're done with the original issue, and it was just a joke anyway, right?)... What kind of learning disability are we talking about?

 

I probably exaggerate here, but putting the above quote in different words: Stupid people get extra help in passing the university exams in the USA? Isn't the school system supposed to be a selection so that the right people get the right diploma to actually prove they're capable of doing the job?

 

In my university, you got some extra time if you had a reading disability (Dyslexia)... which makes sense at a technical university, since reading isn't the most important in the engineer's life (though not insignificant either). I really hope that in a linguistics study, you actually do not get that extra time with dyslexia, for the same reason as disabled people don't get extra time on the obstable course for the marines.

[Mokele]

While I can't speak for most of them, since they took tests in separate, special rooms, I recall one student of mine who *definitely* had serious test anxiety. I tried to do everything I could to help, but he still didn't score as highly as I know he should have from our interactions in class.

[tvp45]

It's hard to make any blanket statement about accomodation. Consider Kent Cullers, by any account a good physicist, who had to have various sorts of accomodations to do the required labs. Or, Steven Hawking. The key, I think, is reasonableness, and the folks in University "special students" offices sometimes don't know how to assess that.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that it depends. Extra time on a test (especially when it is a test that students without disabilities are expected to be able to complete in the allotted time period) does seem reasonable. Help answering the questions, not so much. Extra time where one of the things the test is supposed to test for is speed, that is much more sketchy.

 

But just to give an example, suppose a student broke his arms just before the test and had to write very slowly. It would absolutely make no sense to fail him just because he can't complete the test in the allotted time. Depending on the learning disability we are talking about, it could very well be that the student learned as much as his classmates, but simply can't do well on a timed test. If the test is intended to test for knowledge rather than speed, it would likewise make no sense to fail him due to not being fast enough.

[CharonY]

If it was for only for physical disabilities I would totally agree. For dyslexia I am not that sure already, because I consider reading ability an absolute requirement for anything in academia. But it wasn't that bad if it was only that.

Essentially they need to provide a diagnostic report from a psychologist or certified counselor that they have some kind of learning impairment. Among those only ADHD is explicitly mentioned, but otherwise a psychoeducational assessment will be done according to three main criteria: Aptitude, Achievement and Information processing. Also there is a vague comment regarding psychiatric disorders.

So basically if the provide a report that says that they have severe deficiencies in these areas they are eligible to extra time in their exams. It is funny, though that in classes with a little bit more math an disproportionate amount of students with learning disabilities pop up. In one of the first classes in which I was involved in (I was only giving a small part of the lecture) around 5 students out of 60 had learning disabilities. All of them wanted eventually to go to medical school and after the extra time all had an A. They also had high average scores. So go figure.

 

I recall one student of mine who *definitely* had serious test anxiety.

That is a toughie. I know two people like that. It may be true One never managed to finish uni due to that. The question. I am not sure whether extra time helps, though. At least in the long run. My wife also had that during her undergrad time, but overcame it eventually and got a PhD with summa. She, at least, does not think that it would have helped her to be treated differently. But I guess there are no clear solutions for that problem.

 

 

Isn't the school system supposed to be a selection so that the right people get the right diploma to actually prove they're capable of doing the job?

Wahahahahahhahahaaaa *snort* Sorry, I could not help myself. OK but serious now. When I was a student that was what I thought, too, for while. And almost a decade ago at least in Germany it was partially true (though then it was changing already). It may also be true where you live, but in the US at least it is clear that it is basically a service provided for higher education. I think the major reason not to get at least a Bachelor are mostly financial ones. Which, on the hindsight, might be one of the reason why the German system, in which education was essentially free, worked a bit differently. This goes quite off-topic once more, but I am actually still wondering how much of the uni-structure actually is based on traditional element (including exams) how much it does clash with what it wants to accomplish. Maybe I should start a new thread regarding differences in uni-systems and at what they are aimed at. But I should finish my grant application first.

Edited March 10, 2009 by CharonY

[CaptainPanic]

Does that also mean that companies must hire stupid people who are unfit for the job? I mean, they got the diploma after all?

 

Or is the plan that learning disabilities disappear when you're done with school? I'm working now, but learning every day. I need to read, learn, study, understand, and I even I need to do "tests" (meetings, presentations, and also classical tests with pen and paper sometimes).

 

My university was definitely a selection. 50% dropped out in the 1st year, and a few percent even after that. The average student at a Dutch technical university needs almost 7 years to finish a 5 year study (BSc + MSc). That's selection. And that's a good thing.

 

Our education isn't free, but it's definitely affordable for everybody.

[hermanntrude]

I think it all depends on the actual disability. For instance, dyslexia doesn't imply stupidity. A person with dyslexia just has trouble with interpreting written symbols. It's not that they can't understand the question, they just can't physically read it very easily. Many jobs (and i admit, not all jobs) do not require the skill of reading something particularly quickly. Unfortunately, due to the method of examination, which is timed, often the qualification DOES require fast interpretation of written language.

 

Now dyslexia is just one example, and many disabilities DO render a person unqualified to do a specific job, but i dont think the Universities should be in the business of deciding which disability makes you totally unemployable and which doesnt. Extra time in exams isn't an issue for me. Scribes aren't an issue either, as long as it's on record. That way any potential employer knows what skills the potential incumbent has or does not have and can select based on that.

[Sayonara]

General question: Isn't the idea of exams that they show how much the student has retained and understood their learning, rather than how much they can regurgitate in a specified time just for the hell of it? If a disability means that a person physically takes longer to get their knowledge onto the page, of course it means they need to be given more time. Otherwise they have a comparatively smaller opportunity to demonstrate their learning. A diploma or degree shows that they have the proper academic aptitude to warrant that award - it is not a manufacturer's warranty to future employers which guarantees that they will perform at a particular rate of knots.

[CaptainPanic]

I think it all depends on the actual disability. For instance, dyslexia doesn't imply stupidity.

You're right, and if my previous posts suggested that I thought so, then I apologize. I was talking more about the extreme cases, but I should have made that more clear. Also, I should study those extreme cases more before I go any deeper into this topic... and therefore:

I'll just link to a decent wikipedia page that describes the topic, for all to read.

[mrburns2012]

A quick search for "Famous People with Dyslexia" on google can reveal lots of evidence that US schools are not wasting their time with special accommodations. Many of these "famous" people even include authors and screenwriters. And I'm sure there are also lesser known Joes out there who may be dyslexic, but are successful otherwise.

[CharonY]

Isn't the idea of exams that they show how much the student has retained and understood their learning, rather than how much they can regurgitate in a specified time just for the hell of it?

 

I might actually agree on this, however shouldn't then all students have more time? It is a weird coincidence that those with extra time all scored above average. If it is correct to state that time should not be an issue in an exam shouldn't all have the opportunity to use their knowledge to the maximum efficiency? Or shorten the exam so that all have the ability to finish in time, regardless of a counselor's report? Shouldn't foreign students get a flat increase because they are not working/learning in their native language?

 

Of course one could still argue that time is in fact a factor. Because you could also test how fast someone understands a question and manages to apply his/her knowledge to solve that. Truth be told, most exams are directed at memorization of some sorts.

 

And just for the record, a colleague of mine is mildly dyslexic. He stated that he had just to study harder than others and wouldn't have had it any other way (of course I am not sure whether he would have said the same, if he was still a student).

 

I think it all depends on the actual disability.

That is clear. But what I mentioned above is the guideline of the university. Essentially someone just has to perform poorly in aptitude, achievement and information processing in a standardized test. In my opinion the chances for abuse are enormous. Personally I am not sure whether I consider it fair towards the other students.

 

My university was definitely a selection. 50% dropped out in the 1st year,

In my uni in Germany we had a first year drop out in Germany of around 50% and then in the second year (where there were big math, chemistry and physics exams) once again 60%. However, in hindsight I assume that most drop outs were simply due to self-selection. That is, the candidates realized that their idea of uni was not quite realistic. While the results are the same technically it is not the uni that is selecting. What I am trying to say is that drop out by own choice is not the same as being selected e.g. with exams or other means. though I am not sure whether that would be a good thing either. I prefer lab performance to see whether someone really understand the lecture. This is rarely feasible, though. And while I am off-topic: in Germany they introduced tuition fees now, but only around 200-500 bucks or so per semester.

[Mokele]

I might actually agree on this, however shouldn't then all students have more time? It is a weird coincidence that those with extra time all scored above average. If it is correct to state that time should not be an issue in an exam shouldn't all have the opportunity to use their knowledge to the maximum efficiency? Or shorten the exam so that all have the ability to finish in time, regardless of a counselor's report? Shouldn't foreign students get a flat increase because they are not working/learning in their native language?

 

Of course one could still argue that time is in fact a factor. Because you could also test how fast someone understands a question and manages to apply his/her knowledge to solve that. Truth be told, most exams are directed at memorization of some sorts.

 

I actually favor take-home exams - time isn't *really* a factor, and they'll look up whatever they want to, so you can ditch the memorization and focus on the important, conceptual questions. My favorites are ones where there *is* no known answer, and you ask them to hypothesize then grade their grasp of the subject matter.

 

One of the profs in my dept doesn't even give tests anymore. It's all take-home writing assignments intended to see how well they actually understand the concept of the week.

[CharonY]

That is something I also would like to do. I only see three problems. One is that you do not know whether they actually wrote it. The second one is that it takes more time to correct and evaluate. Well and the third is that you will likely get bad evaluations. While most (undergrad) students complain that it is all only memorization, truth is that most actually feel more comfortable with that kind of lecture/exams. I have talked with an established prof about it and he mentioned that in his younger days he actually tried to set up lectures that were designed to teach concepts and test understanding and use of them. He got the worst evaluation ever and did not try it on undergrad levels anymore. Even on graduate levels it is not that easy.

 

Maybe a mix: only one or two questions that test understanding but a long time-limit (e.g. 6hs) with access to books and other material (in most exams cheat sheets are allowed, anyway).

 

With respect to the op I would still suggest that all would work under the same constraints, even if it is a week. That is, those with a disorder should not return it, say a month later if the others only got one week.

Edited March 11, 2009 by CharonY

[Mokele]

One is that you do not know whether they actually wrote it. And the second one is that it takes more time to correct and evaluate.

 

Very true on both counts. Countering cheating is a constant pain, it's hard to know what to do. I have wondered about the feasability of subjecting them to mini-orals - have them prepare a report or proposal on something, then grill them about it, much like a PhD candidacy exam.

 

I've also tried to figure out an idea I had for "uneven grading", where the points you lose from getting a question wrong are not the same as the number you get if you get them right. For instance, a very basic question would be worth only a few points if they get it right, but has a large penalty if they get it wrong (because getting it wrong indicates they are utterly clueless), while a very difficult question has a large reward for those few who get it right, but not much of a penalty for those who get it wrong.

 

It's the fundamental problem of education - how do you actually figure out what a student knows?

[CharonY]

I have wondered about the feasability of subjecting them to mini-orals - have them prepare a report or proposal on something, then grill them about it, much like a PhD candidacy exam.

 

When I was a student the written exams mainly just required you to pass. However the important ones, that is those that count against your diploma were all oral. And there were also a number of "unimportant" orals where you only had to pass. But in Germany these were all lab courses with fewer participants. At least in this Uni (in the US) there are few of those on the undergrad (or even graduate) level. And I am afraid of trying that in a basic class with 80 participants.

 

I've also tried to figure out and idea I had for "uneven grading",

This is a good idea. When I set up the first exam (for my boss that is) I actually tried to do this, but one is required to use a software here, that only allows you to set up points for the correct answer.

 

It's the fundamental problem of education - how do you actually figure out what a student knows?

Absolutely agree with that. I think at some point most just do not care anymore. It is too much of an hassle, it does not further your career and it is easier just to pull as many students through as possible (and hence get good evaluations) and then select for good candidates on the graduate level. Quite often from overseas, too. I am not sure whether this is a good tactic, but I have the feeling that this is what it boils down to. Especially in research unis in which getting funds is more important than evaluate your students fairly.

[Mokele]

When I was a student the written exams mainly just required you to pass. However the important ones, that is those that count against your diploma were all oral. And there were also a number of "unimportant" orals where you only had to pass. But in Germany these were all lab courses with fewer participants. At least in this Uni (in the US) there are few of those on the undergrad (or even graduate) level. And I am afraid of trying that in a basic class with 80 participants.

 

Yeah, basic classes are a nightmare. I remember the A&P freshman course at the last school I was at - 800 students. It had 2 dedicated faculty members, and consumed ~40% of the TAs. Intro to Bio was about the same. As a result, lecture tests were all multiple-regurgitation.

 

This is a good idea. When I set up the first exam (for my boss that is) I actually tried to do this, but one is required to use a software here, that only allows you to set up points for the correct answer.

 

I'm tempted to try it, though I might wait until I'm tenured before taking a chance.

 

I think at some point most just do not care anymore. It is too much of an hassle, it does not further your career and it is easier just to pull as many students through as possible (and hence get good evaluations)

 

The good news is that some schools are starting to change that over here. A former lab-mate just got hired at a school that places a *large* emphasis on teaching effectiveness, which even says "It's not that teaching performance is part of tenure review, it's that if you don't teach well, you won't even make it to tenure review."

[CharonY]

800 with only two faculty members? Nasty.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have talked with an established prof about it and he mentioned that in his younger days he actually tried to set up lectures that were designed to teach concepts and test understanding and use of them. He got the worst evaluation ever and did not try it on undergrad levels anymore.

 

I would have loved to have him as a teacher. My learning style is to memorize general concepts, and then derive the specifics from them. Eg instead of memorizing "the area of a trapezoid is (base1 + base2)*h/2", I would memorize "you can split a trapezoid into two triangles", since I already know the area of a triangle and it is so much more important. Only if the derivation for something is incredibly complex, or can't be derived, would I bother memorizing specifics. In the end, this means that I need memorize very few things, and I can derive the rest from them. I tend to do very well in tests, so long as I have the time to finish. Maybe I should get one of these disability thingies.

[Mokele]

I have talked with an established prof about it and he mentioned that in his younger days he actually tried to set up lectures that were designed to teach concepts and test understanding and use of them. He got the worst evaluation ever and did not try it on undergrad levels anymore.

 

My MS advisor had a course like that, and the students *hated* it. In fairness, he *did* ask way too much from them in terms of work output and such, but a large part of the problem was that the students themselves were simply unprepared to do anything more demanding than cookbook labs with fill-in-the-blank lab reports.

 

800 with only two faculty members? Nasty.

 

Yeah, it was. But they were hired exclusively for this course, and didn't have any other responsibilities, so that was easier. Plus there was plenty of recycling of material between years.

 

The lecture exams really put it in perspective - a *huge*, stadium-seating lecture hall, and the combined body heat and nervousness of all those students taking the test would overwhelm the AC and heat the room to uncomfortable temperatures.

[YT2095]

Nobody performs their Best under Exam type conditions, the whole Idea of an "Exam" as it stands currently and has done for decades is a Falsity of academic prowess.

and where disabilities preclude this current exam setup, allowances Should be made.

Personally I like the idea of NVQ`s and Apprenticeships, Then you cut to the chase entirely (we take exams for employment), you can Then see how well they do their Job and not how many bits of paper they have.

 

That`s where the Real Diamonds are

[CharonY]

My MS advisor had a course like that, and the students *hated* it. In fairness, he *did* ask way too much from them in terms of work output and such, but a large part of the problem was that the students themselves were simply unprepared to do anything more demanding than cookbook labs with fill-in-the-blank lab reports.

 

Apparently that happens all over.

 

Personally I like the idea of NVQ`s and Apprenticeships,

I agree. The problem is that they are more time intensive. And it is not easily applicable to early undergrads. In Germany to get a diploma (roughly a masters degree) you had to work around 9 months on an own project and write it up. That was actually the main evaluation point which decides whether you will get a PhD position or not.

[visceral]

As several other people already said, it depends on exactly what this 'assistance' is that they're asking for.

 

Longer time for completing an essay because you have a damaged hand and can't write fast? Sure.

 

Help answering the questions? Nope.

[CharonY]

Actually I think I stated that in one of the above posts. There is no disagreement regarding physical disabilities and any special accommodations that come with it (e.g. scribe or quiet room).

The only point of discussion is whether those with a learning disability of any kind should get additional exam time (and, maybe also how easy this would be exploitable). One possible solution we were discussing wast to get rid of time limitation altogether.

 

Nobody performs their Best under Exam type conditions,

If you mean all kinds of exams, that may be. If you are referring to written ones as compared to orals, I am not so sure. I knew people who perform stellar under one but have difficulties in the other.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nobody performs their Best under Exam type conditions,

 

I might. I actually like exams even when most of my classmates dread them, since they mean less of the grade is based on other stuff (which always takes much longer than the exam), and I usually do well on them. I particularly hate papers, as they take a long time to write and my time management skills are horrible. As for oral exams, I've never had one, but that I might dread.