Instructors: Dr Helen Coulshed (Chemistry, NMES), Alexander Palmer (Chemistry, NMES), Syeda Tazrin(Psychology, IoPPN) and Poppy Ellis Logan (Psychological Medicine, IoPPN).
Email: helen.coulshed@kcl.ac.uk
Assessment activity: This research reports on a qualitative study with King’s students who identify as neurodivergent around their assessment and feedback experiences.
Why do this research?
Literature suggests assessment rarely meets the needs of marginalised students’ diversity, particularly disabled students (McArthur, 2016; Nieminen, 2022). Recent National Student Survey (NSS) data shows King’s students reporting a non-learning-based disability, including autism, depression, and schizophrenia, have the lowest rates of satisfaction with their course, strikingly low rates of agreement with statements about clear marking criteria and helpful feedback. They are also the least likely to feel part of a community.
It should be noted that, while neurodivergent conditions can broadly be considered in this category of non-learning-based disability, the NSS considers some conditions like ADHD as learning disabilities; many people with ADHD do not agree with this, and may self-report under a different category of disability.
The Office for National Statistics data further shows that 18% of people with a mental illness and 20% of autistic people hold a degree as their highest qualification, compared with an overall average of 25% across all disabled people, and 43% of non-disabled people (Office for National Statistics, 2021). The motivation here is therefore working to increase inclusive assessment and feedback processes to reduce the disadvantages imposed by the current system on these groups in this aspect of pedagogy, within a wider context of oppressive pedagogic design.
How did you set it up?
This project was intentionally co-created with neurodivergent (abbreviated as ND) students throughout; as research partners, students co-created questions for, and then facilitated, focus groups and interviews (Martens et al., 2019). Student facilitators could share their own lived experiences and build rapport with participants. Neurodivergence may bring additional strengths to qualitative research (Grant & Kara, 2021) as the facilitators’ awareness of their position, and how they could be influenced by their lived experience, sets the context for the interpretations and theories presented here.
Interviews and focus groups sought to model universal design principles to maximise accessibility within resource constraints: participants were provided with information sheets in advance of the online event, so they knew what to expect, breaks were integrated into focus group and interview timings, captions were made available. Participants were also invited to detail any additional access requirements that they had if unmet by the prior arrangements. It was made clear that typed responses were also welcome for those that had nonspeaking episodes.
What other considerations did you have in this research?
The intentional selection of one undergraduate and one postgraduate research student as interviewers and focus group facilitators supported communication and rapport with students of a broad range of ages and experience. Students were deliberately selected across a range of faculties and departments, which allowed the project to consider multi-disciplinary challenges and reduced risk of overemphasising or overrepresenting particular experiences. Priority to intersectional diversity across gender, ethnicity and neurodivergence was given within the recruitment process for focus group and interview participants.
Key findings and recommendations
Assessment types and practices
Participants were overwhelmingly in favour of online assessments. Some acknowledged that online assessments can be a ‘double-edged sword’ in the sense that they benefit some and disadvantage others. Participants also said that expectations (i.e., the subjective difference between a good versus excellent understanding) aren’t always clear, and that this ambiguity was stressful. Some also remarked that the timing of assessments can be improved. Participants also expressed reservations about using memory-based assessments for neurodivergent students.
Questions about groupwork elicited varied responses – some participants mentioned that it was a good way to meet people, but noted unique struggles for neurodivergent students exist in the context of groupwork, e.g., that students would accept extra stress to not share their neurodivergence; that lack of understanding around disability and neurodivergence was challenging; and that being perceived as an ‘inconvenience’ to other group members was a cause of anxiety and further stress.
Feedback
Participants reported instances of both unhelpful and useful feedback. Unhelpful feedback was typically vague with minimal signposting as to ways to improve.
The common theme under useful feedback was perceived care; example behaviours described as indicating this were specific, action-focused feedback that could be applied to future work, and acknowledgement of a students’ coversheet.
Structure
Participants mentioned inconsistent teaching and feedback across departments and organisational problems across departments and modules. These include the layout of the KEATS (King’s E-learning And Teaching Service) page and lack of communication between module leads and students.
Self-advocacy
Some of the participants considered being able to openly talk about neurodivergence as a privilege. One participant, diagnosed during their undergraduate studies, said “I could barely even tell you the dictionary definition of what I was being assessed for, let alone how it impacts me, and therefore let alone the kind of support I would need”. However, while these self-advocacy skills are valuable, participants also noted that this is additional time, effort, and work that their neurotypical counterparts do not have to do.
Support
Participants generally said that having a PAA (Personalised Assessment Arrangements) or KIP (King’s Inclusion Plan) made accessing support easier, and that the MCF (Mitigating Circumstances Form) process was ‘easy’. However, some said that smooth receipt and acknowledgement of the KIPs sent to teaching staff by the Disability Team is missing – the Disability Team may forget to send it, lecturers may not check systems for it, ultimately reasonable adjustments are not provided (e.g., sending students the class materials in advance). Participants described receiving separate support that is specific to them but stated that support was dependent on the relationships students have with staff and they felt reliant on the ‘kindness of individuals’. For example, participants mentioned receiving inclusive teaching because they were ‘lucky’ with ‘receptive staff’.
Recommendations
- Better signposting – both by module leads and the Disability and Inclusion Team (and university societies) on what constitutes good MCF evidence
- Staggered deadlines with a clear assessment calendar showing due dates, exam dates, etc.
- No attendance grades
- Essay workshops and available/accessible exemplars for assignments
- Multiple choice questions (MCQs) should have feedback on where students answer incorrectly (i.e., explanation of correct answer, and/or why the selected answer was incorrect) rather than a grade alone
- Disability awareness training for staff and students
- Hiring a neurodivergent advisor for each department to facilitate reasonable adjustments such as neurodivergent students’ need for routine (I.e., seating plans)
Challenges
Certain faculties and groups of students were underrepresented in this research – this was largely due to the timing of the focus groups and interviews, and it was difficult to recruit students from medicine, business, and law, and similarly difficult to recruit foundation-year students. Future work or extensions could focus on these particular groups and consider specific challenges or supports in these areas of study.
This project deliberately chose to set up mixed-gender and mixed-neurodivergence groups, seeking to avoid all-male groups or all-autistic groups, but this could have influenced what participants felt comfortable discussing; for example, being in a gender minority within a group might have meant that individuals did not feel able to talk about gendered aspects of discrimination they had experienced. As this research was primarily interested in neurodivergence, participants were not specifically asked about intersections with other marginalised identities like gender or ethnicity, and how this might have influenced their experiences.
Next steps
Current work focuses on creating an asynchronous, online course for staff and students which aims to improve understanding of assessment and feedback accessibility requirements for ND students studying in HE. This is a collaborative project with King’s College London and the University of Warwick. ND students from each university will work with staff to co-create content for the course.
*for the full research report, please click here: Neurodiversity study circle – full report
*for an executive summary, please click here: Study circle report – executive summary
References
- Grant, A., & Kara, H. (2021). Considering the Autistic advantage in qualitative research: the strengths of Autistic researchers. Contemporary Social Science, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2021.1998589
- Martens, S. E., Spruijt, A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Whittingham, J. R. D., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2019). A students’ take on student–staff partnerships: experiences and preferences. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 910–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1546374
- McArthur, J. (2016). Assessment for social justice: the role of assessment in achieving social justice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429
- Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395
- Office for National Statistics. (2021). Outcomes for disabled people in the UK: 2021. In Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/articles/outcomesfordisabledpeopleintheuk/2020
Leave a Reply