Modes of assessment will rarely meet the legal definition of being a competence standard. If a mode of assessment is not a competence standard, then it is subject to reasonable adjustments.
When considering individual reasonable adjustments in assessment, colleagues may consider the following (you can find a copy of this checklist at Example tools and templates for practical implementation):
- Have you designed the assessment inclusively?
- Have you publicly shared any Competence Standards for the course/module in question?
- Can you articulate the difference between the competence standard and the assessment method?
- Does the assessment method assess the competence standard, or is it assessing some other skills, experience, or practice?
- Can you separate the assessment method from the skill being assessed?
- Have you anticipated appropriate reasonable adjustments to the assessment?
- How do these adjustments interact with the competence standard and do they in any way compromise it?
- Have you ensured that information about these reasonable adjustments is known to staff and students so that they are incorporated into normal working practices?
- What support is available to staff or students to advise on competence standards and reasonable adjustments to assessments?
When considering whether reasonable adjustments can be made to assessment methods, it can be helpful to think through the main types of adjustment which can be made to most forms of assessment. These break down into the following categories:
- Adjustments regarding the location, timing, or length of the exam (e.g. extra time, rest breaks, synchronous vs. asynchronous);
- Adjustments to the method of production (e.g. using assistive technology, pre-recording a presentation or presenting to one person)
- Adjustments to ensure the accessibility of assessment materials (e.g. large print, coloured paper, language modification, written rather than verbal instructions)
- Access to Support Workers (e.g. a BSL interpreter)
- Access to technology
In some cases it may be possible to offer an alternative method of assessment to ensure an equitable experience.
[1] Nieminen, J.H. Unveiling ableism and disablism in assessment: a critical analysis of disabled students’ experiences of assessment and assessment accommodations. High Educ 85, 613–636 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00857-1
[2] Nieminen, J. H. (2024). Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), 841–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395
