Equity or Advantage? The effect of receiving access arrangements in university exams on Humanities students with Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD)

Abstract

This research aimed to identify whether the granting of exam access arrangements to students with Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) creates exam equity with their typically developing (TD) peers or confers an advantage. Empirical data was collected from the exam scripts of 67 Humanities students with SpLD who were permitted the use of a word processor and/or 25% extra time and 70 TD peers who took the same exam under standard conditions. The length of answers on the exam scripts, marks and degree classification achieved by students with SpLD were compared with those of their TD peers. The statistical conclusion of this study is that the students with SpLD who were granted exam access arrangements did not perform differently compared to their TD peers who took the same exam under standard conditions. This demonstrates that exam access arrangement do not confer an advantage for SpLD students in Humanities.

Consensus or contradiction? A review of the current research into the impact of granting extra time in exams to students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD)

“…Although the research outcomes from this study demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in exam performance between the SpLD participant group as a whole and their TD peers, some differences were noted between the SpLD sub-groups and their TD comparators (Duncan & Purcell, 2017). For example, when analysing differences in exam performance between the SpLD and TD groups, the SpLD group who had 25% extra time alone achieved lower marks than their TD peers who took the same exam under standard conditions.…”

“…A study by Duncan & Purcell (2017), however, was conducted within the 'real-life' context of the mandatory high-stakes timed University exams. This quasi-experimental study examined existing data from the exam scripts of end of year university exams and compared the performance of 69 students with SpLD who were granted exam arrangements with the performance of 70 TD peers who took the same exam under standard exam conditions.…”

“…This was based on the premise that additional time results in longer answers and longer answers (as they include a greater wealth of detail and more fully address the question) result in higher marks (Zuriff, 2000). Duncan & Purcell (2017) found that students with SpLD who were granted extra time in their exams did not produce a higher word count or achieve higher marks than their TD peers who took the same exam under standard conditions. In addition, the study identified no significant correlation between word count and mark across the participants as a whole, with higher word count failing to correlate with higher mark and low word count failing to correlate with low marks.…”

“…Reflecting differences in local practices, there is variability across the studies cited above in terms of the amount of extra time granted to the participants and this may contribute to the contradictory findings. For example, Runyan (1991) granted unlimited extra time, Elliott & Marquart (2004) allowed 100% additional time, Lewandowski, Cohen & Lovett (2013) awarded 50% and 100% extra time, while in the study by Duncan & Purcell (2017) the participants were granted 25%. This lack of uniformity may undermine the integration of conclusions about the effect of extra time across studies.…”

Access arrangements for secondary students. Are they fit for purpose?

“…Lovett (2011) writing on the 25% and 50% extended time accommodations in the USA says ‘there is no empirical justification for these particular time amounts’ … ‘more empirical investigation is warranted’ (Lovett, 2010, p. 631). Duncan and Purcell (2017) suggest that 25% extra time is for practical reasons, due to time constraints when conducting examinations. They argue that 25% extra time is not supported by empirical evidence, rather it is given as a blanket arrangement to compensate for many different types of processing disorders.…”