International System of Exam Access for Visually Impaired ...
[pic] [pic]
Summary report on international systems of exam access for visually impaired pupils
Report for RNIB
September 2009
Authors:
Dr Graeme Douglas
Dr Steve McCall
Sue Pavey
Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research (VICTAR)
School of Education
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, B15 2TT
Paul Nisbet
CALL Scotland
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 3
Executive summary 4
Survey of international systems of exam access 4
Accessibility of SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers for Candidates with Visual Impairment 5
PART 1 - SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS OF EXAM ACCESS 7
1 Introduction and context 7
2 Method 7
2.1 Participants 8
2.2 Questionnaire 8
3 Results 9
3.1 Context - policies towards exam access 9
3.2 Presentation of examinations 10
3.3 Examination response options 12
3.4 Examination content modification 14
3.5 Access arrangements and award certificate 15
3.6 Scenarios in different countries 17
3.7 Barriers and gaps in exam provision 19
4 Discussion 21
4.1 Large print 22
4.2 Braille 23
4.3 Content modification 23
4.4 Other procedures 24
4.5 Initial conclusions 25
PART 2 – CASE STUDY OF ADAPTED DIGITAL QUESTION PAPERS IN SCOTLAND 27
1 Introduction and background 27
1.1 SQA Assessment Arrangements 27
1.2 SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers 27
2 Use of SQA Adapted Digital Papers by candidates with visual impairments in 2009 29
3 Accessibility of Adobe Reader 33
3.1 Built-in Adobe Reader Magnification 35
4 Accessing PDF papers with Screen Magnification software 38
4.1 Trials with screen magnification software 39
5 Accessing PDF Digital Papers with Screen Reading software 41
References 41
Appendix 1 – Online questionnaire 46
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all our participants for generously giving us their time and views. We thank the RNIB for funding this research.
Executive summary
This report presents the findings from two related studies. Firstly, an online survey carried out in relation to accessibility of public examination systems for blind and partially sighted pupils. Secondly, a case study of Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) adapted digital questions papers and their accessibility for visually impaired pupils.
Survey of international systems of exam access
The survey gathered information from ten countries beyond England and Wales: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland and Sweden. Data was gathered in relation to specific access arrangements available in each country (in particular strategies in relation to hardcopy large print, braille, the use of scribes, content modification, and electronic versions of the examination).
The key findings are as follows:
1. The survey highlights that providing visually impaired students with access to examinations is challenging across all the surveyed countries.
2. A range of common approaches is used across most of the surveyed countries (albeit to differing degrees), e.g. hardcopy large print, braille, content modifications, extra time allowance, and use of scribes. These are similar to those approaches used in England and Wales.
3. The availability of electronic versions of examinations is relatively common across the surveyed countries. In apparent contrast, the use of electronic versions of examinations in England and Wales has been cautious to date.
4. Where electronic versions do not exist (or their format is restrictive), visually impaired students’ access to examinations appears to be threatened because the range of formats they require is difficult to provide. Therefore, the importance of electronic versions of examinations seems a critical approach to enable students to gain access to their preferred format.
5. Sweden in particular appears to prioritise the provision of electronic versions of examinations over hard copy large print (and provides visually impaired students with appropriate access technology and training).
6. Examination content modification appears to be implemented in all countries surveyed.
7. Such modifications are almost inevitably carried out after the original examination has been designed. Unless carefully managed, the modification process can add logistical difficulties to the preparation of appropriate examination papers for visually impaired students.
8. While examination modification is recognised as an important ‘access arrangement’ strategy, prolonged work with assessment designers can lead to examination approaches being constructed in a more inclusive (‘universally designed’) manner which mean that fewer modifications are required.
Accessibility of SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers for Candidates with Visual Impairment
The case study reviews the use and accessibility of Scottish Qualifications Authority Adapted Digital Papers in PDF format for candidates with visual impairment.
The key findings are as follows:
1. Trials and experience to date have shown that the SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers in PDF are accessible for the majority of candidates with additional support needs, but other digital formats may be required for candidates with significant visual difficulties or severe physical accessing issues who use screen reading software.
2. Candidates with visual impairment who require small levels of magnification (equivalent of font size of approximately N18) are likely to be able to access most of the SQA digital papers in PDF by using the built-in Acrobat accessibility tools.
3. Candidates who require greater levels of magnification are likely to be more efficient and effective using their preferred specialist screen magnification program to view the PDF question papers. Experience so far suggests that candidates can use screen magnification software to access the existing PDF papers. It may be necessary to alter the layout or graphical content of some papers to improve access for users who need high levels of magnification.
4. Candidates who use screen reader programs such as Jaws or Hal are likely to have difficulties with the PDF question papers. For these candidates, the most accessible and efficient solution is for SQA to save or convert the question paper to a text-only format, and to edit and adapt the text file. Question-only papers or papers with passages of text are straightforward and are accessible in a variety of formats such as DOC or plain text. Interactive question and answer papers, where the candidate has to read the question and type an answer present technical challenges because of the need to prevent accidental alteration or deletion of the question while at the same time giving control and efficient methods for the candidate to record an answer in the correct location on the paper. There are several possible technical solutions but more work is needed to determine the optimum approach.
PART 1 - SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS OF EXAM ACCESS
1 Introduction and context
This is a report commissioned by the RNIB in relation to examination access by blind and partially sighted learners. The research was designed in 2008 in response to the Research Brief prepared by the RNIB Corporate Research Team: “Passing the test: how accessible are public examination systems for blind and partially sighted pupils in the UK”. The designed research has three phases of work to be carried out between April 2009 and March 2010:
• Phase 1: International comparison of approaches
• Phase 2: Trialling and functional specification of the RNIB ‘E-formatting’ software
• Phase 3: Formal testing of different examination formats
This report presents the findings from an online survey carried out in relation to Phase 1.
Recent work in Scotland has explored the use of .pdf files for the presentation of exams to print-disabled pupils (including visually impaired pupils) – see Nisbet (2007). In addition to the findings reported here, an accompanying paper prepared by Paul Nisbet (CALL Scotland, University of Edinburgh) reviews the use and accessibility of Scottish Qualifications Authority Adapted Digital Papers in PDF format for candidates with visual impairment.
2 Method
Here we report the findings from an online survey carried out in relation to Phase 1; specifically findings in relation to research question 1 outlined in the research brief:
“1. An overview comparison of access arrangements that are in place for the assessment of blind and partially sighted examination candidates in the following countries: UK, Republic of Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Specific areas of interest include the following:
• The provision of exam papers in alternative formats (such as different size print and/or font style)
• Access to on-screen tests and e-assessment
• The use of human support in exams
• The provision of extra time.”
The survey was carried in summer 2009.
2.1 Participants
Through existing research team contacts (and additional contacts made at the ICEVI 7th European Conference held in Dublin, July 2009) a target sample was established for the following countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, USA.
We received responses from all participants (or their contacts) except Austria, Spain and USA. This gave a total of 10 responses.
It should be noted that some countries manage their education systems (and therefore access arrangements for visually impaired students) regionally rather than nationally. For this reason, three respondents described the situation in their state rather than for the country as a whole: Australia (New South Wales); Canada (British Columbia); and Germany (North Rhine Westphalia federal state). When these countries are referred to in this report we are referring to these more specific contexts.
2.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire is presented in Appendix 1. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: respondent and context details; specific access arrangements available in the country; scenarios; opinions and any other comments. The questionnaire was designed by the research team and then modified following piloting and feedback from the steering group. The questionnaire was designed to take about 30 minutes to complete.
The questionnaire was presented online using ‘Bristol Online Survey’ (BOS) software. The respondent could link to the appropriate web address and work though the onscreen questionnaire before finally submitting their answers.
Participants were initially contacted via email (in some cases our initial contacts gave us details of another contact they felt would be better placed to respond). Once the likely respondent was established an email was sent with a hyperlink to the online survey. Follow-up reminders were sent to participants.
3 Results
3.1 Context - policies towards exam access
All respondents described regulations existing in their country in relation to examination access for visually impaired learners. Many made reference to general legislation in the given country / state (e.g. DDA and Education acts in Australia; Human Rights Code in British Columbia, Canada; German constitution). In most cases (Denmark and Canada were the exceptions) respondents describes how local arrangements were also made on a case-by-case basis. Specific documentation was identified by most respondents (except Australia and Germany) which appear to describe in detail the procedures in place in each country. For some we were able to view these documents (e.g. Canada, Scotland, Ireland), and for others it was explicit in the participants responses (or translations of document titles, e.g. France). For Ireland it was noted that systems can be different for Junior Certificate (often at the age of 16 years, similar to GCSEs in England and Wales) and Leaving Certificate (often at the age of 18 years, similar to A-levels in England and Wales).
Table 1 Description of country's position in relation to examination access for visually impaired learners
| |Regulations exist |Guidelines exist |Local arrangements: |Something else |
| | | |case-by-case | |
|Australia |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Canada |Yes |- |- |- |
|Czech Republic |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Denmark |Yes |No |No |No |
|France |Yes |- |Yes | |
|Germany |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Ireland |Yes |Yes |Yes |No |
|Netherlands |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Scotland |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
|Sweden |Yes |Yes |Yes |- |
3.2 Presentation of examinations
Participants were asked a series of questions about examination presentation options available for visually impaired students. Some form of enlarged hardcopy print was available in all countries with the exception of Sweden (although onscreen is available in Sweden as discussed below). Details provided by respondents of options available varied. Although some described that most font sizes were available on request (e.g. Canada, France, Scotland), others described a range of available sizes (e.g. Australia, Czech Republic), and some were not specific (e.g. Denmark, Germany). Ireland and the Netherlands described A4 to A3 enlargement being the only available enlargement (assuming this is 141% increase of the original paper size which used 12 point font, this gives a font of approximately 17 point). In Ireland the large print users have the option to use a large print version of the original paper or a large print version of the ‘adapted’ version (i.e. the same wording as that used by braille readers).
All countries except Ireland appear to have onscreen (computer) examination presentation available. In principle, this availability of electronic format examinations should give the reader access to any font size.
In terms of non-visual presentations, braille was an available format in all countries while speech access (via a computer) was available in all countries except Ireland. Respondents were also invited to list other options available in their country. The use of a reader was reported as an option in Canada, Czech Republic, France, Ireland and Scotland; Germany, Czech Republic and Sweden have tactile graphics available; and Germany reported the availability of 3D models.
Table showing information is over the page.
Table 2 Presentation options for examinations
| |Large print range |Onscreen (computer) |
|Australia |N18, N24, N36 |Yes |
|Canada |18 to 26+ point; Arial or Times New Roman; Bold |Yes |
|Czech Republic |14, 16, 20 and 26 point; Myriad Pro |Yes |
|Denmark |Yes |Yes |
|France |Usually 18 point (depends on pupil – a full range of fonts |Yes |
| |and sizes are possible) | |
|Germany |Yes |Yes |
|Ireland |A3 enlargement |No |
|Netherlands |A3 enlargement |Yes |
|Scotland |14, 18, 24, 36, 48 point (others on request); various fonts.|Yes |
|Sweden |No |Yes |
Table two continues over the page
Table 2 continued…
| |Braille |Speech |Other |
| | |(computer) | |
|Australia |Yes |Yes | |
|Canada |Yes |Yes |Possible reader or scribe |
|Czech Republic |Yes |Yes |Possible reader or scribe, tactile graphics |
|Denmark |Yes |Yes |No |
|France |Yes |Yes |Possible reader or scribe |
|Germany |Yes |Yes |Tactile graphics, models. |
|Ireland |Yes |No |Readers are permitted for most exams on a |
| | | |case-by-case basis |
|Netherlands |Yes |Yes |- |
|Scotland |Yes |Yes |Coloured paper; reader. |
|Sweden |Yes |Yes |Graphs on swell paper |
3.3 Examination response options
Participants were asked a series of questions about examination response options available to visually impaired students (i.e. methods of communicating answers to questions). The use of a scribe or word processor was available in all countries (although owing to the requirement for the marker not to be able to identify the candidate in France, word processed exams are often copied by hand following completion by the student). Similarly, students were able to answer exams through braille in all countries. The Swedish participant noted that students can answer in braille but is must be translated by the teacher before submission for marking (he also noted older students usually have the computer skills to produce print copies of their answers).
The limitation of 30 minutes extra time in Ireland is due to the nature of the nationwide examination timetable: Exams are held in the morning and afternoon of each examination day, so candidates often have to two examinations in one day (with a lunchtime break in between). Pupils with visual impairment who have extra time therefore have a shorter break between exams.
It appears that extra time to complete examinations is available in all countries although the formula for calculating this extra time varies considerably (based upon available data). For example, the Netherlands and Czech Republic appear to have options for 100% extra time (i.e. double time), while other countries have less (e.g. Ireland and France report 33% extra). A number of countries appear to base extra time calculation on level of need (linked to level of vision or reading format – braille vrs print), e.g. Australia, Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. In some countries additional time requirements appear to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if needed (e.g. Canada, Germany, and Scotland). The standard allowance in England and Wales is 25% but more can be requested up to 100% on the basis of individual evidence of need.
Only four respondents described online examination options available in their country, although there may be some ambiguity and confusion for respondents in terms of clear distinctions between general computer-base exam formats and ‘online’ assessment.
The use of dictation to an audio recorder was described as an option in Ireland and Scotland, and the availability of assistance for drawing was described for the Netherlands. Scotland also has an option for ‘adapted digital papers’ described in a separate report.
Table 3 Response options for examinations
| |Scribe |Word processing |Braille |Extra time |
|Australia |Yes |Yes |Yes |Braille: between 10-20 minutes per half hour |
| | | | |(depending upon subject) Low Vision: usually 5 |
| | | | |minutes per half hour |
|Canada |Yes |Yes |Yes |Maximum time not specified (negotiated |
| | | | |individually - based upon in-class tests) |
|Czech Republic |Yes |Yes |Yes |Based upon need (partly linked to level of |
| | | | |vision). +75% time, +100% time |
|Denmark |Yes |Yes |Yes |Usually +50% |
|France |Yes |Yes |Yes |Usually +33% |
|Germany |Yes |Yes |Yes |Negotiated individually (based upon in-class |
| | | | |tests) |
|Ireland |Yes |Yes |Yes |Braille 10 minutes per hour (max of half hour) |
|Netherlands |Yes |Yes |Yes |Partially sighted: +50%; braille and low vision: |
| | | | |+100% |
|Scotland |Yes |Yes |Yes |Negotiated individually |
|Sweden |Yes |Yes |Yes |No exact time given in the guidelines |
Table continues over the page.
Table 3 continued…
| |Online assessment |Other |
|Australia |SC Year 10 has an on-line computing assessment that has |- |
| |been modified for Braille users | |
|Canada |Yes - electronic exams - can use screen magnification |- |
| |and screen reader | |
|Czech Republic |No |- |
|Denmark |No |- |
|France | |- |
|Germany |No |- |
|Ireland |No |Dictate to a tape recorder |
|Netherlands |Some exams are online. Larger font is possible. |Drawing assistance |
|Scotland |Digital papers are delivered on CD (see case study) |Dictate to a tape recorder; adapted digital |
| | |papers |
|Sweden |No | |
3.4 Examination content modification
The questionnaire defined modified examinations as when the examination question content is changed to make it more appropriate for visually impaired students needs (e.g. text descriptions of picture or graphics, visually simplified tables and graphs). All respondents reported that there was some form of modification of examinations in their country, and some detail is presented in the table (in most cases examples of the types of modifications available). The questionnaire format was not suitable for gathering detail about the mechanisms for making the changes although the response for Australia explicitly described “discussion with the examiner” as part of the process of negotiating such modifications.
The table appears over the page.
Table 4 Access arrangements – modification of question content
| |Description of modifications |
|Australia |Modification only occurs if the question is not accessible or unsuitable due to time restraints in an |
| |examination setting. Discussion with the examiner occurs to determine what is being tested. Pictures are always |
| |described by the examiner. Minimal change occurs (that is bottom-up approach) only if the question is |
| |inaccessible or unreasonable from a time situation in an examination context. |
|Canada |Questions are adapted/replaced as required to make them fair and equitable to the braille reader. Some |
| |questions eliminated and replaced by a similar question of the same level of difficulty (complexity) that does |
| |not rely on visual information. |
|Czech Republic |Text descriptions of images or graphics, visually simplified tables and diagrams, substitution of the items |
| |which are inaccessible (based on visual perception) or items which are emotionally touching for people with |
| |visual impairment. |
|Denmark |e.g. replacing pictures with description of pictures. |
|France |For some exams and subjects (geography, science), e.g. description of images; in sciences, some candidates |
| |cannot take some experimental tasks, in geography drawing a map is replaced by a one page description and maps |
| |are presented in a readable way for blind readers (with some simplifications). |
|Germany |3-dimensional graphs could be presented as models |
|Ireland |e.g. text descriptions of picture or graphics, visually simplified tables and graphs, tactile diagrams. |
| |Including 3-D objects but not immediately. |
|Netherlands |text descriptions of pictures or graphics, simplified tables and graphs. |
|Scotland |e.g. simplification of graphics, replacement of diagrams with text. Braille papers may have content modified. |
|Sweden |This is carried out by Swedish National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (SPSM) |
3.5 Access arrangements and award certificate
In some countries, access arrangements received in an examination are noted on the awarding certificate (e.g. “Grade C with special arrangements”). For the countries covered in this survey, participants gave varied responses. Four respondents described situations in which this practice was employed: Australia (when readers are provided), Czech Republic (on detailed examination reports), Denmark, and Ireland (when aspects of the curriculum were not assessed). In Ireland it was noted that this practice is being challenged, and in Scotland there used to be such an approach taken in the past. These comments, and others (e.g. Canada, the Netherlands “The certificate has equal value compared to the regular one.”), highlights that this is a controversial topic. Indeed, the respondent from Denmark identified this as a key problem in a later question (see below).
Table 5 Are access arrangements noted on awarding certificate?
| |Note exist |Description |
|Australia |Yes |In situations when a reader is provided |
|Canada |No |An explanation often implies that some special advantage has been provided in awarding|
| | |the certificate. Since our efforts are directed to ensuring that examinations are |
| | |fair and equitable for all students and specifically not putting the visually |
| | |impaired/blind student at a disadvantage or advantage, no comments on access |
| | |arrangements are provided or necessary. |
|Czech Republic |No / Yes |The output of the Maturita exam contains 2 documents for each student: 1. Certificate |
| | |(with marks and not mentioning any special arrangements), 2. Detailed examination |
| | |report (with scores, percentile graphs etc.) and there is a code of special |
| | |arrangements which were used for particular student. |
|Denmark |Yes |Only in upper secondary education |
|France |No |When students pass it is not written on the certificate. The arrangements are shared |
| | |with a jury if they deliberate about a case. |
|Germany |No |- |
|Ireland |Yes |Certificates are annotated but only for particular circumstances where part of the |
| | |compulsory syllabus is not covered, e.g. in a geography exam where the candidate does |
| | |alternative questions instead of the obligatory map questions. |
|Netherlands |No |The certificate has equal value compared to a regular one. |
|Scotland |No |Certificates used to be marked with an asterisk to indicate that ‘Assessment |
| | |Arrangements’ were used. This is no longer the case. |
|Sweden |No |The national test is mainly used to support the teacher in making an equivalent and |
| | |fair assessment. |
3.6 Scenarios in different countries
The questionnaire presented participants with two scenarios (one related to a student with low vision and the other to a student who read braille). Participant were asked to describe what would happen to support that student in their country in relation to examinations, and also asked to identify areas of strength and weakness in the system described. A third scenario provided a more open ended opportunity for participants to present examples of practice in their country and challenges (the few responses to this question are combined with ‘barriers and gaps’ discussed in the next section).
Scenario 1
“Sam is a 16 year old young person with low vision. He makes use of a low vision device, but also likes to have his class materials prepared in 24 point Arial with black text on a yellow background, as well as using a lap top computer with screen magnifying software. Sam is taking public examinations in Geography, History, Science and Mathematics. Please describe what should happen.”
Unsurprisingly, the responses tended to reflect the answers provided by participants in the previous sections. Several respondents described how Sam could be provided with a hard copy paper in his preferred format and an electronic version to access via a computer (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, and Scotland). Many described some of the varied procedures which would need to be followed to initiate the access arrangements (e.g. completing an online request for access arrangements in Scotland). It was also common for these respondents to note that if procedures were followed then Sam should receive the format(s) he wants.
Ireland described how Sam’s exam centre would arrange for the paper to be enlarged on A3 yellow paper (which, we assume, would be a smaller font than his preferred 24 point), and no electronic version would be available. The respondent indicated that the approach would be problematic for Sam.
In the case of Sweden it was noted that Sam could access the standard paper using his CCTV or LVD (there was no mention of access to an electronic copy of the examination which was identified as an option in Sweden in the previous section although this is implicitly possible). To this extent the Swedish approach appears to place greater emphasis upon providing students with the skills and equipment to access standard material. Indeed, it was highlighted as a strength of the approach that Sam would be provided with equipment for school and home (and this would be at no cost to the school Sam was attending). This emphasis was also apparent in response to Scenario 2.
Scenario 2
“Jenny is a 16 year old young person and is blind. She reads braille and also uses a computer with screen reading software. Jenny is taking public examinations in Geography, History, Science and Mathematics. Please describe what should happen.”
Again, it is unsurprising the responses tended to reflect the answers provided in the previous sections. Several respondents described how Jenny would be provided with a hard copy braille paper and an electronic version to access via a computer with screen reader (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, and Germany).
In the case of Scotland it was noted that the electronic copy (based upon .pdf format) would be difficult for Jenny to access using a screen reader (see accompanying report for discussion), although the braille version would be available. Similarly, in Ireland Jenny could receive the examination paper in braille (or via a reader) but not electronically. Nevertheless, Jenny could answer the paper electronically or via braille.
In the Netherlands it appears that many modifications can be made at school level and then be approved by an external examiner. It was felt that this approach had the potential to provide many options but relied upon the cooperation of mainstream schools and this can mean that “the quality and level of the exams is difficult to guarantee.”
Again, Sweden appears to have a different approach which emphasises Jenny gaining access through an electronic copy of the examination paper rather than a hard copy braille version (although it should be noted that a braille version is available if required). Again, the Swedish approach appears to place greater emphasis upon providing students with the skills and equipment to access standard material (and Jenny would have a laptop with a braille display at school and home).
3.7 Barriers and gaps in exam provision
Participants were asked for their opinions about the overall effectiveness of the system of examination access for visually impaired students in their country, specifically being asked about potential barriers or gaps in provision. Summary responses are presented in
Table 6 along with relevant information gathered from the ‘scenarios’ described in the previous section.
Specific modification challenges dictated by the curriculum / interpretation of the curriculum were identified by two participants (use of video and microscopes in Australia; and in the case of Ireland an alternative assessment not being acceptable to the examination board in some instances). The Canadian participant identified a particular set of circumstances linked to supporting students with sudden-onset conditions which can be problematic (in part this was linked to dissatisfaction with the use of readers and scribes).
Two respondents noted concern about the student’s access skills (e.g. braille in the Czech Republic; computer skills in Germany). Related, the Swedish respondent was concerned about lower expectations made of blind learners.
In terms of the implementation of the systems in the various countries, respondents highlighted concern about willingness of mainstream schools to cooperate (the Netherlands), the quality / legitimacy of scribes (France, Czech Republic and Canada), the quality / familiarity of tactile diagrams (France), availability of experts to produce tactile diagrams (Czech Republic), and non-standard practice / inconsistent practice (the Netherlands, Czech Republic). One participant raised concerns about access to online examination systems (Denmark), as well as frustration that access arrangements received in an examination are noted on the awarding certificate. The relevant table is over the page.
Table 6 ‘The main gaps/barriers in the public examinations system (if any)’, combined with ‘Scenario 3’ described above.
|Country |Response |
|Australia |1) Video options used in electives and film work present a small difficulty. This can still be |
| |accommodated by drawing on their knowledge and discussions in class can alleviate main issues. |
| |2) Biology questions which draw upon looking though a microscope. There is close collaboration with |
| |the examiners to assess this knowledge in a different way. |
| |3) All students can be provided with a mechanism to be able to participate in a public examination. |
|Canada |1) The most challenging circumstances are the very few students who recently became very severely |
| |physically disabled as well as having lost their vision as a result of a catastrophic injury or |
| |disease. While we are able to provide these students with a reader/scribe this is not a |
| |satisfactory solution for some subject areas - particularly in Mathematics and the Sciences. Each of|
| |these situations is reviewed carefully. |
|Czech Republic |1) One of the main issues is absence of the public examination system in the Czech Republic at this |
| |moment. This leads to low availability of [example] tests, “good practice” examples or other |
| |resources for schools, students and Advisory and Support Centres. There are no detailed regulations |
| |or guidelines for access arrangements and test modifications; consequently every school solves it on |
| |its own nowadays. This will be changed in [the context] of new Maturita exam. |
| |2) Decreasing braille competency of learners. |
| |3) Producing exact tactile versions of tests on special subjects – just a few people at a few |
| |institutions can produce them. |
| |4) Some uncertainty about role of a scribe when writing skills are being assessed. |
| |5) Some anxiety about dealing with unusual case because it is a new system. |
|Denmark |1) Access to on-line examination systems. |
| |2) The fact that access arrangements received in an examination are noted on the awarding |
| |certificate. |
|France |All the rules are good, but: |
| |1) Sometimes, the raised drawings are not made in the way the student is used to. |
| |2) Sometimes there are doubts about the quality of the "scribe" (good enough, who helps too much, or |
| |who makes mistakes the student did not do). |
|Germany |1) Lack of student independence in using personal aids (e.g. computer). [Table continues over page] |
|Ireland |1) Every effort is made to remove any such barriers. However, there are a few areas where one part of|
| |the syllabus is considered so integral to the exam that without this section and even with |
| |annotation, the award would be compromised, e.g. in these cases blind candidates will not receive |
| |exemptions or alternative questions for a section where a visual component is concerned such as live |
| |drawing, observation/observational reports. This applies to certain subjects only. |
|Netherlands |Not many problems, but the dependence on the willingness of the regular school to cooperate can be a |
| |problem. |
|Scotland |- |
|Sweden |1) There is a risk that teachers lower the requirements on blind learners – especially at younger |
| |ages. |
Participants were asked if, in their opinion, learners with visual impairment had the same rights as sighted learners in relation to access to examinations. In most cases, participants felt that visually impaired learners did have the same rights in this regard (eight of the ten responding ‘yes’). The Irish respondent commented “Legally, yes. [..] every effort is made to ensure that they have equal access.” The respondent from the Netherlands felt that students did not have the same rights, but commented “Specific rights to reach the same goal”, suggesting that a functional equivalence was achieved in terms of outcome.
4 Discussion
In this final discussion section we make some general observations about the findings from the survey as well as link with the situation in England and Wales.
Miller et al (2005) reviewed the literature on accessible curricula, qualifications and assessment. The review was linked to disability generally, though the review did draw upon examples related to visual impairment. The authors made a distinction between ‘access arrangements’ and ‘universal design’ – the former means the adjustments are ‘post hoc’, while the latter means that adjustments are built into the design of the assessment rather than added on later.
It’s useful to use this distinction when considering the practice identified in the survey described above. It could be argued that in probably all the countries surveyed much of the practice is built upon an ‘access arrangements’ model (although to some extent this may reflect the structure of the questionnaire). Three useful illustrations of this are in relation to large print, braille, and content modification.
4.1 Large print
Nearly all of the countries surveyed made some provision of large print examination papers. The same is true for England and Wales which offers a range of large print options (a greater range than some of the countries surveyed, but considerably less than others). The only exception to this was Sweden which appears to provide no large print examinations at all. Sweden provides an interesting case which we will return to below.
The preparation of large print versions of an examination paper after the original paper has been designed is a clear example of ‘access arrangements’. In itself this is not problematic except that the greater the range of large print options which are provided, the more complex, time consuming and costly the process becomes (and this was reflected in some of the responses to the survey). In England there are four examination boards at GCSE level which multiplies this complexity.
However, most countries also have the option to provide examinations electronically (allowing onscreen presentation of examinations). If the systems are in place for examinations to be provided in this way then this could take pressure off the preparation of large print hardcopy versions without compromising the students’ access. Nevertheless it should be noted that in response to scenario 1, many of the participants described systems which provided large print and electronic versions of the paper. It may be that students prefer the security of having different formats, or in practice it may be that students choose to temper their requests for hardcopy examinations in very large print sizes knowing that they can use the electronic versions of exam papers to enlarge text when needed.
Arguably, this ‘dual provision’ of formats is not necessary: in Sweden they appear to provide no hardcopy large print and students are provided with standard and electronic versions of examinations which they are expected to access using access technology.
Problems arise when limited hard copy large print sizes are available, and there is no available electronic version of the examination. Ireland appears to present the most extreme example of this – providing only a photocopy enlarged A3 version of the examination and no electronic version. The only solution available for some students would therefore be the use of a reader. It was noted that the Irish State Examinations Commission was very aware of existing limitations and that work is in progress to address them. Scotland also has some challenges in this regard because the current electronic version has some access difficulties – nevertheless the Scottish system is able to provide a wide range of hard copy large print sizes (more than England and Wales).
4.2 Braille
All of the countries surveyed provide examinations presented in braille. England and Wales provide braille as well. In the example scenario the Swedish participant did not describe providing hard copy braille versions of examinations, but rather allowed braille readers to use computer-based braille displays to access electronic examinations. Even so, hard copy braille versions of examinations are available if the student wants them.
Again, several respondents described how a student who read braille would be provided with a hard copy braille paper and an electronic version to access via a computer with screen reader. The combination of the advantages provided by both formats for the same examination may well be attractive to students, but it would be interesting to know how many request both formats in actuality.
4.3 Content modification
All the countries surveyed had some mechanisms for modification of examination content to make it more appropriate for visually impaired students. The details of the approaches to modification in the surveyed countries was not exhaustively gathered, but examples given highlight a range of approaches which are familiar to exam modifiers in England and Wales (e.g. pictures are described, visually simplified graphs and tables, presentation of 3D models, graphs on swell paper). In terms of the distinction between ‘access arrangements’ and ‘universal design’, it would appear that content modifications are almost inevitably carried out ‘post hoc’ (i.e. after the original examination has been designed). This way of viewing modification appears to be the norm across the countries surveyed – most had mechanisms and procedure for approaching examiners to change content of questions (including in Sweden which seems to be the country in which more ‘universal design’ approaches exist in relation to this issue). Some of the reported consequences of such mechanisms appear to be similar to those experienced in England and Wales, e.g. difficulty in finding expert modifiers, some discussion between examiners and modifiers about the concept being tested, large amounts of lead-in time required for modifications to be implemented.
Even so, a description provided for Canada suggests that some approaches to modification can have some ‘universal design’ qualities:
“We have developed a comprehensive review process with the Ministry of Education assessment division in ensuring that each examination question does not discriminate against the student who uses braille. While this is a costly and time consuming process it has without a doubt evened the playing field for our braille students. [..] A very useful outcome of [..] working directly with the assessment branch subject specialists (who have responsibility for developing test items for all students in adapting these examinations) is that new questions that are being developed for the examination item bank are now being constructed in a manner that does not discriminate against the [visually impaired] student.”
4.4 Other procedures
The research question presented by RNIB also specified arrangements in examinations for ‘extra time’ and ‘human support’ as areas for investigation. It appears that extra time to complete examinations is available in all countries although the formula for calculating this varies considerably. The arrangement adopted in England and Wales (25% extra time but more can be requested up to 100% on the basis of individual evidence of need) seems to have the potential to at least match arrangements in other surveyed countries.
In terms of ‘human support’, scribes were reported to be available in all surveyed countries (as in England and Wales). A question was not asked directly about the use of ‘readers’, but some countries reported this as a possibility in response to an open question. A number of participants expressed some concern about the quality and legitimacy of scribes in examinations.
An emerging area of assessment is ‘online assessment’. This is distinct (but related to) the use of the computer as access technology (e.g. to support onscreen or speech presentation, or the use of a word processor as a means of answering questions). Even so, the two areas are related because online assessment inevitably requires visually impaired students to make use of computer-based access technology. To this extent, most countries (except Ireland) appear to allow visually impaired students to access examinations through a computer (accessing electronic version of the examination as discussed above). In the main respondents seemed to suggest that there was no particular problem or sensitivity with this practice in their country which seems to contrast with the cautious emerging approach in England and Wales.
In terms of data collected specifically about online assessment, only three countries appear to be engaged in this process. In England and Wales, where online assessment exists it seems to have associated access problems. The same concern was reported for Denmark but not for other countries.
4.5 Initial conclusions
The survey highlights that providing visually impaired students with access to examinations is challenging across all the surveyed countries. The solutions implemented in England and Wales are broadly similar to those adopted in the surveyed countries (e.g. hardcopy large print, braille, modifications, extra time allowance, use of scribes).
Approaches to providing access to examinations by visually impaired students can categorised as ‘access arrangements’ or ‘universal design’ (Miller et al, 2005) – the former means the adjustments are ‘post hoc’, while the latter means that adjustments are built into the design of the assessment rather than added on later. Approaches adopted in the different countries surveyed typically draw upon both strategies. Perhaps the clearest example of ‘access arrangements’ are hardcopy large print and braille versions of examinations and the use of scribes. The availability of electronic versions of examinations is relatively common across the surveyed countries and is arguably an example of a more universal design. Where electronic versions do not exist (or their format is restrictive) visually impaired students’ access to examinations appears to be threatened because the range of formats they require is difficult to provide.
The importance of electronic versions of examinations seems a critical approach to enable students to gain access to their preferred format. Sweden in particular appears to prioritise the provision of electronic versions of examinations over other formats (and provides visually impaired students with appropriate access technology and training).
Examination modification appears to be implemented in all countries surveyed. Such modifications are almost inevitably carried out after the original examination has been designed. Unless carefully managed, the modification process can add logistical difficulties to the preparation of appropriate examination papers for visually impaired students. While examination modification is recognised as an important ‘access arrangement’ strategy, approaches in Canada suggest that prolonged work with assessment designers can lead to examination approaches being constructed in a more inclusive (‘universally designed’) manner which mean that fewer modifications are required.
PART 2 – CASE STUDY OF ADAPTED DIGITAL QUESTION PAPERS IN SCOTLAND
1 Introduction and background
1.1 SQA Assessment Arrangements
Assessment Arrangements (previously ‘Alternative Assessment Arrangements’ and ‘Special Arrangements’) are intended to ‘ensure that all candidates have an equal opportunity to show that they can achieve the national standards required for Units and Courses’[1]. Schools and centres who present candidates for examinations may request the use of appropriate assessment arrangements to meet the specific needs of the candidate and the assessment. In 2009, there were 45,612 requests on behalf of 13,041 candidates. Requests were made for arrangements in 6.2% of all examinations and on behalf of 8% of the total number of candidates. The type of Assessment Arrangement requested should reflect the difficulty faced by the candidate when tackling the particular assessment: the same candidate may therefore use different types of support (or none) depending on the nature and format of the examination. Candidates can request for example extra time, use of reader/scribe, use of ICT (word processor and/or digital question paper), papers in a different format including Large Print, Braille, Adapted Print, printed on a different colour, transcription of the paper, modification of language used in the paper, or use of sign language. Table 1 lists the types of arrangements and the number of requests for each that were made in 2009.
1.2 SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers
SQA Adapted Digital Question Papers were first trialled by learners in 2005, and, following positive feedback, used by thirty-four candidates during the 2006 examination diet[2]. The successful pilot was repeated on a larger scale in 2007[3], when 80 candidates in 12 presenting centres used the digital papers in 200 examinations.
The two pilots were evaluated by means of questionnaires to staff and candidates, and the response was extremely positive. The young people who chose to use the papers preferred them to traditional methods of support such as reader/scribes and the interactive ‘question and answer’ format was felt to be much easier and more efficient to use compared to a word processor. Staff felt that candidates were more independent and that staffing and accommodation requirements were lower for the examinations sat with digital papers than with reader/scribe support. The quality assurance procedures developed by SQA produced digital papers that were reliable, and the delivery of papers and communication with Centres seemed to be effective.
Following these pilots, SQA decided to offer the papers to any candidate who required Assessment Arrangements and in 2008, 46 Centres made 515 requests on behalf of 204 candidates[4]. The number of requests for 2009 more than doubled, to 1,167 requests for Adapted Digital Papers from 73 centres on behalf of 422 candidates.
The papers have proved popular with staff and pupils. Candidates seem to like them because they can work independently and the papers are easy to use, while staff appreciate the greater independence offered and because administering examinations using digital papers requires fewer staff and accommodation than readers/scribes or transcription of the paper.
The advantages of the PDF format are:
• the papers are accessible to the majority of pupils who require Assessment Arrangements;
• the Adobe Reader software to access the papers is free, which has been an important factor in encouraging uptake by schools; pupils can also access past papers at home;
• the papers are interactive so that candidates can answer questions on screen;
• assistive technologies such as spellcheckers, word prediction, on-screen keyboards and speech recognition can be used;
• candidates can use tools such as highlighter, stick and text notes and drawing tools to help navigate the paper;
• the production cost to SQA is very low since papers are already prepared as PDF for sending to the printers;
• the format and reader software is well proven and reliable;
• the digital versions look exactly like the hard copy papers so that candidates can use both.
The main disadvantages of the PDF papers are:
• the PDF papers are untagged (see later) and lack structure and a defined reading order;
• the font style or spacing cannot be altered by the user;
• the papers are exact copies of the hard copy paper, and so some questions may not be easily answered on screen;
• techniques for candidates to insert algebraic and scientific expressions into the papers on screen are limited.
2 Use of SQA Adapted Digital Papers by candidates with visual impairments in 2009
Figure 1 (and reproduced in Table 7) gives the number of requests for digital papers broken down by the underlying reason for requesting Adapted Digital Papers in 2009. The single largest group of requests were on behalf of candidates are those who are identified by presenting centres as dyslexic (41%), the second largest group are those with another specific learning difficulty (21%) while the percentage of requests for pupils with a visual impairment is 3%.
Figure 1 and Table 7 appear over the page.
Figure 1 (table): Number of requests for Digital Papers by type of difficulty or disability, 2009
|Type of Request |Number of those requests |
|Social emotional behavioural difficulty |37 |
|Language or speech disorder |32 |
|Visual Impairment |30 |
|Dyslexia |474 |
|Other specific learning difficulty |244 |
|Physical or motor impairment |143 |
|Other moderate learning difficulty |65 |
|Physical health problems |61 |
|Autistic spectrum condition |39 |
|Learning disability |38 |
Table 7 Number of requests for digital papers by type of difficulty/disability, 2009
|Type of difficulty/disability |Number of requests |
|Dyslexia |474 |
|Other Specific Learning Difficulty |244 |
|Physical or Motor |143 |
|Other Moderate Learning Difficulty |65 |
|Physical Health Problems |61 |
|Autistic Spectrum Condition |39 |
|Learning Disability |38 |
|Social Emotional Behavioural Difficulty |37 |
|Language or Speech Disorder |32 |
|Visual Impairment |30 |
The total number of requests for Assessment Arrangements in 2009 was 45,612 (Figure 2), of which 1,856 requests (4.1%) were on behalf of pupils with a visual impairment, and 30 (0.1%) were on behalf of blind pupils. Again, the largest groups of pupils requiring arrangements were those with dyslexia (44% of the 45,612) and specific learning difficulties (16%).
Comparing the percentage of requests for digital papers for visually impaired pupils (3% of all requests for digital papers) with the percentage (4.2%) who required any arrangement in an examination may suggest that the digital papers are less suitable for this population. However, because of the small numbers of requests (30 out of 1,167) and the even smaller number of pupils, it is just as likely that other factors (such as whether the school had decided to offer digital papers, or not) could be underlying the smaller uptake.
Figure 1/Table: Number of requests overall by type of difficulty or disability, 2009
|Difficulty/Disability |Number of examples |
|Language or Speech Disorder |765 |
|Mental Health |564 |
|Hearing Impairment |505 |
|Deaf |119 |
|Blind |30 |
|Dyslexia |20,062 |
|Other specific learning difficulty |7,364 |
|Physical health problems |2,807 |
|Physical or motor impairment |2,918 |
|Learning disability |1, 517 |
|Autistic spectrum condition |2,431 |
|Other moderate learning difficulty |2,521 |
|Social emotional behavioural difficulty |2,144 |
Fig 2/Table 8 Number of requests overall by type of difficulty/disability, 2009
|Type of difficulty/disability |Number of requests |
|Blind |30 |
|Deaf |119 |
|Hearing Impairment |505 |
|Mental Health Problems |564 |
|Language or Speech Disorder |765 |
|Visual Impairment |1856 |
|Social Emotional Behavioural Difficulty |2144 |
|Other Moderate Learning Difficulty |2521 |
|Autistic Spectrum Condition |2431 |
|Learning Disability |1517 |
|Physical or Motor Impairment |2918 |
|Physical Health Problems |2807 |
|Other Specific Learning Difficulty |7364 |
|Dyslexia |20062 |
Table 9 gives the number of requests for each of the different types of Assessment Arrangement offered by SQA. A breakdown of the type of requests made for pupils with a visual impairment is not available, so we do not know how many of the 1,305 requests for Enlarged Print, or the 16,554 requests for a Reader, for example, were for pupils with a visual impairment. We cannot therefore compare the use of digital papers with other types of support for the visually impaired population.
Table 9 appears over the page.
Table 9 Number of requests for types of Assessment Arrangement, 2009
|Assessment Arrangement |Number of requests |Assessment Arrangement |Number of requests |
|Extra Time |35,636 |Digital Question Paper |1,167 |
|Separate accommodation |26,381 |Calculator |660 |
|Reader |16,554 |Transcription without correction |626 |
|Scribe |14,197 |PA referral |540 |
|Use of ICT |6,253 |Modified content |277 |
|Prompter |2,099 |Adapted certificate |119 |
|Coloured Paper |2,050 |Paper signed to candidate |57 |
|Rest Period |1,434 |Candidate Signs Responses |42 |
|Enlarged Print |1,305 |Tape recorder for responses |37 |
|Transcription with correction |1,179 |Braille |31 |
So far then, we know that the Adapted Digital Papers were requested by a small number of visually impaired pupils but further investigation is required to determine the reasons why the pupils used the papers, the subjects, the advantages and disadvantages of the papers, and what features and facilities are required to improve them.
3 Accessibility of Adobe Reader
The SQA Adapted Digital Papers are provided in Adobe PDF format. Some partially-sighted candidates are able to access the SQA digital question papers in PDF by using the facilities and features in Adobe Reader.
For example:
• the PDF digital paper can be magnified (by up to 6400%, via the Adobe Reader toolbar);
• foreground and background colours can be altered to give high contrast colours (Adobe Reader can either use the colours set in the Windows Display Control Panel, or colours can be specified);
• Adobe Reader settings can be adjusted so that the PDF can work more effectively with screen readers such as Jaws[5], or screen magnification programs such as ZoomText[6].
• keyboard shortcuts are provided for most operations.
Adobe Reader has basic text-to-speech functionality but it is basic and of limited utility for reading the “untagged”[7] PDF exams.
Instead, CALL Scotland recommends the PDFaloud[8] text reader for users with dyslexia or reading difficulties. PDFaloud is a text reader rather than a screen reader and is designed for readers with sight; it works best when the user can see the text and click on it to have it read out. It is less effective at reading a complete paper mainly because the papers are untagged and the reading order is not specified and so text elements on each page may or may not be read out in the correct order. We consider the reading order of the PDF papers later.
Nevertheless, PDFaloud can provide support for some candidates with visual impairment. The application:
• highlights the text as it reads so that the reader can follow the text;
• can read each word, sentence or paragraph;
• has keyboard shortcuts and a toolbar for controlling the speech;
• gives control over voice parameters such as speed and pitch.
•
PDFaloud is available to Scottish schools from Learning and Teaching Scotland for £295 for a school licence[9].
3.1 Built-in Adobe Reader Magnification
The actual size of the text and images of a digital PDF question paper on a computer screen are determined by the physical size of the screen, the screen resolution, the display font and the magnification setting in Adobe Reader.
One of the issues about magnifying the paper on screen is that the full width of the page may no longer be visible across the screen. This requires the user to scroll the paper left and right, which adds extra complexity and makes it much more difficult to navigate around the paper.
The most common size of a laptop or monitor screen in schools is 15” with a resolution of 1024x768. Under these conditions an SQA digital paper in PDF can be magnified up to about 150%, which is approximately equivalent to N18, before horizontal scrolling is required.
This is not to say that all digital papers viewed at 150% will be accessible to all candidates who need this size of font (for example, at this level of magnification diagrams may not be displayed close enough to the corresponding question, which means that the candidate will have to scroll up and down or open a new window and swap between the two) but it suggests that most candidates who require font size up to N18 should be able to access most digital papers in PDF.
[pic]
Figure 3 Screen shot of digital paper at 100%, approximately N12 on 15” screen
[pic]
Figure 4 Screen shot of digital paper at 150%, approximately N18 on 15” screen
[pic]
Figure 5 screen shot of Digital paper at 185%, approximately N24 on 15” screen
[pic]
Figure 6 Screen shot of digital paper at 300%, approximately N36 on 15” screen
The problem of the paper disappearing off the edge of the screen, thereby requiring inconvenient horizontal scrolling, can be addressed for question-only papers (which constitute just under half of the digital papers produced by SQA), by ‘reflowing’ the PDF. Reflowing (View>Reflow, or press CTRL+4) displays the paper such that all the text can be seen on screen without the need to scroll horizontally.
Question and answer papers cannot be reflowed because PDFs with form fields (answer boxes) are not able to be reflowed by Adobe Reader.
[pic]
Figure 7 History Higher paper magnified to 400% (approximately N48) and reflowed
For question-and-answer papers which cannot be reflowed, higher levels of magnification (e.g. beyond 150%; approximately N18) may therefore be problematic.
There are some techniques that can be used with such papers:
1. The candidate could scroll backwards and forwards horizontally to read the paper. Excessive vertical scrolling may also be required for papers with diagrams. Such scrolling and navigation around the paper is time-consuming and confusing and would not be acceptable in an examination.
2. When text is read out by the PDFaloud text reader, the text is highlighted as it is spoken and the page scrolled horizontally automatically by the software. This could assist some candidates but at very high levels of magnification the text is scrolled and highlighted rather quickly (as the same speed as it is read) and so may not be readable.
[pic]
Figure 8 Screen shot of text scrolling horizontally while read by PDF aloud
3. Another option is to use a larger screen so that the candidate is able to see more of the paper without scrolling. For example, with a 17” LCD screen (at higher resolution than 1024x768) the whole of the paper width should be visible on screen when viewed at the equivalent of 24 point (instead of only 91% on a 15” screen). With a 22” wide screen LCD, 70% of the question text displayed at Arial N36 equivalent would be visible instead of just 43% (although 70% is still not satisfactory).
4. Alternatively, two screens could be used with the question paper (perhaps reflowed) displayed on one and a word processor with answer booklet on the second. Additional displays are usually relatively easy to find in schools and can be plugged straight into a laptop, or graphics cards that can drive two displays can be fitted to a desktop computer.
In conclusion, candidates who require font sizes of about N18 or smaller should be able to access most digital papers in PDF using the standard Adobe Reader software, although this requires confirmation through practical trials. Candidates who require font sizes greater than N18 may be able to access digital question-only papers but question and answer papers are likely to be less accessible at higher levels of magnification on standard 15” screens.
4 Accessing PDF papers with Screen Magnification software
Purpose-designed screen magnification programs such as ZoomText, Lunar and Bigshot are faster and more efficient to use than the magnification built in to Adobe Reader itself. Most screen magnification programs can magnify digital papers in PDF[10]. Bigshot has been specifically mentioned as working well with Adobe Reader partly because it uses ALT keyboard shortcuts which are not used by Adobe Reader.
The specialist screen magnification programs give faster and more efficient access than the basic built-in magnification in Adobe Reader; in addition most pupils who require significant levels of magnification will have expertise in using a particular screen magnification program and will be able to use it to full advantage. Therefore, the best option for pupils who require significant levels of magnification is to use their own screen magnification programs with the digital PDF papers.
4.1 Trials with screen magnification software
Interviews and trials of digital papers were conducted with four visually impaired young people. All attend a special secondary school catering for pupils with sight loss.
• R does not use a specialist screen magnifier and instead normally relies on the built-in zoom tools in Microsoft Word and Adobe Reader.
• M uses Supernova set to magnify to around 270-300%
• J uses Supernova.
• L uses Jaws (see below for discussion about screen reading software).
R was content with the magnification tools built into Adobe Reader, although he commented that he would prefer bigger line spacing (which cannot be adjusted using Adobe Reader – this would have to be done by SQA when the paper was originally set out prior conversion to PDF). R liked the interactive question and answer format and the comment and mark-up tools available in Adobe Reader; particularly the highlighter for marking key passages, which he felt would aid navigation, and the Sticky Note tool, so that he could copy a question and paste it into a note beside the text as an aide-memoire when reading the text.
M and J were satisfied with the way in which Supernova magnified the PDF. It was important to set the Adobe Reader zoom to 100% (or wide enough to fit the width of the screen): if the Adobe Reader zoom was set to be 25%, for example, then Supernova would magnify that screen display and the result was low resolution, poor quality text. By setting the Adobe Reader zoom to be higher, Supernova was magnifying a higher resolution original image and the result was much cleaner.
Supernova smoothes the magnified text. M compared one paper set out using the standard SQA Imprint font with a second typeset in Arial, and preferred the Arial paper. Another pupil in another school compared Arial and Imprint papers magnified with Supernova and preferred Arial. There seemed to be little visible difference between the two fonts by the time that Supernova had smoothed them, but the two pupils both preferred Arial. SQA currently offer Adapted and Enlarged print papers in Arial font and so it should be feasible for pupils to request digital papers in the font.
The users did not make any comments about the layout or design of the papers themselves, but it is likely that improvements could be made to the papers to aid navigation for candidates who use screen magnification programs. For example, in some Biology and science papers questions make reference to a diagram and it may be helpful to lay out the paper differently with the question closer to the diagram so that the pupil can locate both more easily. SQA desktop publishers already create Large Print papers in hard copy and so one option may be to provide digital versions of these large print papers. More tests with users are required to investigate this further.
5 Accessing PDF Digital Papers with Screen Reading software
Screen reading applications such as Jaws or HAL can read PDF documents but there can be problems if the PDFs have not been designed for this purpose. RNIB provide helpful information on using Jaws and other screen readers to access PDF documents[11] in general and many of the issues identified apply to the digital paper PDFs.
The digital papers in PDF are not tagged and do not have specified ‘reading order’. This means that some text in the paper is not read out in the correct order: for example, the marks in the margins are unlikely to be read out in a way that the candidate could understand – the mark would just get read out as a number, and it would not be clear as to which question it applied. The screen reader would also have difficulty with text mixed with images and with mathematical expressions: e.g. a2+b2=c2 is likely to be read out as ‘a two plus b two equals c two’; and some maths expressions are not recognised as text at all and so are not read out. Tables may or may not be read out correctly, and images and diagrams do not have text descriptions.
One approach to dealing with these difficulties is to adapt the PDF paper to be fully accessible for candidates who use screen readers, but this is unlikely to be successful and is also time-consuming and inefficient (see Nisbet 2003[12]). The main issue here is that the original paper was designed using Quark Xpress and as a result has no inherent structure. It is extremely difficult to add the tags and other information that is required in order to make it accessible for screen reader programs using Adobe Acrobat after the PDF has been created.
Given that candidates, schools and SQA collectively know well in advance which candidates need digital papers to be accessed using screen reading software, digital papers can be prepared in a suitable format. Note also that the number of candidates who use screen readers is very small in comparison with the number of candidates who can access the PDF question papers. There is no point in wasting resources attempting to make every PDF paper accessible for a very small number of candidates when far more efficient and effective alternatives exist. There is also no point in re-creating every PDF paper in another digital format which may be more accessible with a screen reader when the PDF papers are accessible to the majority of candidates.
A better solution is to convert or save the text of the paper in another format that can be read successfully using a screen reader, such as DOC, RTF, plain text or HTML and then edit the text in order to produce a suitable file. This is more efficient than trying to make the PDF itself accessible (particularly if the exam paper originated as a DOC or text file before it was composed with Quark Xpress for publishing). This technique is already used by SQA to produce Braille papers. Once the paper is saved as DOC, RTF, Text or HTML:
• the effective reading order can be easily seen and altered;
• suitable indications of navigation features (e.g. ‘page 1 of 8’), marks and other information can be added (e.g. ‘Question 1 (a), worth 1 mark’);
• mathematical and scientific expressions can be typed out (or created with an MathML[13] editor)so that they are spoken correctly;
• text descriptions for diagrams and images can be added.
A file format which can be opened using a word processor or web browser is preferable (rather than an eBook format such as Daisy), because this allows a candidate to type answers in and to use the type of markup, study and commenting tools that were identified by R as being helpful. Most eBook formats have limited facilities for interaction and candidates cannot answer questions by typing into the digital paper. Daisy in particular could be used to prepare question-only papers but it should not be the only format offered because some blind candidates may not use Daisy software or may prefer to use other software with which they are more familiar, such as Microsoft Word plus their screen reader program. Suitable digital formats should therefore be made available (within reason) to suit the needs of candidates.
However, one disadvantage of a word processor format is that it may be possible for the candidate to accidentally alter or delete the text or questions in the paper when they are answering the questions. In discussion with staff who support visually impaired candidates, it was felt that this was a significant issue, and so options for protecting the text were investigated. Both K and L also felt that the potential for deleting text accidentally in the assessment was too great.
Microsoft Word forms
It is possible to create Microsoft Word ‘forms’ with protected text and fields for answers. One issue with Word forms is that the locked text in a form is not read out satisfactorily by most text reader programs (e.g. WordTalk, Read and Write Gold, etc). However a review of information and resources from publishers of screen reader programs (e.g. Jaws, HAL) suggests that screen readers can access locked text and forms[14]. Tests with users are required to establish whether papers created as Word forms would be accessible for screen reader users.
Adobe LiveCycle Tagged PDFs
While re-ordering reading layout and editing tags in an untagged paper in PDF is not practical, an alternative is to re-create the paper in PDF using Adobe LiveCycle Designer (LCD). LCD is essentially a simple desktop publishing package which gives much better control over page elements, reading order, and form field behaviour. PDF forms are more flexible and offer greater functionality than Microsoft Word forms. A small number of question and answer papers were created using LCD and evaluated by L.
L tested the PDF papers produced using LCD and noted that:
• the reading order of the text was correct;
• Jaws read text one line at a time (rather than a whole sentence or paragraph) which means it stops in the middle of the sentence. L said this was a feature of Jaws.
• Jaws retained focus when swapping between for example a question and the reading text papers.
• To answer questions, L had to listen to the question, go into the Jaws Form Mode, find the correct field, type the answer, come out of Forms Mode, read the next question, and so on, which was time consuming. A better design may be to lay out the paper simply as a linear set of fields and add the whole question as screen reader text along with the number of marks that the question is worth. The candidate would then complete the whole paper in forms mode, and would be able to tab quickly between fields. This method would only work for shorter questions that did not refer to a passage of text, for example.
Conclusion for screen reader users
The simplest procedure for creating digital papers for candidates who use screen readers is to extract the text of the assessment and edit it using the same process that is already used to produce Braille papers.
Question and answer papers are problematic because of the need to protect the question text and also provide the candidate with good navigational signs. There are several options that have been investigated to date but more work is required to create and trial papers in more formats before firm recommendations can be given.
References
Miller, O., S. Keil, and R. Cobb (2005). Review of the literature on accessible curricula, qualifications and assessment. Report submitted to the Disability Rights Commission
Nesbit, P. (2007). SQA Adapted Examination Papers in Digital Format: 2007 Pilot Project Report. Call Centre, University of Edinburgh. Accessed 26th November 2008:
Appendix 1 – Online questionnaire
The following is the wording used on the online survey.
Aim:
We are interested in arrangements and procedures in different countries for learners with visual impairment undertaking public examinations. We are interested in examinations which lead to qualifications and are typically taken by young people who are 15 to 18 years of age.
Definitions used:
Public examinations. For the purpose of this survey a ‘public examination’ is defined as a test in formal education which leads to a qualification. It is externally set and marked by an awarding body.
Special arrangements. We are interested in arrangements and procedures (“special arrangements”) for learners who have a visual impairment; this includes children and young people, as well as adults who are undertaking public examinations. Some countries may have different names for special arrangements, e.g. “special accommodations”, “reasonable adjustments’.
In the survey below we ask questions about regulations and guidelines. Regulations are instructions that examination bodies or others must legally follow when designing or administering examinations. Guidelines are guidance for examination bodies or others that they may choose to follow.
Questionnaire structure
The questionnaire has four sections:
a) Some detail about you, your role and typical examinations/ qualifications young people aged between 15 and 18 years old take in your country.
b) Specific access arrangements available in your country.
c) Scenarios – a chance for you to tell us about how ‘access arrangements’ are typically implemented in your country.
d) Opinions and any other comments.
It should take between approximately 20 and 30 minutes to complete, depending on the extent of your answers.
A) About you:
1. Please provide your name:
2. What country/region do you work in?
3. Can we contact you if we want to follow up or clarify anything in the survey? Yes/no
4. If yes, please provide an email address and or/telephone number
5. What is your job title / role?
6. Describe your role in relation to visually impaired learners’ access to examinations (e.g. provide advice to teachers, make arrangements for learners, develop policy on examination access, etc.).
7. We are interested in public examinations leading to qualifications which learners with visual impairment aged 15 to 18 years old typically take in your country. Please give us an overview and include reference to typical ages of learners, qualifications, and organisations involved.
Example answer for a teacher in England and Wales could be: “(1) A-levels and AS levels (typically taken by learners aged 17 and 18 years old), (2) GCSEs (typically taken by learners aged 16 years old). The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) set the qualification. The examinations are implemented by one of four awarding bodies.”
B) Specific access arrangements available in your country
1. Please describe your country’s position in relation to examination access for visually impaired learners:
• Regulations exist which are followed (yes/no/don’t know)
• Guidelines exist that organisations may choose to follow (yes/no/don’t know)
• Local arrangements are made for each learner on a case-by-case basis (yes/no/don’t know)
• None of the above (something else)
Please provide an explanation of your response (this might involve making reference to broader legal frameworks in your country, e.g. Disability Discrimination Act in the UK):
1. Does any documentation exist in relation to access arrangements (e.g. regulations or guidelines) (yes/no/don’t know)
If yes, please list what these documents are.
2. Are you able to provide us with copies of these documents (e.g. email attachments, web links)? (yes/no)
If yes, please tell us how to get the document copies.
3. Access arrangements: Presentation of examinations.
In some countries there are mechanisms by which visually impaired learners can have examination papers presented to them in different formats. Please indicate which are available in your country:
a) Large print (yes/no/don’t know)
a. If ‘yes’, please specify the range of large print available:
b) Braille (yes/no/don’t know)
c) Onscreen electronic / computer format (yes/no/don’t know)
d) Speech electronic / computer format (yes/no/don’t know)
e) Other (please specify):
………………………..……………………………….
4. Access arrangements: Response options.
In some countries there are mechanisms by which visually impaired learners can answer examination papers in different formats or in different examination conditions. Please indicate which are available in your country (in addition to hand-written format):
a) Use of a scribe (i.e. someone to write answers on behalf of the learner) (yes/no/don’t know)
b) Word processing (on screen) (yes/no/don’t know)
c) Braille (yes/no/don’t know)
d) Extra time (yes/no/don’t know)
a. If ‘yes’, please specify options available for extra time:
i. …………………………………………………
e) Online assessment(yes/no/don’t know)
a. If ‘yes’, please specify options available for online assessment:
i. …………………………………………………
f) Other - please specify:
……………………………………………………….
5. Access arrangements: Modification of question content.
In some countries there are mechanisms by which visually impaired learners can receive modified examinations in which the content is changed to make it more appropriate for their needs (e.g. text descriptions of picture or graphics, visually simplified tables and graphs). Does / can this happen in your country? (yes/ no/don’t know)
Please provide an explanation of your response:
6. In some countries, access arrangements received in an examination are noted on the awarding certificate (e.g. “Student Grade C with special arrangements”). Does this happen in your country? (Yes / No / Don’t know)
Please provide an explanation of your response:
C. Scenarios – an opportunity for you to tell us about how ‘access arrangements’ are typically implemented in your country
Below we provide two example ‘scenarios’ of visually impaired learners taking public exams. Please provide examples of what should happen in your country. Where you can, please make reference to the following:
• Mechanisms you have told us about in previous questions
• People involved
• Key decision points
• Specific access arrangements
• Strengths and weaknesses of the procedures
Scenario 1: Sam is a 16 year old young person with low vision. He makes use of a low vision device, but also likes to have his class materials prepared in 24 point Arial with black text on a yellow background, as well as using a lap top computer with screen magnifying software. Sam is taking public examinations in Geography, History, Science and Mathematics.
Please describe what should happen
Please describe strengths and weaknesses of the system
Scenario 2: Jenny is a 16 year old young person and is blind. She reads braille and also uses a computer with screen reading software. Jenny is taking public examinations in Geography, History, Science and Mathematics.
Please describe what should happen
Please describe strengths and weaknesses of the system
Scenario 3: We would also like to give you an opportunity to provide your own scenario with regard to a learner with visual impairment that you have had experience of.
Have you ever had a situation where you couldn’t provide a learner with visual impairment with access? If yes – please describe what happened and why.
Please describe strengths and weaknesses of the system in relation to this scenario
D. Opinions and any other comments
1. With regard to learners with visual impairment, what are the main gaps/barriers in the public examinations (if any)?
2. In your opinion, do learners with visual impairment have the same rights as sighted learners? Yes/No/Unsure
Please explain your answer
3. Do you have any other comments you would like to share?
Thank you very much for your time.
-----------------------
[1] Introduction to Assessment Arrangements, SQA, November 2008.
[2] Nisbet, P., Shearer, N. Balfour, F., Aitken, S. (2006) SQA Adapted Examination Papers in Digital Format: Feasibility Study 2005 – 2006: Final Report. Submitted to Scottish Qualifications Authority. October 2006. CALL Centre, The University of Edinburgh.
[3] Nisbet, P.D. (2007b) SQA Adapted Examination Papers in Digital Format: 2007 Pilot Project Report. Report to Scottish Qualifications Authority. December 2007. CALL Centre, The University of Edinburgh.
[4] 2008 report
[5] PDF Files and JAWS with Adobe® Reader 7,
[6] Questions and Answers about reading PDF documents in ZoomText 9.0 and 8.1,
[7] A “tagged” PDF has structure, logical reading order, form fields and images with meaningful text descriptions, while an “untagged” PDF has none of these.
[8] PDFaloud,
[9]
[10] Questions and Answers about reading PDF documents in ZoomText 9.0 and 8.1,
Lunar Manual,
[11] RNIB Web Access Centre; Jaws access of PDF - a users guide,
[12] Nisbet, P.D. (2003) An investigation into the Accessibility of SQA assessments in Portable Document Format. Report to SQA, January 2003. CALL Centre.
[13] W3C MathML Home,
[14] Creating Accessible Forms in Word. Freedom Scientific,
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- draft — tsa white paper government executive
- suggested answers to in text activities and exercises
- human factors good practices in visual inspection
- criminal procedure outline nyu law
- international system of exam access for visually impaired
- project identification and selection
- guide to implementation planning department of the prime
- 6th grade reading writing argumentative texts unit
Related searches
- calculator for solving system of equations
- international system of units list
- international system of units abbreviations
- international system of units conversion
- international system of units pdf
- the international system of units
- international system of units chart
- international system of units examples
- international system of units si
- 3 2 the international system of units
- 3 2 the international system of units key
- the international system of units worksheet