Assessment
How do exams shut disabled students out?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Disabled students described an exam-heavy assessment culture that accommodations help but cannot fully fix when designs assume a “normal” student.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Survey of disabled students with reflexive thematic analysis of assessment experiences
- N
- N=139 · 139 main-survey respondents (pilot N=25)
- Population
- Disabled students at a Finnish research university
- Outcome
- Ableism/disablism in exam-heavy assessment despite accommodations
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Despite asking about assessment broadly, experiences centered on exams. Accommodations often helped students show their abilities—56 explicitly said so—yet students wanted more authentic, student-centered assessment. Critical analysis showed how time, visuality, and productivity norms exclude disabled learners.
Methodology
At a Finnish research university, the author surveyed disabled students about assessment and accommodations (pilot N = 25; main sample 139). Reflexive thematic analysis interpreted experiences through lenses of ableism and disablism.
Limitations
Self-selected survey responses at one institution cannot estimate population prevalence of barriers. The paper is interpretive and does not experimentally compare assessment redesigns.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
At a Finnish research university, a pilot of 25 and a main survey of 139 disabled students were interpreted with reflexive thematic analysis through ableism and disablism. Although the prompt asked about assessment broadly, experiences centred on exams. Fifty-six respondents explicitly said accommodations helped them show their abilities, yet students still wanted more authentic, student-centred assessment. Time, visuality and productivity norms were read as excluding. Self-selected responses at one institution are not a population barrier rate.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Help-seeking and belonging are not one theme. Live-chat students were overwhelmingly satisfied and treated chat as just-in-time academic access, especially fully online learners (91 vs 155 blended). Loneliness interviews and ableism themes describe exclusion, stigma and exam visuality. K–12 blended observation describes negotiated disengagement when teacher pace outstripped students. Positive tool themes and exclusion themes can both be accurate in different rooms.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Not every paper under this label is doing the same analytic job. Ableism and EMBARC analyses interpret identity and culture in talk. EQUIP focus groups and interviews judge feasibility of competency rating (ENACT concerns easing with practice). The AI-analytics paper’s headline numbers are SNA metrics on 62 students, with reflections alongside. Shared 'theme' vocabulary is not a shared finding.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
A Finnish research university surveyed disabled students about assessment (pilot n = 25; main n = 139). Reflexive thematic analysis found experiences centred on exams despite a broader prompt. Fifty-six respondents said accommodations helped them show their abilities; students still wanted more authentic assessment. Critical reading highlighted time, visuality and productivity norms as excluding. That visuality theme is about exam design, not about laboratory areas of interest.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Attention traces, surveillance fears and exam visuality are not one finding about 'looking'. Local emotional layout improved recall without raising positive emotion, by concentrating gaze on text. Storyboard participants feared being watched by AI. Disabled students described visual exam norms as exclusionary even when 56 of 139 said accommodations helped. A lab AOI that 'works' does not answer those other visual-politics questions.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Help-seeking and belonging are not one theme. Live-chat students were overwhelmingly satisfied and treated chat as just-in-time academic access, especially fully online learners (91 vs 155 blended). Loneliness interviews and ableism themes describe exclusion, stigma and exam visuality. K–12 blended observation describes negotiated disengagement when teacher pace outstripped students. Positive tool themes and exclusion themes can both be accurate in different rooms.
Not every paper under this label is doing the same analytic job. Ableism and EMBARC analyses interpret identity and culture in talk. EQUIP focus groups and interviews judge feasibility of competency rating (ENACT concerns easing with practice). The AI-analytics paper’s headline numbers are SNA metrics on 62 students, with reflections alongside. Shared 'theme' vocabulary is not a shared finding.
Attention traces, surveillance fears and exam visuality are not one finding about 'looking'. Local emotional layout improved recall without raising positive emotion, by concentrating gaze on text. Storyboard participants feared being watched by AI. Disabled students described visual exam norms as exclusionary even when 56 of 139 said accommodations helped. A lab AOI that 'works' does not answer those other visual-politics questions.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.