04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Bridging the Practice Gap between Inclusive Assessment and Inclusive Education
Eva Kleinlein, Michelle Proyer
University of Vienna, Austria
Presenting Author: Kleinlein, Eva;
Proyer, Michelle
Considering the importance of systemic and process-related change to realize inclusive education, this paper explores the practices that inform assessment processes and in how far these are guided by ideas of inclusion and inclusive education (e.g., Bourke & Mentis, 2014). This paper sheds light on the significance of pedagogical processes and stakeholders informing inclusive assessment in different cultural contexts. Data for this presentation stems from two corresponding projects that are engaged in promoting inclusive education based on inclusive assessment processes. However, both projects approach the issue from different contextual and methodological directions and thus raise diverse perspectives.
Based on focus group discussions and interviews with stakeholders such as teachers, students, and educational administrators from Austria, current challenges, needs, wishes, and requirements for assessment within an inclusive framework have been collected to develop an alternative assessment tool, the Inclusive Assessment Map (Erasmus+ project, I AM). In correspondence to that, a web-based application for inclusive assessment (Inclusive Assessment Map, 2022) has been developed and piloted in four countries. With the application, it is intended to assist practitioners to better recognise and support their students’ needs for suitable learning environments. Thus, it is targeted to stimulate a shift from person- and deficit-centred perspectives towards a classroom- and resource-oriented perspective in educational assessment (Europa Büro, 2021). The I AM project accordingly approaches the issue from the direction of inclusive assessment, steering towards inclusive education.
The second research context (the PhD project Inclusive Schooling Practices of Teachers Worldwide (InSpots)), however, proceeds the other way around and approaches the issue from inclusive education towards inclusive assessment. It explores teachers' solutions for designing inclusive learning environments in diverse contexts around the world. The InSpots project follows a transcultural and grounded theory-based research approach (Charmaz, 2017) in which asynchronous narrative audio-messages of teachers around the world are collected (Kleinlein, 2021). Based on this data, teachers' inclusive education approaches will be systematized alongside suitable and inclusive assessment categories. In line with Ainscow and Sandmill (2010, p. 411), the project is thus built on the belief “that education practitioners in resource-rich countries can learn some very useful lessons for their own practice if they engage with experience of efforts to promote inclusion in the South” - and the other way around. Even though cultural embeddedness must not be neglected or underestimated, the project aims to promote the understanding that it is possible and valuable “to learn in one country from practices and forms of provision developed elsewhere” (Artiles & Dyson, 2005, p. 42)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFollowing these remarks, the presentation particularly emphasises the perspectives of teachers that were collected within both projects. While the focus group discussions that were conducted with teachers in Vienna in the frame of the I AM project mainly concentrate on the multiple challenges that arise during (inclusive) assessment processes, the audio-messages that are collected in the InSpots project place teachers’ approaches to facilitate inclusive education in the centre of attention. Building on these insights into teachers' views on the inclusiveness of education and assessment in current national and regional practices, the presentation aims to explore opportunities for promoting inclusive assessment and education.
After a brief introduction of the projects, selected interview data will be used to discuss recent findings, current dilemmas, and ongoing challenges at the outlined nexus (e.g., Simon, 2015, 2019). Among others, contested questions that will be tackled are: What is the aim of assessment in light of inclusive education? How can assessment in terms of inclusive education take place? Which actors and stakeholders should be involved in the assessment processes?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis submission examines the omission of the pedagogical in processes of inclusive assessment on the one side as well as the omission of appropriate assessment in processes of inclusive education on the other side (e.g., Norwich 2009, Schlee 2012). By including qualitative data from interviews and group discussions with teachers’ current debates on inclusive assessment and its interrelation with inclusive education and diversity will be discussed.
ReferencesAinscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems. The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903
Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age. The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 37–62). Routledge.
Bourke, R., & Mentis, M. (2014). An assessment framework for inclusive education: integrating assessment approaches. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.888332
Charmaz, K. (2017). Constructivist grounded theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612
Europa Büro (Ed.). (2021). Inclusive Assessment Map - I AM. https://europabuero.wien/iam/
Inclusive Assessment Map. (2022). https://iam.univie.ac.at/#/
Kleinlein, E. (2021). InSpots - Inclusive Schooling Practices of Teachers: How teachers worldwide overcome challenges of inclusive teaching. https://medium.com/@evakleinlein/inspots-inclusive-schooling-practices-of-teachers-b26e5241580
Norwich, B. (2009). Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational needs/disability: international perspectives. British Educational Research Journal 35, 3, 447-467.
Schlee, J. (2012). Was kann und sollte Diagnostik in einer „inklusiven Pädagogik“ leisten? In M. Brodkorb & K. Koch (Hrsg.). Das Menschenbild der Inklusion. Erster Inklusionskongress M-V. Dokumentation. Schwerin: Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 59-72.
Simon, T. (2015). Die Suche nach dem Wesen einer Diagnostik zur Unterstützung schulischer Inklusion. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 3. https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/304/268
Simon, T. (2019). Inklusionsorientierte individuelle Förderung im Unterricht im Spannungsfeld differenzbezogen-positiver und normbezogen-negativer Einstellungen zu Heterogenität. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 3.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Formative Assessment for Students with Disabilities: A Case Study from India
Anannya Chakraborty1, Amit Kaushik1, Annie Koshi2, Vimala Ramachandran3
1Australian Council for Educational Research (India); 2St. Mary's School, New Delhi; 3Former National Institute of Educational Planning and Implementation and ERU Consultants Pvt Ltd
Presenting Author: Chakraborty, Anannya;
Kaushik, Amit
Europe has played a strategic role in supporting disability inclusion internationally. In the last decade, the European Disability Forum and other European organisations have supported policy development and interventions in disability inclusion in India (EEAS, 2021). This support would continue to be essential in promoting programmes and high quality research on disability-inclusive education in low- and middle-income countries for the foreseeable future.
While there is significant literature on disability-inclusive education in India (Das et al, 2012; Shah et al, 2013; Sharma & Das 2015; Singal, 2019), not much attention has been paid to primary research on inclusive learning assessments in India. Research on disability-inclusive school education conducted by two of the authors of this paper has highlighted this key gap in evidence on inclusive learning assessments and related professional learning in the context of LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region (Chakraborty et al, 2019; Ahmed et al, 2022).
Although India became a signatory to the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action in 1994 and made significant progress in improving the education of students with disabilities (SWD), it still has a long way to go before educational institutions can be called inclusive. While the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 establish legal opportunities for advancing disability-inclusive education, the degree of inclusion of SWD is unequal across different types of schools in different regions. The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) proposes further strengthening of India’s commitment to inclusive education.
This paper looks at the role of assessments as a point of interaction between educational policy, school culture, and teachers’ perceptions of ability. Specifically, it focuses on formative assessments which have substantial impact on student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The paper addresses the key question: ‘What is the experience of conducting inclusive formative assessments in classrooms for teachers in India?’. It uses a case study of a private, inclusive, co-educational school in New Delhi to arrive at an understanding of the possible reasons affecting the inclusion of SWD in assessments and studies how changing assessments can help realise the objectives of the RTE Act and the NEP 2020.
In the current system, mainstream examination boards governing the school leaving examinations and the National Institute of Open Schooling confine themselves to a timed, pen and paper examination, with the areas examined largely restricted to prescribed textbooks. This means that students have to memorise large amounts of text/information and complete examinations of five different subjects within a set time period of 20 days. Because of the nature of the examination, it effectively excludes students who cannot perform to a speed or pattern, or those who cannot memorise or retain information for long.
The Board examinations have a tremendous washback effect on the syllabus, classroom methodology, and assessments that percolates to the primary and even pre-primary levels. Children are subjected to ongoing weekly assessments to prepare them to meet the standards of the Board that are intended to be formative but end up becoming summative. Results of the examinations are used to establish popularity and competition among schools.
Against this background, it is important to understand how formative assessments are designed to be inclusive – taking into consideration the special needs of children with different abilities, the time/form, and the overall environment in which assessments are conducted – for improving learning. Since there is no single way of assessing students formatively, this study captures teachers’ experience of conducting formative assessments and assessment methods, as opposed to judging teachers’ ability or knowledge to assess SWD (Trumbell & Lash, 2013).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study will use a case study approach to gather an in-depth understanding of formative assessment practices in the identified private inclusive school in New Delhi (Hamilton, 2011). Semi-structured interviews with teachers and classroom observations have been used to collect data on formative assessments used by teachers in the inclusive school. The practices will be viewed within the broader school context and guidelines from educational bodies.
A questionnaire for interviews was developed to gather information on teachers’ understanding of disabilities, formative assessments and accommodations; methods of inclusive formative assessment practices; and factors that affect teachers’ classroom practices such as school and educational board guidelines and professional learning. The questionnaire contains approximately 10 questions with teacher interviews spanning 30 to 45 minutes so that participant fatigue is limited.
Participants in this research include 10 in-service teachers from primary and secondary sections of the school. The selection will help to understand if and how formative assessment practices change at the secondary level when teachers prepare students for high stakes summative school leaving examinations. Purposeful sampling and snowballing have been used to identify teachers who have taught in classrooms with SWD.
Positionality can affect the entire research process as well as its results (Rowe, 2014). Having insiders and outsiders in the team and a variety of perspectives add ‘validity and richness’ to research reports (Louis & Bartunek, 1992; Merriam et al, 2010). Therefore, the team consists of a mix of researchers and practitioners working for disability-inclusive education.
Interviews have been conducted over a period of one month virtually and recorded through MS Teams with transcriptions generated automatically. The transcriptions will be matched with audio recordings before data analyses. Field notes will be taken during classroom observations to corroborate the information provided by the participants in the interviews. Care will be taken to make space for unexpected / unusual practices and approaches. The open-ended nature of this qualitative research will ensure that researchers do not start with a priori assumptions.
Transcripts will be carefully labelled and coded and thereafter, grouped into relevant themes that emerge from the interviews (Skjott Linneberg, M. & Korsgaard, S., 2019). The analysis will yield findings that help to understand the experience of conducting formative assessments in classrooms for teachers at the identified school.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study will describe teachers’ experience of conducting formative assessments for SWD. The results will be broadly organised around: practical challenges to developing and implementing classroom-based assessments for including SWD; teacher-led modifications of classroom-based assessments for inclusion of SWD; diversity in learning assessments for SWD with examples; school-level support for teachers to design inclusive classroom-based assessment – especially teacher autonomy and agency to determine what is best for her students; understanding and use of accommodations for inclusion; and the use of data from classroom-based assessments.
The data from the study will reveal if and how the experience of including SWD in formative assessments in primary schools is different from the experience in secondary schools. Results from the study will bring out the voices of teachers who are at the ‘learning site’ implementing regular modifications to make assessments inclusive for all children.
Capturing the overall school culture is one of the key steps in locating a case study that explores appropriate assessment processes for students with different abilities. The results will also cover the teachers’ understanding of disability; teacher-parent partnership for improving learning of SWD; and the influence of Board and school guidelines on teacher’s agency for disability-inclusive formative assessments.
The data will also capture information on the extent to which classroom teachers rely on special educators for including SWD in formative assessments. The results will also elaborate on formal and informal systems of professional learning used by teachers to understand formative inclusive assessments or recognise disability.
As a large number of today’s in-service teachers in India have not received any training on inclusive learning assessments during their pre-service training programmes, findings from the study on ongoing professional learning will throw light on areas of interest for teachers in the field of inclusive learning assessments.
ReferencesAhmed, S.K., Jeffries, D., Chakraborty, A., Carslake, T., Lietz, P., Rahayu, B., Armstrong, D., Kaushik, A., & Sundarsagar, K. (2022). Teacher professional development for disability inclusion in low‐ and middle‐income Asia‐Pacific countries: An evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18 (4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1287
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7-74.
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Circular: Exemptions/Concessions extended to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for Class X & XII Examinations conducted by the CBSE and Standard Operating Procedure. https://www.cbse.gov.in/cbsenew/Examination_Circular/2018/3_CIRCULAR.pdf
Chakraborty, A., Kaushik, A., & UNESCO Office Bangkok and Regional Bureau for Education in Asia and the Pacific. (2019). Equitable learning assessments for students with disabilities (NEQMAP thematic review). UNESCO Office Bangkok. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/36
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). (2016). General comment No. 4 on Article 24 - the right to inclusive education. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-4-article-24-right-inclusive
Das, A., Sharma, S. & Singh, V. K. (2012). Inclusive education in India: A paradigm shift in roles, responsibilities and competencies of regular school teachers. Journal of Indian Education.
European External Action Service (EEAS). (2021). Collaboration, capacity building & information exchange are the key elements to strengthen policy development on Disability Inclusion. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/collaboration-capacity-building-information-exchange-are-key-elements-strengthen_en
Hamilton, L. (2011). Case studies in educational research. British Educational Research Association on-line resource. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/case-studies-in-educational-research
Merriam, S., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, MY, Kee, Y. & Ntseane, G & Muhamad, M. (2010). Power and Positionality: Negotiating Insider/Outsider Status within and across Cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20 (5), 405-416. 10.1080/02601370120490.
Rowe, Wendy E. (2014). Positionality. In Coghlan, D. and Brydon-Miller M. (Eds). The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research. Sage.
Shah R.S., Desai, I., & Tiwari, A. (2013). Teachers' concerns about inclusive education in Ahmedabad, India. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 (1), 34-45.
Sharma, U. & Das, A. (2015). Inclusive education in India: past, present and future. Support for Learning, 13 (1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12079
Singal, N. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in efforts towards inclusive education: reflections from India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23 (7-8), 827-840. 10.1080/13603116.2019.1624845
Skjott Linneberg, M. and Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal,19 (3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from learning theory and measurement theory. WestEd. https://www2.wested.org/www-static/online_pubs/resource1307.pdf
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Fake Real! The Participative Development and Evaluation of an App for Adolescents with an Intellectual Disability to Assess Online Information
Svenja Kuiper-Buttner, Peter Nikken, Emma Middag
University Applied Sciences Windesheim, Zwolle, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Kuiper-Buttner, Svenja
The use of (social) media can be very entertaining but presents challenges for educators of adolescents that are not that media-literate yet1,2. How adolescents with an intellectual disability (ID) can benefit from the opportunities of (social) media safely, responsibly, and ethically, is internationally an urgent but poorly studied educational issue3. For these adolescents assessing online information as fake or real often is troublesome, due to deficits in intellectual functioning (e.g., reasoning, problem solving, making judgments, learning from instruction and experience, and practical understanding)4,5. Consequently, they are often involved in online incidents like fraud, manipulation, sextortion, and cyberbullying, and hence to sense a feeling of online exclusion impacting their education and wellbeing6,7,8.
The issue of online exclusion of adolescents with an ID is addressed in three consecutive studies, which together aim to answer the general research question of what these adolescents need to benefit from the opportunities of (social) media? First, via 7 peer-to-peer interviews the needs regarding adolescents’ experiences with online incidents were recorded9. The adolescents, aged 13 to 20, foremost indicated having difficulty with assessing the authenticity of online information, for example: “I don’t want to believe online fake stuff, but I do”, “I don’t want any more miscommunication with guys”, and “I once won a price, but lost all my money when I wanted to claim it by phone”. In a focus-group meeting about the input derived from the interviewees, they unanimously indicated the need for an application that could help them assess whether online information is fake or real.
In order to meet this need, in a successive study such an application was developed, applying the principles of participatory action research (PAR)10 with adolescents with an ID and educators that guide them in their media use. The app, named Fake Real! (in Dutch: Nep Echt!11,12) provides information, actual examples of fake and real information, check lists, user guidelines, and hyperlinks to assess the authenticity of online information that can be found on a broad range of platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Messenger, Telegram, Vinted, TikTok, Marketplace, Discord, Omegle, Tinder, and Grindr). The Fake Real! app meets the international Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)13 to make web content accessible to people with an ID.
A final study addressed the experiences of the target group with the use of the Fake Real! app. By using the app, adolescents with an ID are expected to become more media-wise and mentally stronger, suffer less from online incidents, feel more safe online, enjoy media use more, and experience an increased sense of online belonging. Since these adolescents often struggle with standardized tests, resulting in unreliable outcomes14, and because suitable media literacy tests are not available7, a custom made method was needed to bring together their experiences. Again using PAR, two measurements were developed for this purpose: the questionnaire ‘How are you doing online?’ and an art-based evaluation tool.
The presentation at the ECER is intended to address and discuss the process-related as well as the substantial outcomes of the second and third performed studies. These outcomes include: a) the input from the target population and the educators that guide them in their media-use during the app development process; b) an impression of the content and functioning of the app; c) the lessons learned from the PAR process towards the app and the evaluative instruments; and d) the implications of the app for adolescents with an ID for introduction and use in educational settings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipatory Action Research (PAR)10 was performed to collect input from adolescents with an ID on their requirements for an app for assessing the authenticity of online information. PAR is an approach to research emphasizing participation and action of the people involved. Based on the input from the adolescents, educators, and researchers, college students from the educational minor ‘Mobile Solutions’ of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands, developed the Fake Real! app, following an iterative process of building, testing, collecting feedback, and improving.
PAR was also used to develop the evaluation measurements. The ‘How are you doing online?’ questionnaire comprised easy to understand, visually supported questions addressing the respondent’s extent of media-literacy and need for guidance (5 items; e.g., ‘Do you ask friends for help if you find something difficult online?’, ‘Do you have problems because of online fake information?’) and their feeling of confidence (6 items; e.g., ‘Are you having fun online?’, ‘Do you feel safe online’?). Each of these items had four answering options ranging from ‘Always’ to ‘Never’. The questionnaire also contained 10 screenshot-examples of online situations (e.g., a WhatsApp request for money, a news message on Instagram, a Facebook account) which respondents had to indicate as fake or real.
The art-based evaluation tool was applied in small groups of adolescents with an ID after they had access to the app for a substantial period, i.e. about 4-8 weeks. The tool-script contained step-by-step instructions for the researchers who prepared and conducted the sessions. A number of simply worded, visualized, inviting questions about the experiences of the target group with the app were asked (e.g., ‘What did you use the app for?’, ‘What do you think of the app?’, ‘Are you going to use the app more often?’). Subsequently, a Google Jam Board session was applied to collect experiences with the app by means of making a drawing, collage or video on a personal Jam Board page. Within the sessions, there was ample opportunity to talk about the creative expressions.
Two researchers collect input on the questionnaire and art-based evaluation tool at three schools for secondary special education from December 2022 to March 2023 in the East region of the Mid-Netherlands. A total of 18 to approximately 28 respondents is expected to participate based on the number of adolescents that participated in the pre-measurement and agreed to also participate in the post-measurement and art-based sessions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe requirement analyses with the adolescents indicated that the app should meet various criteria such as ‘funfactor’ (“I like pop-ups and gimmicks”, “Avoid a focus on learning, keep it playful”), ‘clarity’ (“Explain things simple and short”, “Use a clear font”), ‘accessibility’ (“Can texts be read aloud?”, “Use examples that match the perception of the target group”), ‘inclusivity’ (“Use examples of all genders”, “I'd rather hear a real human voice than one from a robot”), and ‘navigation’ (“I want to know where I am and how long it will take”, “Avoid unnecessary click-throughs”).
The data collection from the ‘How are you doing online? questionnaire and the art-based evaluation-tool is currently in full swing. Yet, the first outcomes of the questionnaire indicate an increased level of media-literacy among app-users. The input so far on the Google Jam Board sessions varies a lot. Adolescents foremost expressed themselves using digital sticky notes (e.g., “I haven’t used the app”, “It prevented me from being scammed”, “I would use the app to see if emails and SMS’s are genuine”, “I use it when I don’t trust something on TikTok”). Two adolescents filmed themselves with their iPhones talking about their positive experiences with the app.
Regarding the lessons learned from PAR, experiences by educators and researchers so far include: “The target population has unique experiential knowledge that supplements ours” and “By giving people a greater role in research about themselves, the research is more in line with their environment”. Furthermore, the college students initially emphasized not to see the point of PAR (“Let's just build an app, ask users what they think of it, and then adjust it”), but became aware of the inaccessibility of many software and the importance of developing tools for and with people with an ID during the iterative process.
References1 Nikken, P. (2022). Media and the family context. In: D. Lemish (Ed.). The Routledge International Handbook of Children, Adolescents, and Media (2nd ed., pp. 339-346). Taylor & Francis Group.
2 Livingstone, S. & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford university press.
3 Alfredsson Ågren, K., Kjellberg, A., & Hemmingsson, H. (2020). Access to and use of the Internet among adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities in everyday settings. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45(1): 89-98.
4 Probst, D. (2017). Social Media Literacy as an IEP Intervention for Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education 9(2): 45-57.
5 Chadwick, D. (2019). Online risk for people with intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review 24(4): 180–187.
6 Nikken, P. (2020). Professionals about the media use of adolescents with a disability. Nederlands Jeugdinstituut [Netherlands Youth Institute], Utrecht, The Netherlands.
7 Vergeer, M. & Nikken, P. (2016). Media literacy and children with a mild intellectual disability: An analysis of what is available and needed to include children with a mild intellectual disability. Netwerk Mediawijsheid/Nederlands Jeugdinstituut [Network of Media Literacy/Netherlands Youth Institute], Utrecht, The Netherlands.
8 Good, B., & Fang, L. (2015). Promoting smart and safe internet use among children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their parents. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2): 179-188.
9 Nikken, P. & Buttner, S.A. (2021). Everyone can participate in social media. Pedagogiek in Praktijk [Pedagogics in Practice] 121: 18-28.
10 Kramer, J.M., Kramer, C., Garcia-Iriarte, E.l, and Hammel, J. (2011). Following Through to the End: The Use of Inclusive Strategies to Analyse and Interpret Data in Participatory Action Research with Individuals in Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Applied Research on Intellectual Disabilities 24(3): 263-273.
11 Buttner, S.A., & Nikken, P. (2021). Fake Real! [Nep Echt!] An app for assessing the authenticity of online information. Sozio-Special: Buitengewoon Normaal [Exceptionally Normal] 121(3).
12 Research Department of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (2023). Fake Real! [Nep Echt!] An app to assess the authenticity of online information. https://www.nepecht.com. Zwolle, the Netherlands.
13 WCAG 2: Understanding the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag.
14 Geisinger, K.F. (2009). Psychometric issues in Testing Students With Disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education 7, 121-140.
|
