Hi,
There's lots of issues here and , as usual, it is difficult to be certain of the answers in this particular case without asking a number of
questions. Most of these have already been asked by previous respondents. However, there seems to be some aspects which have been touched
upon which could do with some clarification....

1) Affordability is, in my book a red herring, and, in addition, contrary to the act. Red herring because electronic note-taking is cheaper
than an interpreter and note-taker combined in all cases that I have ever heard of and nobody quibbles about that (previous examples have
quoted £20 pr hour which is less than an interpreter and most freelance interpreters will charge a minimum call-out. Also our electronic
note-taking is charged at £17 pr hr though we use two for every hr to prevent any RSI problems which equates at £34 but Int + NT = £40).
Contrary to the act, because the responsibility to provide access for a student is there irrespective of the DSA - it may be possible to
argue lack of funds but the guidance suggests that this will not be looked at favourably when compared with the overall size of University
budgets.

2) Some of the alternative suggestions for supporting this student are not really taking into account the problems a hearing impaired
student will face accessing information 'live'. We don't know enough information about this student to state categorically what they need,
but if the student doesn't sign or lip-read very effectively, then using electronic note-taking may well be the only way that the student
can gain 'live' access and thereby be involved and contribute. To my mind and experience, subject specialisms are a luxury when compared
with little or no access. It is not practical for a student to read over a note-taker's shoulder for any length of time. Evidence suggests
that lipreading is approximately 70% guesswork and that is in good conditions. Relative to most school teaching, conditions are very often
worse in Universities. Obviously, the more hearing the person has and the more knowledge of English the more successful their lipreading
becomes - this should have been taken into account and detailed in the report to justify (or not) the use of this type of support.

3) Electronic note-taking, when used as it was originally intended which is different to audio-typing - i.e. laptop to laptop so that the
student can read the information on their own screen - is an excellent way of providing access and is being used by a number of students
very effectively here at Sheffield Hallam. (We have trained our own operators using a CACDP course and several institutions have sent people
to be trained here.) One laptop plus software can be recommended for the student from DSA, we provide the other laptop and the operator.
Furthermore, with the introduction of wireless networking the student is 'freed' from the support worker and able to sit with their
colleagues which should not be underestimated as a step towards greater inclusion.

4) Electronic note-takers (ENT's) cannot provide a verbatim text and it is not their job to do so. Manual n/t's write at roughly 30wpm,
ENT's type at about 80 - 100wpm.......people speak at something over 120 wpm and much faster when reading (newsreaders trot along at a mere
165 wpm).....(don't quote me on these - they're roughly right, I assure you but I haven't checked them recently). There can be no copyright
issue with this service. Palantype is the service used for verbatim transcription.

5) "Good teaching methods" are essential to work towards, but let's face it - they ain't gonna happen for some while yet and will not serve
this student or any other for some time to come. For some students, they will never be enough on their own and this kind of support will
still be necessary. The reason we started using ENT was for a student whose hearing had deteriorated rapidly, they had no sign language
skills and no lipreading skills and was becoming increasingly marginalised and isolated....they would not have had equal access, however
good the teaching methods were!

6) Providing notes and copies of overheads (powerpoint or acetate) is never enough - if it were, then no-one, disabled or not, need attend
lectures (no flippant remarks here) - I would recommend this to happen in addition to the non-medical support.

The bottom line here and one that I do not believe is fully appreciated, is ensuring the student has equal access by being able to follow,
and thus contribute to, the teaching environment as it happens. ENT, lipspeaking, interpreting - these give live access to a greater or
lesser degree depending on the students needs but manual note-taking is a reference and revision tool and does not give live access.

Cheers
Paddy Turner
Sheffield Hallam University


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Trott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 July 2003 19:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Note taking support for Hearing Impaired students


From the information it seems that there is an expectation that the audio typ[ist will type everything. While this may be the student's
prefered methd and allow the student to feel involved, it may well not be affordable.

Alternatively you could discuss the possibility of lecturers providing copies of their notes and display material and using a note taker to
handwrite supplementary information in note form.

Too often it seems we look at retyping information that any good lecturer should have available.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and perhaps we should look to good teaching methods first. As I said, none of us know if the student
would prefer to work in a particular way, so we don't know if that solution was considered. However, to labour the point, I have the feeling
that it rarely is.

Mick Trott