This is my first post on here, so I should explain where I am coming from: I worked for an Assessment Centre for 8 years carrying out assistive technology training (ATT). The centre closed their in-house training service (due to a conflict of interests with recommending their own training service). Now we carry out ATT through an independent company: Assistive Solutions. 3 of our trainers used to work for the same assessment centre. I currently carry out ATT sessions myself day to day and also administer several other trainers. 

There have been a number of issues raised in these series of posts. I can offer some thoughts on ATT, and feedback from students we've done training with. There needs to be more transparency regarding ATT, and Penny's posts on the subject are undoubtedly beneficial as they raise the question of what is good quality ATT and how can we ensure that effective training is being delivered to students. In the absence of any regulation for training, responsibility for looking at the quality of training must lie with Needs Assessors.



Trainers and Engineers Looking at NARs

In our experience students are happy to show their NARs to trainers. The training information included in some NARs can indeed be useful to trainers. For invoicing purposes and to ensure training recommendations aren't exceeded, it is essential that trainers do see students NARs. If engineers (who setup students machines following delivery of equipment) ask to see students reports, students would I'm sure oblige. Indeed we come across many students who report that the engineer also tried to get them to do the ATT with themselves. Obviously we only meet the students who don't take up the engineers offer.



Regarding the Quality of Training

There seems to be a huge range in the quality of ATT being provided. We often have students referred to us who have had initial sessions with another supplier. The students were not happy with the original training and someone in the students university refers the student to us. Clearly, this does not mean that equipment suppliers can't provide good training. From Chris's post it shows suppliers have a willingness to break down ATT and make it as effective as possible. 

However, I was motivated to write this post as there is one element of Chris's training methodology that I can maybe offer some advice on. I agree with a lot of what Chris says especially regarding feedback, but I disagree with the approach to teaching students with a preferred visual learning style. Multi sensory teaching and learning styles can be very useful but it can be misunderstood and/ or misused. If a student is a visual learner it's not optimal to have them watch someone else using a computer during training. 

We wouldn't ask a visual learner who is learning to drive, to watch the instructor drive a car. Getting the student to use the equipment themselves is fundamental. To my mind ATT is a form of teaching, but when students simply watch a trainer use the equipment this is tantamount to a demonstration of the equipment, rather than training. While this is much easier for the trainer, the student is not empowered and does not learn as effectively. 

Despite the range in the quality of ATT, there is no distinction made within NAR regarding the quality of the training that is recommended. Assessors choose the best computer for students needs (not the most convenient or the cheapest). I feel that the same should apply to ATT. If Needs Assessors are to scrutinise ATT, there needs to be a more information in the training section of NAR about the quality of training offered by the supplier.    



Training companies vs equipment suppliers

To be completely fair to equipment suppliers, we have trained students who have had substandard training from other dedicated training companies as well. But on the whole the dedicated training suppliers seem to be very good. I have limited knowledge of all of them but know EDEN have a good reputation because they incorporate study skills into their training. We likewise utilise study skills knowledge during ATT, we make sure our trainers are experienced with IT and assistive technology; and we reward their expertise well. We use a training methodology, and trainers are able to adapt their training to visual learners, auditory learners etc but from the foundation that all students should be in control of the equipment. We help our new trainers develop their teaching ability before they start training and we take pride in making sure students get the most from their assistive equipment.




David Williams
Assistive Solutions Limited
35 Kingsland Road
London E8 2AA

Tel: 00 44 20 7749 3775
Fax: 00 44 20 7739 7742
Mobile: 07779 704 693

E Mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.assistiveitsolutions.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Georgiou
Sent: 20 October 2009 17:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: providers for training and technology

Dear Chris, 

The detail of what you say makes good reading, including your comment that, "there are great supplying/training companies out there too." I would like to hear from others like you because there is no why the field should be dominated by mediocrity; either in terms of market share or a working practice that exhausts and demoralises the efforts of students and  support providers alike. This sector has enough experience, know-how, capacity for innovation, dedication and good will to solve or significantly reduce the occurance of these problems. There really are no excuses for poor service. 

This message is copied to other lists, as it has a bearing on the exchanges therein last week. 

Kind regards, 

Penny Georgiou

 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Association of Study Aids and Strategies Assessors discussion list on behalf of Sheldon Gold 
	Sent: Tue 20/10/2009 16:28 
	To: [log in to unmask] 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: providers for training and technology
	
	

	Hi Penny,

	 

	I'm a DSA supplier and when we initially started the business we sub-contracted our training work as I felt it would be too much to take onboard right away. Later I believed that the training could be improved, the sub-contractor did not, so I brought the training in-house. 

	 

	I secured two neuropsychologists to help develop a structured framework of training. This resulted in the following:

	 

	1) Trainers - trained and aware of Multiple Intelligence principles.

	 

	2) Trainer performs a mini 3-5 minute assessment to identify aims / challenges / computer literacy / any pre-existing coping strategies.

	 

	3) Trainer prioritises suitable features - best suited to the trainees needs, and develops a training program for the Trainee. 

	 

	4) Finally, Trainer delivers training aligned to the Trainees preferred learning style; for instance if they learn mainly by doing, (kinaesthetic), then we'll get them to take control and talk them through what to do, if they learn by seeing, (Visual), our trainer will take control of the PC and show them how to use the software.

	 

	I mention this to point out that there are suppliers who take their responsibilities to students seriously. If there is one supplier (or many) who are taking advantage of the system - then Assessors should be aware of it. I for one am disappointed that all the hard work and effort we've made as a supplying company (I am aware of several others with a similar ethos), may be ignored because of a minority who are taking advantage. 

	 

	Regarding trainer feedback - we see it as a great tool for learning about the way our customers interact with their specialist software. We use it to constantly enhance the way we customise operating systems and we can spot quickly when online updates cause conflictions, so that we can prevent this happening for other students.

	 

	Trainer feedback is an extremely important tool for motivated and adaptive suppliers like ourselves and it is a shame that we have been tarnished by the supplier/s who may be exploiting it. 

	 

	You're right too Penny, in that you have brought this to people's attention. I simply wanted to state that there are a lot of great supplying/training companies out there too. 

 

Kind Regards
Chris Quickfall
Managing Director 

Invate Signature Logo

Invate Ltd
Gateshead IBC 
Mulgrave Terrace
Gateshead
NE8 1AN

tel:  0191 490 9178
mob:  07747 534 644

fax:  0191 490 9180

email: [log in to unmask] 
web: www.invate.co.uk <http://www.invate.co.uk/> 

Co. Reg No: 04949747

  _____  

DISCLAIMER: 
The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on this information; you should contact the System Manager at [log in to unmask] and delete the material from any computer.  The contents of this email are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the Company. 

  _____  

	 

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Association of Study Aids and Strategies Assessors discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Georgiou
	Sent: 20 October 2009 12:29
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: providers for training and technology

	 

	Hello MXXX, 

	 

	I agree with you. These are very important issues. Indeed, part of the concern is that, where the supplier is the training provider, real and recurring problems with the equipment do not come to light until much later, often by chance. For example, at a needs assessment for post graduate study, or by some other contingency. Eg, a student came to see me recently, who didnt want to use the usual suspects because his sister had a laptop which was always crashing without resolution for two years. She was now at the end of her studies. Where AT trainers are not required to report back, we have a situation where computer suppliers may well be simply vying for the training contract in order to ensure that any technical errors go unreported. I am not saying that this is all computer suppliers, but I am saying that, where it is exists,  this problem is a longstanding one and that it is ongoing...Typically, where a company has been particularly agressive about being the ones to do the training, ostensibly under the banner of being 'proactive', while at the same time the quality of training that they provide is only sometimes better than mediocre. Of course if the aims are other that providing the best quality training possible, there is no chance of achieving this as a sideeffect with any consistency. And, this is defended as somehow inevitable variability in the quality of training....Such suppliers also would have a vested interest in making the life of the trainer as difficult as possible. 

	 

	Ideally, independent AT trainers would be familiar with the systems of companies whose hardware provides the platform for the software being trained. 

	 

	The situation at the moment is a rather ugly turf war, which obstructs the process of trouble shooting and problem solving for students's systems. 

	 

	Kind regards, 

	 

	Penny Georgiou

	 



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2440 - Release Date: 10/20/09 10:43:00