Dear all -
Slightly 'off topic'...but associated...
What mandate does HE to encourage / force students down the route of independence?
Regards
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Penny Georgiou
Sent: 09 May 2013 19:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
Cheers, John.
Can this be taken to DSSG, and it's AT sub group?
Kind regards,
Penny
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Conway
Sent: 09 May 2013 19:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
Seems like we are in agreement then ..... Sessions tailored to the student, neither enforced 3 hours sessions nor outlawed ones!
With regards,
John
Sent from my iPad
On 9 May 2013, at 18:45, "Penny Georgiou" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello John et al,
>
> Deb and EA's research, which our students participated in extensively,
> has recently begun to be quoted as indicating that students want
> shorter sessions. I would like to see the raw data. Deb and EA's
> presentation of the data at NADP conference last year did not seem to
> contradict our own findings; ie that students are very happy with the
> length of their sessions when they found that they were learning well
> from the training. Under these circumstances, the time (up to 3 hours
> with a break) according to student testimonies, passes very quickly.
> Students, in my experience, tend to say that the sessions are too long
> when they do not feel that they are being taught anything. Often, this
> is a question about the quality/style of training. When the 'rapport'
> is otherwise good but the student is unable to concentrate due to
> their condition or learning style, we change the length of the
> session. We also make it easy for students to ask for a change of
> trainer if they are not happy. We do not try to persuade students to
> work with someone with whom 'it isnt happening'. It doesn't work to do
> so, aside from being deeply unpleasant. I worked to the same policy
> when I placed students with dyslexia support tutors from the beginning
> of my practice. If students didn't like a particular tutor, they would
> be placed without question with someone else, with taking style
> preferences into account. This usually worked very well, both for students, tutors and their beleaguered coordinator, not least because noone was being coerced.
>
> There has been a tendency recently to push for remote training and
> other variations as if they are like-for-like with what is apparently
> necessary for the vast majority of students (in my experience as a DO,
> as an assessor, as someone who set up and coordinated a training
> provision and now as a centre manager). Ie, to be trained within the
> context of their home workstation, someone independent who can ensure
> that equipment is in working order to facilitate strategies, and then
> to work through with a person who humanises the learning process the
> task of skills building for coordination, multitasking, contextualising and dextrous management of their learning.
> There are explicitly sound pedagogical reasons for this for students
> with perceptual difficulities (memory, concentration, orientation,
> spatial awareness, as well as shame before others associated with
> learning - a common feature of SpLD). On site training is also
> relevant for different reasons for students with physical and sensory issues that affect ergonomy.
> (I would be happy to give a workshop for those who are interesting in
> engaging with some fundamentals of teaching/learning - simple elements
> that constitute the necessary foundations which we take for granted
> but which make the process impossible if they are not in place. Hence,
> the 'urban myth' that is now trying to exclude half day sessions is as
> likely to be spin coming from commercial interests who prefer the
> benefit accruing from an 'at arm's length', or at any rate minimum
> involvement with the challenges of student learning.
>
> There have been attempts to outlaw 3 hour sessions - it would be a
> travesty born of ignorance or mischief if this were to happen. It
> would also make onsite AT Training unnecesarily more expensive. It is
> already an ill understood and under-utilised service and some
> extensive homework, including investigation of the real quality of
> training in practice as well as of the infrastructures (including the
> relevanceof assessor recommendations by following student journeys) before we further fix misconceptions in stone.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Penny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Conway [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 09 May 2013 17:18
> To: Penny Georgiou
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
>
> I've been following this thread with great interest as so many
> different perspectives are brought out. One point that is absolutely
> crucial is that training is delivered on an individual basis, ie
> recognising the needs of the individual especially bearing in mind their particular impairment.
> assessors go to great lengths to ensure an individual assessment, it
> would be a shame to then provide standard training. Training for a
> person with dyslexia may need to be designed quite differently to that
> for a person with ADD; and no two people with dyslexia are the same.
> That demands a very high level of skill at tailoring the training,
> indeed at rapidly adapting it ..... As well as really understanding
> the nature of various impairments / disabilities.
>
> the data quoted from EA and Deb suggests how students view the best
> way to receive training....typically in short bursts as and when
> needed and to provide reinforcement; that sounds like a typical way
> to work with dyslexic students. Hence the Disabled Student Allowance
> model of so many half day sessions is not really in tune with the
> student's needs. That has implications for who might be best placed to deliver the training perhaps.
>
> I'm quite taken with the idea that the training should not be simply
> optional though from surveying my own students, they do highlight
> issues of not knowing how to book training, who to contact etc so
> while it is "allocated" by SFE to a trainer perhaps the named trainer
> should be more proactive in offering the training, though of course if
> they are not the supplier how would they know when the equipment had been delivered?
>
> Ensuring that the training is in strategies not just in the technical
> operation of a particular programme would make it far more applicable.
> So many of my students say they don't need training because they are
> computer literate but still want dyslexia tuition that could have been
> replaced by sensible use of the AT.
>
> In the context of the current BIS consultation on possibly reducing
> the AT provision, it does seem a shame that better use of the AT
> integrated into study techniques is not achieved.
>
> I'm in two minds about Penny's suggestion. It is true that HEIs may
> rely on the Disabled Student Allowance but they are entitled to rely on the Disabled
> Student Allowance pay for what it can supply. An audit of accessibility
> may shame some HEIs into being more accessible and inclusive but
> institutional computers and networked software will not suit all
> students (how could anyone with attention deficits for whatever reason
> work in a noisy communal computer room?) If increasing inclusivity
> led to degrading the personal nature of the Disabled Student Allowance
> provision that could be counterproductive for the student.
>
> The theme we must not lose sight of is that both inclusive HEI
> practice and the Disabled Student Allowance must provide the best
> enabling environment for disadvantaged students rather than supporting
> various business interests or HEI economies.
>
>
> With regards,
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 May 2013, at 16:54, "Penny Georgiou"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Alistair
>>
>> Would the HEI academy be in a position to coordinate an accessibility
> audit with HEIs? The results could be listed on a particular page on
> the institution's website, so that students and assessors could consult this.
> Perhaps, this could be done with assistance of disabled students
> representatives in the local NUS.
>>
>> DSA may well have arrested some of the work towards more accessible
> teaching and learning, on the assumption that the individual
> adjustments are sufficient. As this thread has already indicated, the
> triumph of a shopping list of gadgets may look as study obstacles have
> been addressed but the reality rests on the details of teaching and
> learning; be it of AT or the subject matter.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> PG
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alistair McNaught
>> Sent: 09 May 2013 16:46
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
>>
>> I think your posting raises some interesting wider questions, not
>> least
> the intersection between the institution, the course and the
> individual's needs.
>>
>> Our work with library departments and alternative formats illustrates
>> some
> of these points.
>> Library A specifies accessibility as a requirement when procuring
>> e-book
> platforms and has text to speech and other tools installed across the
> network.
>> Library B has a fair few inaccessible e-book platforms but is very
> proactive at working with publishers to get digital versions of
> textbooks Library C has little experience of either of the above.
>> Print disabled students in library C may need a much bigger range of
> software (maybe even hardware) to complete their course effectively
> compared to a student in library A or B.
>>
>> Should DSA take into account the quality of the HEI's inclusive
>> teaching
> and learning? If there are fewer barriers at source do you need so
> many ladders over them?
>>
>> A
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Freelance AT Trainer
>> Sent: 09 May 2013 09:33
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Successful Equipment Use
>>
>> A very interesting topic, although it does seem to be very much about
> bashing the trainer, rather than looking at the whole process.
>>
>> As a freelance AT/IT trainer with 4 years experience in the AT field
>> and
> longer as an Adult educator I personally find the job extremely
> rewarding - the moment when the student grasps the concept that it
> isn't about knowing this button does this or that but that 'this is
> how you apply the software to YOUR specific need' is great. All to
> often however it is a struggle to persuade the student to take the
> training at all (particularly the 18-21 age
> group) - let us be honest with each other; we all know a sizable
> proportion of those who receive computer funding via the DSA see it as
> a means to a free laptop and that is where their interest in the process stops.
>>
>> I personally find it incredulous that an individual can receive two
>> or
> three thousand pounds worth of tax payer funded equipment/software and
> then leave the training as an option, rather than an absolute
> requirement - no training, no equipment should be the mantra here.
>>
>> It also causes me occasional bouts of consternation when I see a
>> student
> doing English language, or Medicine (basically, any non-graphic design
> based
> course) and they have a Mac, why? A basic Macbook/MacbookPro/iMac is
> not packing a significant amount of extra processing power than a £400
> laptop, yet costs double or more - that could be another student who
> receives funding. Not to mention that all of the prominent AT packages
> (Claro, Read & Write, Dragon, Office, Mindview, Audio Notetaker,
> etc...) are much more capable, intuitive and flexible on a Windows
> platform than a Mac OS platform.
>>
>> I must also mention that even if the student is doing a design based
> course a Mac is quite often an unnecessary extravagance (unless there
> is a course specific piece of software such as Final Cut Pro) as all
> of the major software (i.e. Adobe Creative Suite and similar) is
> EXACTLY THE SAME on both platforms with the exception of 1 short cut key.
>>
>> One student I trained was studying 3D game design and was given a 13"
> Macbook Pro - a piece of equipment completely unsuitable for the
> course (all Windows based Software) as it could not run the specialist
> course software packages (which were available as free downloads) and
> it was woefully under-powered (on-board graphics, not a dedicated 3D
> graphics card - so ok for word processing, pretty useless for pushing
> a quarter of a million polygons around a complex game design) and a
> 13" screen ? Any design student should be getting at least a 15"
> screen on a laptop (preferably 17", although no longer available on MacBook/MacBookPro).
>>
>> Please note, I am not 'bashing' Macs, I own one and it is a perfectly
>> good
> piece of kit, but in my experience students want them because they are
> 'cool' and 'oooo, so shiny!', not because they are the most
> appropriate computer for their requirements.
>>
>> Returning to the funding issue, why is the process not means-tested?
>> I
> have met students whose parents are bankers, doctors, company
> directors, etc (even a student who was a retired company director, and
> one who's parents were funding a deep sea recovery operation of a
> bullion shipwreck! - seriously, you can't make this stuff up) and all
> of their kit is still state funded, even thought they already tend to
> have thousands of pounds worth of kit - quite often better than that
> supplied through the DSA. Yet I will see a student who is quite
> frankly, at the other end of the social/economic scale and extremely
> appreciative of what the process can do to assist them but they are
> refused kit because they are overly honest about their situation -
> 'yes I already have a laptop and a printer, they are 5 years old but
> they still work'. Hmm, yes, but they barely work and are usually incapable of running most of the software at an acceptable speed.
>>
>> I see no issues in wealth being a barrier to receiving help via the
>> DSA,
> but it should be taken into account when deciding how the equipment is
> funded on a student by student basis.
>>
>> And finally, the part of the process that has received the least
>> amount of
> criticism, the assessment process itself. During my time in the
> industry I regularly come across students who define their assessment
> to me as a process that lasted anywhere between 30 and 90 minutes,
> where quite often the assessor simply recommends this or that without
> giving the student a chance to see the differences between different
> packages. A common one is giving students Inspiration on the basis
> that is very simple (which it is) but it has its limitations, whereas
> Mindview has much more capable features, is visually similar to MS
> office so the tools are fairly intuitive, but is deemed 'too
> complicated' for some students and so they don't even get to see it.
> And don't even get me started on the Olympus Audio Book compared to Audio Notetaker!
>>
>> I know there are good assessors out there (I personally know some of
>> them)
> but there are not-so good ones too, but the system treats the assessor
> as the all knowing professional and the trainer as the barely
> qualified bloke who turns up at the end of the process and tells you
> which buttons to press, This is demeaning and insulting, we typically
> spend far longer with the student, personalizing the training process
> to the individual - quite often we can identify errors made by the
> assessor in terms of equipment and software, but the system doesn't
> allow us to make recommendations as this is seen as undermining the integrity and professionalism of the assessor.
>>
>> The point I am trying to make is that we are all part of the same
>> team, we
> are all, hopefully, trying to ensure that the student receives the
> appropriate resources and support and can take those resources to help
> them perform to the best of their ability so shouldn't we all treat
> each other as equally valuable parts of the machine, even if that
> machine is in need of a overhaul?
>>
>> Rant over. That is All.
>> This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not
> disclose, copy, or distribute information in this email nor take any
> action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone
> astray before deleting it. Please note that views expressed in this
> email are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Higher Education Academy.
> Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that
> Internet e-mail is not a secure communications medium. We advise that
> you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us.
> Although we have taken steps to ensure this e-mail and attachments are
> free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing
> practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. The
> Higher Education Academy Registered No 4930131
|