Hi - the examples you refer to are perfect examples of a failure in the 'sector' to join up information....

Assessors do not, by and large, have any idea what works and what does not...they do not have to suffer the consequences of their recommendations....

We have a wholly imperfect system - with lots of people wanting the best from it.

My feeling is ...if we can join some bits together, recognise the evidence already out there in terms of effective implementation of support (including AT)  and get over ourselves...we'll be able to arrive at a more workable, efficient, appropriate support system.

Simon



-----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