Hallo Natalya,
I'm working on a benchmark of sorts, if that is even possible, of STTR/palantype and Remote Captioning / Respeaking.
My personal preferences, are on-site palantype, with deaf awareness (and ideally some BSL - you know my preference for sign over oral).
I'm trying to measure quality over quantity with all options available to d/D, with my 'one size does not fit all' cap on, and the mantra of 'nothing about us without us'.
No pressure!
Good luck with those 6,000 words!
Sebastiaan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Natalya D [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 December 2015 15:34
To: Eldritch-Boersen,SR <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHESSFORUM] DSA cuts
Hi Sebastiaan,
I can comment on remote captioning as I use it through AtW.
One major issue is getting it to work reliably and quickly over wifi and working out the tech to get audio from speaker to captioner and then text from captioner back to deaf user. I haven't resolved this optimally yet. There are issues about what DSA will fund to do this as they want the captioning agency to pay *grrr*.
I also struggle when there is a substantial lag in captions which is inherent to remote (transmission times of audio/text etc) and is even more lengthy when respeaking rather than STTR is used. This is because I'm listening/lipreading then glancing at the caption screen to merge my memory of what I've heard with what I can read v quickly. It doesn't suit people who can't read quickly although electronic notetaking and summary captions services do exist for that.
I don't like using respeaking (another way of generating captions) cos of lag then accuracy issues. Some people are happy with respeaking though, but it's always worth finding out what you are being provided with cos there are differences.
Some of our students struggle with remote STTR/respeaking because the captioners don't know what is happening in the room cos they can't see so stuff gets missed. Sometimes it matters more than others. One hour lectures are usually OK, it's all-day teaching sessions which are mixed teaching styles which are more challenging.
I tend to use in-person STTR/palantypy for half/whole day sessions where I can because having the STTR op in the room makes a huge difference as they pick up the vibe and are able to do a much better quality job of giving me realtime text access and the captions are quicker (~1s for the good STTR ops). But there aren't enough STTR ops in the UK so it's a bit of a chore to arrange them and sort funding. In some ways I wish I could sign better and use a BSL terp as those are more prevalent.
There are new realtime verbatim captioning options such as velotype in development but I don't know how they work out and I would want to make sure that like members of Association of Verbatim Speech to Text Reporters that veloptypists also have very good deaf awareness. Most STTR ops I have met have deaf awareness quals and many have some BSL/SSE which is helpful for communication ease.
Natalya - really must stop procrastinating over this essay! :)
On 09/12/2015 14:58, Eldritch-Boersen,SR wrote:
> Hallo Alasdair,
>
> I think you’ve hit a chord there with consultation – or lack thereof –
> so common with service provision within the disability support sector.
>
> What are your thoughts on Remote Captioning?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Sebastiaan.
>
> *From:*Alasdair Grant [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* 09 December 2015 14:54
> *To:* Eldritch-Boersen,SR <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* RE: DSA cuts
>
> Dear Eldritch,
>
> I agree and I would like to see more consultation with D/d users of
> the service to ensure that their needs are met - on what they think is
> the most effective means giving access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
> students. I am interested in exploring more innovative and more modern
> ways of educating Deaf and Hard of Hearing students who pursue Further
> and Higher Education beyond that of the traditional lecture - through
> providing accessible learning materials - i.e. a written version of a
> lecture note instead of it being delivered verbally. Many professional
> bodies such as Chartered Institute of Management Accountants already
> undertake online approaches with tutorial support. I had experienced a
> similar approach with the Recruitment Employers Confederation - online
> tutorials with a personal tutor.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alasdair
>
> On 9 December 2015 14:47:19 -00:00, Eldritch-Boersen,SR
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
> A lot of Alasdair’s (and others) comments here resonate with me.
>
> I have already written to my MP on three occasions but so far,
> nothing. I suspect I am not alone.
>
> *From:*Discussion list for CHESS [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *On Behalf Of *Alasdair Grant
> *Sent:* 09 December 2015 14:37
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: DSA cuts
>
> Dear all,
>
> From my own experience, I have found trained post-graduate
> manual notetaking to be more effective because notetakers
> regardless of how skilled they often do not know the complex
> subject that is being taught. My notetaker once spelt
> phytoplankton as fighterplankton - which is completely wrong.
> Trained post-graduate notetakers who have both notetaking skills
> as well as subject knowledge to be the most effective forms of
> notetaking.
>
> I have since avoided formal taught lectures preferring to learn
> from reading through textbooks and appropriate literature
> obtained from bonafide academic publications from online
> academic journals, appropriate lecture notes. I adopted this
> approach for my MSc in Conservation Ecology, and gained
> distinctions for my assignments, if I had followed the
> traditional approach I would have only just passed.
>
> I am starting to think that lectures are now an old fashioned
> way of teaching. There are newer and more modern ways of
> educating students - i.e. online media, teaching, the Open
> University is the leader, and many professional bodies now run
> online training course. I have found this to be a much more
> accessible way for my own learning. Power point presentations
> are much better than a person standing there chatting away
> non-stop. I believe that there is much more that Universities
> can do to make their teaching more accessible for Deaf students
> - online MScs are a good way forward.
>
> If I were a lecturer - I would not give any lectures at all, but
> instead give written notes and visual learning materials direct
> to students to read, consider, and think for themselves, and I
> would continue to give tutorials though. I believe that the Open
> University approach is best the way forward.
>
> I found that I learnt more from my three month placement in the
> Chief Scientist Group than I had ever did during my three years
> under-graduate degree at Bristol University thanks to being
> surrounded by a vast range of teaching materials. Moreover, I
> had learnt more about statistics from undertaking my own
> independent study from developing an ecological statistics
> software package from following textbooks - producing software
> that actually does work and produce correct results - I learnt
> more from doing this work than I did from listening to 3 hours
> of garbled noise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alasdair
>
> On 9 December 2015 13:42:43 -00:00, O'NEILL Rachel
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I think it’s crucial that BIS is approached about this.
>
> It would help if d/Deaf users and organisations of
> notetakers and maybe awarding bodies could have some clear
> UK-wide standards in place which outline these skills.
>
> Changing from summary to live notes for example during a
> class, knowing when to do this and why, modifying notes for
> particular d/Deaf students etc are not really parts of the
> note taking role for other groups of students. It would be
> easier to argue for a band 3 role if there were widely
> agreed standards in place. But it could take ages to agree.
> If these changes go through in England deaf students’ access
> to university will take a step back 25 years, from next
> September.
>
> Another approach is to continue with establishing UK
> standards and make sure electronic notetakers are
> recommended for deaf students, not manual ones. But already
> this will pose issues of supply. I have met DSA assessors
> who have not recommended electronic notetakers in their
> assessments because none are available locally.
>
> Other organisations probably interested in a joint approach
> to BIS would be: NDCS, BATOD, Adept. What about also BDA,
> AOHL, National Association Deafened People?
>
> Rachel
>
> On 9 Dec 2015, at 12:10, Ian F. <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I think that's the crucial point to stress when arguing
> either exemption or moving the note-taker to a band 3
> role (which I think is a better solution, as rate
> capping while apply).
>
> The main concerns I'm hearing is a reverting back to
> the days of fellow
>
> students doing notetaking which may or may not be of
> suitable quality
>
> for a student who has not reliably heard the content
> in the first place.
>
> A student who can hear what's going on can direct their
> note-taker about what's important (or not) to take down,
> even explain to the note-taker how to best summarise
> something if necessary. The specialist skills of a
> note-taker for a deaf student - ability to effectively
> but intelligently transcribe the session, have awareness
> of where a terp might struggle to convey complex
> information, awareness of differences in language
> structure of BSL and written English, etc - far outweigh
> the basic skills of a standard manual note-taker who
> really just needs to be able to turn up on time, keep
> from getting involved in lecture discussions, be able to
> spell and be able to take down legible notes at a
> reasonable speed.
>
> But, who can take all these arguments forward to BIS?
>
> Ian
>
> Is that something we can stress to BIS/etc - that
> it's more of a big
>
> deal if the notetaking isn't accurate for deaf/HOH
> as the student has
>
> not heard the content to be able to identify this
> like those with other
>
> impairments? It can't be extricated from the
> impairment and we know
>
> trying to treat all impairment groups the same
> inevitably leaves some
>
> missing out more (in this case and say atw that's
> deaf people).
>
> I think reasonableness is going to depend on the HEI
> as manual
>
> notetaking can cost a few hundred up to a few
> thousand a year depending
>
> on hours of lectures needed. Large Russell Group
> universities won't have
>
> a leg to stand on, but could be bureaucratically
> difficult for a deaf
>
> student to challenge if they weren't "deemed" to
> need notetaking.
>
> Smaller HEIs could struggle with multiples of a few
> thousand for a
>
> handful of deaf students even if they had lecture
> capture and other things.
>
> Natalya
>
> On 07/12/2015 16:16, Bryan Coleman wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Paddy Turner (Chair of NADP) has written about
> this on another list
>
> and has
>
> given me permission to share his response to the
> question - will deaf
>
> students' note-takers still be funded as they
> are seen as having 'complex
>
> needs'? Paddy wrote:
>
> " I've heard this view expressed as well, but it
> is not my understanding.
>
> The way in which BIS have decided on whether
> something is DSA-able or
>
> not is
>
> related to the complexity of the support
> function rather than the
>
> impairment.
>
> Thus Manual Notetaking has become a role that
> will not be supported by
>
> DSAs
>
> whereas BSL Interpreting, for example, will
> continue to be supported.
>
> The only coda to this is the decision to allow
> exceptional
>
> circumstances to
>
> mean that in certain circumstances a function
> such as manual
>
> notetaking will
>
> be covered by DSAs. These circumstances have not
> been decided and will
>
> form
>
> part of ongoing consultation between BIS and the
> sector. However, what is
>
> clear to me, is that exceptionality will not be
> based on the
>
> impairment, but
>
> on the issue of reasonableness. In other words,
> in what exceptional
>
> circumstances might the provision be deemed
> unreasonable to provide by
>
> the
>
> Institution for that student irrespective of the
> impairment.
>
> This is my interpretation,
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paddy"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Discussion list for CHESS
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>
> Behalf
>
> Of Ian F.
>
> Sent: 07 December 2015 12:49
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: DSA cuts
>
> When govt decisions don't make sense these days,
> I suspect it can
>
> often be
>
> down to some organisations (and agencies) having
> more efficient lobbyists
>
> than others, sadly. ...
>
> Ian
>
> On 04/12/2015 21:18, Natalya D wrote:
>
> I'm also intrigued that sighted guide was
> exempted but not notetaking
>
> for deaf students. Really do wonder how they
> decided that, unless
>
> it's a token thing they could climbdown on...
>
> As someone on Facebook said to me: "It's all
> so boring AND complicated
>
> it's hard to keep up with what is actually
> happening and what is new
>
> news and what is just spin"
>
> Natalya
>
> On 04/12/2015 21:00, O'NEILL Rachel wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I think that's a good idea Natalya to
> get UK-wide agreement on
>
> notetaker skills. Maybe Melanie's on
> this list?
>
> It's an important piece of work, not
> quick, but I would be happy to
>
> join in off list and then maybe consult
> on it?
>
> The Signature course came harder and
> harder to get people through,
>
> and since then all sorts of training has
> come and gone locally.
>
> It would be good to get UK standards
> agreed, so qualifications could
>
> then be produced based on them. If that
> had been in place, maybe the
>
> DSA would not have targeted notetakers
> so much.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rachel
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Discussion list for CHESS
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on
> behalf
>
> of Natalya D <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> Sent: 04 December 2015 13:41
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: DSA cuts
>
> Do we actually have a concrete idea of
> notetaking training contents
>
> and qualifications for deaf students?
>
> I had OCN Level 2 notetakers in the day
> but some weren't very good
>
> even then. I know Melanie Thorley is
> writing up her thesis into
>
> something publishable on this. Most
> notetakers I know of come
>
> through agencies who do their own, some
> are good, some aren't good.
>
> I try and encourage the student to feed
> back, make clear requests and
>
> request replacements for poor notetakers
> sooner rather than later.
>
> I also sent this
>
>
> http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/28388/5574
>
> 2_1.pdf?sequence=1
>
> to the consultation which is a paper
> about deaf students' experiences
>
> at HE from Australia.
>
> I think we need to point to existing (or
> create) training and
>
> specific skills/competencies notetakers
> MUST have, either in general,
>
> or specifically for deaf students.
>
> I find it bizarre that sighted guide has
> been suddenly exempted when
>
> visually impaired students hardly need
> any of that as a rule - we aim
>
> to get them mobility trained so they can
> mobilise independently where
>
> possible/reasonable/feasible... I'd love
> to know the reasoning for
>
> that exemption and not deaf students'
> manual notetaking exemption...
>
> Who or how would we ask?
>
> Are people here filling in the latest
> framework "consultation"?
>
> Natalya
>
> On 04/12/2015 12:47, Ian F. wrote:
>
> It's going to go back to the days
> when we used to have to recruit
>
> volunteers from the local community
> to provide support for students,
>
> which always had varying results and
> students basically had to be
>
> grateful for what they got, rather
> than having any control over the
>
> quality of their support.
>
> Anyhow, I would argue that
> specialist note-taking for deaf
> students
>
> should always have been a band 3
> support type anyway and I wonder
>
> why this wasn't raised earlier, or
> if so what was the response? I do
>
> get that basic note-taking support
> for a student who can hear the
>
> tutor could go into band 2, but for
> a deaf student surely it's a
>
> more specialist role so should be
> moved up a band anyway?
>
> Ian Francis
>
> On 04/12/2015 11:08, Bryan Coleman
> wrote:
>
> Hello Rachel,
>
> Yes - electronic note-taking, as
> a 'band 3' role, will still be
>
> funded.
>
> I should have included the full
> statement from the minister in
> my
>
> e-mail - it is here:
>
>
> http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-an
>
>
> swers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-12-02/HCWS347/
>
> Obviously, this only applies to
> students who receive DSA from
>
> Student Finance England.
>
> I agree that the risk of 'patchy
> provision' will increase as a
>
> result of this. Similar to a
> postcode lottery really, as
> different
>
> institutions (and departments
> possibly!) take different
> approaches
>
> to support and inclusive
> practice. The Department for
> Business
>
> Innovation and Skills
>
> (BIS) are currently working on a
> Quality Assurance Framework
> for
>
> support workers (aka
> NMH/Non-Medical Helpers). This
> should be ready
>
> for the end of January when the
> 'two quotes exemptions' (more
> info
>
> here:
>
>
> http://www.slc.co.uk/stakeholders-partners/updates/disabled-student
>
>
> s-service-for-student-finance-england/exclusive-arrangements-with-n
>
>
> on-medical-help-nmh-suppliers.aspx
>
> ) finish, but early signs/drafts
> of the Framework are not good.
>
> Some of us are involved in the
> consultation on this but it's
> very
>
> rushed!
>
> The government is saying that
> universities should be taking
> their
>
> duties under the Equality Act
> more seriously - but this
> really
>
> seems to be a 'justification'
> for the cuts, rather than
> anything
>
> more.
>
> I think some institutions are
> planning to meet the costs of
> bands 1
>
> and 2, but I'm sure many are not.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bryan
>
> *From:*Discussion list for CHESS
>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> *On Behalf Of *O'NEILL Rachel
>
> *Sent:* 04 December 2015 10:42
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *Subject:* Re: DSA cuts
>
> Thank you Bryan
>
> Very bad news. Am I right in
> saying that electronic note
> taking is
>
> likely to be protected and sign
> language interpreters?
>
> I know that many universities
> use manual notetakers, and
> often
>
> these people are untrained and
> the assessments may not
> identify
>
> that electronic note taking
>
> would be better. Some
> universities may not take
> seriously their
>
> Equality Act responsibilities.
> Universities don't take nearly
> as
>
> much notice
>
> of the Equality act as the
> Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,
> which
>
> uses up a great deal of
> administration time.
>
> I have noticed a trend towards
> mainstreaming notetakers to
> Schools
>
> and Departments, making it their
> responsibility to pay for
>
> notetakers. Of course
>
> this would be very good if the
> departments understood the issues.
>
> But will they? We have
> mainstreaming adjustments to
> learning
>
> materials, such as putting up
>
> powerpoint at least 24 hours in
> advance and prioritising
> reading
>
> lists.
>
> Nobody checks to see if this
> happens. So who will check to
> make
>
> sure the
>
> deaf student actually gets a
> manual notetaker? Will
> departments
>
> know what a trained notetaker
> looks like or how to contact them?
>
> Will they have a system
>
> to book them or find substitutes
> in advance? By offloading
>
> responsibilities for note taking
> to academics, without some
>
> compulsory training for
> lecturers, I can
>
> see a lot of deaf students
> sitting in lectures and seminars
> with no
>
> note taking support.
>
> Actually I think it's a bit
> shocking if disability offices
> allow
>
> this to happen without doing
> mandatory training for the
> academic
>
> staff linked to the deaf student.
>
> If it was prioritised more, like
> the Asylum and Nationality
> Act,
>
> the training would be compulsory
> and the academic member of
> staff
>
> would have to sign to say they
> understood it and would carry
> it
>
> out.
>
> Otherwise I'm afraid the
> Equality Act is not going to work.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rachel
>
> On 3 Dec 2015, at 17:35, Bryan
> Coleman
>
> <[log in to unmask]
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think most of you will know
> that Jo Johnson announced this
>
> yesterday. I am circulating this
> as deaf students are
>
> specifically
>
> mentioned at the end. I'm
> personally very sad that 18
> months of
>
> fighting this seems to have got
> us nowhere.
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/02/government-to-cut-
>
>
> funding-disabled-university-students-jo-johnson
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
> Bryan Coleman
>
> Head of Disability & Dyslexia
> Support Service
>
> Student Services Department
>
> University of Sheffield
>
> 0114 222 1303
>
> www.sheffield.ac.uk/disability
>
> <http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/disability>
>
>
> <http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/disability>
>
> --
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body,
> registered in
>
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
|
