Print

Print


At the least, this is an implicit assumption of Education, which socialises people into participating in the society which claims them/us.

I prefer to have the tools with which to work things out for myself. Probably many parents want their children to be able to mange when they can no longer look after them.

Although independence can never be completely achieved; partly because it is  impossible, partly due to the bond of social ties, which are sometimes transformed into the exploitation of sustaining dependency beyond the necessity.

Freud considered education to be one of the three impossible professions: 'to educate", ' to cure' and 'to govern'; to which he added 'to psychoanalyse'.

Kind regards

Penny

Sent from Samsung Mobile



-------- Original message --------
From: Simon Bloor <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 09/05/2013 23:11 (GMT+00:00)
To: Penny Georgiou <[log in to unmask]>,[log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Successful Equipment Use


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