It's more a critical commentary of the training itself, I'd say, rather than
of the actual trainers. You make a good point Jeremy about the number of
hours allocated to the training and the timing of those hours in relation to
student need.
But the elephant in the room, IMHO, is the fact that one intensive 3 hour
session is not really the right way to learn how to use a software program.
We know from our own experience of learning a software package that we don't
try and do it all in one go. Usually we try to learn one aspect of it for a
small chunk of time, and follow this by a process of reflection,
conceptualisation and experimentation. Then, sometime later, we repeat the
process with the next aspect of the program we want to learn.
Unfortunately this isn't really a practical model for the traditional
peripatetic trainer, who has to physically go to where the student is to do
the training.
Mike p
PS Paul - I couldn't find the info you mentioned via the link:
http://practitioners.studentfinanceengland.co.uk/portal/page?_pageid=133,421
0339&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Is it in one of the powerpoint files?
I don't know what Chris Quickfall's neuropsychologists make of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Fox
Sent: 23 October 2009 12:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: providers for training and technology
This is an interesting discussion - but perhaps a little uni-dimensional in
that the critical commentary has been directed almost exclusively to the
quality of trainers. As a major training provider, we take it as a given
that trainers should be good teachers, well-versed and up-to-date in the
technology, and appropriately trained in and sensitive to the various
special needs of the students. Where we often encounter problems is in the
amount of training recommended by assessors. Some assessors recognize the
importance of training and allocate sufficient time, but many do not. As a
result, even the best training can end up being quite cursory. The most
common request we receive from students is for more training time. One
assessor - who may even be a reader of this thread - may recall telling me
that 'in common with many of his colleagues' he didn't really believe in
training and considered it a waste of money. I don't wish to be
controversial, but if we are talking about standards, perhaps we might also
think about the very different ways in which assessors make their
recommendations .
A related issue is that students often do not need to use all of their
awarded technology immediately and when, perhaps a couple of months after
their training, they come to use a piece of software for the first time,
they have forgotten how to do so. As far as possible, we try to cover the
cost of any additional training ourselves, but for obvious reasons we can't
promise to do this. Again, a little spare allocation of training time would
not go amiss.
Another issue concerns how trainers are selected in a SFE-controlled
quotation system. Our understanding is that the SFE effectively overlooks
the criterion of "student choice" and selects - well they call it the "most
cost-effective" training, but what they mean in practice is the "cheapest".
High quality, well-qualified trainers are not so plentiful that they can be
had at any price. The phrase "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" may be a
cliché but, unfortunately, it applies.
Finally, a word about suppliers as training providers. I think one of the
key factors here is that while a supplier can effectively supply equipment
to any part of the country from a single location simply by boxing up the
order and sending it by post or courier, trainers can't, unfortunately, be
parceled up and mailed. They need to be local, and sufficiently plentiful to
meet local demand. I don't know if even the largest equipment suppliers on
the QAG list can effectively guarantee high-quality training in all the
region(s) to which they send equipment.
|
