Computer training for blind deaf and disabled people in their own home

Tutor Seminar - 16/03/2004

Tutor Seminar held on 16/03/2004 15:01:44 at ABBEY COMMUNITY CENTRE

Present:
Anthony Wigram (AW), Avril Hanning (AH), Chris Garbett (CG), Katherine Brennan (KB), Daniel Gilson (DG), Helen Dashwood (HD), Tracey Fawthrop (TW), Keith Penrose (KP), Patricia Webb (PW), Carl Gascoigne (CG2), Janice Pearson (JP), Sally Fonseca (SF), Gian

Apologies:
Gabriella Gatward, Lorraine Manning, Kevin Frost, Natasha Murray, Lisa Oram, Sally Wigram ,Tracy Pernice, Michelle Delgado, Debbie Brixey, Taher Ali

Minutes:
AW began with welcoming everybody to the Tutor Seminar and introduced the new venue, The Abbey Community Centre.

1. Minutes of Last Meeting

AW asked if everyone had read the minutes of the last meeting and called for any questions.

AG asked that the misspelling of her name be noted and changed. AH acknowledged this.

No other comments were made.
2. Presentation

AH announced that a bottle of champagne was to be presented to FK to congratulate him for achieving the highest earning amongst all tutors for the month of February. The presentation was however withheld, due to FK’s non-arrival at this stage.

3. Administration – Avril Hanning

AH introduced KB as a new arrival to the office, and explained that she will be taking over Maria Tremarco’s administrative position as a result of her leaving to have a baby.

i. Lesson Reports

AH spoke on behalf of Maria Tremarco, and asked all tutors to be wary when overriding previous lesson reports. She explained that many mistakes have been noted on these reports, especially when tutors are copy and pasting new details on to old templates. Tutors were warned to take care when completing lesson reports in order to prevent mistakes and any long-term inconvenience.

ii. Student Queries and Issues

AH asked that office staff are always informed of any student problems or queries. Tutors were asked to report students’ issues and questions ASAP so that these can be dealt with quickly and appropriately.

iii. Gilchrist Foundation

AH mentioned that we have been funded an amount of money from the Gilchrist Foundation. She explained that this could be used to provide small amounts of equipment and software for students, i.e. mouse/modems. If the item is not too expensive, we can provide a small amount of funding for students, and reimburse them once they have purchased the necessary equipment.

AW asked how much was left of this fund. AH answered that we have been funded about £4,000, and approximately 50% of this has been already used.

AW urged that this money does need to be spent and that tutors must encourage students to use this fund for the appropriate purposes. SF asked if we could use the money to buy larger forms of software such as JAWS. AW replied that this could be feasible if we had enough requests and it was a suitable cause.

KP suggested perhaps using the fund to provide smaller software such as Dragon. Both PW and DN agreed that this was a good idea, and PW followed by recommending that it may be more worthwhile to spend the money on lots of little amounts of software, and not using the bulk of it on JAWS, which would require a huge expense, i.e. 1 copy of Jaws, 3 or 4 copies of Dragon.

AW concluded that all of the above suggestions were worth considering, so long as we remember that the end result must benefit the student.


FK arrived and AH presented him with a bottle of champagne with congratulations on his achievement.


4. Student Recruitment and Development – Chris Garbett

i. Overall Figures

CG explained that the primary reason for outreach was to get increasing numbers of people to do the U.Can.Do.I.T. course. He was pleased to report that there had been 26% more applicants in the first 11 weeks of 2004, compared to 2003. Geographically the students are spread out rather evenly, with 23% of applicants coming from N & NW London, 30% from SW & SE London, 23% from East London, and a further 23% from West London. CG noted however, the exception of NE London, where special attention is needed.

ii. Advertising

CG highlighted that the charity is doing particularly well with attracting Blind, VI and physically disabled people, but not with the Deaf and hard of hearing community. The advertising over the last 9 months in conjunction with Transport of London has yielded approximately 100 applications, however only a handful of these were from the Deaf and hard of hearing sector. CG stressed that this was an area that needed to be looked into, and mentioned a number of action points that have already been put into place:

— A PR release to the main 5 organisations; RNID, BDA, National Deaf Children’s Society, Hearing Concern, Royal Association of Deaf People, as well as the BR Association of Hearing Therapists.
— Talks have started with the Basic Skills Manager of the S.E London RNID team, however conversations with the employment sector are still to follow.
— Focus is being placed on getting into contact with specific regional organisations such as Westminster Social Services, Croydon Hearing Resource Centre, and Deaf Umbrella E.A.S.T.

CG mentioned that with regards to Remploy, he is expecting approximately 14 new learners over the next 8 – 10 weeks coming form Barking, Woowich and Brixton. He also pointed out that a number of mail-shots have gone out to areas such as Harrow, Southwark and Richmond.

CG explained that links with Job Centre Plus were not going well, and that we needed to bid against official contracts. He went on to discuss the importance of partnership deals, and passed round a list that had been devised for our funders:

iii. ‘Where Next’ in regards to Partnership Deals

CG mentioned that our funders have been asking ‘where next’, and distributed a hand-out amongst the tutors which outlined U.Can.Do.I.T. Partnership Deals:

— Leonard Cheshire Workability Programme: we have a formal arrangement that enables us to do basic training for those going on to the Workability Programme. A £40 registration fee buys a free computer and access to the Workability Entry to Work Programme.

— Empolyment Opportunities: a formal agreement has been set up with the Graduate Section, and we now have a contact via Gabriella Gatward.

— Action for Blind People: this organisation clearly specialises in Blind and VI people, and we have a wide range partnership. They can also provide us with software loans.

At this point PW asked whether this loan would actually provide the student with software, or just finance it. CG responded that it was for borrowing purposes only, and PW said that it was a shame as it would be like ‘giving a student a box of chocolates and taking them away again’. The student would not be able to continue practising and realising their skills once they have been learnt, particularly with software like JAWS. CG explained that JAWS was such an expensive programme anyway and that this unfortunately couldn’t be helped.

— Westminister Kingsway College: we have links with 7 Further Adult Education Centres, mainly located within London.

— Realise IT: this company sources re-furbished and 2nd hand computers from £50. We have a trial for free computers but only within Westminster, Southwark and London.

No further questions were asked regarding Partnership Deals.

AW asked CG to talk about Tutors recruiting new students for the charity. CG replied that if Tutors know of any potential students but are not happy with making the initial contact, then they should contact him and he will be happy to assist. AW then indicated that both KP and TF have been very successful in recruiting and attracting new applicants. He then went on to remind all tutors that their existing students will have contacts, and that they should be encouraged to introduce others to U.Can.Do.I.T. AW suggested that the commission a tutor gets for recruiting an applicant could be shared with the student as an incentive to ‘spread the word’. It must not be underestimated what a great resource that both tutors and students are for U.Can.Do.I.T.

DN commented that she had been ‘spreading the word’ and that perhaps students didn’t realise they had the potential to do this as well. PW then prompted DN to mention the Graduate Pack. DN highlighted a CD that she had produced for all the graduates and asked if any tutors had not received a copy. She also encouraged people to give her feedback and possible improvements. DN then discussed the creation of an Audio tape, which was initiated by an ex-student Estroll. This has been distributed to approximately 600 students within the borough. The focus of DN’s talk was centred on graduates continuing to promote the work of U.Can.Do.I.T. It was mentioned that over 120 councillors had received letters from graduates, and that she was in process of contacting the free newspapers, as well as trying to get some TV coverage. DN stressed, however, that everything takes time and needs the help of tutor feedback.

PW reinforced DN’s points and explained that the graduate’s success exists only because we currently have graduates who are willing to promote the charity. Ex-students need to be encouraged to contact DN to help ‘spread the word’. DN then proposed the idea of placing posters in Opticians, and called for everyone to think of possible advertising avenues. AW agreed with this suggestion and asked all tutors to view their students as potential advertisers and ambassadors for U.Can.Do.I.T. We all have the opportunity to help build and develop the charity.

DN concluded this discussion by pointing out that through helping to promote U.Can.Do.I.T., the graduates are given a chance and the platform to say ‘look what I achieved.’
5. Funding Update – Anthony WIgram

Aw thanked CF for all his fundraising work, and announced the appointment of the new Fundraising Manager, Andrew Coutts.

AW explained that the fundraising situation was quite good, and that the target this year was 3250 tutorials, 10% more than last year. He pointed out that, of course, there was always room for improvement and that growing the charity is hard work. AW was please to mention that in February 322 tutorials were achieved and this was a good record. We have pledged just under £200,000 for funding, and next year’s expenditure is reasonably under control.

KP asked what the plans were for going national. AW replied that he had received an interesting initiative from a VI gentleman in Merseyside, who was willing train students in that area so long as U.Can.Do.I.T. could provide him with funding. AW explained that a proposal like this could be possible, but was dependent on the gentleman finding enough students. However, it was an encouraging idea. AW went on to say that we must recognise our limitations with regards to going national. He also commented on a proposal for a Pilot Scheme, to be launched next year, that he hopes will be successful.

KP continued to ask whether the charity would consider extending it’s service area to outside the M25, perhaps starting with a 10 mile radius, as several of the tutors have started to branch beyond Greater London already. AH responded that the main issue was whether the individual tutor was willing to travel that far.

6. Student Notes – Margaret Power

MP asked if everyone had received a copy of the ‘Email, and Internet Introduction Guide’ CD-Rom that she had recently compiled.

FK said that not everyone could open it due to its PDF format. MP replied that it needed that format due to its content. She went onto explain that there is an indexing function to help you find relevant topics, and that the CD-Rom contents have been hyper-linked to the Internet. MP proposed that she could strip down the CD-Rom and create a Word format if some tutors would rather a copy of this.

CG2 said he felt it had been created in the best, most suitable format. PW agreed that it was brilliantly put together, but not necessarily accessible to disabled users. MP explained that she would probably need assistance in adapting the CD into a suitable set-up. AW asks PW to elaborate and perhaps advise MP on some starting points.

PW explained that there were various limitations with the CD, and mentioned that there were no references to things like keystrokes and screen adjustments etc, but emphasised again that it had been ‘well done’, and did not mean to cause offence.

MP pointed out once more that she had little experience of VI people, and would require the assistance of someone like PW to help re-format the CD accordingly.

MP and PW continued to discuss solutions, e.g. making icons bigger, and AW agreed it would be helpful for PW and MP to discuss these issues further.

SR suggested it could be adjusted for BSL speakers, i.e. having sign interpretation. PW said this could be done using multi-media, and SR replied that he knew a gentleman with experience in this field that could do it. Several tutors were concerned that this format would be too big for CD-Rom, but PW assured it could be possible if the CD was ‘stripped’.

CG2 thought it may be foolish to adjust CD document to cater for everyone, and that this may be an extreme measure. He felt it would go beyond the job of the tutor. FK agreed that if you changed the CD it would never cover all disabled categories, and the document should be a template for the individual to adapt accordingly them self. MP agreed.

CF congratulated MP and said that the CD-Rom had been a lifesaver. Both CF and SR suggested MP copyright the disk, and DG proposed that it should just mention that it was of U.Can.Do.I.T. origination.

AW concluded by commending MP for her work and said the CD-Rom was definitely something that should be evolved.

7. Employment Opportunities – Alexandra Thompson

AT introduced the objectives of Employment Opportunities. She explained that they had 2 offices within the Greater London area, and that a third office is to be set up in Kingston. The organisation provides both formal and informal programmes. The formal being Job Centre Plus, and the informal covering 4 sectors:

— Work Step: providing support for 2 years once employed.
— Work Prep.: covering CV and interview skills, lasting for 12 months.
— New Deal for Disabled.
— An intensive skills course lasting 1 week.

AT explained that the staff help disabled people realise realistic job goals, and that thanks to GG they have started to implement basic IT training. She emphasised that we need to work together, i.e. Employment Opportunities can provide clients for U.Can.Do.I.T, and in return we can do the same for them.

CF asked if there were any age restrictions. AT replied no, but they had to be realistic in terms of employments, i.e. there is a limit for OAPs. NS queried whether Employment Opportunities’ IT training overlapped with that of U.Can.Do.I.T., and AT replied that they did not have the resources to do this.

AW agreed that Employment Opportunities was a good and worthwhile initiative, but that students should not be expected to work in order to prevent a sense of failure if unsuccessful. He commented that we should simply encourage them, and referred to the refresher questionnaire totals in which a large percentage of the students stated that they would like to be employed. CF suggested having a direct link to Employment Opportunities on the website.


8. Tutor Training – Patricia Webb

PW began by emphasising her dedication to the VI community, and her belief that computers can open up a whole new world to the disabled user, providing new levels of communication and independence. She explained the importance of using software such as JAWS, and how elsewhere, this would be extremely expensive to get hold of, as well as training tutors to us it. PW encouraged tutors to train with U.Can.Do.I.T. with the incentive of getting paid to do so, and explained the process for claiming for these lessons.

AW asked those who would like to sign up, to speak to PW at the end of the seminar.

9. Website Update – Carl Gascoigne

CG2 introduced himself as the person responsible for the website, and explained that in the initial stages it was decided that the site needed an aesthetic overhaul, but the primary aim was to not ‘dumb it down’ so to avoid offending the disabled user.

He mentioned that one main change to the site was the structure, and the creation of more search words to produce further results on search engines such as ‘Google’ and ‘MSN’, which has successfully been achieved. However, it is too early to say whether the website has assisted with student referrals.

CG2 explained that an important advantage of the site is that it acts as a template to help students familiarise themselves with the web, but also as a flagship for the charity. He proposed building a ‘dummy’ e-commerce facility to enable students to practise tasks such as shopping online. CG2 asked tutors for helpful feedback and suggestions.

DG said that Learndirect have a similar e-commerce function, and that it may be useful to integrate with them.

BF asked if there were any intentions to build a specific area/forum for tutors and CG2 confirmed that it was in the pipeline and that BG had volunteered to assist.

PW asked if a pen pal facility could be considered, or a message board area for the students to communicate with each other. CG2 agreed it was important to encourage the students to use the site once more. Both PG and PW then asked that all tutors are informed when changes have been made to the site, and NS suggested using the tutors to test the site each time it is updated.

TA queried the possibility of having template lesson reports available on the website so that they could be completed and sent online. Both AW, CG2, and AH agreed this was a good idea.

CG2 then concluded that he would like to get rid of the third-party input so that the site can support itself. He said the site is still in progress, and that it currently fairs pretty well with JAWS, although does require some more work. CG2 welcomed any feedback, and AW asked if the office could also be notified of any suggestions that are made. Many tutors agreed that the site had greatly improved.

10. Graduate Questionnaire – Anthony Wigram

AW stated that the Graduate Questionnaire is proof that the U.Can.Do.I.T. course is successful, and is essential evidence of the charity’s credibility. He encouraged all tutors to contact their graduates, and mentioned that there are approximately 200 students still outstanding in terms of refresher lessons.

PG pointed out that he is a great fan of newsgroups but had noticed that this had been the least favourite option on the questionnaire. He suggested that this might be the result of using the wrong tool. PG proposed introducing students to Google newsgroups and not Outlook Express. AW agreed but warned that students should not be forced to use this option as newsgroups has always been unpopular. He asked PG to send an office email regarding the use of Google.

NU asked whether the questionnaire results could get the charity funding. AW then prompted BF to talk about the use of AQA.

BF explained that he had completed some of his lessons incorporating the AQA unit test. He said that it simply involved filling out forms at the end of each lesson, the only disadvantage being that these are not available electronically. BF agreed it was a reasonably easy procedure and that it is recommendable as it carries a recognised qualification. Both PW and CF supported this, and said that it gave students access to a non-threatening qualification. PW mentioned it was particularly good for those who have not succeeded in other areas of academia, and gives them a sense of pride.

BF explained it was a very basic course and suggested that the tutor should make his or her own judgement as to suitable students. NS said that the paperwork should be cut-down and forms made to be accessible electronically. TA warned that it may extend the course beyond the current syllabus, and AW confirmed that there has always been the flexibility for the tutor to assess the level of the student and what needs to be learnt, and that it is to the tutors discretion what topics should be covered. He agreed that this could to extend to programmes such as MS Word and Excel. AW concluded that the student should have a freedom of choice and that AQA is certainly something that the charity would like to start introducing to all tutors.

11. Any Other Business

There was no other business. AW thanked all tutors for attending.


End of minutes

Visit the tutor_seminars archives