By curriculum-framework Comment Closed

By: Emma-Jayne Conway, Adult PWP Programme Director, Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Module Convenor, emma-jayne.conway@reading.ac.uk

 

Context

Size of the cohort: less than 20

The Programme of study: Postgraduate taught

Applies to the following aspects of the student experience:

  • in class test
  • coursework (essay)
  • coursework (research report)
  • seminar environment
  • teaching materials
  • lecture theatre
  • style of presentation (by staff)
  • style of presentation (by students)
  • group work
  • placement
  • field trip
  • exam (on campus)
  • exam (online)
  • other

Overview

Objectives

Context and implementation

This case study focuses on our experience of supporting two Deaf students enrolled on a clinical training programme (Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner [PWP] training). In this section, we outline key considerations and steps taken to ensure the equity of the training experience for Deaf trainees as far as was possible:

Getting initial support in place: for context, our students are typically employed in NHS Talking Therapies services and are recruited by services only a month or so prior to enrolling with us. This leaves little time for them to apply for the financial assistance (Disabled Student Allowance, or DSA) required for essential support during training, including notetakers and interpreters, and meant that for both students, a significant amount of time was spent by the team to ensure that this support was in place at the start of their training. As well as ensuring support for our students, it was also important for the team and other trainees to receive specialist guidance on working with Deaf people, and this was delivered prior to the start of our courses for admin and educator staff and at induction for students.

Supporting facilitators to support trainees: throughout the training year, it was important to use a small and consistent team of interpreters and notetakers, and to frequently check in with our Deaf trainees regarding their experience of this support. We also were also mindful of the jargon-based and potentially emotional nature of the training, and to this end ensured that all teaching slides and related resources were sent across to facilitators in good time to ensure they could get in touch with any questions. Going forwards, we would take additional steps to check in regularly with facilitators regarding the emotional impact that this work may have evoked.

Practical adaptations in teaching: to safeguard equity in teaching, we had to ensure that all video and audio resources were accessible (e.g. closed captions), and that online learning platforms were fit for purpose. This meant that during live online teaching on Blackboard Collaborate, interpreters and notetakers, along with our Deaf students, had to log into a simultaneous Zoom call to provide/access interpretation of the taught content. We also needed to think carefully about clinical skills training. Traditionally, this has relied on observing roleplays with students playing the role of patient and PWP. As our Deaf students delivered their clinical work in BSL, it was important to facilitate this in teaching, with BSL partners brought in wherever possible (we only had one deaf student in each cohort, so it was not possible for them to roleplay with each other).

Adaptations in assessments: to safeguard equity in assessment, it was important to consider the impact on timings of a BSL speaker having to role play with someone using English (the duration of these assessed role plays were doubled). For clinical treatment recordings delivered in BSL (that were then translated for our English speaking markers), we needed to be mindful of inaccuracies that may arise in translation, as well as differences in communication style across the hearing and Deaf communities. It was helpful to consult with Deaf clinicians when any issues arose around this.

 

Impact

The adaptations implemented had a positive impact on the learning experience and equity of access of our Deaf trainees. By ensuring that essential resources and training were in place from the start of the course, it helped to reduce stress and uncertainty for the students whilst also promoting a culture of awareness and sensitivity within the cohort.

The use of a consistent team of interpreters and notetakers provided a sense of continuity, which allowed trust to be built between the Deaf students and their support team. One of the interpreters commented that the sharing of teaching materials in advance was particularly useful, “The educators making sure that we received the slides and other resources before the teaching day made the single biggest difference to my ability to support the student.” This allowed interpreters time to clarify jargon-heavy or emotionally complex content in advance, thus improving the quality of interpretation.

To ensure equity in teaching and assessment, several adjustments were made to the learning environment and summative assignments including role-playing with role play partners in BSL during clinical skills and the educator team consulting with Deaf clinicians when marking treatment recordings. This proactive approach ensured that our trainees could fully participate in lecture discussions and activities and were not disadvantaged by having their assessments marked by non-BSL users.

Overall, it was commented that these adaptations reflected a positive, ‘can do’ attitude from the educators and admin team. The increased awareness for staff in working with Deaf students will have a lasting impact beyond these cohorts.

 

Reflective practice

What went well: Adjustments were made and the students successfully passed the course with their cohort. A key reason this worked well was due to the team communicating effectively with all stakeholders and working together to problem solve and troubleshoot. The team would regularly discuss this within the weekly team meetings to ensure actions were being met.

What could be improved: Due to the way our courses are funded, our student numbers can be confirmed very close to the start of the course. Therefore, provisions had to be organised with short notice. There were delays to accessing more immediate support like ad-hoc meetings, as it took time to book interpreters and left the student accessing immediate support via email. Furthermore, the preparation and adjustments made took a large amount of staff time which was not factored into the staff workload model.

 

Advice for colleagues

When making significant adaptations to a programme to promote inclusivity, it is helpful to think about the student’s journey sequentially.

Firstly, identify the initial steps needed to prepare the student requiring support, the other students on the course and the educator team before the course begins. This might include upskilling staff (e.g. additional training) and increasing awareness among students (e.g. open discussions), so all are better equipped to provide and create an inclusive environment.

Secondly, adopting a flexible approach to preplanned adaptions will allow you to continuously review whether the adaptions implemented are meaningful. Establishing regular opportunities for feedback is important, as well as using a variety of feedback methods (e.g. Padlet, module evaluations, academic tutorials).

Finally, it is crucial to reflect with students, staff and stakeholders on the adaptions implemented and the process of orchestrating the implementations, including the sustainability of making such adaptations. Having protected time to reflect can generate important discussions that inform future pedagogy. And lastly… remember to disseminate!