News

NADP Spring Conference 2010

[12 March 2010] This one-day conference on Neurodiversity will take place in Birmingham on Thursday 29th April 2010. Now fully booked. [More information]

Job Opportunity

[11 March 2010] University of Cambridge - Disability Resource Centre - Disability Adviser (Part Time) [More information]

NADP Annual Conference 2010

[23 Feb 2010] 'Inclusive Curriculum and Assessment - equalising the student experience, how level is the playing field?', 29th/30th June 2010, Oxford. {Workshops updated} [More information and booking form]

DSA-QAG update

[27 Jan 2010] For members: DSA-QAG Update January 2010 (login required)

NADP Research Ethics Procedure

[20 Jan 2010] For anyone wishing to engage in research via the NADP mailing lists. [More] (login required)

Student Finance Stakeholder Interest Group

[10 Jan 2010] For NADP members: New SFSIG Terms of Reference.

Journal of inclusive practice in Further and Higher Education

[18 Dec 2009] Issue 2 of the journal (Neurodiversity) will be available from Monday 21st December.

NADP Autumn Conference

[9 Dec 2009] Notes from the one-day conference The Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT), London, 16 November 2009, are now available.

Chair's Update

[24 Nov 2009] November 2009 Update by NADP's Chair Nicola Martin.

Hopkins Review

[6 Nov 2009] The NADP Board of Directors have submitted a paper of evidence for Professior Sir Deian Hopkins Review into Student finance Delivery in England 2009.

Disabled Students Allowances

[6 Nov 2009] NADP report on DSAs situation sent to parliamentarians asking questions in both houses this week.

NADP Action Plan

[5 Nov 2009] For NADP members: Download the NADP Action Plan 2009-2010. (login required)

All recent news

NADP Conference September 2008: Feedback from evaluation forms

The Future of Supporting Students through Technology

Number of Delegates: 58
Evaluation Forms Completed: 33

[Word icon] Download Conference September 2008 Feedback (MS Word .doc, 59 Kb).

How would you rate the conference venue and facilities?

Excellent: 12
Good: 18
Adequate: 3
Poor: 0
Did not respond: 0

Conference Content

Future implications of assessment

Excellent: 9
Good: 10
Adequate: 2
Poor: 0

Support ATHEN gives to assessors

Excellent: 1
Good: 10
Adequate: 3
Poor: 1

Social Networking: Making it happen

Excellent: 8
Good: 13
Adequate: 0
Poor: 0

Analysing the use of technologies and on-line learning

Excellent: 15
Good: 11
Adequate: 1
Poor: 0

Using on-line social networking as a tool to support students

Excellent: 10
Good: 9
Adequate: 2
Poor: 0

Synchronising notes, transcripts and multimedia recordings

Excellent: 10
Good: 13
Adequate: 1
Poor: 0

Accessibility 2.0

Excellent: 3
Good: 12
Adequate: 3
Poor: 0

Did the Conference Meet your expectations?

Exceeded: 11
Met: 21
Did not meet: 0
Much Worse: 0
Did not respond: 1

How helpful/useful did you find the conference?

Excellent: 12
Good: 16
Adequate: 5
Poor: 0
Did not respond: 0

How well do you think the conference was organised?

Excellent: 16
Good: 14
Adequate: 2
Poor: 0
Did not respond: 1

Would you like to attend future one-day conferences?

Definitely: 23
Maybe: 9
No: 0
Did not respond: 1

Specific Comments about the Conference

  • Situation in US very interesting (HEI-Centric) versus UK (Individual), getting away from disability, focus on 'how do students communicate? Encouragement to think more broadly.
  • Often do not learn anything new or receive stimulation at conferences, however not the case with this one.
  • Expanded thinking in key areas.
  • More interactive and thought provoking than expected.
  • Particularly interested in hearing the perception of AT from a US based view.
  • Learnt a lot more about technologies in use than I thought I would.
  • Some good general overviews/insights but some not so well structured and did not cover all considerations.
  • Sharing information in an economical way.
  • Excellent overview, which is what I wanted.
  • A good range of topics covered to just the right amount of depth in the time available.
  • Given me some ideas I can trial.
  • Struggling to keep up to date with issues/problem solving surrounding accessibility of HE for students, especially VI and deaf. Much food for thought with this conference - a bit overwhelming, but lots of useful information gained that may prove useful in future. (Current role is a liaison one between students, lecturers/disability service, trying to ensure disability support is implemented)
  • Neither dry nor dull but exiting and re-invigorating.
  • Excellent presenters.
  • I was very surprised with the knowledge, expertise and interest in technology among the disability assessors/advisors present.

What did you find most useful?

  • Discussion re: new technology used by under 25 year olds, thinking about integration with conventional AT.
  • Practice in USA /EA's new website project.
  • Analysing use of technologies.
  • Everything was useful.
  • Dedicated time to consider the issues away from the office and speak to the presenters.
  • Analysing use of technologies - looking at issues, solutions and technologies that can be used.
  • E A Draffan's session.
  • Stimulating - lots of new ideas and information.
  • The idea of using facebook.
  • ATHEN
  • Synchronising note taking.
  • Networking.
  • Policy development in the field.
  • Discussion with speakers.
  • Lunch - stodgy, not enough salad or fish selection, fizzy water would have been nice.
  • On-line social networking.
  • Social networking making it happen because very specific information, analysis session provides future useful resources.
  • Getting excited about AT again!

What did you find least useful?

  • Having 3 workshop sessions and only 2 slots to attend, meant you missed one of the 3 as they were all so interesting.
  • ATHEN - although this was only relative in respect of the level of interest of the other workshops.
  • Shame there were not more IT practitioners present.
  • Synchronising notes, transcripts and multimedia specific usage.
  • Accessibility 2.0 was a bit too fast and not relevant to everybody, probably more political rather than dealing with specifics (useful overview though)
  • A lot of technical jargon used - no access to web - more practical applications needed.
  • High level overviews with no real specifics or examples. Also platform/solution - specific talks that do not cover other similar technologies within the presentation, ie. comparisons.
  • A little unfair - some speakers spent a little too long on personal background/history.

[Word icon] Download Conference September 2008 Feedback (MS Word .doc, 59 Kb).