Judy's got great tips for admins and mentors! Here's the first in a series . . .
Supervisors often ask me how to judge the quality of a meaning-for-meaning transcript. How can they really know if such transcripts express clearly and accurately what the speakers said, in a format that is easy for a reader to understand quickly in real-time? What's needed is a quick method that a busy supervisor can use to get reliable information about transcript quality.
- I'll post here a series on a practical Quick Review Method. This method is the simplest way I know of to quickly and objectively judge the quality of a meaning-for-meaning transcript. It takes about one hour to do and gives a pretty good measure of these 3 aspects of a transcript:
- Completeness of information
- Factual accuracy and wording clarity
- Reading ease
The steps of the Method are:
Step 1: Get an appropriate unedited transcript. You may also want to record the class or meeting.
Step 2: Read the transcript deeply, looking for certain specific items, such as fact errors.
Step 3: Get help from "content experts", if needed.
Step 4: Discuss what you learn with with the service provider.
In the future posts in this series, I'll give you details about doing each of the steps, above. If you are interested in full details now, check out the proceedings of a PEPNet 2008 presentation in which I discussed the whole area of analyzing meaning-for-meaning communication access. Go to the link below and then scroll to page 70. Look for the paragraph beginning, "A common question administrators have . . ." http://www.pepnet.org/confpast/2008/pdf/4-3%20francis.pdf.
-- Judy
0 comments:
Post a Comment