Skills

Assistive Technology Evaluation

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Evaluate a real assistive technology tool for a specific identified learning need. Proof requires: (a) documentation of the learning need and the rationale for choosing this tool over alternatives, (b) a real trial with the student (supervised and anonymised) with documented observations across at least 3 sessions covering what the student was able to do with the tool, what challenges remained, and what was adapted between sessions, (c) anonymised student feedback where the student can express it, and (d) a written evaluation report with a recommendation for or against continued use. Supervised by and signed off by a SENCO, specialist teacher, or qualified AT specialist. This proof documents the STUDENT PRACTITIONER'S evaluation process — not the student's personal profile. Requires current DBS/background check clearance.

Part of: Education & Social Work · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Research AT options for a specific learner need profile

2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)

Identify a specific learner need profile present in your SEND placement (e.g. dyslexia, visual impairment, autism spectrum, physical disability — anonymised and with SENCO/supervisor approval). Research a minimum of three assistive technologies relevant to that need. For each, document: the specific need it addresses, evidence base, cost and accessibility, and any relevant accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG 2.1 for digital tools). All learner information must be anonymised.

Proof required

Submit your AT options research document: three AT tools with need profile, evidence base, cost and accessibility, and standards compliance notes (minimum one page per tool). Anonymised learner need profile included.

What gets checked

Three distinct AT tools covering the specific named need profile — not generic AT lists
Evidence base is cited for each tool — not manufacturer claims alone
Anonymisation is complete — no learner names or identifying details

Common mistakes

AT research is not specific to the identified need — generic 'technology in education' resources
Evidence base is from manufacturer marketing rather than published research or practitioner guidance
Learner information is not fully anonymised

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented — enhanced DBS with children's barred list check required for SEND placement
Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented with module name and completion date
Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named SENCO or SEN Coordinator — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
Check all learner information is anonymised — no names, year groups combined with need, or other identifying combinations
Verify AT research is specific to the identified need profile — ask student to explain why each tool was selected

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Trial AT in practice and document learner response

3–4 weeks (placement-dependent)

With SENCO and supervisor approval, trial one or two selected AT tools with the relevant learner(s) in supervised sessions. Document minimum three sessions: for each, note the specific task, which AT was used, what was observed about the learner's engagement and progress, and any adjustments made. All documentation must be anonymised.

Proof required

Submit session documentation for minimum three AT trial sessions (task, tool used, observations, adjustments — anonymised throughout). Include SENCO/supervisor sign-off statement.

What gets checked

Three or more sessions documented with specific observations — not general notes
Documentation includes observations of learner response, not only tool operation
SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present confirming the sessions took place

Common mistakes

Fewer than three documented sessions — insufficient for pattern observation
Documentation describes the tool rather than the learner's response to it
No supervisor sign-off present

Powstik Guide

Records of three AT trial sessions, anonymised.

Steps

Agree the trial with your supervisor.
Record task, tool and what you saw.
Note each adjustment you made.
Use no names or identifying details.

Template

| Session | Learner (code) | Task | Tool | Observation | Adjustment |
|---------|----------------|------|------|-------------|------------|

What gets sent back

Any learner or child identifiable.
No supervisor sign-off.
Peer-only verification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present for the trial sessions
Check all documentation is anonymised — no learner names or identifying details
Check documentation contains specific learner response observations, not tool descriptions
Ask student: what specific change in learning behaviour or engagement did you observe across the three sessions?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce AT evaluation report with recommendations

1 week

Produce an AT evaluation report (minimum 600 words) for the SENCO or placement supervisor, covering: the need profile (anonymised), the AT trialled, what the session observations showed, and a recommendation for whether to adopt, modify, or discontinue each tool — with specific rationale. The report should also recommend any additional AT not trialled that merits investigation.

Proof required

Submit your AT evaluation report (minimum 600 words, fully anonymised) with signed SENCO/supervisor review statement confirming the report was reviewed with them.

What gets checked

Recommendations are supported by specific session observations — not general AT literature
Report is structured for a professional audience (SENCO/placement supervisor) — not a student reflection
SENCO/supervisor review is documented

Common mistakes

Recommendations are based on AT literature rather than the observed trial sessions
Report is written as a personal reflection rather than a professional recommendation document
No SENCO/supervisor review documentation

Powstik Guide

A 600-word AT evaluation report with SENCO sign-off.

Steps

Summarise the trial evidence.
Say what worked and what didn't.
Make clear recommendations.
Get your SENCO or supervisor to sign it.

Template

Evidence summary:
Worked / didn't:
Recommendations:
SENCO/supervisor:        Signed:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Any learner or child identifiable.
No supervisor sign-off.
Peer-only verification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

What a verifier looks for

Confirm enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation are on record for the placement
Verify SENCO/supervisor signed-off the evaluation report
Check report is fully anonymised — no learner names, institutions, or identifying combinations
Ask student: what would you do differently in a second trial based on what you observed?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Special Education & Inclusive Practice →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Research AT options for a specific learner need profile

2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)

Proof required

What gets checked

Three distinct AT tools covering the specific named need profile — not generic AT lists
Evidence base is cited for each tool — not manufacturer claims alone
Anonymisation is complete — no learner names or identifying details

Common mistakes

AT research is not specific to the identified need — generic 'technology in education' resources
Evidence base is from manufacturer marketing rather than published research or practitioner guidance
Learner information is not fully anonymised

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented — enhanced DBS with children's barred list check required for SEND placement
Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented with module name and completion date
Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named SENCO or SEN Coordinator — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
Check all learner information is anonymised — no names, year groups combined with need, or other identifying combinations
Verify AT research is specific to the identified need profile — ask student to explain why each tool was selected

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Trial AT in practice and document learner response

3–4 weeks (placement-dependent)

Proof required

Submit session documentation for minimum three AT trial sessions (task, tool used, observations, adjustments — anonymised throughout). Include SENCO/supervisor sign-off statement.

What gets checked

Three or more sessions documented with specific observations — not general notes
Documentation includes observations of learner response, not only tool operation
SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present confirming the sessions took place

Common mistakes

Fewer than three documented sessions — insufficient for pattern observation
Documentation describes the tool rather than the learner's response to it
No supervisor sign-off present

Powstik Guide

Records of three AT trial sessions, anonymised.

Steps

Agree the trial with your supervisor.
Record task, tool and what you saw.
Note each adjustment you made.
Use no names or identifying details.

Template

| Session | Learner (code) | Task | Tool | Observation | Adjustment |
|---------|----------------|------|------|-------------|------------|

What gets sent back

Any learner or child identifiable.
No supervisor sign-off.
Peer-only verification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify SENCO/supervisor sign-off is present for the trial sessions
Check all documentation is anonymised — no learner names or identifying details
Check documentation contains specific learner response observations, not tool descriptions
Ask student: what specific change in learning behaviour or engagement did you observe across the three sessions?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce AT evaluation report with recommendations

1 week

Proof required

Submit your AT evaluation report (minimum 600 words, fully anonymised) with signed SENCO/supervisor review statement confirming the report was reviewed with them.

What gets checked

Recommendations are supported by specific session observations — not general AT literature
Report is structured for a professional audience (SENCO/placement supervisor) — not a student reflection
SENCO/supervisor review is documented

Common mistakes

Recommendations are based on AT literature rather than the observed trial sessions
Report is written as a personal reflection rather than a professional recommendation document
No SENCO/supervisor review documentation

Powstik Guide

A 600-word AT evaluation report with SENCO sign-off.

Steps

Summarise the trial evidence.
Say what worked and what didn't.
Make clear recommendations.
Get your SENCO or supervisor to sign it.

Template

Evidence summary:
Worked / didn't:
Recommendations:
SENCO/supervisor:        Signed:

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Any learner or child identifiable.
No supervisor sign-off.
Peer-only verification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

What a verifier looks for

Confirm enhanced DBS and safeguarding training documentation are on record for the placement
Verify SENCO/supervisor signed-off the evaluation report
Check report is fully anonymised — no learner names, institutions, or identifying combinations
Ask student: what would you do differently in a second trial based on what you observed?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.