Jennison Asuncion

To make this seminar as useful to you as possible, I thought I would start a thread where in we can share URLs to resources, articles and actual tools that specifically promote and/or discuss accessibility and eLearning.

I’ll kick things off with a few of mine, recognizing that these are more geared to the online forms of eLearning and not necessarily classroom technologies.

1. An interesting and useful read is an article that appeared in campus Technology called ”A Public Consortium Emphasizes the Importance of LMS Accessibility” which is located at  http://campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=19352 - in addition to providing a good overview of the topic of accessibility and eLearning, it provides a case study of how a higher education consortium in the US is tackling the accessibility of their LMS, working directly with their vendor. Their vendor happens to be a Canadian eLearning company called desire2Learn.

2. For those of you needing to address more the technological aspects of making web applications and sites accessible, I have always referred eLearning web developers I have consulted with and have often myself used the resources at WebAIM http://www.webaim.org - They have tutorials, articles and a useful and active email discussion list.

3. Finally, in terms of tools, the folks at HiSoftware http://www.hisoftware.com have a number of products that could be useful for folks including those who do not necessarily have expertise in web accessibility, but that have to make this happen for their web sites and applications. My own experience, for what ever its worth, was with their Hi-Caption tool, which allowed my Flash developers to easily add captioning to eLearning that included an audio track (we had talking heads), making it accessible for Deaf and hearing impaired learners who could make use of it.

Jennison

To make this seminar as useful to you as possible, I thought I would start a thread where in we can share URLs to resources, articles and actual tools that specifically promote and/or discuss accessibility and eLearning.

I’ll kick things off with a few of mine, recognizing that these are more geared to the online forms of eLearning and not necessarily classroom technologies.

1. An interesting and useful read is an article that appeared in campus Technology called ”A Public Consortium Emphasizes the Importance of LMS Accessibility” which is located at  http://campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=19352 - in addition to providing a good overview of the topic of accessibility and eLearning, it provides a case study of how a higher education consortium in the US is tackling the accessibility of their LMS, working directly with their vendor. Their vendor happens to be a Canadian eLearning company called desire2Learn.

2. For those of you needing to address more the technological aspects of making web applications and sites accessible, I have always referred eLearning web developers I have consulted with and have often myself used the resources at WebAIM http://www.webaim.org - They have tutorials, articles and a useful and active email discussion list.

3. Finally, in terms of tools, the folks at HiSoftware http://www.hisoftware.com have a number of products that could be useful for folks including those who do not necessarily have expertise in web accessibility, but that have to make this happen for their web sites and applications. My own experience, for what ever its worth, was with their Hi-Caption tool, which allowed my Flash developers to easily add captioning to eLearning that included an audio track (we had talking heads), making it accessible for Deaf and hearing impaired learners who could make use of it.

Jennison

We asked our student participants to rate the level of accessibility of specific forms of eLearning that they would have used in the courses they took.

To frame their responses, a bit of demographic information - the 245 students who completed the online survey were enrolled in colleges and universities and represent nine of ten provinces, the exception being Prince Edward Island. There were no students from the Territories. Students were instructed to indicate all of their disabilities/ impairments. The five most common disabilities/impairments that students declared were:
1. Learning disability (42%)
2. ADD/ADHD (20%)
3. Psychological/psychiatric disability (16%)
4. Mobility impairment / wheelchair user (16%)
5. Health or medically related impairment (15%)
 
It is worth noting that almost half of the students (44%) indicated having more than one disability/impairment.

In terms of their “level of accessibility” ratings for the types of eLearning that they encountered in their courses, the top five most accessible for all students, based on 245 respondents were:
1. email;
2.  course-related files in Word, PowerPoint etc.;
3.  WebCT, BlackBoard, FirstClass or other course/learning management system;
4.  course web pages; and
5. in-class presentations using PowerPoint.

The least accessible forms of eLearning for all students with disabilities were:
1. videoconferencing;
2.  live online voice-based chat (speaking and listening);
3.  audio clips / files (e.g., recorded class lectures);
4.  online content that uses Flash; and
5.  CD-ROM tutorials used in class or computer labs.

It goes without saying that these rankings are different if filtered by different disabilities / impairments. For example, the most accessible form of eLearning for students who are blind was course-related files in Word, PowerPoint, etc. and the least accessible was PowerPoint presentations viewed online using a browser.

For those of you actively working in eLearning with persons with disabilities, how closely does this relate to your realities?

Jennison

We asked our student participants to rate the level of accessibility of specific forms of eLearning that they would have used in the courses they took.

To frame their responses, a bit of demographic information - the 245 students who completed the online survey were enrolled in colleges and universities and represent nine of ten provinces, the exception being Prince Edward Island. There were no students from the Territories. Students were instructed to indicate all of their disabilities/ impairments. The five most common disabilities/impairments that students declared were:
1. Learning disability (42%)
2. ADD/ADHD (20%)
3. Psychological/psychiatric disability (16%)
4. Mobility impairment / wheelchair user (16%)
5. Health or medically related impairment (15%)
 
It is worth noting that almost half of the students (44%) indicated having more than one disability/impairment.

In terms of their “level of accessibility” ratings for the types of eLearning that they encountered in their courses, the top five most accessible for all students, based on 245 respondents were:
1. email;
2.  course-related files in Word, PowerPoint etc.;
3.  WebCT, BlackBoard, FirstClass or other course/learning management system;
4.  course web pages; and
5. in-class presentations using PowerPoint.

The least accessible forms of eLearning for all students with disabilities were:
1. videoconferencing;
2.  live online voice-based chat (speaking and listening);
3.  audio clips / files (e.g., recorded class lectures);
4.  online content that uses Flash; and
5.  CD-ROM tutorials used in class or computer labs.

It goes without saying that these rankings are different if filtered by different disabilities / impairments. For example, the most accessible form of eLearning for students who are blind was course-related files in Word, PowerPoint, etc. and the least accessible was PowerPoint presentations viewed online using a browser.

For those of you actively working in eLearning with persons with disabilities, how closely does this relate to your realities?

Jennison

Before diving into the results, some background on the research is in order.

The overall objectives of our research have been to:
- identify eLearning-related barriers and facilitators experienced by college and university students with disabilities in Canada; and
- develop best practices guidelines for stakeholders in the Canadian postsecondary education community and the postsecondary publishing industry. A key principle guiding our research has been that to fully investigate and address accessibility of eLearning in higher education, our research needs to fully represent the issues from four perspectives: that of the student(s) with a disability, faculty, the campus-based professionals who provide disability-related accommodations to students, and what we termed eLearning specialists - the individuals who play a role in supporting/implementing eLearning at the institution. Therefore, we collected closed and open-ended data from these four groups.

To get a broad perspective on the current state of eLearning and accessibility on Canadian postsecondary campuses, we started our research by interviewing 22 “key informants.” These were individuals who came recommended to us by our research partners and collaborators. Key informants included the four groups mentioned above, plus ePublishing vendor representatives.  Topics we were interested in included:
- the specific forms of eLearning colleges and universities are using in their courses;
- the types of eLearning-related accommodations requested by and provided to students with various disabilities; and
- the key trends, benefits and issues.

Information coming from these interviews was used to develop French and English versions of four voluntary, confidential online surveys. We administered these to a convenience sample consisting of:
1. Canadian college and university students with disabilities who have taken at least one course in the last three years where the professor used some form of eLearning;
2. college and university professors who have taught at least one student with a disability during the last three years in a course where they used some form of eLearning;
3. staff who provide disability-related services at Canadian postsecondary institutions; and
4. individuals who support/implement eLearning at Canadian postsecondary institutions, including VPs and managers of distance education and instructional technology departments; persons who train faculty to use technology; designers and developers of eLearning on campus.

If folks are interested in us going deeper on the methodology or have broader questions about our research approach, , please ask.