‘Horses for (Accessible) Courses’
Recommendations for approaches to TechDis accessibility guidance aimed at non-technical e-learning content authors
(to support the X4L:SURF and DART Projects)
by Sara Dunn
November 2004
Sara Dunn Associates
1a Summerhouse Rd
London N16 0NA
tel. 020 7241 4448
Version history
Version no. / Date issued / Status / Author / Reviewed/amended by
1.0 / 5.10.2004 / Draft tables / Sara Dunn / SD
1.1 / 7.10.2004 / Amended tables / Sara Dunn / Chetz Colwell/SD
1.2 / 8.10.2004 / Draft report / Sara Dunn / SD
1.3 / 11.10.2004 / Amended report / Sara Dunn / Chetz Colwell/SD
1.4 / 12.10.2004 / Final for commissioner / Sara Dunn / SD
1.5 / 1.11.2004 / Final for publication / Sara Dunn / TechDis [Phipps et al]
Copy holders
Name / Date issued / CompanyV1.4
Sara Dunn / 12.10.2004 / Sara Dunn Associates
Chetz Colwell / 12.10.2004 / -
Lawrie Phipps / 12.10.2004 / TechDis
V1.5
Sara Dunn / 1.11.2004 / Sara Dunn Associates
Chetz Colwell / 1.11.2004 / -
Lawrie Phipps / 1.11.2004 / TechDis
Contents
1. Context, brief and aims
1.1 Context
1.2 Brief
1.3 Aims of this report
2. Background and scope
2.1 Disability and education
2.2 Accessible e-learning
3. Accessibility resources assessments
3.1 Summary table: characteristics of accessibility resources
3.2 International resources
Table 1. WCAG1.0
Table 2. WCAG2.0
Table 3. Access Board
Table 4. IMS
Table 5. NCAM
Table 6. Georgia Institute of Technology
3.2 UK resources
Table 7. Burt
Table 8. E-government Unit
Table 9. Epic
Table 10. NLN
Table 11. UfI
Table 12. University of Aberdeen
Table 13. University of Greenwich
4. Discussion
4.1 Lack of staff time
4.2 Expert vs novice audiences
4.3 Authoring tools used by teaching staff
4.4 Contextual information
4.5 Knowledge approach
4.6 Learner-centred approach
5. Summary of recommendations
5.1 Recommendations for TechDis guidance
5.2 Recommendations for further research
6. Next steps
6.1 Short-term
6.2 Interim/tactical
6.3 Longer-term/strategic
Acknowledgements
References
Further resources
1. Context, brief and aims
1.1 Context
Techdis is the leading educational advisory service in the fields of accessibility and inclusion. TechDis works across the UK to enhance provision for disabled students and staff in higher, further (including adult and community learning provision), and specialist education through the use of technology. JISC, the Joint Information Systems Committee[1], funds the TechDis Service.
JISC also funds a wide range of projects related to e-learning, including the X4L:SURF[2] and DART[3] projects.
TechDis will develop guidance on accessibility for all staff involved in these projects.
1.2 Brief
This short study was commissioned by TechDis in September 2004. Its aim is to assess the approaches of existing resources on web accessibility for their potential utility as a basis for forthcoming guidance from TechDis. The selection of resources was made by TechDis (and supplemented by the author and Chetz Colwell), and includes both UK and international resources.
The scoping study included:
o brief literature review (print and online)
o brief review of relevant discussion lists
o ‘straw poll’ of consultees selected by TechDis
o assessments of accessibility resources
1.3 Aims of this report
This report is the result of a short scoping study. There is a large and growing amount of material on web accessibility available. While it is hoped that the principal resources likely to be of relevance have been included, this report does not attempt to be exhaustive. The omission of any particular resource should not be taken as a reflection on its quality or relevance.
This study assesses what might be termed the ‘communications approach’ of the resources considered, rather than their technical content.
The assessments do not make judgements about the ‘correctness’ of specific checkpoints or other individual elements of the resources, merely their relevance as exemplars for TechDis’ purposes. This study is not intended to judge the essential quality of the guidelines considered, or the extent to which they fulfil their own - varying - objectives.
The assessments relate to the utility of resources judged against TechDis’ specific criteria in this project:
o relevance for e-learning accessibility (as opposed to generic web accessibility)
o focus on content creation (as opposed to communication, collaboration or assessment processes)
o degree of usability, relevance and appropriateness for all creators of e-learning content in the broad context of HE and FE.
The introduction summarises the main issues relating to e-learning accessibility in higher and further education in the UK in order to contextualise the resources to be assessed.
The assessment section consists of 13 tables, each briefly summarising and commenting on a resource or resources from a particular organisation or individual.
The discussion further examines the key issues raised in the tables, and their implications for TechDis’ accessibility guidelines.
Recommendations are highlighted throughout the document, and gathered together a summary section.
Finally, some possible next steps, and their pros and cons, are outlined.
2. Background and scope
2.1 Disability and education
2.1a Legislation
The principal legislation affecting disability in UK education is Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act, previously known as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001. The Act requires all educational institutions:
o to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of disabled students
o not to treat disabled students less favourably
o to act in an ‘anticipatory capacity’ (i.e. institutions should not wait until a disabled student asks in order to implement good practice).
Everyone in the ‘critical path’ of e-learning provision is covered by the Act:
[The Act] and responsibilities under it affect the whole spectrum of those involved… those providing the information, those providing the media for the information, and those involved in IT services and strategy all have equal responsibility. (Wilder 2002)
Sloan (2002), referring to the implications of the anticipatory nature of the Act, comments that ‘institutions need to be making the necessary adjustments by issuing guidelines and training staff for the provision of online resources and VLEs’.
The Act has had a phased introduction. Some research indicates that awareness of the legislation and its implications, at least at institutional level, is growing (see, for example, DRC Scotland 2004). Other, smaller studies show lower levels of awareness amongst teaching staff (Burt 2003, Dunn 2003, Skills for Access 2003).
2.1b Regulatory frameworks
Standards in FE and HE are principally overseen by the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI), Oftsed and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).
The ALI’s Common Inspection Framework - used to assess all publicly funded work-based training for people over 16 and learning for post-19s - includes as one of its criteria:
the extent to which provision is educationally and socially inclusive, and promotes equality of access to education and training, including provision for learners with learning difficulties or disabilities. (ALI 2001)
In 1999 the Quality Assurance Agency produced a code of practice for students with disabilities in higher education (QAA 1999). The code has 24 ‘precepts’ which the QAA auditors use as benchmarks when assessing HEIs. The precepts cover all aspects of teaching and learning for disabled students, and of most relevance for this study are:
o accessible web site and intranet sites, and alternative formats (precept 4)
o adaptation of course material (including electronic material) and course delivery to ensure access (precept 10)
o allowing disabled students to use ICT for assessment (precept 13)
o training staff to use relevant technology and to produce accessible electronic courseware; ensuring IT staff have time and skills to support assistive technology used by disabled students (precepts 15, 17).
(QAA 1999)
The legislative and regulatory environment has prompted many institutions to start to develop policies and practices to promote equality of access to learning generally, including equality of access to learning content. JISC (via TechDis), Becta (via Ferl), and other national educational bodies, provide institutions with support, advice and guidance in this area.
2.2 Accessible e-learning
For the purposes of this report e-learning is taken to mean the use of any information and communication technology (ICT) to provide, support or enhance teaching and learning. For teaching staff in FE and HE, this currently means being responsible, to varying degrees, for a number of facets of e-learning, including:
o creation and provision of online content
o facilitation of online communication
o facilitation of online collaboration
o management of online assessment and tracking
o control of access to online curriculum resources
o integration with institutional information management systems
Specialist information and learning technology (ILT) and ICT staff will be working with teaching staff in facilitating these processes. The division of responsibility varies with the task, and overall approaches vary within and across institutions.
This study focuses on the first process, the creation and provision of online content. Furthermore, this process is addressed in the specific context of the widespread use of virtual learning environments (VLEs), and the associated use of learning content repositories.
It should be noted that, given the responsibility teaching staff shoulder in all of the processes outlined above - and given that accessibility requirements impact all of them - further research is needed is these areas. Given the functionality offered by the most popular VLEs, accessibility guidance in relation to online communication, online collaboration and online assessment is likely to be of particular importance for teaching staff.
Recommendation:
Undertake learning needs assessments of teaching staff in relation to addressing accessibility in online communication (synchronous and asynchronous), online collaboration and online assessment. Immersive environments should also be considered as an area where guidance will be needed in the future.
2.2a Content creation in FE and HE
JISC/UCISA research (2003) shows 83 per cent of FE and HE institutions using a VLE. Gill notes that this ‘is an ethos and culture changing experience for an institution’, including in the area of content creation and provision:
The insertion of content into that [virtual learning] environment means that, for lecturing staff, this change is fundamental… Staff have always been responsible for the development of their teaching materials; a decision to purchase [‘off the shelf’ content] can make them feel removed from the equation; a decision to develop [‘home-grown’ content]… will mean staff development and support will be required. (Gill 2004)
This staff development and support, as JISC point out, should ideally include training and instruction in a number of areas related to this study, including:
o how to present content - e.g. use of appropriate file formats, use of metadata - in order to meet the needs of the target audience irrespective of their technology or skills
o how to future-proof content and adhere to technical specifications, and
o how to make content accessible to all, irrespective of disability or other access barriers
(JISC 2004)
It is not easy to gain an overview of how individual staff within FE and HE institutions are addressing these challenges. We do know that uptake of VLEs within institutions is by no means universal: JISC/UCISA research (2003) shows ‘the use of VLEs has not yet rolled out to a large number of students or academic staff across the sector’.
Some small studies (e.g. Burt 2003, Dunn 2003, Skills for Access 2003) confirm that, where VLE use has rolled out, teaching staff still have responsibility for creating electronic content, with greatly varying degrees of support from learning technology / ILT support staff.
2.2b Content creation and accessibility
Content creation covers a broad range of activities. They range from the simple repurposing of existing content, to the creation of what JISC terms ‘primary content’ and ‘complex content from existing materials’.
The former is more likely to be done by teaching staff themselves. It might involve the use of common office technologies such as MS Word or MS Powerpoint, authoring tools within VLEs, or other authoring tools such as CourseGenie.
More complex content is likely to be developed by learning technology / ILT support staff, or by commercial developers, using more complex technologies. These will include the W3C technologies such as XML, CSS, SMIL and so on, as well as proprietary programmes such as Dreamweaver or Flash.
However, the interplay between novice and expert, and the tools they use, is fluid and not well researched. From the perspective of TechDis’ accessibility guidance, this lack of data is problematic, as guidance needs to be grounded in a clear understanding of the information needs of teaching staff.
Recommendation:
Conduct ongoing learning needs assessments of teaching staff as part of TechDis’ guidance programme; bear in mind the fast-changing nature of this area, and plan for appropriately scaled research that can be repeated at intervals (perhaps annually or bi-annually).
To supplement this data, and to enable guidance development to begin swiftly, TechDis can adopt an ‘iterative development’ approach to its own accessibility guidance. Diagnostic or evaluation surveys can form an integral part of the guidance, in order to gather more precise data about teaching staff’s information and learning needs.
Recommendation:
incorporate in TechDis guidance a [short] diagnostic and/or evaluation questionnaire, in order to gather:
- data on the current level of skills and knowledge about accessibility in e-learning
- data on what form of information and support will best address knowledge and skills gaps.
Use this data to formulate requirements for ongoing development of TechDis guidance services
2.2c Characterising existing accessibility resources
Accessibility resources relating to online content are plentiful and varied in their approach and objectives. There are many ways to characterise them. For the purposes of this study, the following categories have been used.
1. overall scope
generic web specific online learning
2. technology scope
technology ‘agnostic’ technology/product specific
3. knowledge approach
instructional informational
4. knowledge level [technical]
novice expert
5. target constituency
sector-wide institution-specific
6. enforcement approach
voluntary adherence mandatory compliance
These categories are discrete, but have some dependencies. For example standards that have mandatory conformance are likely to be aimed at experts rather than novices, and take an informational rather than instructional approach.