Saying No to the Checklist
Full Title
Author(s)
Centering Voices
Year of Publication
Media Type
Media Access
Free / OPEN access version of this article has some digital accessibility issues. Page break, header and footer text is inconsistently voiced, and formatting has caused some special character issues. The paper’s title and abstract are not voiced, otherwise it is navigable and mostly perceivable by text-to-speech tech.
Reading Rooms
Usefulness to Educators
This article would be useful to educators beginning to grapple with the legacy of ableism within their courses and institutions. This critical piece of writing thoughtfully argues that reductionist approaches to accessibility, such as checklist tools, offer educators and institutions a false sense of accomplishment, and a simplistic understanding of learner needs. Their use can hinder accessibility if learner reports of inaccessibility and exclusion are dismissed due to misguided faith in checklist tools.
Premise
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Quality Matters Rubric (QM), and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) checklists “perpetuate an idea of normalcy” and should not be blindly applied but rather engaged with critically by online writing course (OWC) educators.
Purpose
- To recommend a way forward for OWC educators to build and teach courses that are meaningfully inclusive of students with disabilities.
- To argue for a “move from an ideology of normalcy to an ideology of inclusion.”
- To critique three popular tools “used to plan, implement, and assess online course construction”:
- Quality Matters assessment rubric (QM)
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
- Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework
Research Methods
Normative argument based on secondary sources and the experience of the authors.
Conceptual or Theoretical Frameworks
- Participatory design from a transformative and/or pragmatic paradigm
- Authors also refer to theoretical frameworks from Writing Studies, Online Writing Instruction and Disability Studies literature
- Authors’ positionality or bias is not addressed although professional bios are included.
- Authors are both interdisciplinary, having technical communication and disability studies backgrounds
Reference with Published Abstract (when available)
Points of Connection
Authors and educators within post-secondary writing programs have been some of the most thoughtful and progressive advocates for digital accessibility and accessibility writ large in education, specifically in terms of pedagogy; Jay Dolamge, Lisa Meloncon, Sushil K Oswal, Sean Zednek and J Palmeri to name a few. (The reference list for Oswal and Meloncon’s article cites many of the progressive thinkers in this field.)
- This article takes a disability studies-informed AND a technology-informed pedagogical view, rather than a tech-centred or product-centred approach to accessibility.
- In addition to problematizing the three most commonly referenced accessibility frameworks for educators, Oswal and Meloncon point educators and institutional administrations toward requesting, observing and respecting feedback from learners with disabilities on everything from how they experience the learning management system or file-sharing tool for a course, to how they experience choice and agency in assessments.
- They argue educators and institutional staff must see accessibility as a parallel concern with learning outcomes at the course design stage to move towards inclusive education.
- The article illustrates how participatory course development might guide educators, researchers and administration to better understand and appreciate the diverse experiences of learners with disabilities.
- Authors suggest that repeating participatory course development over time – taking an iterative approach – will build educators’ awareness of real-life accessibility needs better than adherence to a checklist ever could.
- QM fails to address accessibility issues
- WCAG is too technical / techie to be easily used by educators
- UDL principles are broad and can be applied without awareness (critical or otherwise) of disability, accessibility, or assistive technologies
The Stanford Program in Writing and Rhetoric included this article in their professional development readings in 2020/2021. “As part of our ongoing learning, we read great scholarship and essays from varied disciplinary perspectives…focused largely on scholarship that addresses online writing instruction (OWI)” The post Another Look: Revisiting “Saying No to the Checklist” and “Thick” shares an overview of their shared takeaways from the text and includes two educators’ questions and thoughts about applying the reading to their practice. Of note, one discusses the applicability of the text to both online and in-person instruction. (Another Look, 2021)
Points of Contention
Oswal and Meloncon encourage educators to involve students with disabilities in participatory course design. I agree with this recommendation, my only caveat is that educators need to appreciate the difference between iteratively seeking and working with feedback in a research setting, vs. course development phase, vs. in a classroom setting.
Educators must be cognisant of the power-over relationship they have with students in a classroom setting and consider how they can invite meaningful feedback. They must also take care not to (intentionally or unintentionally) assign learners with disabilities the added workload of being unpaid accessibility consultants, unpaid accessibility auditors, or unpaid professional development providers.
For a look at more participatory research in this field see Students with Disabilities as Partners: A case study on user testing an accessibility website, which finds, “Instead of primarily treating disabled students as lacking capacities and requiring programmatic intervention to succeed in the university, a partnership approach validates and draws on disabled students’ specific expertise and experience to make institutional change.”
Findings
Authors call for more research, as findings are limited.
Authors recommend participatory course development, enabling instructors to work with students of all abilities to discuss/determine course materials, learning technologies, assignments, etc. that meet the accessibility needs of the group.
Upon Reflection / Open Questions
What if the first two weeks of a twelve-week term were devoted to participatory course development? What changes might those conversations lead to? What might that do for learner engagement?
Is participatory course development feasible in a class with more than 20 – 25 learners? Maybe in tutorial groups? Is accessibility and meaningful inclusion even feasible in the large 100+ learner courses?
Leave a Reply