Inclusive Design in Online and Blended Courses

September 4, 2023

Kim Ashbourne

Full Title

Inclusive Design for Online and Blended Courses: Connecting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and Universal Design For Learning

Author(s)

Susie Gronseth, PhD.

Centering Voices

Female Author

Year of Publication

2017

Media Type

Journal Article

Media Access

Free / OPEN version of the article has digital accessibility issues. The title and headings are not digitally readable and images are not described.

Reading Rooms

Digital Accessibility in Praxis, UDL

Usefulness to Educators

This paper offers some examples of “why” and “how” educators could make digital accessibility improvements to their courses. By attempting to map WCAG 2.0, and the POUR framework to UDL–centred pedagogy, Gronseth made a unique contribution to the literature. Note: Gronseth’s notion of Inclusive Design is inconsistent with the OCAD Inclusive Design Research Centre’s use of the term.

Premise

The WCAG Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust (POUR) framework can be mapped to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL framework to achieve accessible instructional design for all learners.

Purpose

To provide educators and instructional designers with practical examples to improve accessibility in their courses.

To offer context for why educators need to make courses accessible.

Research Methods

Normative argument

Conceptual or Theoretical Frameworks

Inclusive Instructional Design
Universal Access to Education

Reference with Published Abstract (when available)

Points of Connection

Gronseth writes as both an educator and an instructional designer who has extensive experience with digital accessibility practices and the UDL framework. Mapping the two frameworks in 2017 was a novel and interesting approach to improve accessibility for learners with disabilities.

The focus of this paper is on blended and online learning, but in our contemporary, post-secondary context, the digital accessibility practices she describes are equally applicable to any course with technology-integrated learning elements such as digital learning materials, learning management systems, course websites, digital file sharing, etc.

Points of Contention

As is often the case with UDL scholarship, Gronseth’s argument avoids asking educators to embark on the discomforting work of examining ableism in their biases, course design, pedagogy, and praxis, not to mention the institutional policies that confine both educators and disabled learners.

Findings

Rather than findings, the article makes recommendations for future practice and future research.