Improving Accessible Digital Practices in Higher Education
Full Title
Author(s)
Centering Voices
Year of Publication
Media Type
Media Access
Licenced digital access through Springer. Note this version does not work with some digital readers. Text selection readers (i.e. Mac’s Speak Selection) offer a usable reader experience with several errors. Images are not described, which is especially problematic in the models and framework chapters.
Free/ OPEN access link not available.
Usefulness to Educators
This book is a compendium of contemporary thinking and scholarship on the past, present and future digital practices in post-secondary education relative to learners with disabilities. Each chapter offers a concise overview, with perspectives from international scholars. Much of the material for this book came out in a series of roundtable conferences with the authors and other “stakeholders,” including learners with disabilities. It is a must-read for post-secondary educators and administration supporting technology-integrated learning at every level.
Premise
“The premise of this book is that ICT has a role to play in reducing the disadvantage that students with disabilities experience within HE.” (Seale, 2020 p. 154) Further, there is a pressing need to reduce the barriers and disadvantages that stem from inaccessible ICT practices in post-secondary learning environments. Legislation is impotent without individual and systemic changes to digital practices.
Purpose
- To illustrate the current landscape of research and common practices.
- To demonstrate the need for more critical research and praxis.
- To offer practices that will reduce disadvantages for learners with disabilities in post-secondary.
Research Methods
Varies by chapter.
Conceptual or Theoretical Frameworks
Varies by chapter but generally informed by education and disability studies frameworks relative to accessibility and inclusion.
Reference with Published Abstract (when available)
Points of Connection
In the introduction and in multiple chapters, Seale points out the lack of evidence for the assertion that UDL adoption improves the accessibility of learning materials, learning experiences, learning assessments or learning communities for learners with disabilities. As well, the reader is cautioned more than once that an uncritical adoption of UDL can lull educators into a false sense of accessibility that does nothing to improve learning experiences or outcomes for learners with disabilities.
Latching onto UD and UDL
In response to legislation (typically in the USA) many researchers and practitioners have identified [Universal Design] UD as a solution to poor accessibility practices (Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Ferraro, & Wolforth, 2009; Grabinger, 2010; Harper & DeWaters, 2008; Perlow, 2007). They are drawn to this model because it resonates with their views on accessibility, inclusivity, disability, equity and accommodations. Whilst advocacy for UD has generally helped to move the field forward, I have expressed concern that the community appears to have latched onto the UD model without considering (a) what evidence exists to show that UD does actually improve the learning experiences of students with disabilities and (b) whether there are any alternatives to UD that need to be considered before opting for UD as the sole solution (Seale, 2014, 2017a, 2017b).
Seale 2020
The UDL mantra needs questioning
The majority of researchers in the [Universal Design for Learning] field have constructed a narrative in their papers, which is so consistently repeated that it has in my view, become a habitual mantra that is voiced but rarely questioned. The mantra goes something like this:
- There are a growing number of disabled students entering higher education, so many in fact that we can no longer ignore their accessibility needs
- In addition to these growing numbers, there is equality and anti-discrimination legislation which practitioners are obliged to comply with; and this legislation applies to e-learning, so accessibility practices should therefore improve
- Despite these drivers, accessibility practices are not improving
- The solution to poor accessibility practices is training
- The solution to poor accessibility practices is universal design
This mantra needs questioning. The silences around this mantra need questioning. In particular, it is imperative that we examine the evidence that universal design is effective in improving the accessibility of e-learning resources or that accessibility training improves accessibility practices. (Seale, 2014, 16–17)
p. 14
Mole (2013, p. 76), in her examination of UD as a model for inclusion of disabled students in HE settings, concludes that “Despite the emerging popularity of UD with disability service provision, there is a notable lack of research with regards to outcomes for stakeholders.”
p. 68
The authors attempt to distinguish Universal Design for Higher Education (UDHE) as conceived by educators at the University of Washington from Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
The UDHE Framework makes clear that applying UD and UDL principles campus-wide does not eradicate the need for accommodations; it minimizes their necessity and thus reduces the need for students with disabilities to make special requests for them (Hadley, 2011).
Lack of IT support at the intersection of learning ICT and assistive technology
…mainstream ICT specialists on campus know very little about the technological needs of students with disabilities (Fichten et al., 2009). Subsequent research shows that while many students’ ICT-related access needs are being reasonably well met, there is a key exception—training on how to use needed AT (e.g., screen reading software) (Fichten et al., 2012).
p.24
Digital accessibility problems in HE are not new. Fichten et al. (2009) surveyed over 200 students with disabilities and over 100 staff from Canadian colleges and universities regarding e-learning problems and solutions. “Problems specified by at least 10% of students were, in rank order: inaccessibility of websites/course management systems, technical difficulties, poor use of e-learning by professors, difficulty connecting to websites/course management systems, and students’ lack of knowledge of how to use e-learning” (p. 247).
Although online content can be inaccessible (e.g., no captioning of videos, PDF files containing scanned images that cannot be read by screen reading software), it is material used “on-the-fly” inside the classroom that can pose the most serious access challenges. For example, if the professor uses a video clip in class, this may not be available to the student who requires video description or subtitles. Or if they use a simulation or digital polling in class, students may not be able to download the results onto their devices to make it accessible. As Berkowitz (2008) cautioned over a decade ago, just because it is digital does not mean that it is usable or accessible to all.
P. 25
Fichten et al. demonstrate how the lines between assistive tech and mainstream ICT are blurring.
For example, the ubiquitous spell checker was used by students with learning disabilities as an AT. Dictation (speech-to-text/voice recognition) software, a key feature of Apple and Android devices, is used as an AT by students with a variety of hand/arm impairments and some types of learning disabilities.
Accommodations
Disability service offices within HE institutions tend to rely on a medical view of disability, which can lead to an individualistic framework for service provision, where the focus is on determining the functional limitations of individuals with disabilities and then providing reasonable accommodations to facilitate their access to a facility, service, course, or technological resource. The provision of such services is typically dependent on the person with a disability securing a “diagnosis” of a disability by a recognized professional, providing a disability services office with documentation of the disability, and securing approval for reasonable accommodations. An accommodations-only framework for service delivery with respect to ICT can lead to a focus on providing assistive technology (AT) for specific individuals with disabilities, rather than on reducing accessibility barriers imposed by mainstream ICT.
p.47
There is a financial cost to the institution when educators and libraries curate inaccessible materials. I would add that there is also a very real cost to the learner in lost time, energy and mental focus having to source accessible versions.
The UW employs the Inclusive Campus Model for ICT procured, developed, and used at the University. Much of the work of the Access Technology Center (ATC) promotes the proactive design and remediation of videos, documents, websites, commercial software, and other ICT to minimize the need for accommodations (UW, n.d.). In spite of these efforts, each academic term, the most expensive accommodations provided by Disability Resources for Students with respect to online learning are for remediating inaccessible documents and captioning videos (Burgstahler & Greear, 2017).
p. 52
Despite the increasing interest in UD or similar frameworks, the vast majority of campuses world-wide primarily adopt an accommodations-only framework in their designs of disability service offerings [emphasis added] . Even when there are widely accepted guidelines, such as WCAG in the case of ICT, focus is on compliance (e.g., what do we need to do to be “ADA compliant”?) rather than moving beyond compliance and accommodations to embrace UD practices to ensure ICT is not just accessible, but also usable and inclusive.
p.54
Points of Contention
My main point of contention is that I want more.
Poor practice
This research focuses on both inaccessible ICT and inaccessible or “poor” digital practices within post-secondary.
Despite thirty years of legislation (and associated standards and guide- lines), technology is still not meeting its full potential. This may be partly due to technical barriers such as inaccessibility that could be solved by new design practices that produce new accessible ICTs. But mostly, I would argue, it is due to poor practice beyond the realms of ICT design [emphisis added]. It is due to poor practice in the lecture halls and seminar rooms, poor practice in student support services and poor practice in the wider HE institution.
p.14
Seale makes this bold statement about poor practices in the introduction of the book to set the stage for the research that follows. The authors do generally address how technology is being used and misused within the Academy, but it tends to be very high-level. For example, the chapter on models and frameworks offers a high-level look at how various frameworks are being used in institutions to move the needle on digital accessibility in every aspect of campus life, but doesn’t circle back to implications for teaching and learning.
Where is the chapter on educator practices?
Other than some discussion and critique of UDL, the researchers offer little discussion of poor practices relative to pedagogy or assessment choices. Nor do they investigate the agency educators have to improve digital practices in their classrooms and beyond. What are the poor practices in lecture halls and seminar rooms, and how are institutions addressing them?
What about the learners?
The biggest gap I see with this work is the lack of engagement with learners’ peer-to-peer interaction. Many students with disabilities have specific communication needs, as well as learning needs. Despite inviting learners with disabilities to participate in the rich round table discussions that fueled this work, it seems there was no discussion of the digital marginalization learners experience when communicating and collaborating within their learning communities.
This is post-secondary education. We need to look beyond the educator-learner, or educator-service-provider-learner relationships and appreciate the significance of peer-to-peer interactions, both educative and social.
If a learner’s assistive technology doesn’t work with the LMS forum tool for example, the learner will be digitally marginalized from the discussions that go on there. It’s not enough to have the learner submit what they would say on the forum in an email to the educator – that email isn’t part of the class discussion, nor it is informed by the class discussion. The student is left out. Similarly, if learners are meant to collaborate on an assignment, they need to be cognizant of how to author accessibly so that a learner using AT to co-author a paper can navigate the heading structure and perceive images and graphs. (See more discussion of peer-to-peer discourse in the social annotation section of the full literature review.)
Some Questions About Power
A number of times, authors reference the need for change to come both “top-down” and “bottom-up”. For example, participants at the Ed-ICT symposium on “Effective Models, Frameworks and Approaches” in Seattle (University of Washington, 2017) concluded that it was important to adopt both top-down, where “top” is associated with legislators, managers, and leaders, and bottom-up approaches, where “bottom” is associated with stakeholders that work more closely with students, such as in a disability services office.
Where are the educators this paradigm?
Where are the learners?
I’m concerned that this language of “top-down” and “bottom-up” uncritically reinforces the hierarchies of power within the institution. The implication is that external decision-makers (e.g., legislators) are seen to have the most power, and the staff working with students have the least. The learners aren’t even drawn into the picture.
I would argue that the greatest potential and power to change digital practices on campus rests with the learners. Here I am referring to learners with and without disabilities. Already, learners are seeing alt-text become normalized in social media, they are seeing captions normalized in streaming services. A growing number of learners are making use of mainstream assistive tech to support reading and writing and they are speaking up when course packs aren’t accessible. One day, creating and curating accessible content will be as normalized as using spellcheck. We aren’t there yet, but to leave learners out of discussions about accessible practices on campus is a significant oversight.
Findings
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: “(1) reviews current statistics regarding enrollment and success of students with disabilities in higher education; (2) examines the role and prevailing use of information and communication technologies in higher education; (3) considers the potential of the next wave of new ICTs; (4) illuminates with examples the many good, bad and terrible practices related to ICTs experienced by students in higher education; and (5) discusses the implications for future research and practice.”
Findings: “Students with disabilities, however, continue to face a variety of barriers, including inaccessible digital course materials and websites; lack of training on how to use needed AT, poor compatibility between software used by the HE institution and students’ AT; libraries that do not stock accessible digital textbooks or course packs; professors who do not allow students with disabilities to use their personal mobile technologies in class; procurement of inaccessible HE technologies that will affect teaching and learning for many years; the high cost of some AT; and restricted access to computer labs…HE institutions simply pay minimal attention to accessibility. To overcome these barriers, enhancing the knowledge of ICT stakeholders, including students with disabilities, in the design and development of new technologies and examining HE policies are key priorities for researchers and practitioners in the field.”
Chapter 3: “(1) review common frameworks and associated models that influence the design and delivery of accessibility services, (2) discuss whether something other than (or in addition to) existing frameworks and associated models is needed in order to activate a paradigm shift toward more inclusive ICT and practices, and (3) discuss the implications for future research and practice.
Leave a Reply