Entry Points for Transformative Digital Accessibility Praxis Reflections

The kind of checklists that typically shadow digital accessibility in education are antithetical to transformative, relational praxis. However, we do need entry points to focus learning and reflection.

What follows are prompts for educators to reflect on digital skills, choices and actions as well as the conscious and unconscious beliefs about disability and accessibility that affect the accessibility of our digital practices. In the final section, the possible outcomes for reflection and discussion are offered as essential gestures toward accessibility from theorists and practitioners whose work has heavily influenced CanDARE research, some of which is included in the Post-Secondary Library.

1. A Compassionate Look at Your Courses, Pedagogy and Beliefs

Look at the Structuring Features of Your Course

Where might you assess the accessibility of your digital praxis? Dr. Ann Gagné, Senior Educational Developer, Accessibility and Inclusion at Brock University, who herself identifies as disabled, points educators to her holistic approach to accessible pedagogy (Gagné, 2023) by looking at:

• The course design (activities, assessments, and pedagogical approaches)
• The space learning happens (online, field study, classroom, etc.)
• The tools for learning (LMS, equipment, technology, materials, etc.)

Each level offers different opportunities. Educators can change some of these features easily, but some are out of the educators’ immediate control, for example the choice of LMS is institutional. Some people can be DIY change-makers but not everything is on us. If it comes to your attention that an element of a course is digitally disabling learners and you can’t address it yourself, be an advocate for change by starting conversations at your department-level. Chances are it’s an issue for learners in other classes as well.

Look at the More Personal Features of Your Course

Does the digital accessibility of your courses convey your beliefs and values? Jane Seale (2006, 2020) asserts that the extent to which technology-integrated learning is made accessible will be relative to educators’ beliefs, understandings, and views of:

• “disability, accessibility, and inclusion;
• duty and responsibility;
• autonomy and freedom;
• teamwork and community. (Seale, 2020, p.10, bullets added for emphasis)”

To see this at work, we can look at the accessibility and effects of our day-to-day habits, workflows, and beliefs:

• Workflow habits (e.g., do we create, save and share accessible documents, what are our feelings about reasonable response times, work load, efficiencies, etc.)
• Communication and collaboration practices (e.g., emails, syllabus, practices in Zoom rooms, teamwork models, etc.) 
• Expectations of students (e.g., expected abilities, “normal” pace, etc.) and the policies we set relative to these expectations.

Do You See Digital Access and Agency?

Which hallmarks of accessibility might you begin to look for in your praxis? Dr. Lisa Melonçon, Chair of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at Clemson University, offers us a theoretical stepping stone that merges disability studies, accessibility and post-secondary teaching praxis in orienting access theory (2018). She challenges us to orient our praxis toward access, agency, inclusion and diversity.

• Access
  • Can learners perceive, understand, navigate, and interact and contribute equitably in your learning spaces? Via the tools?
  • Do learners have equitable access to digitally accessible learning materials?
• Agency
  • Do all elements of your course design allow learners to retain agency over how their bodies engage with learning?
  • Does anything in the course design force learners with disabilities into reliant relationships with third parties to do things other learners can do independently? Are there agentive alternatives to explore?
• Inclusion
  • Do you discuss disability and inclusion openly with learners? Would you say you cultivate learning communities that re-orient perspectives “from an ideology of normalcy to an ideology of inclusion (Oswal & Meloncon, 2017, p. 68)”?
  • Do you activate inclusion policy with practical demonstrations of inclusion e.g. preparing a plain language, digitally accessible syllabus for both digital and print distribution?
• Respect for Diversity
  • Do you request accessibility-focused feedback on experiences of learning and assessments?
  • Do you model respect for access, agency and inclusion for learners with disabilities in learning communities, by demonstrating digital accessibility practices? Do you notice if learners’s voices are included in discussions? Do you curate disabled scholars in your reading list and as guest speakers?

Melonçon encourages educators to approach this kind of work iteratively (2018). As we learn new practices we improve our skills and our courses. As we seek feedback, we learn from our learners and we integrate that. I offer one caution related to requesting feedback, our learners are not unpaid disability consultants. It is not their job to educate us. Educators must always seek consent for a learner’s time, recognize the power-over relationship we have, and approach the request for feedback with respect for their lived experience.

2. A Close, Critical Look at Your Digital Practices

Our skills, actions and choices each represent opportunities to consciously attend to and transform praxis. Are your beliefs aligned with your current digital accessibility literacy skills, and your daily digital choices and actions? Might conflicting beliefs be conveyed as you go about the following?

Course Materials: creating, curating, and disseminating

• Creating documents, such as syllabi, handouts, and other course materials.
• Creating slide deck presentations, videos, or audio recordings.
• Curating readings, videos, podcasts, guest presentations, websites, etc.
• Disseminating course materials via course-packs, handouts, LMS, a custom course website, or other file-sharing system
• Setting the expected pace for accessing and engaging with materials.
• Awareness of access-restricted services, such as a library’s accessibility services, that might be needed for learners to gain digital access to materials.

Learning Experiences: technology selection, policy, and design

• Designing and delivering learning experiences in digital environments, or that use digital technology.
• Selecting technology for learning experiences e.g., lectures, field study, group work, LMS use, polling, social annotation, concept mapping, statistics packages, class discussion, lab work, etc.
• Investigating known accessibility issues or limitations of the technology or requesting support to investigate compatibility issues with learner technology.
• Addressing an incompatibility, or other accessibility issue, with technology.
• Setting policy and restrictions for technology use in class e.g., allowing or restricting mobile devices to be used in class, policy about camera use, making captions available, allowing the class transcript to be saved by learners, etc.  
• Setting the expected pace and duration of technology-integrated learning experiences e.g., breaks to step away from computers, time to access tech support.
• Designing for student autonomy in learning experiences.
• Designing for inclusion and interconnectivity in group activities.

Learning Assessments: technology selection, restrictions, and design.

• Designing and delivering assessments in digital environments, or that use or restrict digital technology.
• When options are offered, designing equitable assessment options for all learners.
• Selecting technology for assessments or allowing learners to select technology for completing assessments e.g., written, verbal or other forms of exams, class presentations, papers, posters, group work etc.
• Investigating known accessibility issues or limitations of selected technology, or requesting support to investigate compatibility issues with learner technology.
• Addressing an incompatibility or other accessibility issue with the required technology.
• Setting policy controlling or limiting the use of technology for assessments e.g., proctoring, restricting copy/paste function, or requiring hand-written assessments.
• Setting the expected pace and duration of learning assessment e.g., designing time-restricted or learner-paced assessment.
• Awareness of access-restricted services, such as computer labs, that might be needed for learners to gain digital access to assessment materials.
• Designing for student autonomy in assessment.
• Designing for inclusion and interconnectivity in group assessments.

Course Communication

• Selecting technology for course communication e.g., sharing instructions and announcements via LMS, emails, a course website or in-class-only.
• Selecting technology for individual communication e.g., emails with individual learners, assessment feedback, instructions, and expectations, etc.
• Being able to direct learners to technical or other support to meet class requirements.
• Discussing digital accessibility and accessible digital practices in class.
• Requesting feedback specifically on the accessibility of the spaces, tools and course design elements (pace, materials, assessments, etc.)
• Responding to feedback or inviting participatory course design or not.

3. Connect Transformative Outcomes to Reflections and Actions

How might your reflections on your beliefs, skills, actions, and choices move your digital praxis toward these transformative outcomes?

Hooks (1994): Wellbeing for learners and educators, and liberatory experiences of learning.

Zdenek (2019): Adoption of digital accessibility as a literate practice at the centre of an accessible web, and a culture shift toward access as a shared responsibility.

Melonçon (2018) and Ahmed (2006): Shedding disorienting and disabling pedagogical practices and reorienting praxis toward inclusion and accessibility.

Palmeri (2006), Oswal and Melonçon (2017): Inclusive curricula, participatory course development, and critical interrogation of ideologies of normalcy.

Dolmage (2017): Unhiding and addressing the legacy of ableism in the Academy.

Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018): Accepting that disability is messy, and addressing it with care not bare minimums.

Sins Invalid (2016): Disability justice.

Clare (2015): Momentum.

Sheppard (2019): Joyous ramps.

With these possible outcomes in mind, what actions will you take toward a transformative digital accessibility praxis?

What changes can you make on your own?

What changes can you make with available supports or guidance?

What changes can you advocate for?