Universal Design for E-Learning Can Benefit All Students

Kari Kumar – University of ManitobaRon Owston – York University

Presentation Outline

• Introduction to Universal Design for Learning

• E-learning accessibility study

• Summary – Key findings

• Acknowledgements

• Relevant Literature

Introduction to UDL

The Main Idea

Introduction to UDL

CAST = Center for Applied Special Technology

Universal Design for Learning

(Rose & Meyer, 2002)

Transform the curriculum

delivery

Develop assistive

technologies

Introduction to UDL

3 Interconnected Learning Networks

Representation

Provide multiple means of:

Action & Expression Motivation

Affective(WHY)

Recognition(WHAT)

Strategic(HOW)

Introduction to UDLPractical application of UDL and related frameworks

Specific guidelines, checkpoints, and examples

UDI

UDLUID

E-learning Accessibility StudyWhat is e-learning accessibility?

Image by Jil Wright (CC BY 2.0)

E-learning Accessibility Study

Accessible e-learning environments are flexible and suitable for use by diverse

populations of students with a variety of learning needs and preferences (shaped by

their ability or disability as well as the learning context).

E-learning Accessibility StudyHow can we evaluate e-learning accessibility?

Objective Evaluation(e.g., WCAG 2.0 compliance)

Subjective Evaluation(e.g., user testing)

Drawings by Mike Kloran (http://myenglishimages.com/; used with permission)

E-learning Accessibility StudyUser-centered (subjective) evaluation

Image by “Usabilis, User Research and Interface Design” (http://www.usabilis.com; used with permission)

E-learning Accessibility StudyResearch Objectives1. Determine the extent to which objective measures

of the accessibility of e-learning technologies may be able to predict the subjective accessibility experience of students.

2. Determine whether data obtained from moderated and unmoderated e-learning accessibility testing are different and, if so, how and why they differ.

MethodologyA sample online course was developed• Two e-learning units were tested for accessibility by

objective and subjective methods

Websites (academic and non-academic)

MethodologyStudents with and without learning disabilities (N = 24) completed the online units

Students with learning disabilities

Heterogeneous group

Relatively large group

Interesting re: web accessibility

MethodologyData from student-centered unit evaluation

Stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts(N

= 2

4)

Screencasts and videos

Pre- and post-unit questionnaires

Exit interviews

MethodologyAccessibility barriers were identified

Accessibility Barriers

Difficulty Perceiving

Difficulty Understanding

Difficulty Interacting

Findings: Unit Accessibility

Unit accessibility was high to moderately-high

0 to 9 barriers

75% success

Unit A 0 to 3

barriers

100% success

Unit B

Findings: Group Differences

Students with and without learning disabilities• Data compared

– Accessibility barrier counts– Time taken for completion– Self-reported difficulty of online units

No statistically significant differences, regardless of the unit

Findings: In Support of UDL

Multiple Means of RepresentationE.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layoutE.g., 2: Text-based learning materials

WHAT

Findings: In Support of UDL

NLD = student without learning disability

“I like the way it’s laid out – it’s very clear....it’s laid out like Step A, Step B, which is nice.” NLD

“I find that I get distracted very easily. And so, when all of the instructions are listed out at the same time, I find it difficult and somewhat overwhelming at first.” NLD

WHAT

Scholarly ResourcesSeveral features are common to many scholarly

resources:Attribute Explanation

Peer-ReviewedPrior to publication, other experts have reviewed the work to determine that it is suitable for publication

Expert-WrittenAuthor(s) is/are qualified to write on the topic

Non-layperson Audience

The work is intended for the author(s)’ peers

Scholarly ToneFormal, possibly technical, language is used

References CitedOther scholarly work that has been consulted is mentioned

Findings: In Support of UDL

LD = student with learning disability; NLD = student without learning disability

“I learn well from text.” NLD

“Yeah, I was like, uh, blah blah blah (laughs)…. like, let’s just get on with it…. Um, so I just kind of skimmed through…. I was like, OK. So if this said anything important, I probably would have missed it.” LD

WHAT

Findings: In Support of UDL

Multiple Means of RepresentationE.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layoutE.g., 2: Text-based learning materials

Multiple Means of Action & Expression

E.g., 1: Locating an academic journal

WHAT

HOW

Goals

Upon successful completion of this module, you will have demonstrated the ability to:• Locate a scholarly

resource from an online library catalogue; and to

• Access a current journal article.

1. View a video demonstrating how to use an online catalogue.

2. Use this catalogue to access a specified journal.

3. Browse the abstract of an article in that specific journal.

Methods

Findings: In Support of UDL

Multiple Means of RepresentationE.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layoutE.g., 2: Text-based learning materials

Multiple Means of Action & Expression

E.g., 1: Locating an academic journal

Multiple Means of EngagementE.g., 1: Lack of engagement was a barrierE.g., 2: Engagement was subjective

WHAT

WHY

HOW

Summary

Applying principles of UDL to e-learning will increase accessibility

Accessibility is highly individualized

Accessibility is relevant to students with and without disabilities

Food-for-Thought

VS

AcknowledgementsFinancial Support• Social Studies and Humanities Research Council of

Canada (SSHRC)• Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS)

Study Design and Technical assistance• Neita Israelite• Melanie Baljko• Jacky Siu• Sydney Collins

Relevant Literature & Webpages• UDL and related frameworks

– UDL(CAST)) http://cast.org/ – UID (University of Guelph) http://www.uoguelph.ca/tss/uid/ – UDI (University of Washington) http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html

• Social and biopsychosocial models of disability– Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Houndmills: Macmillan.– Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The international

classification for functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11-12), 565-571.

• Web accessibility– WCAG (W3C) http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ – WebAIM (Utah State University) http://webaim.org/

• Usability and accessibility testing– Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, MA: AP Professional.– Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.l