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