mapping of identified good practices with knowledge and ... · web viewthe second key pillar in the...

ENTELIS+Ref 612194-EPP-1-2019-1-BE-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN

Document identificationDeliverable

ID D1.4 DeliverableTitle

Mapping of identified good practices with knowledge and training needs

of 38

Dissemination LevelRestrictedPublic XProgress

Date Status Input - Output Author

04.09.2020 FINAL

Jon Switters /Susanna Laurin (FUNKA) / Magdalena

Verseckas (EASPD) / Aashish Verma (JKU)

The contents of this document are confidential. Reproduction or forwarding without written approval from the ENTELIS+ Consortium is forbidden

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................3

1.1 Background......................................................................................................................3

1.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................3

2 RESOURCE COLLECTION TOOL......................................................................................7

2.1 Organisation of the sources gathered...............................................................................7

2.2 Criteria for identifying good practices...............................................................................8

2.3 Mapping of existing resources..........................................................................................9

3 CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE..............................................................................16

3.1 Experience in accessibility..............................................................................................17

3.2 Accessibility education and digital skills in society..........................................................18

3.3 Training needs and desires.............................................................................................21

3.4 Identification of potential gaps and barriers...................................................................25

4 TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY..........................................................................................29

4.1 Target groups.................................................................................................................29

4.2 Target groups – training needs.......................................................................................30

4.3 Target groups – Involvement..........................................................................................32

4.4 Target groups – Type of training.....................................................................................34

4.5 Target groups – Format of materials...............................................................................37

of 38


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Work Package 1 (WP1): Building the case forms the backbone of the ENTELIS+ project. It is the WP in which the research work is carried out, generating knowledge to build the case regarding the importance of providing accessibility digital skills for people with disabilities and older persons to foster inclusive education, more participatory citizens, better career prospects and employability.

In order to carry out a successful analysis of existing good practices on accessibility digital skills to foster inclusive education (T1.2), it was essential to first carry out initial research on digital skills for people with disabilities and older persons, accessibility of service provision and the role of ICT accessibility in inclusive education.

Tasks 1.1. of the ENTELIS+ project focused on the research and collection of the State-of-the-art research in digital skills and teaching, in relation to assistive technology (AT), accessibility and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). The collection of information was focused on examining existing resources, publications, practices, and views on gaps and needs in relation to:

• Digital literacy/skills in accessibility: guidelines, techniques, standards and tools for implementing mainstream digital accessibility (developer, content/system owner, content provider)

• Digital literacy/skills for people with disabilities and older persons (end-users): a) attitudes b) using AT, c) mastering accessibility features and d) working with mainstream applications

• Digital literacy/skills for service providers: AT, accessibility and ICT, including attitudes, with a particular focus on inclusive education. Digital skills in managing/implementing the holistic process of AT implementation/use (“AT is a service, not only a tool”) for the diversity of people with disabilities

1.2 Methodology

In order to carry out this research, three main methods were used. The combination of these three methods has provided the ENTELIS+ consortium with a comprehensive view on opinions, aspects, gaps, barriers and suggestions on the issues related to accessibility and digital skills for inclusion. This, in turn, has helped the research team to understand the state-of-the art, on which subsequent tasks will build in order to provide suggestions for competence development in organisations and groups. The three main methods include:

1. Resources Collection Tool: The resources collection tool aimed to collect any kind of resource available either on the internet or from the ENTELIS+ consortium partners. The tool was designed in order to provide a collection of resources including:

curricula individual courses books and handbooks

of 38


reports publications (empirical and theoretical) policy documents other practices

The resources collection tool was completed by each partner of the consortium, using the following criteria:

Resources relevant to the main project aims. Resources since 2015-2016, after the conclusion of the previous ENTELIS

project. Resources available in English Language (EU and International) and National

based (in English or National Language). In the case of resources in national language, partners provided a short description in English.

An overview of the results from the Collection Tool can be seen below in Table 1.

Table 1 Overview of results from the Resources Collection Tool

Type of resource Total numberCurricula 28Individual courses 51Books/Handbooks 52Reports 36Publications Empirical 21Publications Theoretical/Conceptual 27Policy documents 29Examples of Other Practices 22Total 266

2. Consultation Questionnaire: This questionnaire aimed to collect stakeholders’ views and opinions in order to better understand the existing situation and the needs in relation to accessibility education and digital skills development for inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. In order to do this, a consultation questionnaire was prepared including the following sections:

Information or people’s/organisations’ experiences in eAccessbility. Opinions and views on accessibility education and digital skills in society. Identification of relevant gaps and barriers. Wishes and suggestions towards a better implementation of accessibility and

digital skills development and education in accessibility in society.

Due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of the launch of the survey and also in an attempt to reach more people in a more efficient way, the professional online tool SoSci Survey was used to host the survey. This tool is easily adapted to individual needs, fully accessible in Front- and Backend, fully implements GDPR (up to storage of email addresses) and is additionally free for research use.

The questionnaire was released in 4 different languages (English, Italian, Greek and German) and consisted of 147 different variables in 4 main sections. The consultation was active from April 20 – June 10, 2020. Altogether, the research team received 103 answers from all over Europe that resulted in 74 valid cases after data validity checks

of 38


and the removal of empty consultations – from 8 different countries (Austria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, UK)

3. Training Needs Survey: This survey aimed to gain an insight to the initial needs of the ENTELIS+ partners and pilot sites for the development of the training modules. It was a short survey focusing primarily on: Main target groups for competency development. Training needs for each target group. How to involve each target group. Type of training preferred (access to learning, level of learning, duration of

training). Format of materials preferred (written materials, videos, infographics, games,

webinars).

All of the ENTELIS+ partners responded to the survey including all of the pilot sites. This information provides a key insight into the specific pilot site needs

The survey targets the ENTELIS+ pilot sites, however all other project partners were asked to complete the survey to provide the project team with additional information to help better understand the needs of the pilot sites with regards to the development (WP2) and localisation of training and pilot plans (WP3).

Figure 1 ENTELIS+ Triangulation of data for Work Package 1

This report analyses the results of these three research methods and will triangulate the information in order to provide:

Input for the creation of a knowledge repository on the ENTELIS+ website on digital skills for people with disabilities and older persons, accessibility of service provision and the role of ICT accessibility in inclusive education.

An overview of existing good practices in accessibility education and training with an innovative character to incorporate into the ENTELIS+ training materials.

Identification of gaps and potential barriers to overcome in the development of the ENTELIS+ training materials related to accessibility and digital skills for inclusion.

of 38


Provide preliminary conclusions to help identify the success factors for fostering digital skills for people with disabilities and older adults (T1.3).

of 38


2 RESOURCE COLLECTION TOOLAs previously mentioned in Section I, the Resources Collection Tool aimed to collect any kind of existing resource available either on the internet or from the ENTELIS+ consortium partners. The tool was designed in order to provide a collection of resources including:

curricula individual courses books and handbooks reports publications (empirical and theoretical) policy documents other practices

2.1 Organisation of the sources gathered

The ENTELIS+ partners gathered 266 different results throughout the different categories. In order to carry out an efficient analysis of the results, the categories were divided into two main blocks.

Figure 2 Organising the resources gathered

Results to be included in the mapping process: the curricula and individual courses identified can serve as inspiration for the development of the training materials for the ENTELIS+ project. The project team is able to analyse what has been done previously to see what elements have worked, what barriers others have faced and how they have overcome them. It will also help the ENTELIS+ team to spot potential best practices in the courses and elements that can be replicated in ENTELIS+. Furthermore, the curricula used in other initiatives can provide a basic structure on which the ENTELIS+ project can be adapted and personalise according to the needs and findings of this present report. The analysis of these results will provide the basis for the mapping of best practices.

of 38


Results to be included in summary tables to help complement the research and knowledge base: the analysis of the results from the other categories (books and handouts, reports, publications, policy documents and other practices) will help to generate a knowledge base on digital skills for people with disabilities and older persons, accessibility of service provision and the role of ICT in inclusive education. Furthermore, these resources could be used to complement the training materials that will be developed during WP2 as external resources for further reading or additional information when considered appropriate.

2.2 Criteria for identifying good practices

One of the main objectives of launching the Resource Collection Tool was to analyse the existing resources in order to identify good practices and provide input to further define the training material in WP2. As has been previously highlighted, the two categories that will be taken into account to carry out this analysis will be the existing curricula and individual courses.

Before starting with the analysis of the good practices, it is necessary to understand what is meant when defining a good practice. For this report, the definition is based on that used in reports from key international organisations such as the World Health Organisation1 and the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)2.

Adapting these definitions to the ENTELIS+ project, we can define a good practice as

“an individual training course or elements of training curricula that, through experience and research, has proven reliably to lead to the desired result of reaching the target group and improving digital skills and teaching, in relation to assistive technology (AT), Accessibility and ICT”

In order to successfully identify the good practices amongst the other results, a set of criteria has been taken into account to help judge whether each result qualifies for our definition of a good practice. It should be noted that not all good practices have to comply with all of the different criteria. Some good practices may be highlighted for being extremely strong in one or more of the different criteria.

The criteria used in the identification of the ENTELIS+ project can be seen below.

Table 2 Criteria used to identify good practices

Name of the criteria DescriptionGeographic coverage The number of countries/regions targeted by the different

initiatives were taken into account. Multi-national approaches to education in accessibility are of a specific interest to the ENTELIS+ project given that the project consortium includes 4 pilot sites located across Europe.

Range of topics covered The different initiatives were also analysed according to the topics that were covered and the extent to which

1 A Guide to Identifying and Documenting Best Practices in Family Planning Programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 2 Good practices home page of the FAO Web site: www.fao.org/capacitydevelopment/goodpractices/.

of 38

http://www.fao.org/capacitydevelopment/goodpractices/


these topics were aligned with the objectives for the ENTELIS+ project. Attention has been given to both those initiatives that go into detail on one specific topic or those which cover all of the main topics related to the ENTELIS+ project.

Innovative elements The innovative elements of the different initiatives are an extremely important factor when highlighting good practices in education in accessibility and inclusion. Attention was paid to those initiatives that used a variety of learning methodologies, approaches, forms of certification, learning technologies etc.

2.3 Mapping of existing resources

The following 11 initiatives were identified as good practices by the research team spanning from national to worldwide programmes. A summary of each of the different initiatives has been provided below.

Good practice 1: Certified Digital Accessibility Training

Target Group: Public sector employees, web developers, web designers

Funding/Type of initiative: European Commission – ERASMUS+

Knowledge level: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced

Description: The project started in September 2018 to meet the specifications of the European legislation, Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies. The project partners have been developing a certified digital accessibility training programme which will be offered to diverse groups of key stakeholders as a response for increasing labour market needs for expert in the field of digital accessibility in Europe.

Geographic coverage: Slovenia, Poland, Greece, Spain

Competences:

• Introduction to/managing digital accessibility

• Web development/design

• Evaluation of digital accessibility

Innovative elements:

• Quizzes to test user knowledge

• Certified training modules

• Focus on increasing labour market needs in digital accessibility

More information: http://digital-accessibility.eu/

Good practice 2: WAMDIA project – various courses

of 38

http://digital-accessibility.eu/


Target Group: Public sector employees, teachers & students in VET centres, SMEs


Knowledge level: Beginner

Description: WAMDIA aims to change the mindset of traditional ICT users. Everybody can contribute to accessibility of digital information by ensuring that common files that one can create are accessible: word processor, presentations or pdf files are good examples. WAMDIA will enable that general ICT users make digital information accessible by learning basic techniques which everybody with basic digital skills is able to apply in their daily life.

Geographic coverage: Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Sweden

Competences:

• Web development/design

• Introduction to/managing digital accessibility

• Evaluation of digital accessibility


• Moodle learning platform


• Multiplier events to extend project reach

• Multilingual website

More information: https://wamdia.eu/en/

Good practice 3: INCLUDU – various courses

Target Group: European educators, people with special educational needs


Knowledge level: Beginner, Intermediate

Description: IncluEdu is a strategic partnership of leading European Educators & Researchers who have a unique expertise in the field of ICT and inclusive learning. IncluEdu has developed a range of competence-based courses that enable Educators to use tablets and mobile devices to activate and empower their learners. The courses aim to enable education organisations to provide more inclusive, personalised education for people with and without special educational needs.

Geographic coverage: Finland, Austria, UK, Ireland, Cyprus

Competences:

• Tablet use and management

• Tablets in the inclusive classroom

• Inclusive pedagogy with tablets


of 38

https://wamdia.eu/en/


• Multilingual courses

• Online community platform

• Quality guidelines for customised courses

• Downloadable resources

More information: https://www.incluedu.com/

Good practice 4: ATLEC Training Course

Target Group: People with disabilities, Trainers of ICT AT, Companies

Funding/Type of initiative: European Commission – Lifelong Learning programme


Description: ATLEC focused on training the learners in specific skills particularly tailored according to their individual and employability needs, while also creating the job profile of ICT AT trainer. The focus was on the person with disability, as well as the trainer. The pedagogical methodologies were innovative, using blended learning (F2F, online and mobile), resulting in accessible WCAG2.0 compliant learning/training objects, which are exchangeable with other learning initiatives. A mentoring scheme was also set up in workplaces in Belgium and Greece.

Geographic coverage: UK, Belgium, Greece, Italy

Competences:

• ICT in the digital society

• Assessment of AT

• Social and interpersonal skills

• ICT AT

• Becoming an expert in ICT AT


• User-centred design approach

• Mentoring programme

• Blended learning approach

• Focus on employment

More information: http://atlec-project.eu/

Good practice 5: Digital Academy of Citizens

Target Group: Civil society

Funding/Type of initiative: State run


of 38

http://atlec-project.eu/

https://www.incluedu.com/


Description: This is an initiative of the Ministry of Digital Governance to make a collection of educational material (214 courses) that will enhance the digital skills of the citizens. Each citizen can choose the courses that fit his/her needs, interests and level of knowledge and skills. The platform offers a tool of self-evaluation for the citizens, to evaluate their digital skills. The content of the repository is chosen by an team including Greek academics and experts in digital education. The material is selected to facilitate quality and ease of use.

Geographic coverage: Greece

Competences:

• Internet & everyday tools

• Digital entrepreneurship

• Computer science

• Cutting-edge technologies


• Self-evaluation tool

• Citizen feedback facility

• Blended learning approach

• Possibility for citizens to submit additional content

More information: https://nationaldigitalacademy.gov.gr/

Good practice 6: University of the Third Age

Target Group: Older adults

Funding/Type of initiative: Non-profit

Knowledge level: Beginner

Description: The University of Third Age is an initiative to empower 65+ people through active & healthy aging programmes that include: lifelong learning, digital education & inclusion, intergenerational solidarity & active participation in civil society. Main courses include: Computers, European History, Greek Philosophy, Creative Writing, English language, Cosmology, Intergenerational storytelling.


Competences:

• Internet & social media (Facebook)


• Focus on older adults

• Non-profit initiative

More information: https://www.peoplebehind.gr/people-behind-eng

of 38

https://www.peoplebehind.gr/people-behind-eng

https://nationaldigitalacademy.gov.gr/


Good practice 7: Tech Talent School

Target Group: School/university students, teachers. Focus on women & unemployed

Funding/Type of initiative: Non-profit in collaboration with industry


Description: The "Tech Talent" programme is managed by Socialinnov and supported by Microsoft Hellas since 2017. Its aim is to promote the development of digital skills in Greece and the interconnection of professionals and the private sector. The educational programme is delivered for free in Greek and there are over 250 Classes available that include introductory courses and more advanced courses (e.g. programming languages and more complex topics).


Competences:

• Digital marketing

• Programming

• Social media

• Microsoft office

• Digital design thinking


• Strong collaboration with private sector & focuses on labour market

• Certification available

• Employability Bootcamp connecting students with companies

More information: http://techtalentschool.gr/

Good practice 8: Application and web content accessibility training (AWCAT)

Target Group: Students



Description: The AWCAT project aims to fill the education gap and develop a structured curriculum, recognised within the ECT system based on a blended learning scheme. It offers competences in designing accessible web content and applications and promotes actions to implement the course in the core curricula of university faculties. This will also help to promote the recognition of the certificate in the national & EU labour market and increase the awareness of accessibility teaching competences of academics.

Geographic coverage: Poland, Austria, Bulgaria

Competences:

• Basics of web accessibility

• Assistive technology of 38

http://techtalentschool.gr/


• Guidelines and legal requirements

• Accessible web design and usability


• Multiplier events to enhance the impact of the course

• Integration of the course within the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

More information: http://awcat.vfu.bg/

Good practice 9: Coursera

Target Group: Civil society

Funding/Type of initiative: Private training company


Description: Coursera is an online learning platform offering courses taught by top instructors from world-class universities and companies, so you can learn something new anytime, anywhere. Hundreds of free courses give you access to on-demand video lectures, homework exercises, and community discussion forums. Paid courses provide additional quizzes and projects as well as a shareable Course Certificate upon completion.

Geographic coverage: Global

Competences:

• Basics of web accessibility

• Assistive technology

• Guidelines and legal requirements

• Accessible web design and usability


• Certification available

• Global reach (over 200 partners across 29 countries)

• Caters for diverse audience (subtitles in over 40 languages)

More information: https://www.coursera.org/

Good practice 10: Bachelor in Smart Homes and Assistive Technologies

Target Group: University students

Funding/Type of initiative: University course


Description: This programme focuses on the use of modern electronics and ICT in order to help people. Students get a well-founded, holistic, and interdisciplinary education geared towards the development and implementation of needs-oriented solutions in order to improve the quality of life in people’s immediate (living) environment. Assistive technologies (AT)

of 38

https://www.coursera.org/

http://awcat.vfu.bg/


support people with special needs & older adults, allowing them to achieve a high level of autonomy in their lives. Smart homes represent an integral core aspect of AT.

Geographic coverage: Austria

Competences:

• Basics of AT

• Smart Homes

• Web technologies

• Sensor technologies and processing of bio signals

• IT security


• Bachelor’s degree certification

• Course content focuses on older adults and people with disabilities

More information: https://www.technikum-wien.at/en/study_programs/bachelor_s/smart_homes_and_assistive_technologies/facts___figures/

Good practice 11: Web Accessibility Course – Accessible Web Design

Target Group: ICT service providers, Web designers, Business consultants

Funding/Type of initiative: Private training company

Knowledge level: Beginner, Intermediate

Description: This course provides a comprehensive overview of the topic of barrier-free web design and prepares web designers and IT service providers with the right tools to design websites professionally and in line with requirements.

Geographic coverage: Austria

Competences:

• Design for all

• Process of an accessible web project

• Multimedia on the web



• Downloadable course content information

More information: https://www.incite.at/de/kurse-zertifikate/webaccessibility/

of 38

https://www.incite.at/de/kurse-zertifikate/webaccessibility/

https://www.technikum-wien.at/en/study_programs/bachelor_s/smart_homes_and_assistive_technologies/facts___figures/

https://www.technikum-wien.at/en/study_programs/bachelor_s/smart_homes_and_assistive_technologies/facts___figures/


3 CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIREThe second key pillar in the state-of-the-art research for the ENTELIS+ project was the launch of the consultation questionnaire. This questionnaire aimed to collect stakeholders’ views and opinions in order to better understand the existing situation and needs in relation to accessibility education and digital skills development for inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults.

The survey was structured in order to gain insights on the following areas: Experience in eAccessbility. Opinions on accessibility education and digital skills in society. Training needs and desires. Identification of potential gaps and barriers.

In total, there were 103 answers from all over Europe that resulted in 74 valid cases, after data validity checks and the removal of empty consultations. These 74 cases came from 8 different countries (Austria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, UK). Table 2 shows the different types of organisations that participated and their country of origin. The respondents came predominantly from the following types of organisations:

Support and Care Providers for persons with intellectual disabilities Education services for persons with disabilities Universities Assistive technology specialists/providers

With regards to the geographic distribution of the respondents, over half of the respondents came from Ireland, with strong representation also from Cyprus, Greece, Austria and Italy. The heavy influence of respondents from Ireland should be taken into account when analysing the results from the consultation questionnaire.

Table 3 Type and location of respondents

Type or organisation/respondent% of total respondents

Respondents

Service staff working for people with disabilities 66.2 %Educators working with learners with disabilities 35.1 %Other* 14.9 %Person with Disability 13.5 %Content owners (educational materials, courses etc.) 10.8 %Mainstream developers (educational materials, courses etc.) 6.8 %Policy makers 6.8 %

Country

Ireland 54.1 %Cyprus 10.8 %Greece 10.8 %Austria 9.5 %Italy 8.1 %Other** 6.8 %

of 38


*OTHER:1. Accessibility Standards makers2. Assistive technology developer3. European projects consultant for NGO4. IT Administration5. Mother of child with disability6. Parent of child with special needs7. President in centre for adults with disabilities.8. Provider for Assistive Technologies9. Public service provider10. Researcher

**Other: France, Portugal, UK

3.1 Experience in accessibility

When analysing the background of the respondents to the questionnaire, we can see that 41.2% consider themselves to be experts in accessibility. 30.9% were not sure if this term was appropriate to characterise them and 27.9 % responded directly that they were not experts in accessibility.

Figure 3 Q. Would you say you are an expert in accessibility?

When extending this question to the expertise on accessibility within the respondent’s organisation, the figure drops slightly. 28% of respondents stated that there was expertise on accessibility in their organisation. 16% of respondents highlighted that they weren’t sure if their organisation had any expertise in accessibility. Some of the reasons for their lack of certainty on this issue include:

Existence of experience and knowledge but lack of formal training. “learn as you go” attitude in some organisations. Experts in specific areas (e.g., Universal design for Learning, delivery) but not

specifically in accessibility. The role of the ICT department is more to support staff and the organisation rather

than service users.

Furthermore, respondents provided additional information regarding their organisation’s experience with accessibility. Table 4 summarises their responses.

of 38


Table 4 Additional information regarding organisation’s experience with accessibility

QUESTION YES %Do you provide information in accessible formats? 62.2%Do you have an accessible website? 58.1%

Do you offer accessible courses? 25.7%Do you provide support and counselling in accessibility? 20.3%Do you host / book external accessible courses? 18.9%Do you offer courses on accessibility? 18.9%

Over half of the respondents (62%) stated that their organisation provides information in accessible formats, proving to be the most popular service on offer. This is closely followed by 58.1% of the respondents who claimed that their organisation had an accessible website.

When analysing the existence of accessible courses, support and counselling in accessibility, hosting/booking external accessible course and offering courses on accessibility, the figure drops significantly, ranging between 18.9% and 25.7% of the organisations. This highlights a potential gap that could be filled by the ENTELIS project both through offering courses on accessibility to these organisations and by training staff members within the organisations to be accessibility ambassadors who could replicate this training within their organisations.

Preliminary conclusions Individual competence/experience in accessibility is quite widespread amongst the

respondents. However, it seems that this expertise is not significantly visible/represented within the

organisations themselves. Lack of clarity around accessibility as a concept and its role within an organisation. The provision of accessible websites and documents is far more common than the

provision of accessibility courses (internal/external) and counselling and support services on accessibility.

3.2 Accessibility education and digital skills in society

Level of interestIn the second section of the consultation questionnaire, the questions were focused on stakeholder’s opinions and views on accessibility education and digital skills in society. Firstly, respondents were asked to “How would you rate the interest in accessibility of the following stakeholders?”. Responses were measured on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest level of interest and 5 the highest. The results per type of stakeholder can be seen below in Table 5.

Table 5 Q. How would you rate the interest in accessibility of the following stakeholders?

Type of stakeholder Level of interestLow 2 3 4 High

Respondent 1.5 % - 7.5 % 28.4 % 62.7 %Respondent’s Organisation 3.2 % 6.5 % 24.2 % 27.4 % 38.7 %Older adults 12 % 24 % 30 % 18 % 16 %People with Disabilities (PwD) 3.2 % 7.9 % 20.6 % 20.6 % 47.6 %

of 38


Schools 5 % 16.7 % 25 % 30 % 23.3 %Educators working with learners with disabilities

- 11.1 % 20.6 % 23.8 % 44.4 %

Vocational educators / course providers

3.6 % 16.1 % 23.2 % 28.6 % 28.6 %

Universities 5.3 % 3.5 % 28.1 % 22.8 % 40.4 %Web / information / material developers

3.3 % 16.7 % 23.3 % 26.7 % 30 %

Governmental funding bodies 7.5 % 22.6 % 34 % 28.3 % 7.5 %Policy makers 11.5 % 30.8 % 25 5 26.9 % 5.8 %Society in general 11.1 % 28.6 % 38.1 % 15.9 % 6.3 %

Highest % per stakeholder type

According to the respondents, the stakeholders with the most interest in eA11y include the respondents themselves, People with Disabilities (PwD), educators working with learners with disabilities, universities and the respondent’s organisations.

There is medium interest perceived for stakeholders such as schools, vocational educators and course providers and web/information/material developers. Finally, there is a perceived medium to low level of interest less noted from governmental funding bodies, policy makers and society in general.

Level of knowledgeAside from the perceived interest of the stakeholders, respondents were also asked about the perceived knowledge of the same set of stakeholders. The question was “How would you rate the knowledge in eA11y of the following stakeholders?” on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest level of interest and 5 the highest. The results per type of stakeholder can be seen below in Table 6.

Table 6 Q. How would you rate the knowledge in eA11y of the following stakeholders?

Type of stakeholder Level of interestLow 2 3 4 High

Respondent 3 % 4.5 % 46.3 % 29.9 % 16.4 %Respondent’s organisation 4.9 % 18 % 41 % 19.7 % 16.4 %Older adults 45.1 % 37.3 % 13.7 % 2 % 2 %People with Disabilities (PwD) 14.8 % 41 % 24.6 % 13.1 % 6.6 %Schools 17.9 % 28.6 % 37.5% 10.7 % 5.4 %Educators working with learners with disabilities

6.7 % 20 % 45 % 18.3 % 10 %

Vocational educators / course providers 13 % 22.2 % 27.8 % 20.4 % 16.7 %Universities 9.3 % 7.4 % 25.9 % 37 % 20.4 %Web / information / material developers 3.6 % 14.3 % 23.2 % 28.6 % 30.4 %Governmental funding bodies 18.4 % 28.6 % 26.5 % 18.4 % 8.2 %Policy makers 25.5 % 35.3 % 17.6 % 13.7 % 7.8 %Society in general 25.5 % 38.2 % 30.9 % 3.6 % 4.8 %

Highest % per stakeholder

of 38


type

Analysing the results from the survey, it should be highlighted that there is a medium amount of perceived knowledge for the different stakeholder groups, showing that there is room for improvement in this area, and as substantial opportunity and need for the ENTELIS+ project.

Web/information/material developers are perceived to have the highest amount of knowledge, whilst older adults, governmental funding bodies, policy makers and society in general are perceived to have a low amount of knowledge in eA11y. It should be noted that People with Disabilities (PwD) also are perceived to have a medium to low knowledge in eA11y, suggesting that direct training with them may also be needed.

Views on accessibility and digital skills in societyRespondents were also asked to give their views with regards to how they view accessibility. They were asked “Do you see accessibility as a legal obligation; nice to have; a must have; Unique selling Point (USP) or as part of corporate social responsibility”. Participants were asked to select one or more of the options. The responses can be seen below in table 7.

Table 7 Q. Respondent views on accessibility and digital skills in society

QUESTION YES %How do you see accessibility?

As a legal obligation 50.7 %“Nice to have” 18.8 %Must have 62.3 %Unique Selling Point (USP) 42 %Part of social corporate responsibility (CSR) 49.3 %

As can be seen from the table, the majority of the respondents (62%) recognise accessibility as a “must have”. However, only half of the respondents see this subject as a legal obligation, highlighting potential knowledge gap regarding the legal obligations for organisations with regards to accessibility.

There is also a large amount of potential with regards to the focus of training and training materials on working with organisations to see the additional benefits of accessibility for an organisation such as using it as a unique selling point and how it can be incorporated as part of a social corporate responsibility strategy.

Need for education on accessibilityOnce information on the background of the participants has been identified along with the perception of interest and knowledge of specific stakeholders relevant to the ENTELIS+ project, participants were asked about the educational needs on accessibility for the aforementioned stakeholders. The question was “What is the needs for education on accessibility for you, your organisation and other stakeholders?”. Answers were given based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means no, there is no need and 5 means yes, there is a need. The results per type of stakeholder can be seen below in Table 8.

Table 8 Q. Stakeholder needs for education in accessibility

Type of stakeholder Level of needNo 2 3 4 Yes

Respondent - 3 % 4.5 % 22.4 % 70.1 %Respondent’s organisation - 1.5 % 4.6 % 23.1 % 70.8 %

of 38


Older adults 3.4 % 3.4 % 6.9 % 29.3 % 56.9%PwD 1.5 % 1.5 % 7.7 % 16.9 % 72.3 %Schools - 1.6 % 8.2 % 14.8 % 75.4 %Educators working with learners with disabilities

- 3.2 % 1.6 % 14.3 % 81 %

Vocational educators / course providers

- 1.6 % 1.6 % 19.7 % 77 %

Universities - 1.7 % 3.4 % 18.6 % 76.3 %Web / information / material developers

- 4.9 % 4.9 % 19.7 % 70.5 %

Governmental funding bodies 1.7 % 1.7 % 10 % 15 % 71.7 %Policy makers 1.7 % 1.7 % 8.5 % 16.9 % 71.2 %Society in general 1.7 % 3.4 % 10.3 % 24.1 % 60.3 %

Highest % per stakeholder type

As can be seen from the results in Table 8, there is a distinct need for education in accessibility across all of the stakeholder groups. This need was perceived to be higher amongst educators working with learners with disability (81%) and vocational educators/course providers (77%) and universities (76.3%).

Preliminary conclusions There is a need to generate more awareness and interest in the subject amongst

governmental funding bodies, policy makers and society in general. There is a need to improve the level of knowledge for all target groups, although

targeted actions should be focused towards People with Disabilities (PwD), older adults, governmental funding bodies, policy makers and society in general.

General lack of knowledge surrounding the legal obligations regarding accessibility for organisations.

Potential the focus of training and training materials on working with organisations to see the additional benefits of accessibility for an organisation.

There is a distinct need for education in accessibility across all of the stakeholder groups.

3.3 Training needs and desires

The most important topics for education and accessibilityRespondents were asked to provide feedback on the most important educational topics regarding education on accessibility, concerning respondents themselves, their institutions and the entire spectrum of stakeholders mentioned thus far. This question was asked as a free text question in order to collect the broadest response possible. The responses have been summarised below:

How to create accessible content Accessible Content Creation. Making videos/images accessible. Easy control of webpage (text font and colour contrast). How to make doc, processes, information, etc. accessible. Accessible document creation.

of 38


Web accessibility Accessible Web Platforms. Accessible websites. Easier access to mobile computing/ICT (computers, tablets and smartphones). What accessibility looks like. Assistive Technology (AT) Basic info on types and usage / benefits of different AT. Where to obtain AT and how to match / adapt AT to peoples' individual needs. Accessible Technology (Equipment and Software). Accessible Tools, aids for usage and input. Access to what is currently available. Cost effective AT. Good training and follow up on device usage and management, best fit for person. Funding/affordability. Understandable content Adapting the written text in content, meaning, simplification without losing meaning,

formatting font size and easily readable type. Use of photographs, pictures and symbols to support text. Layout of webpages and menus to make information readable and easily accessible

without having too much on each page. Working with the target groups so that materials are co-designed, plain English, Universal

Design for Learning UDL, alternative formats. Empowerment of People with Disabilities (PwD) Personal development which incorporates education in active citizenships programmes,

life skills such as independent living, cooking, budgeting etc. Personal decision making, capacity, Inclusion. End user engagement support. How to support people to be connected and to make use of accessibility in their everyday

lives. Reducing digital divide.

Awareness raising (horizontal topic) Exposure to wider society. Awareness in society (education for businesses, schools, society).

These key topics will provide insights into the subject areas to be covered in the training material that will be developed in Work Package 2 of the ENTELIS+ project. In addition to the more standard accessibility concepts and potential training areas, there are some responses that should be highlighted and kept in mind when developing the ENTELIS+ training materials. For example, there were responses that called for “awareness of and access to what is available”. There is a lot of information that already exists, it is important that the ENTELIS+ project builds on and improves these resources highlighting successful existing learning resources and methods and not reinventing the wheel.

Individual adaptation is another concept that stands out amongst the key topics. This is a broad topic that can potentially cover anything from provision of personalised AT over settings and preferences in hardware or browsers, to free or licensed products. Mapping of individual needs to technologies, settings and products needs to be carried out efficiently and within budget. AT in a broad sense is in some countries and contexts provided by the

of 38


government, in others the responsibility of the university/employer and in still others up to the end user to be aware of, find and buy. This is a further area where the ENTELIS+ course could provide additional benefit to the target groups

Type of learning schemeThe Consultation Questionnaire was also designed to dive deeper into the type of learning needs from the respondents so as to provide further input for the design and development of accessibility training materials in Work Package 2 of the ENTELIS+ project. The respondents were asked about the type of learning scheme that would be most suitable for them. The results can be seen below in Table 9.

Table 9 Q. Preferred type of learning scheme

QUESTION YES %What type of learning scheme would be most suitable?

Self-organised studying with books or online materials 10.1 %Self-organised studying with online course 20.3 %Guided hands-on training (by external experts) 72.5 %Guided hands-on training (by internal experts/multipliers) 60.9 %Designated courses (external) 47.8 %Designated course (in house) 30.4 %

From the results, it is clear that the respondents prefer guided hands-on training instead of self-organised study courses. Both training by external and internal experts were popular, however, external experts were preferred slightly (72.5% to 60.9 % respectively).

Type of course organisationThe respondents were asked about the different course organisation types and which are most suitable for education on accessibility. Participants were able to select as many answers as they considered relevant. The results can be seen below in table 10.

Table 10 Q. Preferred type of course organisation

QUESTION YES %What type of course organisation would be most suitable for education on accessibility?

Face to face courses 49.3 %Blended learning with practical parts 75.4 %Online / distance learning 34.8 %Guided hands-on training (by internal experts/multipliers) 60.9 %Designated courses (external) 47.8 %Designated course (in house) 30.4 %

The preferred type of course is a course which incorporate blended learning including some practical exercises (75.4%). Respondents also reiterated their preference for guided hands-on training courses (60.9%) just like in the previous question.

Timing of the course

of 38


The respondents were also asked about different time frames for learning activities and education on accessibility. Participants were able to select as many answers as they considered relevant. The results can be seen below in table 11.

Table 11 Q. Preferred type of course time frames

QUESTION YES %What type of time frames would be most suitable for education on accessibility?

Single block appointments 20.3 %Recurring (weekly/monthly) appointments 62.3 %Flexible and freely plannable 56.5 %

Training that is carried out on a recurrent basis is the preferred option for the respondents (62.5%). Flexible and freely plannable training courses also scored high (56.5%). This highlights a possibility to combine both recurring guided training with some sections left to the planning of the individual student.

In addition to the preferred periodicity of the training, respondents were asked when they would prefer to carry out the training activities. The results can be seen below in Table 12.

Table 12 Q. Preferred time for training activities

QUESTION YES %What time would be most suitable for education on accessibility?

During working hours 81.2 %In the evenings 27.5 %On weekends 14.5 %

It is clear that the majority of the respondent would prefer to carry out the training activities during working hours.

Structure of learning activitiesThe respondents were asked about the structure that is most suitable for learning activities and education on accessibility. The results can be seen below in table 13.

Table 13 Q. Preferred structure of training activities

QUESTION YES %What structure would be most suitable for education on accessibility?

Informal learning: unstructured and outside traditional, formal learning settings 14.5 %Non-formal learning: includes structured learning situations, but neither curriculum, syllabus etc. 60.9 %Formal learning: following a curriculum and finishing with a certificate 60.9 %

Upon analysing the results, it can be seen that the respondents prefer both non-formal and formal approaches to learning. This is a question that will be followed up on by the research team in order to be able to identify the most appropriate approach to take during the ENTELIS+ project. However, according to the original proposal, the current work plan is aiming towards a more formal approach through the creation of a training methodology and 5

of 38


training modules. As this was also scored highlight by the respondents (60.9%), the ENTELIS+ is still in line with the results of the consultation questionnaire.

Preliminary conclusions There is a need to re-use existing resources and materials – ENTELIS+ should not

re-invent the wheel. Individual adaptation – technologies that adapt to different individual needs. Guided hands-on training is preferred over self-organised study courses. Blended learning including practical exercises is preferred. Courses should be periodic and occur during working hours if possible. Non formal/formal learning over informal learning.

3.4 Identification of potential gaps and barriers

Gaps and barriers

Following the questions in the consultation about educational topics, organizational frameworks and their own position regarding accessibility, respondents were asked to give their opinion about potential gaps and barriers related to accessibility in our information society. They were provided with a (quite controversial) list of statements and were asked to identify the ones they believe are most prominent and true to the current situation. The results can be seen in Table 14. The gaps and barriers have been listed according to the level of agreement amongst the respondents.

Table 14 Q. Potential gaps and barriers

QUESTION YES %Do you agree that the following statements are possible gaps and hindrances for

accessibility in our information society? There is no clear view on what accessibility is 60.6 %There is no or limited funding for accessibility 56.1 %There are no or too few courses on accessibility for inclusion 47 %People in general consider accessibility as not very important 45.5 %There are no or too few up-to-date curricula for education on this topic 39.4 %There are no/few professional web / material developers working in accessibility 39.4 %There are no easy to follow and clear rules and guidelines on accessibility 39.4 %There are no ready to take off the shelf tools and solutions for accessibility 37.9 %accessibility is just seen as another legal obligation 33.3 %accessibility is a very complex topic taking a lot of time to be implemented 33.3 %There is no higher education study course/study programme on accessibility 31.8 %accessibility is predominantly related to disability 28.8 %The existing education materials and resources on accessibility are outdated 25.8 %Gaps Society: People in general have no or little interest in working in this area 24.2 %There is no or too little interest in this topic 24.2 %The implementation of accessibility is expensive and time consuming 21.2 %

of 38


The target group for accessibility is (too) small, diverse and fragmented 19.7 %There is no interest or knowledge on this topic 12.1 %There is no business advantage to be gained from accessibility 9.1 %

From the results, it is interesting to see that they reflect some of the conclusions from previous sections of the Consultation Questionnaire. By ordering the results according to level of agreement amongst the respondents, the research team can identify what are the main gaps and barriers that need to be prioritised and overcome by the ENTELIS+ project.

The top 6 gaps and barriers include: There is no clear view on what accessibility is: The ENTELIS+ project can help to

overcome this barrier by including information in the training materials on defining accessibility and providing examples of its use in practice.

There is no or limited funding for accessibility: Whilst directly, the ENTELIS+ project cannot provide any funding for carrying out accessibility activities, it is an EU-funded project that will provide training courses to specific target groups. Furthermore, there is a potential to use “train the trainer” techniques so that the benefits from the project are sustainable long after the funding has finished.

There are no or too few courses on accessibility for inclusion: Here, the ENTELIS+ can provide a direct response as it will pilot training activities in four different pilot sites across Europe, increasing the amount of training courses on accessibility for inclusion.

People in general consider accessibility as not very important: Again, this can be covered in the ENTELIS+ training course by including information and materials on the benefits of accessibility and what it can bring to different target groups.

There are no or too few up-to-date curricula for education on this topic: This is one of the core focuses of this research document and the ENTELIS+ project. The consortium is aiming to create training materials that provide up to date resources on this subject whilst addressing the needs of the stakeholder groups.

There are no/few professional web / material developers working in accessibility: This could also be taken into account when specifying the different target groups for each of the pilot sites in the ENTELIS+ project (see Section 5).

Creative and innovative ways to foster education in accessibilityThe respondents were also asked about creative and innovative ways to conquer the issues raised in the previous question related to gaps and barriers. They were provided with a list of ideas and were asked to identify the ones they believe are most relevant. The results can be seen in Table 15.

Table 15 Q. Creative and innovative ways to foster education in accessibility

QUESTION YES %Do you agree with the following creative and innovative ways to foster education in accessibility?Change of paradigm from “must have for the disabled” to “all people deserve it” 54.7 %Efforts to raise general interest in “accessibility” 53.1 %

of 38


Availability of more (funding) money for “accessibility” 48.4 %Development of realistic hands-on cases on the implementation of “accessibility” for diverse... 48.4 %Mainstreaming activities for “accessibility” 46.9 %Introductory courses on “accessibility” 45.3%Initiatives to make developers change their working habits towards “accessibility” 43.8 %Development of a clear and easy to communicate view on what “accessibility” is 43.8 %Vocational education in “accessibility” 35.9 %Development of ready to take, off-the-shelf tools and solutions for “accessibility” 35.9 %Up-to-date curricula for education in “accessibility” 32.8 %Raising of the importance of “accessibility” 31.3 %Revisiting and updating of eA11y education curricula at all levels 21.9 %Development of a business case “accessibility” 20.3 %Up-to-date curriculum for a study course on “accessibility” 18.8 %Development of a study course on accessibility 15.6 %Development of new or mainstreaming of existing rules and guidelines on 14.1%

From the results, it is again interesting to see that they reflect some of the conclusions from previous sections of the Consultation Questionnaire. By ordering the results according to level of agreement amongst the respondents, the research team can identify what are the most relevant ideas to overcome the previously identified gaps and barriers related to accessibility in our information society.

The top 6 creative and innovative ways to foster innovation in accessibility:

Change of paradigm from “must have for the disabled” to “all people deserve it”: The ENTELIS project can work on this by ensuring that the basic concepts of eAccessbility are understood. It is important to stress the benefits and for which stakeholder groups.

Efforts to raise general interest in “accessibility”: Again, ENTELIS+ can work on this point through the training courses. It is important to stress the benefits of accessibility and provide real life examples so that the participants become engaged and gain interest.

Availability of more (funding) money for “accessibility”: As has been previously mentioned, the ENTELIS+ project cannot provide any funding for carrying out accessibility activities, it is an EU-funded project that will provide training courses to specific target groups. Furthermore, there is a potential to use “train the trainer” techniques so that the benefits from the project are sustainable long after the funding has finished.

Development of realistic hands-on cases on the implementation of “accessibility” for diverse...: This could be incorporated into the training materials for the ENTELIS+ course by building on real life examples of how the implementation of accessibility in different environments.

of 38


Mainstreaming activities for “accessibility”: This, in itself, is a very ambitious target to achieve. However, the ENTELIS+ project will help increase the awareness about the importance of accessibility this helping to help drive the mainstreaming of accessibility in each of the different pilot sites.

Introductory courses on “accessibility”: It is clear, that there is a need to continue providing training resources on the basic concepts of eAccessibilty. This will be taken into account in the design of the training material in Work Package 2.

Preliminary conclusions The main gaps and barriers mentioned in the consultation questionnaire can be

addressed by the ENTELIS+ project. There is a demand to explain the importance of accessibility through real life success

cases. It is important to stress why accessibility is important and how it affects different

stakeholder groups.

of 38


4 TRAINING NEEDS SURVEYThe third and final pillar in the state-of-the-art research for the ENTELIS+ project was the launch of the training needs survey. This survey aimed to gain an insight to the initial needs of the ENTELIS+ partners and pilot sites for the development of the training modules. It was a short survey focusing primarily on:

Main target groups for competency development. Training needs for each target group. How to involve each target group. Type of training (access to learning, level of learning, duration of training)

preferred. Format of materials preferred (written materials, videos, infographics, games,

webinars).

All of the ENTELIS+ partners responded to the survey including all of the pilot sites. This information provides a key insight into the specific pilot site needs with regards to the development (WP2) and localisation of training and pilot plans (WP3) of the ENTELIS+ project.

When analysing the results of the survey, emphasis has been placed on the results from the project partners from the four pilot sites as these are the locations where the localisation of the training and the development of the pilot plans will take place:

AIAS – Italy Saint John of God Community Services – Ireland Margarita – Greece Atempo – Austria

The responses from other project partners will also be taken into account to validate the answers from the pilot sites.

4.1 Target groups

The first questions of the training needs survey focused on the target groups for the ENTELIS project.

Question 1: What do you see as the principal target groups for competency development in the ENTELIS+ project

Respondent Target group in order of priority

Pilot site: Italy (AIAS) 1. Service providers supporting people with disabilities

2. Education and training providers in formal education of students with disabilities and transition to employments (Teachers, trainees, tutors, policy makers).

3. People with physical and intellectual disabilities of all

of 38


ages

Pilot site: Ireland (Saint John of God Community

Services)

1. Service providers for people with disabilities

2. Social care and support providers working in cooperation with education and training

3. Education and training providers

Pilot site: Greece (Margarita)

1. Web designers, software developers

2. Service providers for people with disabilities

3. Education providers to people with disabilities

Pilot site: Atempo (Austria)

1. Service providers

2. Education and training providers

3. Organisations of people with disabilities

Other partners

1. Education and training providers/local and regional authorities/Organisations of people with disabilities

2. Service providers/Educators/ Local and regional authorities

3. Organisation of people with disabilities/Education and training providers

Preliminary conclusions Different pilot sites have different priorities regarding the target groups for the training. However, the main target groups do coincide, just in different levels of importance. Service providers (including social care) supporting People with Disabilities (PwD),

education and training providers and People with Disabilities (PwD) have been identified as the target groups for most the pilot sites.

Work will be needed within Work Package 3 to localise the training materials that are developed in order to change the focus according to the specific target group need at each pilot site.

4.2 Target groups – training needs

The responses from the different pilot sites have been summarised to provide a set of training needs.

Question 2: Please specify the training needs in the field of digital (accessibility and assistive technology) competences.

of 38


Target group Training needs

Service providers for people with disabilities

Basic knowledge of ICT/AT and Accessibility standards. Opportunities offered by technology in different fields:

education, employment, social participation, etc). How to implement programmes to enhance the digital skills

of persons with disabilities and elderly. How to design accessible online services and lessons,

netiquette and social skills while using and communicating through digital means, copyrights and data protection (GDPR).

How to encourage self-evaluation and user-evaluation of the digital tools and services.

Provide best practices and ideas in which ways accessibility and assistive technology can help their clients.

Tiered training programme from Basic, Intermediate to advanced digital competencies to build staff capacity.

Education and training providers

Basic digital AT and accessibility competencies and examples of how they can be used in the learning environment.

The competences needed in order to enhance the digital skills of persons with disabilities (e.g. train the trainers, transferable skills).

Provide examples of the positive impact that digital assistive technology can help and support individuals with disabilities to assist them to be more independent and build digital skills.

How to design accessible online services and lessons, netiquette and social skills while using and communicating through digital means, copyrights and data protection (GDPR).

Awareness about the different technologies, platforms and accessibility tools that could improve their training programmes.

People with physical and intellectual disabilities of all ages

Basic knowledge of ICT/AT and Accessibility standards. Knowledge on the opportunities offered by technology in

different fields: education, employment, social participation etc.

Organisations of people with disabilities

Knowledge in accessibility, digital skills and assistive technology.

How organisations representing People with Disabilities (PwD) can reach out to their members through the internet.

Knowledge basis in accessibility to help the organisations lobby for accessibility policies in their respective regions and countries.

Web designers and software developers

Knowledge on the needs of People with Disabilities (PwD). How to include People with Disabilities (PwD) during the

design phase for the development of more inclusive, accessible and non-discriminatory digital tools and services.

Local and regional authorities

Basic knowledge of ICT/AT and Accessibility standards. Real life examples of public services, information and

websites that are not accessible/accessible. How to stress the benefits and impact of accessibility within

local administrations in order to gain political support.

of 38


Preliminary conclusions Basic knowledge in digital skills, accessibility and assistive Technologies (AT) is a

clear need for most of the target groups mentioned. There is a demand for real life examples of how accessibility and assistive

technologies can help people. Generate awareness about the different technologies, platforms and accessibility

tools that exist and that could improve the learning experience. This is particularly of interest to the education and training providers.

The main difference in training needs can be found between 4 main groups: o Group 1: Service providers/education and training providerso Group 2: People with Disabilities (PwD) and the organisation that represent

themo Group 3: Web designers and software developerso Group 4: Local and regional authorities

These groups can be taken into consideration during the localisation of the training materials in Work Package 4 of the ENTELIS+ project.

4.3 Target groups – Involvement

Question 3: How you will involve them in the pilots and the local community of practice? Which organisations you would like to involve? (specify if you have worked with them previously)

Respondent Method of involvement

Pilot site: Italy (AIAS)

Service providers supporting people with disabilities:

A heterogeneous group of educators will be created with the aim of working together in a cooperative way.

They will be invited to share their experiences and work together to find out new solutions and educational pathways to enhance the implementation of digital inclusion for PwD and older adults.

We will involve educators from different organisations working in the same field.

Education and training providers:

We will involve a combination of relevant stakeholders from public and private entities in order to define the competences/requirements needed to implement inclusive technology enabled educational programmes.

People with physical and intellectual disabilities of all ages:

People with Disabilities (PwD) will be involved to improve their digital skills and their capacity to apply them in concrete fields of interests.

Pilot site: Ireland Service providers for people with disabilities:

of 38


(Saint John of God Community Services)

We will work with FreedomTech’s CHAT Community hub for Assistive Technology group members that come from over 120 organisations who support People with Disabilities (PwD) and older people across Ireland,

FEDVOL, an umbrella group who work with 60 Disability organisations, will also be involved.

The team has worked with FEDVOL in the past in the area of assistive technology and digital inclusion for adults with intellectual disability.

Social care and support providers working in cooperation with education and training:

We have partnerships with Universities in Ireland mainly TUDublin, Maynooth University and UCD all of whom train social care students.


We have several ties to community colleges and education training boards (ETB). They deliver QQI National Framework accredited Level 3-6 for adults with additional needs; however, they do not engage in any digital assistive technology to support education or learning process.

During this pilot, we wish to engage with these external educators and encourage them to understand better the essential Digital AT tools that can support both the educators and the learners.


Web designers, software developers:

We consider approaching graphic designers, web developers and software engineers to organise sessions with them regarding digital accessibility.

In the sessions people with disabilities will have the role of future possible end-users of their products, and they will evaluate products already developed.

Alternatively, we will simulate the design and development phase of a new product in order to highlight the importance of involving users with disabilities when designing the accessibility characteristics of the digital tools and services.

This way we will train the developers / engineers in a real scenario on methodologies to evaluate the accessibility involving users, as well as support them in understanding better the needs of people with disabilities as web citizens / netizens.

Service providers for people with disabilities:

We will approach similar organizations to MARGARITA, service providers for people with intellectual disabilities, with whom we have collaborated in the past.

We will involve them by organizing meetings with professionals to train them on the principles of distance learning and the transition of the traditional services to a digital environment.

We could offer guidance on the free tools available on the internet and how they could be used for their services; present possible challenges and solutions.

of 38


We could also offer guidance on how to organize meetings with their service users to evaluate their needs and digital skills and thus, make the digital services more accessible.

Education providers to people with disabilities:

See above approach for service providers with People with Disabilities (PwD).


Service providers:

We will try to have 1-2 engaged and interested person from each bigger service provider in our area. Those people are our gatekeeper into the depths of those organisations who should be able to spread the knowledge and give feedback on the needs. These organisations include: Lebenshilfe, Mosaik, alpha nova, Jugend am Werk (we have worked with all of them in different settings).


Talk with them about their needs and where they think they need the most improvement.

Some of those providers are also part of the service providers we want to target. We probably also are going to work with some schools we already have connections to.

Organisations of people with disabilities:

They should give their insights and expertise into the whole project.

We will plan our pilots together with them to make sure we reach the right people and are doing the right thing. These organisations include: Selbstbestimmt Leben, self-advocacy groups of different service providers.

Preliminary conclusions Each pilot site has a different way of involving their target groups. The ENTELIS+ project may benefit form sharing the different methods of involving the

target groups (communication/informative materials about the project) so that all potential stakeholders receive the appropriate message through the appropriate channel.

4.4 Target groups – Type of training

Question 4: How do you think the target group would like to access the learning (e.g., online, self-directed, face to face courses). What level of learning would be adequate (e.g., basic, intermediate, advanced) How long the training should last for (e.g. number of days/weeks/months)?

Respondent Curse access/level of learning/duration of training

Pilot site: Italy Service providers supporting people with disabilities:

After an initial training we envisage a learning by doing

of 38


(AIAS)

methodology where the group members with their client’s co-design solutions and strategies for digital participation and reflect during face-to-face meetings with the other group members on their results obtained “on the ground”.

Intermediate level. Two half a day seminar followed by field work reported during 5 meetings a year.


Face to face training (2 half days) and cooperative work.


Online or on-site courses, remote support

Pilot site: Ireland (Saint John of God Community Services)


Organisations of People with Disabilities (PwD) will benefit from a blended learning experience with a mix of; Online learning for an introductory overview, Self-Directed which would go into more specific details to deal with different needs of the individuals supported and Face to Face learning to help workshop out and alleviate the tech fears that are rooted within a lot of support care workers.

Online: Basic Training 5 hours - Two weeks | Intermediate Training 10 hours over a month | Advanced Training 20 hours over two months.

Self-Directed: Basic training 5 hours - two weeks | Intermediate Training 10 hours over two months | Advanced training 20 hours over four months.

Face to face: Workshops Basic 3 hours | Intermediate 3 workshops | Advanced 6 Workshops.


Online and face to face courses covering all three levels basic, intermediate and advanced.

Include case studies to work with user needs, and if the workshops could be linked with job placement that takes place, it will be even more useful.

Online: Basic Training 5 hours - Two weeks | Intermediate Training 10 hours over a month | Advanced Training 20 hours over two months.

Face to face: Workshops Basic 3 hours | Intermediate 4 workshops | Advanced 8 Workshops.


Education and Training Providers would be similar to the Organisations of people with disabilities in that they would require all three levels.

They have the added bonus that their students can be real case studies and they could embed digital AT into their IEP's Individual Education Plans.

Pilot site: Web designers, software developers:

of 38


Greece (Margarita)

Online and/or face-to-face courses with the involvement of people with disabilities to share personal experiences and point of view on technological challenges they face with the interfaces.

Basic and/or intermediate level. 3 to 4 meetings will suffice to evaluate ways to involve people with

disabilities as accessibility experts during the designing of digital tools and services. The duration of the training will depend on the material.


Self-directed and/or face-to-face meetings. Basic and/or intermediate learning. 8 to 9 meetings will be enough to cover all the topics and produce

reports on how to apply the learning outcomes in each participating service provider. The duration of the training will depend on the material.


See above approach for service providers with People with Disabilities (PwD).


Service providers:

Preferred face to face, but in the current situation online would be possible as well, small parts self-directed would be useful too.

Basic to intermediate level. One week full of training, some days in between to try and

implement the training into the organisation, then another week in depth experience exchange and further ideas and prototypes for the future.


See above approach for service providers.


See above approach for service providers. However, shorter training days may be considered depending on the cognitive abilities of the participants.

Preliminary conclusions The need for tiered learning was stressed by nearly all partners, highlighting the need

to cover all different levels of competence from beginner to advanced. For those stakeholder offering services to the People with Disabilities (PwD) (service

providers, web designers, software developers) co-design was stated as being a key component as an approach to learning, ensuring that People with Disabilities (PwD) are taking into account and involved throughout the design process.

Both face to face and online learning were mentioned. It should be noted that the degree of face-to-face learning used during the ENTELIS+ pilots will depend a great deal on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposed duration of the training programmes varies a great deal from pilot site to pilot site. These proposed durations will be taken into account; however, a

of 38


recommendation will be provided by the project team according to the material produced and the available budget for the project.

4.5 Target groups – Format of materials

Question 5: What type of training materials work best? (e.g., written material, videos, infographics, games, webinars etc.)

Respondent Type of training materials

Pilot site: Italy (AIAS) Service providers supporting people with disabilities:

Written material, interactive materials, videos.


Written material, interactive materials, videos.


Videos, webinar, interactive materials.

Pilot site: Ireland (Saint John of God Community

Services)


Written content, videos, infographics, games, webinars. The more templates and resources that are provided, the

more likely the overstretched staff will engage in the activity.

A universal multimedia-rich set of resources are needed so that the support staff can identify digital assistive technology tools that can support the individuals they support.

It is not a one size fits all, so the support staff in the organisations need to build their digital competencies to help people with disabilities to do the same.


Written content, videos, infographics, games, webinars.


A universal design for learning approach must be embraced.

Multimedia rich content should drive an inclusive programme that contains standard written material that is developed in plain language, accessible videos, infographics, webinars and games.

The use of gamification within the adult education setting through the use of digital assistive technology is very immature in Ireland but one that is deemed to have a lot of potential and support the integrated learning of adults

of 38


with additional needs in mainstream education settings.


Web designers, software developers:

Videos, infographics, written material, live learning.


Written material, live learning, job shadowing.


Written material, live learning, job shadowing.


Service providers:

Use a wide array of all types to activate them and motivate them.


See above approach for service providers.


See above approach for service providers. However, working with People with Disabilities (PwD) of course we need to pay attention on literacy and cognitive abilities.

Preliminary conclusions Service providers for People with Disabilities (PwD) and education and training

providers generally have the same needs in terms of the format of the training provided: Written material, interactive materials, videos.

People with Disabilities (PwD) will need some adaptations taking into account such as the literacy and cognitive abilities.

However, in general, partners suggest using a wide range of different materials for all stakeholder groups, with a focus on visual elements such as infographics, videos, webinars and live learning.

Interactivity was present in all of the responses with some partners also stressing the potential of gamification.

Job shadowing was also highlighted as a potential way of implementing the new knowledge and competences gained through the training.

of 38

mapping of identified good practices with knowledge and ... · web viewthe second key pillar in the...

Documents