robb t edtech 505 final evaluation project

Thomas Robb EDTECH 505 Dr. Ross Perkins May 10, 2011

The following is an evaluation report of the Distance Education

Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities in the WHCCD eCampus. The evaluation is

formative in nature, addresses faculty knowledge of accessibility

regulations, faculty perception of the guidelines, and discusses

recommendations next steps.

An Evaluation of DE Accessibility Guidelines for WHCCD eCampus Faculty knowledge and perception of accessibility requirements

WHCCD Evaluation of the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines Page 1

Table of Contents Learning Reflection (AECT Standards) ........................................................................... 3

1.15 Evaluating and 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation ................................... 3

5.1 Problem Analysis ................................................................................................... 3

5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement ....................................................................... 3

5.4 Long-Range Planning ............................................................................................ 4

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5

Purpose of the Evaluation ............................................................................................... 6

Central Questions ........................................................................................................ 6

Stakeholders ................................................................................................................ 6

Background Information .................................................................................................. 7

Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 7

Students Requiring Accessible Course Materials ............................................................ 7

Distance Education Courses .................................................................................... 8

Distance Education Strategic Plan (2009-2012) .......................................................... 9

Accessibility Legal Mandates ....................................................................................... 9

Characteristics / Goals of Accessibility in Distance Education Courses .................... 10

Evaluation Design ......................................................................................................... 10

Evaluation Model ....................................................................................................... 10

Evaluator’s Program Description ............................................................................... 11

Categories of Assessment ......................................................................................... 12

Existing records ...................................................................................................... 12

DE Accessibility Survey and Questionnaire ........................................................... 12

Results & Discussion of Results .................................................................................... 13

Faculty Knowledge of Accessibility Requirements (Objective 1 and 2)...................... 13

Faculty Perception of Guidelines ............................................................................... 14

Faculty Support ......................................................................................................... 15

Faculty Rating of Course Accessibility ....................................................................... 15

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 16

Immediate Conclusions ............................................................................................. 16

Evaluation Insights ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Long Range Planning ................................................................................................ 16

Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 19

References .................................................................................................................... 24


Learning Reflection (AECT Standards) Single spaced; not more than one pages in length. There is a minimum

expectation of ¾ of one page. Here, you must write about what you’ve learned about evaluation during the class, and what you learned by doing the final evaluation project. This is not a reflection on the conclusions you’ve come to as a result of the evaluation project (this is in Section 10). Instead, this is your way to process what you learned about evaluation in general, how it is useful to your career in educational technology, questions you may still have, and so on. You must address what you've learned about the five AECT standards related to evaluation (problem analysis, criterion-referenced evaluation, etc.)

1.15 Evaluating and 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation Within this standard, during Module 4 of the course, we had two projects that

address both formative and summative evaluation. During formative evaluation, we had a real field experience opportunity where we reviewed instructional materials being produced by another department at Boise State University. Dick and Carey (1991) provided a framework for reviewing instructional materials in their formative stage, or prior to implementing with the learners in looking at clarity, feasibility, and impact of instruction. This experience helped me understand that formative evaluation can be a very valuable part of designing instructional materials. My final project is also formative in nature; thereby helping me to experience yet another flavor of formative evaluation. In terms of summative evaluation, we evaluated the results of a survey that rated two types of websites that were going to be in a portal. While the exercise itself was useful in terms of calculating qualitative and quantitative data, I felt it left many questions for me. Because it was a group project, I felt like I did very little in terms of writing an evaluation as my part of the project was to calculate the raw data. It did help me realize the product that can come with collaboration. In addition, I learned that cleaner graphs are more readable for some people. Baya’a, Shehade, & Baya’a (2009) provided a great framework for evaluating web-based learning. I would like to use this in the future as a rubric for our online faculty when evaluating publisher made websites.

5.1 Problem Analysis During the course, we wrote a response to a request for proposal (or RFP).

During this project, we identified and analyzed the needs of companies using a model outlined in Boulmetis and Dutwin (2005) or a decision making model. This exercise enabled me to analyze another company’s problems, identify and recommend resources, as well as aide in defining goals.

5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement The final project enabled me to identify and collect data to support both short and

long term suggestions as they pertain to accessibility. I did this by using existing data, a questionnaire, and a survey that I developed using an existing resource. In addition, our group project where we collaboratively conducted a summative evaluation of websites rated by end-users, we were able to utilize and apply the measures to make recommendations to the developers of the educational websites.


5.4 Long-Range Planning The results of my final project are part of a continuous, long-range school

program as it relates to media. Accessibility is an important and mandated part of the WHCCD eCampus. Conducting the final evaluation project enabled me to both develop an evaluator’s program description as well as make recommendations that will address concerns and weaknesses identified in the West Hills Community College District Distance Education Strategic Plan.


Executive Summary The purpose of the evaluation was to explore web accessibility in the West Hills

Community College District’s (WHCCD) eCampus internet-based courses as outlined in the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities issued by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. Due to recent release of the guidelines, this evaluation is formative in nature. The evaluation examines several aspects of accessibility including faculty course development as well as students with disabilities that could potentially be affected by inaccessible course materials.

Existing data, surveys, and questionnaires were used to determine the applicability of accessibility, faculty perceptions towards accessibility requirements, faculty knowledge of specific requirements, levels of support needed to meet the mandates, as well as faculty’s perception as to whether their course meets the requirements.

An analysis of existing data, surveys, and questionnaires reveal information about the numbers of students that are potentially impacted by the requirements. It also reveals that faculty tends to be highly knowledgeable in many aspects of accessibility, require varying levels of support to meet the mandates, and have an overall positive attitude towards creating accessible online courses.

Accessibility mandates will require ongoing training for faculty to ensure the mandates are being addressed. In addition, some clarification on the requirements need to be widely distributed to ensure that faculty are aware of issues that may come from choosing inaccessible content as well as how to obtain support from college staff to make the content accessible prior to placing the content in the learning management system. Immediate conclusions and long range planning are identified and recommended.


Purpose of the Evaluation This evaluation was designed to address the Distance Education Accessibility

Guidelines for Students with Disabilities by Valdeverde (2011) in distance education courses that reside in the WHCCD eCampus’ (the Academic Technology and Training Department) learning management system, Blackboard. Previous accreditation documents have noted inaccessible video content in DE courses. In addition, WHCCD has had a few instances in the past where college support staff quickly intervened to assist faculty bring course materials into compliance. Because of these issues, additional support staff, grant opportunities, and local/regional training options have become available for faculty. Common concerns in the evaluation address faculty awareness and knowledge of specific requirements. Some additional issues addressed are related to faculty support options when chosen course content does not meet accessibility guidelines given the added support available. Finally, faculty perception of accessibility requirements and how those requirements relate to their course are addressed.

Central Questions Due to the recent release of the guidelines, this evaluation is formative in nature and

is intended to answer the following questions: 1. How many disabled students do we currently serve that could potentially be

affected by online course materials that do not meet the guidelines set forth by Valdeverde (2011)?

2. What are distance education faculty’s knowledge pertaining to website accessibility and legal mandates set forth in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act?

3. Does distance education faculty have the requisite skills necessary to ensure their course content meets accessibility guidelines?

4. Does distance education faculty perceive that their course content meets accessibility guidelines?

5. Does online faculty have appropriate support in making their online courses meet the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines?

Stakeholders Stakeholders for this evaluation include disabled students attending the college

that participate in distance education courses as they are ultimately affected by content that does not meet accessibility guidelines. Faculty who choose course materials need to be knowledgeable in terms of selection of course materials and support staff available to assist in making content accessible. The technical staff in the ATT Department (Academic Technology and Training Department) involved in training and assistance in developing online course materials must ensure that faculty are both informed and supported in the development process. ATT Administration and the Disabled Students Department (DSPS) should be aware of activities take place to ensure that faculty are informed and supported in the process to ensure guidelines are met.


Background Information

Characteristics WHCCD has been teaching internet-based distance education courses for many

years. Currently, faculty develops online courses with support provided by the Academic Technology and Training Department at one of the two campus-based faculty multi-media development labs. The district developed a strategic plan for distance education courses with input provided by multiple stakeholders.

The recent release of The Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities was the catalyst for this evaluation as it requires all fully online courses to be meet accessibility guidelines for students with disabilities. Valdeverde (2011) The next few sections provides relevant background information on the number of students with disabilities served by the district, online enrollment, some information on the legal mandates of the guidelines, and finally, some background information on the evaluation.

Students Requiring Accessible Course Materials Figure 1 provides students served by the Disabled Student’s Office (DSPS) as

reported to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office Data Mart (2011). There is an overall increase in this population over the past few years. Because district-wide enrollment has increased, it would make sense that the numbers of students with disabilities would also increase.


FIGURE 1 Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office Data Mart (2011)

Distance Education Courses WHCCD has been reporting fully online asynchronous courses since 2002-2003 (Figure 2) using Internet-based asynchronous instruction; although, asynchronous internet-based instruction was offered as early as 1996, just not reported. The chart below shows the growth of the program as reported to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office Data Mart (2011).

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Visually Impaired 5 3 5 7 5 4 6 4 13

Psychological Disability 32 32 32 33 34 50 45 55 69

Other Disability 25 26 46 43 55 89 117 147 200

Mobility Impaired 30 37 30 33 39 50 52 67 73

Learning Disabled 89 98 78 79 77 96 100 122 120

Hearing Impaired 3 4 6 5 3 4 4 14 14

Developmental Delay 194 248 223 230 219 222 230 226 213

Acquired Brain Injury 8 13 10 11 10 12 10 9 14

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

WHCCD Students with Disabilities


FIGURE 2

*Radio Broadcast with Internet Chat ** WHCL fully accredited in 2006-2007

Distance Education Strategic Plan (2009-2012) Guy and Kraft (2009) consulted and helped WHCCD develop a distance

education strategic plan in September of 2009. It was developed as a three-year plan that includes identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Some weaknesses identified in the strategic planning process included the need for more clear and thorough information for ADA compliance for students and faculty to access as well as DL staff and students need for more clear and easy to find information on disability access (section 508), and ignoring our client’s needs. Values identified in the process were to reduce barriers or access to education, demonstrate respect for others, and to demonstrate quality in distance education. Linkages were made with other strategic planning at the district including the District Strategic Plan as well as individual college’s Educational Master Plans. On identified linkage was to ensure accessibility in all programs and services. The strategic plan has identified the need to address accessibility, ADA compliance, and even web accessibility compliance in online courses.

Accessibility Legal Mandates Valdeverde (2011) released guidelines to assist distance education programs in

achieving more accessible web-based courses. They outlined the legal mandates as follows:

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12100 et seq.), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794d), and California Government Code section 11135 all require that accessibility for persons with disabilities be provided in the development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic or information technology

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

# o

f A

nn

ual

FTE

WHCCD Online FTE Enrollment

WHCC

WHCL*

Total


by a community college district using any source of state funds. (See Legal Opinion M 03-09.) Title 5, section 55200 explicitly makes these requirements applicable to all distance education offerings.

Because accessibility is part of the distance education strategic plan, legal

mandates, and documented guidelines, it has become very important to address it given the growth of enrollment in online programs as well as growth in the population of students with disabilities.

Characteristics / Goals of Accessibility in Distance Education Courses Valdeverde (2011) describes five broad categories of accessible online course

materials; text, image, audio, video, and complex. Faculty develops and chooses materials utilized in their courses both independently and with the support of college staff. With the proliferation of learning materials available online and through the course tools in the district learning management system, it is important for faculty to be aware of and identify accessible learning materials in the five categories. While faculties are sent emails about accessibility periodically, it is foreseeable that some faculty may utilize materials that may not be accessible as the emails pertain to specific tools within the learning management system. In addition, the guidelines outlined by Valdeverde (2011) are somewhat technical with language utilized that may not be understandable to some faculty.

Frequently asked questions are provided in the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities in somewhat plain language. Resources and support information are provided to ensure that community college faculty and staffs are aware of both. Of the greatest concern to the WHCCD distance education program are the Office of Civil Rights opinions in specific cases where online materials were not accessible and college staff and faculty did not make the materials accessible.

Given the population of students with disabilities, increase in online enrollment, legal risks, technological advances, and resources available, this evaluation was designed to ensure that our program addresses the guidelines in a proactive and forward-thinking manner. The aim is to obtain information that will allow the district to make decisions that are short and long term to ensure that our distance education programs are accessible for all students, which will address both the legal mandates and identified weaknesses outlined in the West Hills Community College District Distance Education Strategic Plan.

Evaluation Design

Evaluation Model The model employed in this evaluation design was what Boulmetis & Dutwin

(2005) refer to as the Goal-Based Model. The goal is to meet legal mandates outlined in the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities as well as identified weaknesses in the West Hills Community College Distance Education Strategic Plan. More information is available in the “Background Information” (previous section).


To accomplish addressing the mandates and identified weaknesses, a review of existing records, a survey, and an electronic questionnaire were utilized in the design in an effort to obtain enough information to allow us to make decisions both immediately and for the future in an effort to achieve the goal of accessible course materials. The objectives are outlined in the Evaluator’s Program Description (see next section). Because the primary focus is on accessible course materials chosen by faculty, the survey and questionnaire were combined into one electronic format (see Appendix).

Evaluator’s Program Description Evaluation

Question

Program

Objectives

Activities to

Observe

Data Source Population Responsibility Data

Analysis

Audience

Are online

faculty

knowledgeab

le about laws

(ie. Section

508 of the

Rehabilitatio

n Act and

other

applicable

statues)?

1. To be

knowledgeabl

e about laws

related to

distance

education

and

accessibility.

2. To

determine

professional

development

needs.

Responses to

DE

Accessibility

Questionnair

e and Survey

Questionna

ire

Online

Faculty

Educational

Technology

Specialist,

DSPS AT

Specialist

Scores

from

question

naire

Vice

Chancellor of

Educational

Planning,

Online

Faculty,

Educational

Technology

Specialists,

DSPS

Department

Does online

faculty have

the requisite

skills to

ensure their

course

content

meets the

guidelines?

2. To

determine

professional

development

needs.

Responses to

DE

Accessibility

Questionnair

e and Survey

Attendance

at

accessibility

workshops

over next

year

Questionna

ire

Workshop

sign in

Online

faculty

Educational

Technology

Specialist

Scores

from

question

naire and

faculty

rating of

needed

support.

Vice

Chancellor of

Educational

Planning,

Online

Faculty,

Educational

Technology

Specialists,

DSPS

Department

Does online

faculty feel

that their

course

content

meets the

accessibility

guidelines?

3. To

identify

courses that

may require

intervention

to make the

course

materials

accessible.

Responses to

DE

Accessibility

Questionnair

e and Survey

DE

Accessibilit

y

Questionna

ire and

Survey

Online

faculty

Online faculty

Educational

Technology

Specialists

Survey

rating

scale

Vice

Chancellor of

Educational

Planning,

Online

Faculty,

Educational

Technology

Specialists,

DSPS

Department

Does online

faculty have

4. To make

faculty aware

Responses to Survey Online Educational

Technology

Survey Vice

Chancellor of


Evaluation

Question

Program

Objectives

Activities to

Observe

Data Source Population Responsibility Data

Analysis

Audience

appropriate

support in

making their

online

courses

meet the DE

guidelines?

of support

options when

selecting

course

content

5. To make

faculty aware

of the DECT

Grant and

other

accessibility

resources

surveys.

Requests for

support over

next year.

responses

ATT

Ticketing

System

faculty Specialist scales

ATT

Ticketing

System

submissi

ons

related

to

accessibi

lity

Educational

Planning

Categories of Assessment Existing records

A review of enrollment trends and population of students served with disabilities was obtained by utilizing the California Community College Chancellor’s Data Mart website (see References). The purpose of this section was to demonstrate the expected continuance of growth and relevance of the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities.

DE Accessibility Survey and Questionnaire The purpose of the survey and questionnaire were to address all evaluation

questions. A single electronic survey was delivered via email to all distance education faculty. The questionnaire portion was designed to determine faculty knowledge of accessibility requirements. It consisted of an open ended question as well as a number of True / False questions. The questions came directly from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. They were developed in collaboration with the DSPS Department at WHCCD.

The survey portion consisted of Likert scale questions and was designed to assess faculty perception and attitudes of the accessibility requirements. These attitudes are important considerations in terms of both training materials as well as support options that faculty need to design and facilitate course-related activities. The survey also asked faculty to rate the level of support they would require to perform specific tasks on course materials related to accessibility. This portion was designed to inform future training objectives and communication to distance education (online) faculty and were taken directly from the Distance Education Accessibility Requirements for Students with Disabilities document. This was designed to provide insight into specific training components in future semesters.


Results & Discussion of Results 21 online faculty (of a total of 49 in the population) responded to the questionnaire and survey. Results should be used with caution due to the representation of the total population. All online faculty should be encouraged to respond to get a more accurate rating of faculty knowledge of the legal mandates.

Faculty Knowledge of Accessibility Requirements (Objective 1 and 2) Figure 3 represents the results of faculty knowledge of accessibility

requirements. It represents the percentage of correct responses on the True / False portion of the Frequently Asked Questions outlined by Valdeverde (2011). Overall, faculty had a high level of understanding of the legal mandates in each category except for decorative graphics (FAQ5). See Appendix A for specific questions. While the correct responses were high, this only represents 42% of faculty that teach online and the results should be taken with caution. FIGURE 3

Figure 4 outlines another specific knowledge check on closed caption requirements. This question was separate from Figure 3 due to a few exceptions noted in accessibility guidelines and an attempt was made to determine whether distance education faculty were aware of the closed captioning exemption requirement for courses that were not archived (single use) video footage. Correct responses for the question were all answers listed, except for option D. The highest level of accessibility would be to have closed captions for all videos; however, this is not always achievable as can be seen in today’s news clips being utilized in online courses. As long as faculty remove videos without captions prior to archiving, then there is an exemption. The only exception to the exemption is if a student requests closed captions due to an identified disability.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Faculty Knowledge of Accessibility Frequently Asked Questions

% Correct


FIGURE 4

Faculty Perception of Guidelines All of the questions in Figure 5 are related to faculty’s perception of the

guidelines. Because 27 responses were indicated as Neutral, this is an important consideration when choosing learning materials for future trainings as it indicates that faculty feel neither one way nor another about achievability of accessibility, the need for a rubric, the need to identify resources, opinions about the time investment, taking ownership of the requirements, or whether it affects rigor. FIGURE 5

05

101520

A. AllVideos

B. SingleTerm, noarchive

C. UponStudent'sRequest

D. Do notKnow#

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Response Options Two respondents marked more than one answer

Faculty Knowledge of Closed Caption Requirement

0 0 0 6

3

15

0 1 2 4 2 2 4 5 6 4 5

3 3

8 9

5 5 1

14

7 4 2

6 0

Accessibility inOnline Courses is

achievable

An accessibilityrubric would bemost helpful in

determining theaccessibility of

my online course.

There are ampleresources

available to metoensure my

course meets theguidelines (ie,DECT Grant,

college supportstaff, etcetera)

It takes too muchtime to make an

online courseaccessible

without a highlevel of support.

It is myresponsibility to

ensure allNeutralrd party

websites (such asPublisher

websites) areaccessible forstudents with

disabilities

Making mycourse accessiblefor students with

learningdisabilities cantake away fromthe rigor of the

course

Faculty Perception of Guidelines

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree


Faculty Support Figure 6 below shows faculty responses to the level of support they would

require to ensure accessibility given the specific tasks (See Appendix A for specifics). Overall, a high number of faculty chose “Full Support”, “High-Level Support” or “Some Support” needed in all categories. Podcasting and closed captions were the highest level of support needed by faculty and both Accessibility Tasks fall within the multimedia category outlined by Valdeverde (2011) suggesting that as materials become more complex, a higher level of support is perceived by faculty. There were some faculty that marked No Support needed in a number of categories suggesting that they are independent in their ability to make their online courses accessible to students with disabilities. FIGURE 6

Faculty Rating of Course Accessibility Figure 7 represents faculty that rated their course as meeting guidelines fully,

meeting most guidelines, meeting few guidelines, or unsure. The figures suggest that many faculty are moving towards compliance or have already met compliance.

0

5

10

15

20

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Accessibility Tasks

WHCCD Accessibility Support

Not applicable

Full support

High-level support

Some support

Little support

No support


FIGURE 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

Immediate Conclusions Faculty perception towards accessibility requirements tends to be positive, open-

minded, and forward thinking. This is an important component of training materials.

Due to some minor misconceptions about accessibility knowledge from faculty, an email should be sent with explanatory text about basic accessibility requirements as well as how to receive support from college staff. Overall, knowledge of the requirements was high, suggesting that the frequency of accessibility trainings should be ongoing, but are not imperative that they occur immediately or are mandatory for all distance education (online) faculty.

Distance Education faculty will require ongoing support to ensure all aspects of their courses meet accessibility requirements. This support should include regular communication related to trainings available on accessibility as well as support options available at each college.

Given the good perception towards achievability of accessibility as well as to address faculty that were unsure or did not know about specific accessibility tasks, distance education (online) faculty should be rewarded or provided incentives to attend local or regional trainings on how to make their online course materials accessible to students with disabilities.

Long Range Planning The Academic Technology and Training Department should send regular

communication to all distance education (online) faculty that highlights legal requirements related to course materials. The email could also include reminders on support for text, video, audio, and other multimedia and how to take advantage of on-campus support.

Create a web page for disabled students that provide them with information on accessibility of the district learning management system as well as faculty content. The page could create opportunities to provide input on materials that

14%

19%

67%

0%

Faculty Rating Accessibility in Their Online Course

Unsure

Meets Guidelines

Meets Most Guidelines

Meets Few Guidelines


could improve or that need accessibility enhancements. This page might become more visible if it were a part of all distance education faculty course sites. It is highly recommended that information be provided for engaging with the learning management system; for example, keyboard access, changing contrast, and increasing or decreasing text sizes in the student’s web browsers.

Create tutorials for faculty on creating accessible course materials or choosing content using various content tools within Blackboard. This might include the following:

o Navigation menus choices within the LMS that contain visual contrast o Best practices on font choices for the web and for printed materials. o How to add alternative text to images in multiple authoring programs

including Word, PowerPoint, Blackboard, and other common authoring tools.

o How to make audio content accessible to students with disabilities. o How to obtain assistance or learn how to closed caption instructor made

videos. o How to check external sites like You Tube, Vimeo, and other popular sites

for closed captions. o Podcasting best practices for teacher-made audio files. o Due to the requirement of creating accessible materials authored outside

of Blackboard (such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Adobe PDF files), provide information or tutorials on how to make materials created with these authoring tools more accessible.

o A list of existing resources that meet accessibility requirements. EduStream MERLOT, Annenberg, Khan Academy, and other open educational

resources that meet accessibility requirements. WHCCD eCampus list of accessible digital content. Sample syllabi template with built in accessibility. Sample course sites with chosen accessible course menus.

o A place to share accessible course materials. o A discussion board for collaboration amongst faculty.

In future evaluation activities, it would be helpful to determine authoring tools and course materials commonly utilized by faculty to provide additional tutorials on checking content for accessibility.

Consider revising the curriculum committee process that includes a component related to checking publisher materials for accessibility when distance education courses are being updated. Currently, the curriculum committee adds a Distance Education addendum for all courses that are taught fully online. This addendum should have a component that describes activities related to accessible course materials.

Consider asking online faculty to review the measurement instrument (DE Accessibility Questionnaire and Survey) to determine if it is a fair measure of accessibility knowledge, needed support, and faculty attitudes towards the mandates.


Continue the evaluation until a higher response rate is received. Given the legal requirement outlined by Valdeverde (2011) and potential risks associated with inaccessible course materials, an important consideration is to ensure all faculty respond.


Appendix


References Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. (2005). The ABCs of Evaluation. San Francisco: Josey-

Bass.

Baya’a, N., Shehade, H. M., & Baya’a, A. R. (2009). A rubric for evaluating web-based

learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), pp. 761-

763. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00864.x

California Community College Chancellor’s Office Data Mart. (2011). Full Time

Equivalent Students (FTES) – by Distance Education Status [Data File].

Retrieved from https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ftes_dist_de.cfm.

California Community College Chancellor’s Office Data Mart. (2011). Student Services

Programs (DSPS) [Data File]. Retrieved from

https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/programs_dist.cfm.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1991). Formative evaluation. In L. J. Briggs, K. L. Gustafson,

& M. H. Tillman (Eds)., Instructional design: Principles and applications (2nd

Ed.), pp. 227-267. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Earle, R. (Ed.). (2000). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and

educational technology specialist (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: AECT.

Guy, K. & Kraft, W. (2009, September). West Hills Community College District Distance

Education Strategic Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.westhillscollege.com/district/about/documents/strategic-plan-distance-

education.pdf

Valdeverde, S., Aborn, L., Brautigam, B., Johnson, J., Vasquez, L., Vasaquez, L., et al.

(2011). Distance Education Accessibility Guidelines For Students with

https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ftes_dist_de.cfm

https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/programs_dist.cfm

http://www.westhillscollege.com/district/about/documents/strategic-plan-distance-education.pdf

http://www.westhillscollege.com/district/about/documents/strategic-plan-distance-education.pdf


Disabilities. Distance Education Accessibility Task Force. California: California

Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.

robb t edtech 505 final evaluation project

Documents