D4.1.3

=Consistent use of a variety of media in courses. =

Evidence
Accessible is not an absolute term and needs to be considered in the light of diverse individual differences that call for adaptability towards inclusivity (Hoffman et al., 2005). Differences that affect accessibility extend beyond vision, hearing, and motor impediments to include learning disabilities. Whilst there is a general lack of research-based resources for diverse learners, new technology offers potential for greater accessibility and flexibility: ‘The advantage of digital versions [of resources] is that these alternatives, and many others, can be available on an individual basis – available for students who need them, invisible or non-distracting for those who don’t. They enable teachers to individualize materials in previously unimaginable ways’ (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2004, p. 9). The Center for Applied Special Technology promotes universal design for learning, which calls for learners to have access to multiple means of knowledge and information representation, multiple means of demonstrating and expressing what they have learned, and multiple means of engaging with their interests to challenge and motivate them. Universal design, according to Kinash et al., (2004), ‘moves best design of online learning beyond a disability issue to enhancing educational technology for all learners’ (p. 11).

The consistent use of a variety of media in e-learning is a recommendation for all e-delivery (Clark & Mayer 2007). This practice has the added benefit of providing access to e-material to students with a range of disabilities as well.

Eastwood (2005) notes that the number of disabled students attending higher education has increased significantly over the last decade. This is partly because the advent of many ICT technologies has been of great benefit in allowing them to access higher education. Also the emergence of organizations like JISC’s TechDis have meant that disabled students can obtain important and unbiased advice on accessibility options. In order that these students can be accommodated, a variety of teaching and learning activities need to be employed.

The JISC ‘TechDis’ note that in supporting some disabled learner resources may be created that are explicitly accessible to some disabled learners but may exclude students with other types of disability.

Sensitivity to diversity means respecting ‘values, orientations, learning styles, language factors, and traditions of learning from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, as well as…special educational needs’ (Reeves, 1997, p. 27). Gender is also a factor in diversity, including consideration of home-based learners who have childcare and housekeeping duties (Kramarae, 2003). Age is another significant factor (Witt and McDermott, 2004). Learning styles or preferences when engaging in different learning activities have also been suggested as having value in understanding the diversity of learner capabilities (for example [[Background Literature#Gardner1984|Gardner, 1984; Kolb, 2005).

Learning styles have generally been considered important because of their potential positive impact on all aspects of teaching and learning, both as a means for understanding how students learn and as tools for guiding the design of courses and learning activities. There are tools to assess learning style preferences (Kolb, 2005), and numerous studies that research their effects on learning outcomes. However, the complex, contextual, and conditional nature of learning and learners leads to the view that ‘variability in approaches…coexists with consistency’ (Ramsden, 2003, p. 51). While some studies report that certain learning styles appear to be better suited to online learning environments (Fahy and Ally, 2005; Terrell, 2002), other researchers dispute learning style effects (Chall, 2000) or find them to be negative (Clark, 2003). There is also evidence that learners can adapt their learning styles to suit the context (Terrell, 2005). Therefore recommendations tend to support the holistic inclusion of all learning styles and types in approaches to e-learning (Chen et al., 2005; Laurillard, 2002; Terrell, 2005; Wang et al., 2001).

A longitudinal study that examined relationships between student age, gender, ethnicity, learning style and their effect on attrition from an online graduate programme found no significant effects of the differentials on outcomes (Terrell, 2005). However, Terrell does discuss possible contributory effects of intrinsic motivation that enables students to adapt their learning style preferences, and ‘to balance their preferred learning style with the skills needed to succeed in the online environment’ (Discussion ¶. 4). He also suggests consideration of ‘the possibility of a change in preferred learning style over time…in order to compensate and adapt to an online learning environment’ (Conclusions ¶, 3). In an earlier study, Terrell (2002) reports that students, mostly, can successfully adapt their individual learning styles to suit online learning environments, and, that students with learning styles that favour systematic planning and intellectual understanding are more likely to be successful than those who prefer concrete experiences and interaction (p. 345). The study also confirmed that the type of programme is a reliable predictor of student learning style preference, that is, that a majority of students in a web-based doctoral programme would be Converger or Assimilator types (sharing a preference for higher levels of Abstract Conceptualization) (pp. 350-1).

After examining differences in learning style in relation to online interaction, Fahy and Ally (2005) reported that some learning styles may dispose certain learners (Convergers) to more interactivity, while other learners find interaction unhelpful. They comment that social interaction variability according to learning style may have significant implications for teaching strategies: ‘Not only might some participants find online interaction unnecessary to learning, they may…find it inimical’ (p. 19). Reporting on a study of learning style changes, learning outcomes, and learner satisfaction, Wang et al., (2001) found ‘[n]o changes in student learning styles and no significant differences in learning outcomes and learner satisfaction with regard to different learning styles’ (p. 75). However, the results suggest that computer-supported collaborative learning environments support diverse learning styles (p. 75). Generally, the literature supports the view that learning styles are helpful for understanding the different approaches that students bring to their learning, and, that effective and successful e-learning incorporates all learning styles and approaches.

Resources
Ideally there would be a shift from learning technologists focusing on the product of accessibility practices toward describing the process by which these products are developed (Seale 2004). Similarly, now that there are guidelines for designing accessible VLEs, we can move toward describing different ways of using VLEs with a variety of disabled students as well as exploring the pedagogies associated with their use.

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/alert/

Evidence of capability in this area is seen through course design and implementation practices that use a variety of complementary pedagogical approaches to support student learning, including a variety of media, assessment types and communication channels.

Further information found at JISC. Here are descriptions of various ways in which policy, content, and assessment can be tailored to assist the learning of students with a diverse range of characteristics and disabilities: http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/page.aspx?o=jisctechdis

Following a comprehensive review of intersecting online learning and disability literature, Kinash et al. report on the common theme that research and practical applications benefiting disabled learners extends to all learners. They notice that the pedagogical, geographical and technological relations of e-learning offer a serendipitous prospect for an emerging population of new and returning learners with very diverse needs and circumstances. Citing Opitz (2002) they present a range of examples of ways that improving accessibility for some benefits all. For example, text tags that elaborate image information, captions that support audio information, and layout simplification that improves readability (p. 6).

Seale (2006) gives extensive discussion of disability and e-learning. She argues that what is needed is a lesson in farming not the provision of a meal. Learners and practitioners must be partners in creating accessible e-learning. Attention needs to be paid not just to digital content, but to courseware, library resources, text documents, presentations and multimedia. Non-electronic alternatives may be preferable for some students. There is clearly a tension between the desire to provide a single learning experience accessible to all, and the attempt to produce a range of materials so that all learners may access resources and succeed.

Many possible barriers to full inclusion are noted in the collection Globalized e-learning Cultural Challenges (Edmundson, ed. 2007). These include the different uses that people from different cultures see for the internet. For example in Africa it is seen as an entertainment tool, in Greece it is not seen as a communication tool. Even when courses are delivered online there may still need to be alternative and supplementary media provided in order to encourage all learners to take part effectively. However, as Sadykova & Dautermann (In Press) explain, the individual disappears in any approach that uses the nation as a determinant of culture and thus online behaviour.