D4.3.3

=Teaching staff are provided with support resources (including training, guidelines and examples) on supporting accessibility when engaged in e-learning design and (re)development. =

Evidence
Edmonds (2004) is concerned about the integration of assistive technologies with information and communication technology (ICT). Noting differences between first generation access issues – access to web site pages – and second generation access issues – access to learning resource and support materials, he observes that the former are usually the domain of courseware and web developers, but the latter can be influenced to good effect by course creators and teachers (pp. 56-9).

The difficulties in [making e-learning resources appropriately accessible] include the need for individuals to learn a lot of new information very quickly when attempting to design new accessible materials (Seale 2004).

Staff developers may not deal with students at all but they can conceivably have the greatest impact on creating accessible course materials. Seale (2006) signposts a range of existing resources to aid in this task. It is important to develop partnerships between staff developers, disability services, and academic staff.

Resources
Milne & White (2005) collect together twenty-three sets of e-learning quality guidelines from an array of geographical regions. Such guidelines, or something like them, should be part of the support offered to staff by their organizations. Staff need guidelines, and examples of good practice.

Seale (2006) argues that there is significant knowledge about accessibility in units that support disability student services. Specialists understand the need to assess learners for technological support, how to make appropriate equipment available, how to interface with existing networks, and so on. Academic staff can liaise with such units at the course design stage. This will be far more effective than waiting to respond to student needs.

Kelly et al. (2007) suggest a holistic approach including pedagogical issues, available resources, organisation culture and usability. Their ‘Tangram’ and stakeholder models overlap to mediate good design through more than merely the provision of guidelines. These authors identify seven examples of stakeholder responses to both the drivers and mediators of accessibility. It is also noted that some cautions about the accessibility of ‘institutional repositories’ particularly of PDF documents, will need to be addressed. Overall, Kelly et al. coin the term ‘Accessibility 2.0’ which is characterised by the following attributes: User focus, rich set of stakeholders, sustainability, always beta, flexibility, diversity, blended aggregated solutions, accessibility as a bazaar not a cathedral.

http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=3_10_19

http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/page.aspx?o=jisctechdis