D4.4.1

=Effectiveness of e-learning templates, project supporting materials and quality assurance procedures in ensuring courses are accessible is regularly monitored. =

Evidence
To improve e-learning outcomes it is important to learn from past mistakes, according to Ehrmann (2002), who argues that tracking progress is not only necessary to stay on course but also to identify solvable problems that can attract fresh resources (p. 55). The results of monitoring should be used to inform ongoing and new development, and to support resources and strategy. Information on performance can be used as a tool for improving quality, but only if the information is disseminated. Such validation of e-learning practices and resources is a significant stage in the full cycle of organisational learning that describes success in terms of ‘student performance, student satisfaction, staff experience, and cost effectiveness, as judged in relation to the original intentions’ (Salmon, 2000, p. 236). Salmon discusses validating as one of six activities in the iterative process of creating an effective learning organisation infrastructure that enables ‘the system to learn about itself’ (p. 237).

Kelly et al. (2007) argue that accessibility should be enhanced through ‘a user-focused approach, which embeds best practices through the development of achievable policies and processes and which includes all stakeholders in the process of maximizing accessibility’ (p. 1). They further argue that the standard tripartite W3C WAI model is flawed. This is because of the open-ended flexibility that users have in their choice of browsing and assistive technology. The claim is that evidence is lacking to demonstrate that the guidelines (particularly WCAG) will lead to resources that are usable by people with disabilities. Kelly et al. cite evidence that some web sites that are highly conformant to WCAG are the ones that disabled users find hardest to use.