Accessibility is not enough: An examination of the role universities play in using technologies to promote the inclusion of disabled students

Professor Jane SealeICITS 2014 Keynote, September 18th

This talk is about:

Why?• A demographic issue

– The number of people in any national population that are disabled is rising. For example in the UK, 17% of population are disabled

– Linked to this, the numbers of disabled students in universities are rising- even in Turkey (Recent figures from YOK (Higher Education Council of Turkey) suggest that there are 59,165 disabled students, up from a figure of around 15,000

• A social justice issue:– The intellectual and academic potential of

universities is not restricted to the non-disabled population

– It is not just or equitable to deny intelligent disabled people access to university and successful learning by failing to use appropriate available resources such as technologies

I’d like to take you on a journey

Accessibility

Digital Inclusion

My argument: Accessibility is just the tip of the iceberg

• Using technologies to facilitate access to and participation in higher education for disabled students is as much about what we do (practice) as what we provide (access and accessibility)

Accessibility

Who am I?

In the beginning…

• Around the beginning of the millennium much of the focus relating to e-learning, disability and universities was on accessibility of university websites (home pages, library pages)

• Drivers– Disability discrimination legislation– Web Accessibility Guidelines and Standards• WC3

The message

• Universities must make their websites accessible

• It is easy, just use the guidelines• Get on and do it…..

Have universities listened to the message?

Reference Focus Outcome

Wijayaratne, 2008; Wijayaratne, & Singh 2010

Home page and library page of 31 members of Asian Association of Open Universities in 2008 and 30 in 2010

In 2008 (10/31) 6 university home pages and 4 library home pages were free from errors. In 2010 just 4 home pages and 2 library pages were free of accessibility errors (6/31)

Thompson et al. 2010 127 homes pages of US universities were tested over a five period: once in 2004-5 and once in 2009

Significant positive gains in accessibility were revealed on some measures but declined in others, Improvements were made for issues that were basic and easy to implement. There was a decline in keyboard accessibility.

Kurt 2011 Home pages of 10/77 established public and private Turkish universities

All university pages show some accessibility problems. Kurt concluded: “Many studies examine the accessibility levels of web pages, yet little research has been done to establish why accessibility levels are low. Further studies should examine this issue.”

The message was oversimplified

1. For disabled students access is not just about access to university home pages

2. Did not pay attention to all of the stakeholders who contribute to accessibility practice

3. No rich descriptions of best ‘accessibility’ practice or the factors that influence this practice

4. Ignored the complex relationship that disabled students have with their technologies and their universities

1. For disabled students, access is not just about access to university home pages

• University portals and related websites• VLES (Blackboard); MOOCS• Online library databases• General computer generated documents:

handouts, slides (e.g. ppt’s and pdf’s)• Computer applications used within a subject

disciplines- simulations, programming tools• Communication tools and social networking tools• Specialised access or assistive technologies

Example

• If certain things aren’t designed in a way which is friendly towards my screen reader, if I struggle to navigate pages of notes or what have you, then I find I just give up. (David, LEXDIS Participant)

• I really like Blackboard, but I think that there is an awful lot on there, and it could be made a lot easier to use. The navigation is difficult. My lecturer might say: “We’ve put up this, on this subject”, and then I won’t know which section it’s in. I’d have to go into each section and open each document section to find it. (Stacey, LEXDIS Participant)

• My lecturer uses a lot of scanning from Adobe which obviously makes it even smaller – because then you’ve got 2 pages on 1. He puts the materials on Blackboard, which is great, but then they’re really really small so to print them off is impossible. (Kate, LEXDIS Participant)

Seale et al. 2008

2. Did not pay attention to all of the stakeholders who contribute to accessibility practice

Seale (2006) Rainbow= gökkuşağı Bridge= köprü

Who?

• Senior Managers- Offer leadership, facilitate joined up thinking, work to embed accessibility across the institution from procurement to support

• Staff and educational developers-link institutional agendas to departmental and individual agendas

Who?

• Student support services- when assessing student needs they need to be aware of how courses are using e-learning so that they can make appropriate, informed recommendations;

• Learning Technologists (e.g. Computing Services)- how we can support distance learners at “home” and how can this support be aligned to the support we offer on campus, so that e-learning experience is seamless for students?

Who?• Lecturers: We need to understand how they

conceptualise course design, their ideas about effective teaching and learning (e-learning) and their beliefs about appropriate student support in order to understand whether and how accessible e-learning can, or needs to be, part of their practice

• Students: Student are the experts on what their learning needs are BUT we are not necessarily good at listening to those needs or valuing the skills and experiences that student bring with them

An example

• Assistive Technology Centre: in the central library; managed by a senior librarian, staffed by two unqualified but dedicated “assistive technologists”

• Disabled students could be referred by Student Services or could just drop in to use the “accessible workstations” and specialised assistive technologies

An example

• Workstations in the ATC frequently had compatibility problems with central network- specialised software caused system conflicts

• Computing services refused to contribute to, or take responsibility for the funding of new workstations and specialist equipment

• Manager of the ATC complained that people in the university were unaware of the services they offer

3. No rich descriptions of best ‘accessibility’ practice or the factors that influence this practice

• Practitioners know that they should be making e-learning accessible to disabled students, BUT they do not know how to make e-learning accessible. (Seale, 2006)

• Missing Voices: there is very little literature where university practitioners conceptualise, describe, evaluate or discuss accessibility practices (Seale, 2014)

What do we need rich descriptions of?

• Detailed accounts of how practitioners in universities have interpreted accessibility related rules, tools, approaches and procedures and the 'personal and collective meanings‘ that have developed from these interpretations

• We also need accounts of the stakeholder responses to the mediators and drivers of accessibility– How stakeholders have developed strategic and effective

relationships with one another

Influences on practice

• A number of factors will influence or mediate practice, in particular stakeholder views of:– Disability– Accessibility– Integration (inclusion) & Segregation– Teams and communities– Autonomy and compliance

• These factors are often expressed in the histories and agendas of stakeholders and the services/departments in which they practise

Histories and agendas: an example

• The way that services are delivered may or may not reflect attitudes and beliefs concerning disability and accessibility– Disabled students are “problems” to be solved– Disability requires special accessibility solutions, by

special services, staffed by specialist staff

• But they will influence attempts to develop accessibility practices at an institutional level

A proposed model to help frame thinking

Seale (2006) The contextualised model of accessibility practice

4. Ignored the complex relationship that disabled students have with their technologies and their universities

• Disabled students:– Are digitally agile (competent and confident users)– Use a wide range of generic and specialist technologies– Adopt a wide range of strategies for using technologies

to support their learning– Hold a wide range of personal beliefs about the value of

technology and how they might use them in ways that are personally acceptable or meaningful

– Have access to a range of cultural and social resources that support technology use (before and during university)

(Seale et al. 2008, 2010; Seale, 2012; Seale et al. 2014)

4. Ignored the complex relationship that disabled students have with their technologies and their universities

• Despite this, they can:– Make decisions to abandon technologies

(particularly assistive technologies) – Rely heavily on formal training for help using

specialist technologies• But find it difficult to engage with the training due to

time pressures

(Seale et al. 2008, 2010; Seale, 2012; Seale et al. 2014)

Example: Beliefs about technology stigmatising disabled students

Nick: I wouldn't use voice dictation software in public. I'd feel to self-conscious.

Reena: I have to say that if I’d got that technology, I would use it at home. I wouldn’t use it in the lab. […]But with technology, I still think there’s a stigma to it. If I did have assistive technology I would use it on my home computer. There’s no way I would use a lot of it in the lab because I wouldn’t want that stigma on me like that thing – which is bad, but it’s how people are.

Example: using technologies in ways that are personally meaningful

Example: cultural resources

• Before university: 43% of the students were encouraged to undertake a formal generic ICT qualification

• For those who undertook a formal generic ICT qualification 63.4% said the knowledge gained had not helped in their current technology use at college or university. (n=153) – Common reasons given= irrelevant, out of date

• Once at university: Interviewees talked a lot about investing time in training to use specialist equipment

• Why hadn’t their ICT qualifications prepared them for using specialist technologies so that they could be less reliant on extra time-consuming AT training once at university

Seale et al. 2014

Example: social resources

• Asked which sources of support they accessed at university if they needed help using specialist technologies, respondents (n=144) indicated that their most helpful source of support was, privately funded support workers followed by friends from the same course and lecturers.– Disabled students do not appear to be connecting with other

disabled students to gather support for their specialist technology use

– Is there a role for universities in encouraging such networking?

“through the college I could not believe the support and guidance I have been given to support my studies. It has also helped me come to terms with my disability and realise that I am not alone and I can also achieve as well as others and I am not a problem”

Example: Decisions to abandon specialist technologies

Can I afford to invest time, in order to save time? e.g Stephanie:

…when I got all my software in autumn last year, and they said: “You need to have your training on this” – I did feel like I was doing two courses and that was, frankly, too much. I had to stay with my old bad habits because I just didn’t feel I had the time to take out to learn something new to help me. It was a vicious circle, really.

Example: difficulties engaging in AT training

Factors Example

Flexibility It was difficult because he had quite a lot that he had to do. And with being a part-time student they don’t necessarily understand that you’re working [..] he would want mornings and I couldn’t possibly take time off work, he can’t come in the evenings. It was just untidy and by the time I'd see him again in a months' time, well I’d completely forgotten what he taught me, so it didn’t work, it just didn’t work.[22]

Timeliness The lengthiness of the DSA process made me feel a little behind so this should be addressed. Maybe identified prior to starting so the process can be underway before lectures start. Also then I could have learnt the technology before sessions start so I am ready to go.[17]

Duration Whereas the guys who installed it a. they were very technology minded as well but they also did it in four-hour blocks and it’s like, by the end of two hours, I’ve taken in enough and everything else went out of my head.[7]

Accessibility is not enough

• The lens of accessibility, therefore, is no longer sufficient in enabling us to understanding the complex relationship between students, their technologies, the institutions in which they study and the different stakeholders within that institution

Scoping a Digital inclusion conceptual framework

• Access– To technology and related services

• Use– Being able to use technologies (e.g. digital literacies)– Making ‘smart’ or meaningful use of technologies

• Empowerment– Exerting control and choice over use of technologies

• Participation– Active participation (having an influence in the way

technologies are used, not passive consumers of disability support services)

Simple

Tangible

Complex

Less Tangible

Seale 2009

Digital inclusion: An alternative lens?

• Digital inclusion as a process whereby universities transform their structures and processes to ensure that disabled students are able to participate in higher education. This transformation requires three key actions:

• Using technology in all college and university administrative and teaching processes as a tool to increase both the accessibility of higher education to disabled students and the equity of learning opportunities and outcomes;

• Enabling disabled students to make informed and empowered decisions about how to use technology to support their learning in ways that are personally meaningful;

• Ensuring disabled students have ready access to the resources they require to act on these decisions.

Seale (2014)

What resources do universities need to facilitate access to?

• Temporal resources: time-sensitive assistive technology training;

• Material resources: technologies and related services that span the whole university and the relevant stakeholders;

• Mental resources: information on the benefits of engaging in AT training, the range of technologies available and strategies for using them to support learning;

• Social resources: recognition and support for development of formal and informal social networks & relationships ( e.g. online virtual community of disabled students) where students can gain support for their technology use.

Adapted from Van Dyk 2005

Thank you, any questions?

• Contact details: j.seale@exeter.ac.uk• Ask me about MEd, PhD & EdD opportunities in Inclusive and Special

Education at Exeter University

References• Seale, J (2014) E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and

practice. 2nd Edition. Routledge. New York. • Seale, Georgeson, Mamas & Swain (2014) How Useful Is The Concept Of Digital Capital in

Helping Universities To Identify How To Reduce Inequities For Disabled Students? Paper presented at ECER, Porto, September 2nd 2014. http://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/print/conference/19/contribution/31770/

• Seale, J (2012) When digital capital is not enough: reconsidering the digital lives of disabled university students, Learning Media and Technology, 38,3, 256-269

• Seale, Draffan, & Wald (2010) Digital agility and digital decision-making: Conceptualising digital inclusion in the context of disabled learners in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 35, 4, 445-461

• Seale, J (2009) Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the Technology Enhanced Learning Phase of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Available: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

• Seale, J., Draffan, E.A & Wald, M (2008) Exploring disabled learners’ experiences of learning, LEXDIS Final Report to JISC Available from: http://www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/project/media/LEXDIS_ProjectReport_Dec08final.doc

• Seale, J (2006) E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice. Routledge. London.