REVISION OF ACCESSIBLE E-LEARNING MODELS NANTANOOT SUWANNAWUT, PH.D. THE 13TH WORLD CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION OF PEOPLE WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENT ROSEN CENTRE HOTEL, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, USA 22 August 2016

Overview ◦ Introduction ◦ Definition of accessible e- learning ◦ Accessibility Models ◦ Analysis and Conclusion

Introduction ◦ Emergence of technology and digital age ◦ Adoption of E-learning and high investment in implementing online teaching approach, but less consideration of individuals with disabilities ◦ Very few original metaphors, theories and models of the accessible e-learning context = still broad evidence of the inaccessibility of e-learning experiences ◦ Review of the accessibility literature and identify key issues that may influence accessibility practices.

Accessible E-learning Accessible e-learning refers to design qualities that endeavor to make online learning available to anyone irrespective of their disability, and to ensure that the way it is implemented does not create unnecessary barriers to him/her interacting with a computer or connecting device (Cooper, 2006).

Accessibility Models ◦ The web accessibility integration model (Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle, & Greenidge, 2004) ◦ The Composite Practice Model (Leung, Owens, Lamb, Smith, Shaw, & Hauff, 1999) ◦ The Holistic Model (Kelly, Phipps, & Howell, 2005) ◦ The Contextualized Model of Accessible E- Learning Practice in Higher Education (Seale, 2006)

The web accessibility integration model (Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle, & Greenidge, 2004) ◦ Adopt an approach of web accessibility ?An accessible website must be sufficiently flexible to be used by assistive technologies. ◦ Educators are confident that advancing technology, i.e. accessible web sites, would solve e-learning problems and enhance learning for students with disabilities. ◦ Try to assess whether online curriculum content and delivery software applications conform to the principles of standard/legislative compliance or meet accessibility requirements prescribed in the guidelines ◦ Compliance with the accessibility and de facto global e- learning standards cannot guarantee a satisfactory experience for learners with disabilities. ◦ Require skills to interpret and translate these principles and their implications for the learning technology community

The Composite Practice Model (Leung, Owens, Lamb, Smith, Shaw, & Hauff, 1999) ◦ Focus on linking experts and utilizing their knowledge in order to support students (= view people who use or are relevant to technologies as important as the technology itself) ◦ Believe in “best practice” and that the ultimate responsibility lies with the governing body of the institution. ◦ The AT service providers adopt the framework of the “actor- network theory” (ANT) and a service delivery model. ◦ The model can be regarded as lacking in universality because of the wide scope of inspection for each agent. ◦ The constant technological change and the many contextual variables make it impractical to endorse a single model for service delivery.

The Holistic Model (Kelly, Phipps, & Howell, 2005) ◦ Place learners at the center of the development process and focus on the context in which accessible e-learning is developed. ◦ Provide resources which are tailored for the students’ particular needs, and welcomes diversity. ◦ Can leave out the perspectives of stakeholders other than students and perhaps lecturers. ◦ Can become tiresome for a student to have to continually discuss his/her disability with various members of staff as they go through their degree program in order for their needs to be met

The Contextualized Model of Accessible E-Learning Practice in Higher Education (Seale, 2006) ◦ The development of accessible e-learning is a practice or activity that can and will be mediated. ◦ Three components: (1) all the stakeholders of accessibility within a higher education institution; (2) the context in which these stakeholders have to operate: drivers and mediators; and (3) how the relationship between the stakeholders and the context influences the responses they make and the accessible e-learning practices that develop. ◦ Two theoretical frameworks for practicing: communities of practice and activity theory ◦ In order to establish a strong tie of community, it takes time to build a strong network.

Analysis and Conclusion ◦ Although these four models have difference focuses (i.e. developer, Assistive technology specialist, student), they include the context in which the stakeholders are operating. ◦ Each model has its own unique characteristics; it depends on the context/situation to be implemented. However, practitioners can use more than one model.

Thank you for your attention! Questions/comments? m