1. Inclusivity by design in Virtual Learning Environments
Dan Clark
University Learning Technologist | University of Kent

2. Accessible Information Adviser
Introductions (i)
Accessible Information Adviser
Ben Watson
Part of the Student Support & Wellbeing team
Working alongside all content creators
Advising on best practice
Providing training and guidance
Locating and obtaining ‘alternate formats’
Various University-level committees relating to inclusivity, accessibility and EDI

3. Introductions (ii) University Learning Technologist Dan Clark
Part of the E-Learning team
Working alongside academic colleagues
Supporting the use of our core learning technologies (particularly the VLE)
Providing training and guidance
Assessing needs and guiding development
Various University-level committees relating to learning and teaching and digital strategy

4. This session Accessibility and inclusivity at the University of Kent
The legal backdrop to our work
The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations (2018)
Challenges and opportunities
Further Higher Education Digital Accessibility Working Group (FHEDAWG)
Kent Digital Accessibility Working Group (KDAWG)
Our work in practice
Web auditing
“Good Moodle Guide”
Blackboard Ally & VLE audit
Future plans and recommendations

5. Inclusivity at Kent: A Background
Building-in inclusivity and accessibility by design
Inclusive Learning Plans (ILPs) & individual adjustments
Part of the programme and module approval process
JISC supported Opportunity, Productivity, Engagement, Reducing barriers, Achievement (OPERA) project
Development of the Kent Inclusive Practices (KIPs) scheme
Regular auditing of resources, content and processes
Training, workshops and CPD events

6. The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations (2018)
Regulations require us to ensure that web content and mobile applications comply with accessibility standards, including Virtual Learning Environments.
Key dates:
New websites must meet standards by 23 September 2019
Existing websites must meet standards by 23 September 2020

7. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

8. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

9. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

10. Further Higher Education Digital Accessibility Working Group (FHEDAWG)
Sector-wide group
Ben Watson – University of Kent (Co-chair)
Robert McLaren – Policy Connect (Co-chair)
Alistair McNaught – JISC (Co-chair)
Abi James – University of Southampton/AbilityNet (Co-chair)
How best to respond to the challenges
Sharing practice, knowledge and resources
“Our aim is to develop shared resources to help Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) providers to adopt inclusive digital practices by meeting the requirements of the regulations and improve the experience of all stakeholders including staff and students.”

11. Kent Digital Accessibility Working Group (KDAWG)
Mirroring the work of FHEDAWG on a local scale
Co-chaired / no one single owner
Representation from Information Services, Procurement, Human Resources, Corporate Communications, Student Support & Wellbeing, E-Learning
Partnership with Kent County Council

12. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

13. Training and awareness raising
Embedding digital accessibility training into other training programmes
Moodle
Web editors and writing for the web
Bespoke Digital Accessibility e-learning module
Pursuing/exploring ‘mandatory’ training
Engaging with Professional Services departments (i.e. those normally left out of such discussions)

14. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

15. Accessibility statements
We used to W3C statement generator in the first instance
A positive and proactive statement
A resource rather than a purely legal document
Questions surrounding non-compliance and known issues
Do you need an accessibility statement for every system/platform?
Plain English in addition to a technical statement

16. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE

17. Challenges and Opportunities
Accessible Virtual Learning Environments report [Policy Connect, 2018]
Notable recommendations for FHEIs
Develop multi-departmental working groups
Training and awareness raising
Develop accessibility statements
Undertake accessibility audits of their VLE (in addition to our web estate)

18. Auditing (the web)
New website template with WCAG 2.1AA standards ‘baked in’
Site Editor platform
Mandatory alternative text descriptions and navigational heading structures, etc.
Limited editorial control
Designed by our Web Development team alongside the Student Support and Wellbeing team
Tested by visually impaired students
Kent IT Clinic web auditing template
KITC students commissioned to audit content on each site migration to the new web template
Rolling process of migrating sites to the new template
Part of a wider rationalisation project

19. Auditing Moodle (i) Where do we begin…? Over 3,000 modules
Approximately 800 teachers/module conveners and a further 200 people with additional editorial control
Twenty-two academic Schools
A variety of Kent-specific developments within Moodle
Six learning technologists and Ben

20. Auditing Moodle (ii) Analysed student feedback
Most issues related to either module structure or user-generated content
Sampled Moodle modules in a range of Schools
Clear navigational structure
Meaningful naming conventions
Consistency across programmes
Introduced a Moodle-specific good practice guide
The “Good Moodle Guide”
Introduced a basic structural template based on the GMG, applied to all new modules
Engaged with JISC
”Accessibility Snapshot Report”
Valuable outside perspective

21. What did we discover/uncover?
The vast majority of accessibility-related issues related to user-generated content (i.e. scanned PDFs, lack of navigational structures in long documents, hand-written notes, unclear naming conventions etc.)
Accessibility “health” varied from module-to-module and School-to-School
It wasn’t just students in receipt of an ILP having difficulty
Some academic staff felt that inclusive practice was burdensome and time-consuming

22. Blackboard Ally (i)
A plugin that integrates with our Moodle environment
Uses machine learning algorithms to automatically provide alternative formats for course content, giving students immediate access to more accessible alternatives, such as;
semantic HTML
Audio
ePub
electronic Braille
tagged PDF
Requires no manual intervention from teachers or administrators

23. Blackboard Ally (ii)
Provides guidance to teachers about how to improve the quality of their content for everyone
Delivers top-down analytics on the accessibility “health” of modules, entire Schools and or our entire Moodle estate.

24. To Bb (Ally) or not to Bb (Ally)…?
Cost
No Moodle integrations in the UK
A move against Kent’s Open Source culture
But….
No comparable products on the market
Our small pilot group were impressed
An opportunity to help shape the product

25. Workflow for students

30. Workflow for teachers

37. The pilot so far Initial 12-month pilot (commenced in September 2018)
Rolled out to six Schools in term 1 and remaining Schools in term 2
Feedback being gathered from students & staff
Interviews with academic staff
Focus groups with students
Module evaluation survey

38. Content Data (i)

39. Content Data (ii)

40. Consumption Data
Alternative formats by type

41. Initial findings Average accessibility score is 69%
The average for all BB partners is 35%
Different disciplines, different issues
Targeted guidance and training
Highlighting ‘unusual’ practice
CLA scans and copyright
An issue to be addressed by publishers?
Concerns around policing and targets
But…it’s no panacea

42. So, what next? Regular reporting to KDAWG
Broad suite of areas to look at (auditing, procurement, third party tools, training, etc)
Web template migration project & auditing
Further analysis of Blackboard Ally data
Targeted training and guidance
Student-led VLE audits
Joint student/teacher focus-groups
Templates / “baking in” inclusivity
Refinement of our accessibility statements

43. Conclusions
No single approach, strategy or tool will address the issue
Take a proactive and positive approach
The aim should be to mainstream inclusivity so that it feels natural
Getting senior management support is key
Utilise the expertise from around your institution

44. Thanks for listening! Any questions? www.kent.ac.uk/elearning