1. Individualized E-Learning Anastasia Cheetham Jutta Treviranus ATRC, University of Toronto

2. “AccessForAll” Approach

3. Each Learner Learns Differently Varies for the same learner: with context and discipline The major value added by on-line learning is the ability to personalize learning On-line learning gives us the ability to scale the individualized learning experience to a large group of learners

4. Disability in Learning Context Disability= Mismatch between learner needs and education offered Not a personal trait but artifact of relationship between the learner and the learning environment or education delivery Accessibility= The ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners

5. Accessibility = Flexibility of education environment, curriculum and delivery Availability of adequate alternative-but- equivalent content and activities

6. Serving… Learners with disabilities Learners with diverse learning approaches Learners with diverse hardware and software Learners in disabling environments Learners with diverse cultural or linguistic requirements Anyone who diverges from the hypothetical norm

7. Must avoid.. Stereotypes and assumptions of requirements Labeling or classifying users/learners in politically sensitive ways Collecting irrelevant private information

8. Must Address Critical Interoperability Restricted interface choices and flexibility Each person with a disability is potentially a unique external system that needs to interoperate Must respond to a huge array of interfaces, which change frequently Essential that these personal access systems can find information in a consistent place, stated using a consistent vocabulary, structured in a consistent way

9. Take advantage of ability to: Transform user interface of resource (display and control) Re-aggregation of learning resources

10. Advances Response to Equal Access Requirements Addresses legislative and regulatory requirements Does not compromise the experience of the student majority Does not unduly burden education provider Facilitates cumulative and collaborative authoring Respects unique individual requirements (learner- centric)

11. Support IMS recommended specifications (participation by DC, IEEE, CEN-ISSS, Cancore and other groups) Broad stakeholder input and review Industry Association endorsement (ATIA) Several implementations Dublin Core encapsulation CEN-ISSS application profile and binding to LOM

12. Specifications to Support Accessibility ( IMS “AccessForAll” Specifications): A way to state what you need/prefer as a learner or user (ACCLIP) A way to match up what you need with the right resources (ACCMD) Can be used independent of LIP and IEEE LOM Metadata

13. AccessForAll Element Accessibility for LIP (Learner information Package) or ACCLIP –How do I want/need things to be displayed? –How do I want/need things to be controlled? –What content alternatives, equivalents or helpful tools do I want/need? –In what context?

14. Three Main Trunks Control: How the user interface is controlled Display: How the user interface and content is displayed Content: Specific requirements regarding content structuring, content types, and content equivalents or alternatives.

15. Generic and Specialized Elements Generic: a set of settings common to most alternative access systems within the category Special: settings specific to certain technologies within the category

16. Context When I’m tired When I’m using my portable When I’m at work...

17. Accessibility Metadata Information about: 1. The Primary Resource –Can the display be transformed, is the method of control flexible (EARL statement)? –Does it require hearing, site or text literacy? –What are the locations of any known equivalents?

18. Accessibility Metadata Information about.. 2. The Equivalent Alternative –Pointer to the primary resource this is an equivalent for –A description that parallels the content requirements of ACCLIP

19. TILE E-learning environment that enables learner-centric transformation of learning content and delivery Authoring support for transformable content and Metadata Browser Learning Object Repository Learner Preference System http://inclusivelearning.ca

20. TILE Cross-sector, Pan-Canadian Community of Practice Creators of transformable learning objects and activities Re-users of transformable learning objects Evaluators of the tools and the process TILE Potlucks

21. TransformAble Modularize TILE functionality as a service that can be called by any Sakai application Three Modules: –PreferAble –StylAble –SensAble

22. Additional Requirements User interface and content amenable to restyling Metadata on resources Equivalent alternative content

23. Demonstration http://inclusivelearning.ca