E-learning and accessibility: An exploration of the potential role of generic pedagogical tools

Computers and Education

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1107-1116

  Seale, Jane ^a   Cooper, Martyn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Learning design; Learning theories; Pedagogical issues; Post secondary education

Indexed keywords

BLENDED APPROACH; E-LEARNING MATERIALS; FURTHER EDUCATION; HIGHER EDUCATION; LEARNING DESIGNS; LEARNING THEORY; PEDAGOGIC TOOLS; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES; PEDAGOGICAL TOOLS; POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; POTENTIAL BARRIERS; SPECIFIC TOOL;

BLENDING; E-LEARNING;

TEACHING;

EID: 77249126937     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.017     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Adams A.M. Pedagogical underpinnings of computer-based learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46 1 (2004) 5-12
2. Bailey C., Zalfan M.T., Davis H.C., Fill K., and Conole G. Panning for gold: Designing pedagogically inspired learning nuggets. Educational Technology and Society 9 1 (2006) 113-122
3. Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university, Buckingham: Society for research in higher education (2003), Open University Press
4. Bohman, P. (2003). Visual vs cognitive disabilities. Accessed 6.05.09.
5. Bradburn, E. (2007). The use of practitioners concepts of inclusivity to inform the planning of learning activities, In Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT, 2007), (pp. 770-771).
6. Burgstahler S., Corrigan B., and McCarter J. Making distance learning courses accessible to students and instructors with disabilities: A case study. Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 233-246
7. Chisholm, W., & Kasday L. (2003). Evaluation, repair, and transformation tools for web content accessibility. Accessed 6.05.09.
8. Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005/08 online. Accessed 3.04.09.
9. Conole G., and Dyke M. Understanding and using technological affordances: A response to Boyle and Cook. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12 3 (2004) 302-308
10. Conole G., Dyke M., Oliver M., and Seale J. Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers and Education 43 1-2 (2004) 17-33
11. Cooper M. Making online learning accessible to disabled students: An institutional case study. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 14 1 (2006) 103-115
12. Cooper, M., & Heath, A. (2009) Access for all to eLearning. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J. A. Mesa González, J. Mesa González (Eds.), Research, reflections and innovations in integrating ICT in education (Vol. 2, pp. 1139-1143).
13. Cooper M., Colwell C., and Amaral T. Accessibility and usability in complex web based learning applications: Lessons from the PEARL project. In: Richards G. (Ed). Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2002 (2002), AACE, Chesapeake, VA 1358-1365
14. Daziel, J. (2005). From re-usable e-learning content to re-usable learning designs: Lessons from LAMS. Accessed 3.04.09.
15. DeFreitas S., Oliver M., Mee A., and Mayes T. The practitioner perspective on the modelling of pedagogy and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24 (2008) 26-38
16. Draffan E.A., and Rainger P. A model for the identification of challenges to blended learning. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 14 1 (2006) 55-67
17. Engestrom Y. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (1987), Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki
18. Facloner, I., Beetham, H., Oliver, R., Lockyer, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2007). Mod4L report: Representing learning designs. Accessed 3.04.09.
19. Fill, K., & Conole, G. (2004). Mapping of the DialogPLUS pedagogical taxonomy, unpublished paper, University of Southampton.
20. Gagne R. The conditions of learning (1985), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
21. Garcia-Barriocanal E., Sicilia M.-A., and Lytras M. Evaluating pedagogical classification frameworks for learning objects: A case study. Computers in Human Behaviour 23 (2007) 2641-2655
22. Harasim L., Hiltz R., Teles L., and Turoff M. Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online (1995), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
23. Her Majesty's Stationary Office (2001). The special educational needs and disability act. Accessed 6.05.09.
24. IMS Global Learning Consortium (2004). IMS accessforall meta-data overview. Accessed 6.05.09.
25. Jacobs, S. (2005). Market forces driving the design of more accessible information and communications technology (ICT). Paper presented at CSUN '05, Los Angeles, 17-19 March 2005. . Accessed 6.05.09.
26. Kansanen P. Studying - the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt to a conceptual whole of the teaching-studying - Learning process. Educational Studies 29 2 (2003) 221-232
27. Kelly, B., Phipps, L., & Swift, E. (2004). Developing a holistic approach for e-learning accessibility. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30, 3. Accessed 6.05.09.
28. Kelly, B., Phipps, L., Sloan, D., Petrie, H., & Hamilton, F. (2005). Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity? A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. Paper presented at WWW2005, 10th May 2005 Chiba, Japan. In Proceedings of the 2005 international cross-disciplinary workshop on web accessibility (W4A) online. Accessed 6.05.09.
29. Kraithman, D., & Bennett, S. (2004). Case study: Blending chalk, talk and accessibility in an introductory economics module. Best Practice, 4(2), 12-15. Accessed 6.05.2009.
30. Lamshed, R., Berry, M., & Armstrong, L. (2003). Keys to access: Accessibility conformance in VET, Australian national training authority. Accessed 6.05.09.
31. Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching (1993), Routledge, London. New York
32. Lave J., and Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
33. Luke, R. (2001). Coursware accessibility: Recommendations for inclusive design. Paper presented at IEEE international conference on advanced learning techniques (ICALT01), August 06-08, 2001, Madison, Wisconsin. Accessed 6.05.09.
34. Masterman, L. (2006). An evaluation of generic tools used in design for learning. Accessed 3.04.09.
35. Mayes, T., & DeFreitas, S. (2004). JISC e-learning models desk study. Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Accessed 6.05.09.
36. McAvinia, C. (2002). Accessibility and learning technologies: Changing for the better or does plain mean boring? Accessed 3.04.09.
37. Mirabella V., Kimani S., Gabrielli S., and Catarci T. Accessible e-learning material: A no-frills avenue for didactical experts. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 10 2 (2004) 165-180
38. Neuman, Z. (2002). Visual Impairment and technology. In L. Phipps, A. Sutheralnd, J. Seale (Eds.), Access all areas: Disability, technology and learning. TechDis/ALT (p. 16).
39. Newland, B., Pavey, J., & Boyd, V. (2005). Disabled students and VLES. Accessibility issues in learning environments and research technologies project. Bournemouth University. Accessed 6.05.09.
40. Nichols, M. (2007). E-learning in context. Accessed 6.05.09.
41. Paciello M.G. Web accessibility for people with disabilities (2000), CMP Books, Kansas, USA
42. Pearson E.J., and Koppi T. Inclusion and online learning opportunities: Designing for accessibility. Association for Learning Technology Journal 10 2 (2001) 17-28
43. Purcell, S. L., & Grant, D. (2004). Assistive technology solutions: IT's all about curriculum access! Accessed 6.05.09.
44. Ramsaran, C. (2005). Does accessible e-learning have to be boring? Accessed 3.04.09.
45. Saito, S., Fukuda, K., Takagi, H., & Asawaka, C. (2005). aDesigner: Visualizing blind usability and simulating low vision visibility. Paper presented at CSUN '05, Los Angeles, 17-19 March 2005. Accessed 6.05.09.
46. Sams, L., & Yates-Mercer, P. (2000). The web for students and staff with disabilities: Visual impairments, dyslexia and motor impairment. Accessed 6.05.09.
47. San Diego J.P., Laurillard D., Boyle T., Bradley C., Ljubojevic D., Neumann T., et al. Towards a user-oriented analytical approach to learning design. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 16 1 (2008) 15-29
48. Seale J. The development of accessibility practices in e-learning: An exploration of communities of practice. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12 1 (2004) 51-63
49. Seale J.K. E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice (2006), Routledge, Oxford
50. Seale, Jane K. (2006b). The rainbow bridge metaphor as a tool for developing accessible e-learning practices in higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(2). Accessed 6.05.09.
51. Seale, J. (2006c). A contextualised model of accessible e-learning practice in higher education institutions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 268-288. Accessed 6.05.09.
52. Seale, J. (2007). Accessibility and activity theory: An exploration of the factors that mediate the practice of developing accessible e-learning in higher education. In Ed-Media 2007: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications, Vancouver, Canada, 23-27 June 2007. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: Chesapeake, USA (pp., 4601-4608).
53. Seale, J., Draffan, E. A., & Wald, M. (2008). Exploring disabled learners' experiences of learning, LEXDIS final report to JISC. University of Southampton. Accessed 6.05.09.
54. Sims R., Dobbs G., and Hand T. Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education 23 2 (2002) 135-148
55. Slatin, J. (2002). The imagination gap: Making web-based instructional resources accessible to students and colleagues with disabilities. Currents in Electronic Literacy, Spring 2002 (6). Accessed 6.05.09.
56. Sloan D., Rowan M., Booth P., and Gregor P. Ensuring the provision of accessible digital resources. Journal of Educational Media 25 3 (2000) 203-216
57. Snaprud, M. H., & Aslaksen, F. (2004). The European internet accessibility observatory (EIAO) - Aspects of internationalisation. In Proceedings of designing for the 21st Century III. Accessed 6.05.09.
58. Spindler, T. (2004). The accessibility of web pages for mid-sized college and university libraries. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 42(2), 149-154. Accessed 6.05.09.
59. Steyaert J. Web based higher education, the inclusion/exclusion paradox. Journal of Technology in Human Services 23 1/2 (2005) 67-78
60. Stiles, M. (2005).The important thing about carrots and sticks: Fitting pedagogy and accessibility into the e-learning embedding process. Accessed 6.05.09.
61. The Learning Federation (2007). Accessibility specification for content development. Accessed 6.05.09.
62. Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Comden, D. (2003). Research on web accessibility in higher education. Information Technology and Disabilities, 9(2). Accessed 6.05.09.
63. United States Department of Labour (1973). Section 508, rehabilitation Act of 1973. Accessed 6.05.09.
64. Vygotsky L.S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (1978), Harvard University Press, Harvard
65. Wald M. Hearing disability and technology. In: Phipps L., Sutherland A., and Seale J. (Eds). Access all areas: Disability, technology and learning (2002), ALT/JISC/TechDis 19-23
66. Wald M. Learning through multimedia: Automatic speech recognition enhancing accessibility and interaction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 17 2 (2008) 215-233
67. Wandke H. Assistance in human-machine interaction: A conceptual framework and a proposal for a taxonomy. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 6 2 (2005) 129-155 March-April 2005
68. Web Accessibility Initiative (2005). Introduction to web accessibility. Accessed 6.05.09.
69. Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity (1998), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
70. Witt N., and McDermott A. Web site accessibility: What logo will we use today?. British Journal of Educational Technology 35 1 (2004) 45-56
71. World Wide Web Consortium (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines version 2.0. Accessed 6.05.09.