Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A bridge between accessibility and MOOCs: an adaptative model for developing new services for people with special needs

373 views

Published on

The challenges and options that appear along with recent innovations in online education make researchers to reflect on the barriers that still exist for learners with special needs. In case of vulnerable learner groups, MOOCs seem to include special benefits for them, such as openness, low cost, ubiquity, social learning and the possibility of acquiring knowledge, new competences and develop professionally.

This is the main objective of present doctoral work: to provide an adaptive model for developing a recommendation system dedicated to people with special needs. The system will help these vulnerable users to find best MOOCs that suit their professional needs and that are more accessible for each learner. Both accessibility of eLearning platforms and content is analyzed, therefore the system should adapt its interface to each assistive technology and also the graded list of recommended MOOCs to best fit each user’s device and accessibility requirements.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A bridge between accessibility and MOOCs: an adaptative model for developing new services for people with special needs

  1. 1. A bridge between accessibility and MOOCs: an adaptative model for developing new services for people with special needs Francisco Iniesto Supervisors: Covadonga Rodrigo & Timothy Read Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) 4th GO-GN Seminar 20-21 April 2015 Open Education Global 22-24 April 2015 Banff, Alberta Canada
  2. 2. CONTEXT: LLL FOR PEOPLE WITH FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY  People with disabilities choose distance education universities (eLearning) for their studies. (50% UNED) Evolution of enrolment of disabled students over period 2003 – 2015 at UNED Disability 2013/2014 Physical 4454 Psychic 1736 Hearing 570 Visual 874 Total 7847 2554 2966 3462 3830 4283 4224 4808 6294 6104 7469 7670 7847 7469 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
  3. 3. CONTEXT: ACCESSIBLE MOOC LEARNING . Benefits such as: • Openness • Low cost • Ubiquity • Acquiring knowledge • Social learning • Achieving new competences • Develop professionally Image retrieved from Open Education Europa The fact to make digital people with special needs increases the work rate in this collective
  4. 4. DOCTORAL WORK OBJECTIVE • Adaptive model. • The system will help to find MOOCs that best suit their professional needs and that are more accessible regarding hisher disability. • Accessibility Analysis of both of eLearning platforms and educational resources. • Personalization of the app: GUI adaptation to each assistive technology. • Rated list of recommended MOOCs to best fit accessibility requirements and learning preferences. The main objective of this doctoral work: Design a PERSONALIZED APP for RECOMMENDING MOOCs adapted to user needs: achieve new professional competences + learner’s preferences.
  5. 5. COMPETENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATION APP FOR PEOPLE WITH FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY Enriched user profile. There are two main groups of information: 1. list of professional competences the user wants to achieve -> what the person wants to learn 2. User’s device personalization: preferences / needed assistive technologies -> technical needs regarding user’s functional diversity.
  6. 6. COMPETENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATION APP FOR PEOPLE WITH FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY Professional profiles defined by competences. The system should have professional skills defined to be mapped to user expectations. MOOC content defined by achievable competences. The information of competencies within the MOOC platforms and courses. Accessible MOOCs. Accessibility evaluation on MOOC platforms and their educational resources -> automated recommendation list adapted to user’s functional diversity (user’s profile).
  7. 7. MOOC data defined by achievable competences
  8. 8. MOOC data defined by achievable competences
  9. 9. COMPETENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATION APP FOR PEOPLE WITH FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY TASK 1: Development of an accessibility evaluation of MOOC platforms and courses to achieve a map of accessible MOOCs versus functional diversities. TASK 2: Development of a holistic approach assessing accessibility in MOOCs using different tools (automatic tools, disability simulators,…) TASK 3: Analysis of accessible metadata for user profile definition: {assistive technologies, device user preferences instead of functional disability TASK 4: Enriched user profile definition: • functional diversity (from Task 3) TASK 5: Accessibility map: MOOC vs user’s functional diversity
  10. 10. TASK 1: HOW SHOULD THE MODEL FOR AN ACCESSIBLE MOOC PLATFORM BE? The minimum required level of accessibility :  Guarantee access to the content by means of the platforms.  Produce the content accessible in itself.  Evaluate the access conditions.  The technological platform.  The content of the MOOC must be the same for all of the students.  The students must be able to access the content using assistive technologies.  It is necessary to offer alternative textual descriptions for multimedia content.  Assistance must be provided.
  11. 11. TASK 1: CREATING ACCESSIBLE MOOCS. THE IMPORTANCE OF STANDARDS eLearning platform standards: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2008) Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0 (2014) Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C (2013) Estándares y accesibilidad en el ciclo de creación de OERs mediante herramientas de autor. ATICA 2013
  12. 12. TASK 1: CREATING ACCESSIBLE MOOCS. THE IMPORTANCE OF STANDARDS •Documents: o PDF, Word. Follow Accessibility guidelines for documents •Videos (pills) o Include subtitles. o Sign Language Interpreter o Include alternative text to the video content. Textual description
  13. 13. TASK 1: METHODOLOGY AND GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING ACCESSIBILITY IN MOOCS A selection of a set of Web pages: •The platform’s homepage. •A representative page of the course. •A course page including a form. •A course page including a forum.  Educational resources (Knowledge Pills) Text based: PDF, Word,… Multimedia, Video lessons. Methodology that combines:  Conformance reviews.  Screening techniques. (Brajnik ,2009; Sánchez Caballero, 2010, Sama et al, 2012; Hilera et al, 2013)
  14. 14. TASK 1: CASE STUDIES "Estrategias de Marketing Online. Community Manager" (Miriada X. ). "Emprendimiento y Desarrollo de Aplicaciones de Realidad Aumentada" (COLMENIA: Weprendo + UnX). “As alterações climáticas - or contexto das experiências de vida” (UAb iMOOC) "España+Francia+Cerca I" (UNED COMA). Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C., Moreira Teixeira, A. (2014) Accessibility analysis in MOOC platforms. A case study: UNED COMA and UAb iMOOC. CAFVIR 2014 Iniesto F., Rodrigo C. (2014) "Accessibility assessment of MOOC platforms in Spanish: UNED COMA, COLMENIA and Miriada X. SIIE14
  15. 15. TASK 1: CASE STUDY RESULTS All platforms obtain average results 5 – 6 /10 -> place for improvement. None of the platforms achieve reasonable values (higher than 60%). For the educational content -> no standards (either platforms or accessible educational content). -> SCORM and accessibility guidelines. Lack of full accessibility of audiovisual resources exist for all the platforms.
  16. 16. TASK 2: HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR EVALUATING ACCESSIBILITY IN MOOCS Global or heuristic vision: Evaluation through automatic accessibility tools : WCAG Accessibility Validation: eXaminator  Disability Simulators: aDesigner  User Experience (UX) Testing Tools: Sortsite  User evaluation  Educational content evaluation The MOOC platform The educational content. Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C (2014) Pautas para la evaluación de la accesibilidad en las plataformas MOOC ATICA 2014
  17. 17. TASK 3: ANALYSIS OF ACCESSIBLE METADATA FOR USER PROFILE DEFINITION Analysis of accessible metadata for user profile definition: {assistive technologies, device user preferences instead of functional disability} Rodrigo C., Iniesto F. (2015) Holistic vision for creating accessible services based on MOOCs. Open Education Global Conference. 2015.
  18. 18. Learning Profiling: •Display information: the user preferences to have information displayed or presented. For example, it is possible to define preferences related to text (fonts and colors), video (resolution), mouse (pointer, motion), etc. •Control information: this set defines the user preferences to control the device: keyboard (virtual), zoom preferences, voice recognition. •Content information: this set defines the user preferences for visualizing learning content. •Privacy and data protection information: The privacy and the data integrity is considered very important, since the exchanged information can be closely related to the user’s functional diversity. TASK 3: ANALYSIS OF ACCESSIBLE METADATA FOR USER PROFILE DEFINITION
  19. 19. Learning Resources: •Technological: the technology to develop and edit the resources, authoring tools to facilitate the production of accessible materials or the adaptation of those already produced. •Adapted Devices: when a user accesses a resource available on the Internet, it can be accessed directly or a device would have to be used specifically: screen reader, specialized mouse, virtual keyboard, magnifying glass, etc. •Existing Inclusive Methodologies and Educational Standards: in this sense the XML markup languages have to be mentioned. TASK 3: ANALYSIS OF ACCESSIBLE METADATA FOR USER PROFILE DEFINITION
  20. 20. IMS Access for All (AfA) : Personal Needs and Preferences (PNP) and Digital Resource Description (DRD) -> Multiplicity (Collections) TASK 3: ANALYSIS OF ACCESSIBLE METADATA FOR USER PROFILE DEFINITION Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C (2015) Accessible services for people with functional diversity based on MOOCs. EC-TEL 2015 Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C (2015) Modelado de perfiles de usuario accesibles para servicios académicos basados enMOOCs. Interracción2015
  21. 21. Enriched user profile TASK 4: ENRICHMENT OF USER PROFILE DEFINITION Web form: Design of the questions Personal data User’s device personalization Preferences / needed assistive technologies. Users with special needs Personalization of the app: GUI adaptation to each assistive technology.
  22. 22. Creation of a map of accessibility in MOOCs versus functional diversity Heuristic evaluation: Collect positive/negative indicators Define user cases to evaluate a correct accessibility Virtual users, learning scenarios Users with special needs MOOCs sort by level of accessibility. Allow to search the educational resources that best meet the user's functional diversity. TASK 5: DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY MAP
  23. 23. FUTURE WORK TASK 2: Refinement of holistic approach. TASK 3: Analysis of accessible metadata for user profile definition -> Include microdata standards: AMP and LRMI (search engines) TASK 4: Enrichment of user profile definition. Image retrieved from Mary Robinson Foundation
  24. 24. Francisco Iniesto Department of Computer Languages and Systems School of Computer Science Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain E-mail: finiesto@gmail.com LinkedIn: es.linkedin.com/in/franciscoiniesto/en

×