This document summarizes a study on the accessibility of e-learning environments. The study found that applying principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can increase accessibility for all students. Specifically, the study found that an online course that provided multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement was equally accessible to students with and without learning disabilities. The study concluded that accessibility is highly individualized and relevant to diverse learners.

1. Universal Design for E-Learning
Can Benefit All Students
Kari Kumar – University of Manitoba
Ron Owston – York University

2. Presentation Outline
• Introduction to Universal Design for Learning
• E-learning accessibility study
• Summary – Key findings
• Acknowledgements
• Relevant Literature

3. Introduction to UDL
The Main Idea

4. Introduction to UDL
CAST = Center for Applied Special Technology
Universal
Design for
Learning
(Rose & Meyer, 2002)
Transform the
curriculum
delivery
Develop
assistive
technologies

5. Introduction to UDL
3 Interconnected Learning Networks
Representation
Provide multiple
means of:
Recognition
(WHAT)
Affective
(WHY)
Strategic
(HOW)
Action & Expression Motivation

6. Introduction to UDL
Practical application of UDL and related
frameworks
UID
UDI
UDL
Specific guidelines, checkpoints,
and examples

7. E-learning Accessibility Study
What is e-learning accessibility?
Image by Jil Wright (CC BY 2.0)

8. E-learning Accessibility Study
Accessible e-learning environments are
flexible and suitable for use by diverse
populations of students with a variety of
learning needs and preferences (shaped by
their ability or disability as well as the
learning context).

9. E-learning Accessibility Study
How can we evaluate e-learning accessibility?
Objective Evaluation
(e.g., WCAG 2.0 compliance)
Subjective Evaluation
(e.g., user testing)
Drawings by Mike Kloran (http://myenglishimages.com/; used with permission)

10. E-learning Accessibility Study
User-centered (subjective) evaluation
Image by “Usabilis, User Research and Interface Design” (http://www.usabilis.com; used with permission)

11. E-learning Accessibility Study
Research Objectives
1. Determine the extent to which objective
measures of the accessibility of e-learning
technologies may be able to predict the
subjective accessibility experience of students.
2. Determine whether data obtained from
moderated and unmoderated e-learning
accessibility testing are different and, if so, how
and why they differ.

12. Methodology
A sample online course was developed
• Two e-learning units were tested for accessibility by
objective and subjective methods
Websites (academic
and non-academic)

13. Methodology
Students with and without learning disabilities
(N = 24) completed the online units
Students with
learning disabilities
Heterogeneous
group
Relatively large
group
Interesting re:
web accessibility

14. Methodology
Data from student-centered unit evaluation
Student participants
(N = 24)
Screencasts and videos
Pre- and post-unit
questionnaires
Exit interviews

15. Methodology
Accessibility barriers were identified
Accessibility
Barriers
Difficulty
Perceiving
Difficulty
Understanding
Difficulty
Interacting

16. Findings: Unit Accessibility
Unit accessibility was high to moderately-high
Unit
A 0 to 3
0 to 9
barriers
75%
success
barriers
100%
success
Unit
B

17. Findings: Group Differences
Students with and without learning disabilities
• Data compared
– Accessibility barrier counts
– Time taken for completion
– Self-reported difficulty of online units
No statistically significant differences,
regardless of the unit

18. Findings: In Support of UDL
Multiple Means of Representation
E.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layout
E.g., 2: Text-based learning materials
WHAT

20. Findings: In Support of UDL
“I like the way it’s laid out – it’s very clear....it’s
laid out like Step A, Step B, which is nice.” NLD
“I find that I get distracted very easily. And so,
when all of the instructions are listed out at the
same time, I find it difficult and somewhat
overwhelming at first.” NLD
NLD = student without learning disability
WHAT

21. Scholarly Resources
 Several features are common to many scholarly resources:
Attribute Explanation
Peer-Reviewed
Prior to publication, other experts have reviewed
the work to determine that it is suitable for
publication
Expert-Written Author(s) is/are qualified to write on the topic
Non-layperson
Audience
The work is intended for the author(s)’ peers
Scholarly Tone Formal, possibly technical, language is used
References Cited
Other scholarly work that has been consulted is
mentioned

22. Findings: In Support of UDL
“I learn well from text.” NLD
WHAT
“Yeah, I was like, uh, blah blah blah (laughs)….
like, let’s just get on with it…. Um, so I just kind
of skimmed through…. I was like, OK. So if this
said anything important, I probably would have
missed it.” LD
LD = student with learning disability; NLD = student without learning disability

23. Findings: In Support of UDL
Multiple Means of Representation
E.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layout
E.g., 2: Text-based learning materials
Multiple Means of Action & Expression
E.g., 1: Locating an academic journal
WHAT
HOW

24. Goals
Upon successful
completion of this
module, you will have
demonstrated the ability
to:
• Locate a scholarly
resource from an online
library catalogue; and to
• Access a current journal
article.
Methods
1. View a video
demonstrating how to
use an online
catalogue.
2. Use this catalogue to
access a specified
journal.
3. Browse the abstract of
an article in that
specific journal.

25. Findings: In Support of UDL
Multiple Means of Representation
E.g., 1: Single-page, step-wise layout
E.g., 2: Text-based learning materials
Multiple Means of Action & Expression
E.g., 1: Locating an academic journal
Multiple Means of Engagement
E.g., 1: Lack of engagement was a barrier
E.g., 2: Engagement was subjective
WHAT
HOW
WHY

26. Summary
Applying principles of UDL to e-learning
will increase accessibility
Accessibility is highly individualized
Accessibility is relevant to students
with and without disabilities

27. Food-for-Thought
VS

28. Acknowledgements
Financial Support
• Social Studies and Humanities Research Council
of Canada (SSHRC)
• Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS)
Study Design and Technical assistance
• Neita Israelite
• Melanie Baljko
• Jacky Siu
• Sydney Collins

29. Relevant Literature & Webpages
• UDL and related frameworks
– UDL(CAST)) http://cast.org/
– UID (University of Guelph) http://www.uoguelph.ca/tss/uid/
– UDI (University of Washington)
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html
• Social and biopsychosocial models of disability
– Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Houndmills: Macmillan.
– Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The
international classification for functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding
disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11-12), 565-571.
• Web accessibility
– WCAG (W3C) http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
– WebAIM (Utah State University) http://webaim.org/
• Usability and accessibility testing
– Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, MA: AP Professional.
– Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.l