Abstract
Accessible online courses enable learning and promote equity. This paper reviews seven national and statewide online course design instruments and identifies 14 recurrent accessibility themes that occur in two to six instruments. This paper then discusses how these recurrent themes address the accessibility guidelines from the Office of Civil Rights, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and the framework of Universal Design for Learning. This paper outlines research-supported design practices that promote accessibility and, in turn, increase learning, engagement, and equity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The acronym LMS refers to learning management systems in both the singular and plural.
The term ‘standard’ is used in this manuscript, although evaluation tools use a variety of terms (e.g., criterion, element, objective, and standard).
References
Amado-Salvatierra, H., & Hilera, J. (2015). Towards an approach for an accessible and inclusive virtual education using ESVI-AL project results. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(3), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-04-2015-0005.
Baldwin, S. J. (2019). Assimilation in online course design. The American Journal of Distance Education, 33(3), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1610304
Baldwin, S. & Ching, Y.-H. (2019). An online course design checklist: Development and users' perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1),156-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9199-8
Baldwin, S. J. & Ching, Y.-H. (2020). Guidelines for designing online courses for mobile devices. TechTrends, 64(3) 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00463-6
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y. -H., & Hsu, Y. -C. (2018). Online course design: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(3),46-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215-z
Axelrod, J. (2018). Making materials accessible to students in higher education institutes: Institutional obligations, methods of compliance, and recommendations for future action. Learned Publishing, 31, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1148.
Behling, K. (2017). Accessibility considerations for hybrid courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(149), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20230.
Blackboard. (2020). Blackboard Exemplary Course Program Rubric. http://edtech.hct.ac.ae/2019/10/24/blackboard-exemplary-course-program-rubric-course-design/
Blackboard. (2021, January 27). Accessibility at Blackboard. https://www.blackboard.com/blackboard-accessibility-commitment
Bureau of Internet Accessibility. (2017, 30 June). Alternative text: What and why? Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.boia.org/blog/alternative-text-what-and-why
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning: The library’s role in ensuring access to everyone. Library Hi Tech, 20(4), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830210452622.
Burgstahler, S. (2017, 30 January). ADA compliance for online course design. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/1/ada-compliance-for-online-course-design
California State University. (2017). Quality Learning and Teaching Instrument (QLT). http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qualityassurance/qlt-informal-review/
California Virtual Campus-Online Education Initiative (CVC-OEI). (2020, April). California Community Colleges Online Education Initiative Online Course Design Rubric (OEI). https://onlinenetworkofeducators.org/course-design-academy/online-course-rubric/
Calle-Jimenez, T., Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2014). Web accessibility evaluation of massive open online courses on geographical information systems. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, April, 680–686. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2014.6826167.
Instructure. (2019). Canvas Course Evaluation Checklist, version 2.0 (CCEC). https://community.canvaslms.com/groups/strategies/blog/2019/12/21/course-evaluation-checklist-v20
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
CAST. (2020a). About UDL. UDL on campus. Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education. http://udloncampus.cast.org/page/udl_about
CAST. (2020b). Frequently asked questions. http://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/frequently-asked-questions
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Coding and content analysis. In: Research methods in education (7th ed., pp. 559–573). Routledge.
Cullipher, V. (2017, 28 November). OCR website accessibility complaints hit schools and universities. Microassist. https://www.microassist.com/digital-accessibility/school-website-accessibility-complaints/
Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., & Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations. The Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 166–192 https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161396/.
Dello Stritto, M.E., & Linder, K. (2017, 28 August). Rising tide. How closed captions can benefit all students. Educausereview. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/8/a-rising-tide-how-closed-captions-can-benefit-all-students
Equity. (2020). In the Lexico dictionary. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/equity
Fermín-González, M. (2019). Research on virtual education, inclusion, and diversity: A systematic review of scientific publications (2007–2017). The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20(5), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4349.
Groves, K. (2020). The 6 simplest web accessibility tests anyone can do. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://karlgroves.com/2013/09/05/the-6-simplest-web-accessibility-tests-anyone-can-do
Illinois Online Network. (2019). Quality Online Course Initiative 2.0 (QOCI). https://uofi.app.box.com/s/61x1vascjn9ufkmagbyzw30lwu4jcz4o
Kachani, S., Ross, C., & Irvin, A. (2020, 19 February). 5 principles as pathways to inclusive teaching. Inside Higher Ed, The new accessibility: Students with disabilities and access to technology. https://www.insidehighered.com/content/new-accessibility-students-disabilities-and-access-technology
Kawas, S., Vonessen, L., & Ko, A. J. (2019, February). Teaching accessibility: A design exploration of faculty professional development at scale. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 983-989). https://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/papers/Kawas2019AccessibilityMicroPD.pdf
Kennedy, E.D. (2020, 1 May). The responsive website size guidelines. Learn UI Design Blog. [Blog post]. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://learnui.design/blog/mobile-desktop-website-font-size-guidelines.html
Kuang, C. (2016 February, 17). Microsoft’s radical bet on a new type of design thinking. FastCompany. https://www.fastcompany.com/3054927/microsofts-inspiring-bet-on-a-radical-new-type-of-design-thinking?utm_source=postup&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=issue-202&position=9&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=01122020
Linder, K. E., Fontaine-Rainen, D. L., & Behling, K. (2015). Whose job is it? Key challenges and future directions for online accessibility in US institutions of higher education. Open Learning, 30(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1007859.
Massengale, L. R., & Vasquez, E. (2016). Assessing accessibility: Are online courses better than face-to-face instruction at providing access to course content for students with disabilities? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i1.19101.
McKeown, C., & McKeown, J. (2019). Accessibility in online courses: Understanding the deaf learner. TechTrends, 63(5), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00385-3.
Microsoft. (2020). Make your PowerPoint presentations accessible to people with disabilities. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/make-your-powerpoint-presentations-accessible-to-people-with-disabilities-6f7772b2-2f33-4bd2-8ca7-dae3b2b3ef25
Moran, K. (2016). 20 March. How chunking helps content processing. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/chunking/.
National Association for the Deaf. (2015, 12 February). NAD sues Harvard and MIT for discrimination in public online content. www.nad.org/2015/02/17/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-for-discrimination-in-public-online-content/
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2018). Q&A for higher education. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.queensu.ca/teachingandlearning/modules/principles/documents/About%20UDL.pdf
Online Learning Consortium. (2019). OLC Quality Scorecard: OSCQR Open SUNY Course Quality Review Rubric. https://s3.amazonaws.com/scorecard-private-uploads/OSCQR+version+3.1.pdf
OSCQR.SUNY.EDU. (2020). OSCQR is unique. OSCQR-SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric. https://oscqr.suny.edu/about/about-oscqr/oscqr-is-unique/
Portland Community College. (2021). Guidelines for adopting publisher content. Instructional Support. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.pcc.edu/instructional-support/accessibility/publishercontent/
Quality Matters. (2018). Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric (6th ed.) (QM). https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf
Radovan, M., & Perdih, M. (2016). Developing guidelines for evaluating the adaptation of accessible web-based learning materials. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(4), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2463.
Regents of Minnesota. (2021). Links. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://accessibility.umn.edu/what-you-can-do/start-7-core-skills/links
Rice, M., & Oritz, K. (2020). Perceptions of accessibility in online course materials: A survey of teachers from six virtual schools. Journal of Online Learning Research, 6(3), 245-264.
Robinson, D. E., & Wizer, D. R. (2016). Universal design for learning and the quality Matters guidelines for the design and implementation of online learning events. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 17–32. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1213328.
Rodríguez, G., Pérez, J., Cueva, S., & Torres, R. (2017). A framework for improving web accessibility and usability of open course ware sites. Computers in Education, 109, 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.013.
Rose, R. (2014). Access and equity for all learners in blended and online education. International association for K-12 online learning (iNACOL). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561307.pdf
Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2016). How could MOOCs become accessible? The case of edX and the future of inclusive online learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(1), 55–81. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301609137_How_Could_MOOCs_Become_Accessible_The_Case_of_edX_and_the_Future_of_Inclusive_Online_Learning.
SensusAccess. (2021). Service description. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.sensusaccess.com/service-description/
Struamshein, C. (2017, 6 March). Berkeley will delete online content. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 24, 2021, fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content
Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with universal design for learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13–24. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from http://mathcs.duq.edu/~tobin/cv/QRDE.UDL.Article.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (1973). Section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. Section 794. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/rehab/rehabilitation-act-of-1973-amended-by-wioa.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Q&A: Title IV - Rehabilitation act amendments of 1998. Section 508: Electronic and information technology. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2009/02/18/deptofed.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (1990). Americans with disabilities act of 1990 104 STAT. 327. https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015, 6 August). Information technology and people with disabilities: The current state of federal accessibility. Section II, Introduction. https://www.justice.gov/crt/introduction
U.S. General Services Administration. (2018). Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). https://www.section508.gov/sell/vpat
UNC Charlotte. (2020). Universal design. The Center for Teaching & Learning. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://teaching.uncc.edu/services-programs/teaching-guides/online-and-blended-courses/universal-design
University of Washington. (2021a). How can principles of universal design be applied to technology-based math content? AccessComputing. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/how-can-principles-universal-design-be-applied-technology-based-math-content
University of Washington. (2021b). How do learning management systems differ on accessibility? AccessComputing. https://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/how-do-learning-management-systems-differ-accessibility
Vilcins, R. (2019, 24 September). Chrome accessibility extensions. Medium. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from https://medium.com/@vilcins/chrome-accessibility-extensions-90540341ddce
W3C World Wide Consortium (W3C). (2019b). W3C launches an Introduction to Web Accessibility free online course in cooperation with UNESCO IITE (press release). https://www.w3.org/2019/12/pressrelease-intro-web-accessibility-course.html.en
W3C World Wide Consortium (W3C). (2020a). Three flashes or below threshold: Understanding SC 2.3.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure-does-not-violate.html
W3C World Wide Consortium (W3C). (2019a). Caption & summary. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/caption-summary/
W3C World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2020b). Understanding WCAG 2.1. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/
Westine, C. D., Oyarzun, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Casto, A., Okraski, C., Park, G., Person, J., & Steele, L. (2019). Familiarity, current use, and interest in universal Design for Learning among online university instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20(5), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258.
Witham, K., Malcom-Piqueux, L. E., Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). America's unmet promise: The imperative for equity in higher education. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://secure.aacu.org/store/detail.aspx?id=GMSAUM
Declarations
This research does not involve human participants and/or animals. Yu-Hui Ching does not have any potential conflicts. Sally Baldwin has served as an OEI course reviewer and engaged in conversations with developers of course evaluation instruments. These activities did not impact her evaluation of the data, and she has no other potential conflicts. In addition, the authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. We certify that we have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. And, we do not have any financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baldwin, S.J., Ching, YH. Accessibility in Online Courses: a Review of National and Statewide Evaluation Instruments. TechTrends 65, 731–742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00624-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00624-6