Asynchronous, Synchronous, and Accessible

Designing for Accessibility with POUR

>> Welcome to Designing for Accessibility from the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials.

Many of the authoring tools available to educators now include options for adding accessibility into the content creation workflow and standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines provide guidance for how to do so. However, these guidelines often include technical language that can be confusing to even veteran developers. Fortunately, a set of simpler principles, as captured by the acronym POUR, provide a better starting point.

POUR stands for Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust; four qualities that define an accessible user experience. Perceivable content is presented in a way that it can be accessed with more than one sense. This accounts for both the needs of people with disabilities and those who are accessing the content in less than optimal environmental conditions. One example is the inclusion of closed captions and transcripts for video content. This will make the video more accessible to people who are Deaf and hard of hearing. It will also make it possible for anyone to enjoy the content in loud environments where it would otherwise be inaccessible, such as while commuting on a train or bus.

Operable content in digital materials can be operated with a variety of input methods, ranging from the mouse, to the keyboard, and even speech commands. It also means options for navigation are provided. If the content of a digital material is marked up correctly, screen reader users can use a keyboard shortcut to bring up a list of headings. Using these headings, they can skip to the desired section without the need to listen to an entire page.

Understandable content in digital materials is presented in a logical and predictable way as the user navigates through its various sections. And supports for language such as explanations of unfamiliar terms are included or easily accessible. Robust digital materials are compatible across platforms and work well with a range of assistive technologies. Designing digital materials according to widely supported standards will make it more likely that these materials will continue to work as intended as new delivery technologies are adopted. The four POUR principles apply to both teacher created and procured educational materials, whether they are commercially acquired or open educational resources.

When selecting or purchasing digital materials and technologies, use the power of the market. Call on developers and publishers to add accessibility at the source. This will ensure accessibility is built-in, rather than bolted on after materials have shipped and the process of retrofitting becomes more costly and difficult. The PALM initiative can help you with language you can include in your contracts. By addressing the need for accessibility at the source with developers and publishers, you will add your voice to a national movement that seeks greater equity in education. The National Center on Accessible Educational Materials at aem.cast.org is your go to resource for technical assistance. Together we can develop and use learning materials that address learner variability and provide better opportunities for learning to all.

UDL – Learn and Share

>> Hi, everyone. I thought I'd share some thoughts with you on using rubrics in a relational way and in keeping with multiple means of representation.

After taking this UDL course, I really wanted to increase opportunities for my students to have reflective, informative practice in the application of new concepts. I was also involved in a book club where we read AndrateshaFritzgerald's, Antiracism and Universal Design for Learning, where we'd had a discussion about mastery learning and creating a non-toxic learning environment for diverse students to practice learning from mistakes. For me, this meant that students should have a chance to reflect and go back and actually fix those mistakes for a changed grade. So this meant that the learning process needed to be much less linear and my scaffolding or formative assessment needed to be more like coaching than grading. Then, I eliminated the late penalties to allow students to self-pace as they reflected on their work. I teach a few different online classes, both the synchronous and hybrid and I've been thinking a lot about ways to make technology create opportunities for students to be architects or designers of their own digital learning journey. So, I started designing my rubrics so that my students and I would be communicating back and forth about criteria; the criteria would be up front and clear and the rubrics would be a place to return as revisions got made.

I think there are lots of ways to have students use feedback to adjust their work and move forward. I chose rubrics to do that, partly because once they’re designed well, they can be very time efficient. Plus, I think rubrics can offer clear direction for all of my really diverse learners. And I make sure that I provide lots of detail. I can also provide lots of detail in my feedback. And I put the comment right in with the criteria on itself instead of a general comment outside the rubric. In my institution’s learning management system, when students change or add to their work, I just got another ‘needs grading’ notice and I can quickly hop back in and adjust the grade.

In this ‘what stood out’ post, the criteria had asked students to summarize what stood out for them after a module in detail with an example. They were asked to reflect on their personal learning and refer to any connections between the materials and their cultural background or social identity. So this final criterion is asking, given what you've learned, how might this new understanding impact your thinking and/or behaviour in the future and to provide an example. This person didn't provide an example. So my feedback is, I see that you chose not to provide an example. I look forward to adjusting your grade if you'd like to revise’.

This is an example of one criterion using a rubric for a study group of the students’ choice. These groups have some scale-folded practice opportunities, leading to a final summit of scenario analysis later on. So in this form of an activity, they posted an analysis of whichever scenario they've chosen to practice with. And one of the rubric questions asks that they ask a clarifying question of at least two other study group peers. Students are told, by asking questions of other people, it helps those people consider what further detail they might want to include in their analysis. The more questions asked and responded to, the more expertise everyone gathers as a result. In this example, somebody has not asked a question of another peer and so my feedback is, I see that you asked a question of only one peer. If you decide to add another question, I am happy to adjust your grade. It's been my experience that students really like the back and forth; checking on who asked them a question and responding back. And they tend to ask quite a bit more than just the two questions. In the learning management system that we use, the criterion sections can hold quite a bit of feedback and all of my text communication can also be done using an audio file or links to quick videos with closed captions if I want to provide visual guidance in that way. Well, I hope these examples have been useful to you. Happy rubric design.