Accessibility that Supports Literacy: Virtual School Course Design Teams’ Instructional Planning for Students with Disabilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1508Keywords:
K12 online course design, collaborative online course design, instructional design for students with disabilities, course design literacies, accessibility in online coursesAbstract
As more students with disabilities in K-12 settings enroll in online courses, virtual schools and programs are working make courses accessible through stronger course design. When course designers approach the issue of accessibility, they must comply with legal requirements and mitigate the challenges many students with disabilities face for literacy and learning. These challenges include less well-developed content vocabulary and background knowledge, as well as inefficient skills and strategies for engaging with and comprehending online text. This study describes phenomenological research where course designers worked to meet accessibility standards and promote literacies online for all students, especially students with disabilities. Four strategies for promoting accessibility emerged as findings: (1) composing clear articulations of learning outcomes; (2) promoting personalized and contextualized learning, and; (3) planning for visual and audio representation of concepts. However, course designers may need additional support for addressing the interplay between literacies that promote access and accessibility features that promote literacies.
References
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016). Redesigning design: Field testing a revised design rubric based of iNACOL quality course standards. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 31(2). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/976/1647
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Baker, F. (2016). Media literacy in the classroom (2nd ed.). United States: International Society for Technology in Education.
Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 1-3.
boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.
Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1) http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607/1182
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in New Literacies and New Literacies Research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.
Danforth, S. (2015). Under the mentorship of John Dewey: Democratic lessons for inclusive Education. In Foundations of Inclusive Education Research (pp. 133-148). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dewey, J. (2013). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Press.
Dikkers, A. G. (2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching: Implications for virtual school teacher practice and professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139-156.
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4718/ee3c1930820e094552f0933cbc3b86548dbc.pdf
Drexler, W. (2018). Personal learning environments in K-12 setting. In R. Ferdig and K. Kennedy (Eds.) Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 151-162). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.
Finlay, L. (2009). Ambiguous encounters: A relational approach to phenomenological research. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 9(1), 1-17.
Freidhoff, J. (2018). Michigan’s virtual learning effectiveness report: 2016-2017. Retrieved from
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming teaching and learning through critical media literacy pedagogy. Learning Landscapes, 6(2),109-124.
Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London; New York, NY: Routledge.
Gemin, B., Pape, L., Vashaw, L., & Watson, J. (2015). Keeping pace with K–12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Foundation.
Hammer, R., & Kellner, D. (Eds.). (2009). Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hanington, B. (2015). Making methods work: 10 rules of thumb for design research. Archives of Design Research, 28(1), 41-51.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146.
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Jewitt, C. (2009) Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewett (Ed.) Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 28-39). London, England: Routledge.
Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92-99.
Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5-6), 516-553.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Hoddor Arnold Publication.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (New literacies and digital epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau, Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Luke, A. (2004). At last: The trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 85–95.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Marteney, T., & Bernadowski, C. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of online instruction for students with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 178–194.
Miron, G. (2016). Review of the policy framework for online charter schools. NationalEducation Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/reviews/TTR%20Miron%20Online%20Charters_0.pdf
Molnar, A., Miron, G., Huerta, L., King Rice, J., Cuban, L., Horvitz, B., & Rankin Shafer, S. (2013). Virtual schools in the US 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558723.pdf
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A systems view of onlinelearning, 3rd ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company. California, USA.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Olson, M. R. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 11(2), 119-135.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Day, S. L. (2015). Online learning in Illinois high schools: The voices of principals. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards, 4th ed. Retrieved from
https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/k-12-secondary-rubric
Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while
designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765-777.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by § 508, 29 U.S.C. § 794(d) (1998).
Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51.
Ruppar, A. L., Gaffney, J. S., & Dymond, S. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 209-226.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, England: Longman.
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5(2), 77-91.
Street, B. (2005). At last: Recent applications of New Literacy Studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 417–423.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT press.
Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw (2014). Keeping pace with K 12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Mountain View, CA: Evergreen Education Group.
Williams, D. D. (2013, October). Themes from case studies of evaluators’ lives. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association Education, Washington D.C.
Williams, D. D. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in daily life: Exploring qualitative thought.
Retrieved from https://qualitativeinquirydailylife.wordpress.com/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
