Improving Accessible Digital Practices in Higher Education: Challenges and New Practices for Inclusion

By Jane Seale

This book examines the role played by technologies in removing the disadvantage experienced by students with disabilities in higher education. Addressing five key themes, the editor and contributors explore the practices required of stakeholders within higher education institutions to mediate successful and supportive relationships between disabled learners and their technologies. Ultimately, the book argues that practice in the fields of disability, ICT and higher education is still not providing consistent and widespread positive learning experiences to students with disabilities. In order to address this situation, the field needs to creatively integrate knowledge gained through both research and practice, and to re-imagine what is needed for ICT to meaningfully contribute to a reduction in disadvantage for disabled students. This book will be of interest and value to scholars of disability studies, education and accessibility, and educational technologies. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Release date: Jan 13, 2020
• ISBN: 9783030371258

Book preview

© The Author(s) 2020

J. Seale (ed.)Improving Accessible Digital Practices in Higher Educationhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37125-8_1

1. Introduction

Jane Seale¹  

(1)

Faculty of Wellness, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Jane Seale

Email: [e-mail]

Abstract

The focus of this book is disability, Information and Communication Technologies and Higher Education. Specifically, the contributing authors of this book examine the role that ICT can play in reducing the disadvantage that students with disabilities experience within HE. The purpose of this chapter is to outline and justify the contents and themes of the book, as well as to provide a background against which the issues discussed can be understood. In order to achieve this, this chapter will: (1) define key terms; (2) review relevant international legislation; (3) outline the aims and objectives of the research underpinning this book and (4) provide an overview of the five key themes that will be addressed in the book: models, stakeholders, designs, transitions and new solutions.

Keywords

ICTDisabilityHigher educationLegislationPracticeResearch

Contextualising the Scene

In this section, I will provide an overview of how we will define and use key terms such as disability, ICT and Higher Education. I will then provide an overview of relevant international legislation.

Definitions and Use of Terms

For the purposes of this book, disability is defined broadly to include physical, sensory, mobility, social and cognitive disabilities. It is acknowledged, however, that disability does not define a single homogeneous group; students with different disabilities and within disability groups show substantial variation in terms of their experiences and attainment. The contributing authors to this book come from five different countries and as a consequence, the exact terminology used varies. In some countries, writers refer to ‘students with disabilities’ while in others they refer to ‘disabled students’. There are considered arguments for the use of each term (see, e.g. Seale, 2014), but in order to main consistency across the whole book we will use the term ‘students with disabilities’.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is understood broadly to include online learning (both distance and blended learning), assistive technologies such as screen-readers, general use technologies such as tablets, social and networking applications such as Facebook as well as specific application technologies such as statistics packages. Different countries and different authors use different terms such as Information Technology (IT), but again in order to maintain consistency, whenever referring generally or collectively to technology in this book we will use the term ICT. Sometimes, in the book, a distinction will be made between mainstream and specialist technologies, where specialist refers to assistive technology (AT). There are many definitions and categorisations of AT (see Seale, 2014 for an overview) but for the purpose of this book it will be understood as ‘any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities’ (United States Congress, 2004).

The term Higher Education (HE) will be used broadly to mean education which is normally delivered by a university or college. More specifically, the focus is on the teaching and learning experiences of students with disabilities registered for undergraduate or postgraduate degree programmes. Alternative terms used in other countries include tertiary education, post-secondary education or post-compulsory education.

Throughout this book, we will explore the role that ICT can play in enabling access to HE and more specifically access to positive learning experiences. An associated term that will be frequently used within the book is accessibility. There are a range of definitions of accessibility (Seale, 2014), but for the purposes of this book, accessibility will be understood as:

[…] the ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners. Accessibility is determined by the flexibility of the education environment (with respect to presentation, control methods, access modality, and learner supports) and the availability of adequate alternative-but-equivalent content and activities. The needs and preferences of a user may arise from the context or environment the user is in … Accessible systems adjust the user interface of the learning environment, locate needed resources and adjust the properties of the resources to match the needs and preferences of the user. (IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2004, Section 2)

As a definition of accessibility, this one is quite attractive for three main reasons. Firstly, it rejects a focus on just disabled learners, preferring instead to address the needs of all learners. Secondly, it rejects a deficit approach to disability. Finally, it locates responsibility firmly with all relevant stakeholders to influence the ability of the learning environment to adjust to learner needs and preferences.

Accessibility Legislation

A review of research and practice literature over the last thirty years reveals that legislation has been a core focus of attention (Seale, 2006, 2014). The majority of stakeholders have argued that the best way to reduce the disadvantage that students with disabilities experience within HE with regard to their ICT access and use is to introduce legislation that makes it mandatory for HE institutions to ensure their ICT is accessible and to threaten severe consequences if they do not. The contributing authors of this book come from the United States of America (USA), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Germany and Israel where legislation that has some relevance to accessibility has been established; some more recently than others.¹,²,³,⁴,⁵,⁶

In the USA, there is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its 2008 Amendments⁷ and other relevant federal statutes, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see Hums, Schmidt, Novak, & Wolff, 2016 for a summary). The Office for Civil Rights (n.d.) enforces a variety of American federal laws that apply to HE. Rowland (2012), Director of WebAIM, highlighted legal action taken in America against a number of colleges and universities between 2009 and 2012 concerning the inaccessibility of their ICT. Probably as a reaction to such complaints, the United States Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued a Dear Colleague Letter in 2010 to presidents of colleges and universities expressing concern over the use of emerging technologies (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, 2010). This was followed by a supplement which provided guidance on the use of emerging technology and institutions’ obligations to students with a broad range of disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Axelrod (2018) wrote that in the USA, publishers do not have to make their books accessible. If materials are not accessible to students with disabilities, the HE institution is liable. Recommendations about how to avoid legal action are available in Rowland, Whiting, and Smith (2015).

In 2010 in England, Scotland and Wales, the Equality Act (Advance HE, n.d.) brought together previous equality legislation. In relation to HE institutions, the Equality Act protects staff and students with a variety of characteristics, including disabilities. It places a duty on HE institutions to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for staff and students with disabilities. More recently, in September 2018, the United Kingdom adopted the European Union’s Directive on the accessibility of websites and mobile applications (The Paciello Group, 2018), which covers HE institutions. The Directive includes technical requirements aligned with WCAG 2.1 (2018), but also goes beyond technical compliance. It requires HE institutions to provide a website statement on compliance, a mechanism for end users to report accessibility issues and a link to report complaints. Enforcement mechanisms, however, are not as strong as some might like. They depend on individuals making complaints to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and, if successful, will provide for compensation but not fines (Christopherson, 2018).

In Germany, Section 2.4 of the Higher Education Framework Act (Hochshulrahmengesetz, 1976 and updated in 1999 and 2017) requires that universities ensure that students with disabilities are not disadvantaged in their studies.⁸ As these institutions are under public law, all ICT and IT-based services that universities offer are required to be barrier-free and accessible. A core component of this Act, however, is that responsibility for compliance is devolved to individual states (länder). This may partly or wholly explain why accessible and ICT related practices are inconsistent. In 2011, the German parliament ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) and in doing so committed itself to the establishing of an inclusive education system. Aust (2018) reports that so far, most of the efforts to honour this commitment have ignored HE.

Canadian legislation consists of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Government of Canada, 2019), the Canadian Human Rights Act which created the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Government of Canada, 2018a) and Canada’s approval of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010 (cf. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2011). However, none of these guarantee the accessibility of ICTs for Canadian HE students with disabilities. Although Canada is proposing to create an Accessible Canada Act (Government of Canada, 2018b) which would ensure accessibility of ICTs to several federal organisations, this does not include colleges or universities. Nevertheless, Canada benefits from American legislation. Once American ICTs are made accessible, the version produced for English language Canadian students and institutions are usually still accessible after modification. Moreover, many Canadian colleges and universities, especially larger ones, have policies that serve to ensure ICT accessibility for their students (e.g. McGill—Office for Students with Disabilities, 2019). Smaller institutions often employ a central group that provides equipment and expertise to its members. Moreover, access professionals have instant communication with one another through a Canada-wide electronic mailing list (listserv: ACCESS-EDU). Like Germany, the major challenge for Canada is that education falls under the responsibility of each province or territory. Each geographical region is responsible for its own disability legislation (e.g. Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2014). Much of the accessibility legislation requires updating and re-evaluation (e.g. Smith, 2018) and further, Canada has no nation-wide digital-accessibility legislation (Essential Accessibility, 2018). Indeed, this decentralised approach makes for an uneven playing field with respect to the provision of accessible ICT for students with disabilities.

In Israel, like the USA, legislators write law in this area at the federal level. The aim of the Law for the Equal Rights of People with Disabilities (5758-1998) is to guarantee Israeli society’s commitment to promoting equal rights for people with disabilities by preventing discrimination, striving for equality by providing adjustments and encouraging affirmative action. In order to help implement the equal rights act for people with disabilities, the law has been amended to include more specific reference to accessibility. The amendment to the Equal Rights of People with Disabilities Law (5773-2012) therefore includes a list specifying the places requiring accessibility, including accessibility adjustments in HE institutions and the services they provide. To ease the operational and financial burden entailed in making current services and public places accessible for persons with a disability, the process may be implemented gradually. Accessibility timetables and gradual application are detailed in the accessibility regulations, which must be fulfilled by November 1, 2021.⁹,¹⁰ In addition, as part of the law in Israel, the employer shall not discriminate against his or her employees or persons seeking employment, because of their disabilities, provided that they are qualified for the job or position in question (this includes hiring, employment terms and promotion at work). When needed, the employers are required to provide suitable accommodation, which includes modifying the workplace, the equipment therein, job requirements, work hours, job hiring tests, training and instruction and work procedures, all without imposing an undue burden on the employer. A public committee that examined the implementation of the Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act (Laron, 2005) emphasised the crucial role of HE in the integration of people with disabilities into society and employment. The committee found that the higher the level of education of people with severe disabilities, the greater the chances are that they will integrate into society in general, and in employment in particular, and will be able to support themselves. The committee called for expanding access to HE institutions and student support programmes. Specific regulations were passed in 2016, under which academic institutions are obligated to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities (Access Israel, 2016). On the other hand, the main challenge Israel is facing is the need to increase collaboration with the National Insurance Institute (started in 2011) so as to raise the necessary funds to improve the existing accessibility in their HE institutions (Eliav, Benayoun, Sabato, & Berger, 2014).

Whilst legislation is probably a necessary pre-condition for improvements to be made to the ICT related experiences of students with disabilities, the main premise of this book is that on its own, legislation is not enough. One of the main problems with legislation is that it points to rules that practitioners should comply with. It does not however help practitioners translate those rules into practice. Legislation tells a practitioner what they should do, but not how they can do it. This is probably one of the main reasons why, despite the existence of an array of laws and policies, students with disabilities in HE are still disadvantaged (see Chap. 2 for a wider discussion).

Conceptualising the Scene: Integrating Research and Practice

This book is the product of a three-year long collaboration between fifteen practitioners and researchers from the UK, USA, Canada, Germany and Israel. This collaborative International Network was funded by the Leverhulme Trust and was titled ‘Disabled students, ICT, post-compulsory education & employment: in search of new solutions’, Ed-ICT for short. The overarching aim of the Ed-ICT International Network was to seek ways in which research could inform practice (and vice versa) in the field so that the disadvantage that disabled learners experience can be reduced, or better still eliminated. The Ed-ICT International Network therefore explored the role that ICTs play, or could play, in both creating barriers and mitigating disadvantages that students with disabilities in HE experience both generally and specifically in relation to social, emotional and educational outcomes. The network also examined how practices of educators and other stakeholders could potentially craft successful and supportive relationships between learners with disabilities and ICT. The related objectives of the network were to:

Synthesise and compare the available research evidence across the five countries regarding the relationship between students with disabilities, ICTs and HE

Construct theoretical explanations for why ICTs have not achieved the dramatic reductions in discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion hoped for when equality and discrimination related laws were published across the five countries

Provide new perspectives about potential future solutions regarding how HE institutions can better use ICTs to remove the ongoing problems of disadvantage and exclusion of students with disabilities

In order to meet these objectives five international symposia were held, each focusing on one of the following broad themes:

1.

Effective models and frameworks (Seattle Symposium, March 2017)

2.

New stakeholder perspectives (Montreal Symposium, June 2017)

3.

New designs (Tel Aviv Symposium, March 2018)

4.

Effective transition practices (Hagen Symposium, October 2018)

5.

New solutions (Milton Keynes Symposium, June 2019).

For each symposium, stakeholders from the host country were invited to present, share and discuss their research and practice. Stakeholders included: students with disabilities; faculty and professionals responsible for faculty/staff development; professionals responsible for support services for students with disabilities; campus information technology staff; digital textbook and resource publishers; and senior institutional administrators. All outputs from the symposia have been made available from the project website.¹¹

Conceptualising the Scene: A Thematic Overview

In this section, I will provide an overview of the five main themes that will be examined across the chapters of this book.

Effective Models and Frameworks

In response to a perceived lack of progress in making ICT related learning experiences accessible for students with disabilities in HE, I have argued that legislation should not be the sole focus of attention (Seale, 2006). I argued that focusing on the rules contained within legislation was constraining thought and therefore practice. The community needed to expand its ideas and