TO ADD: extra papers round up

 Based on the comparison by Lauridsen (2020) where we wouldn’t act on data protection after someone had their money stolen, so why do do we treat accessibility this way, this review looks towards the similarities of the online safety curriculum that currently does exist in schools (Department of Education, 2023), which also overlaps both the computing and citizenship curriculum. The introduction in the guidance for online safety says ‘today’s pupils are living their lives seamlessly on and offline and we want to equip pupils with the knowledge needed to make the best of the internet and technology in a safe, considered and respectful way, so they are able to reap the benefits of the online world. 

It also references the importance to focus on the underpinning knowledge and behaviours that can help pupils navigate the online world safely and confidently regardless of device, platform or app. They suggest that the teaching can be built into existing lessons and covered using a school-wide approach. #this echoes similar messaging that we need to educate the next generation to create inclusive material (Ref) and that future citizens need to access content without barriers using any device or assistive technology (Ref). The curriculum for online safety also refers to evaluating content, recognise techniques, understand acceptable behaviours and identify risks, all of which similarly echo the learning objectives of much digital accessibility education, to be able to evaluate and check content, recognise techniques to make content accessible and recognise barriers to users (Ref).

The guidance also refers to teaching online safety in the computing curriculum at all ages. In also refers to the overlap with the citizenship curriculum at Key Stage 2, 3 and 4. Looking at Key Stage 2 as the earliest intervention opportunity, this is learners between age 7 and 11 years old. 

In the citizenship curriculum (Department of Education, 2015) learners in both Key Stage 1 and 2 begin to learn about own and others needs and rights. However in Key Stage 2, they start to develop their sense of social justice and moral responsibilities (Ref) to take more responsibility and begin to understand how their own and others choices can affect other people (Ref). The learning objectives listed refer to developing good relationships and respecting differences between people, with some parts referring to caring about other people, seeing things from their point of view, and that there are differences and similarities between people including a range of disabilities. These objectives align to learning about empathy, which is identified as a need when learning about digital accessibility (ref), acting as an identifiable point where this type of learning can be included from the offset of establishing a link between other citizens in our digital world and learning the skills to support others (ref).

(Babik and Gardner, 2021) Hong et al (2014) more exposure to individuals with disabilities may lead to better understanding of disability and higher levels of acceptance.

Attitudes drive behaviour and interventions that improve children’s knowledge about disabilities and providing exposure to those with disabilities is the most successful technique changing children’s attitudes towards peers with disabilities (Babik and Gardner, 2021, p.2).

Babik and Gardner (2021, p.2) state that development psychologists suggest that early childhood is the best time to intervene against the formation of negative attitudes towards disability, before these attitudes and behaviour patterns become fully established and difficult to change (Killen et al, 2011; Lee et al, 2017).

Babik and Gardner (2021) between the age of 7 to 11 years old children are at the concrete operational stage of their cognitive development (Piaget, YEAR) which means they start to develop logical thinking skills that decrease their tendencies to overgeneralise (Gasser et al, 2014), this means they become more capable of analysing situations from multiple perspectives which in turn helps to reduce fears and facilitate positive attitudes (Katz and Chamiel, 1989; Okagaki et al, 1998).

Babik and Gardner (2021) highlight the important factor about facilitating positive attitudes towards those with disabilities is children’s ability to engage in moral reasoning when justifying social inclusion, which incorporates fairness, justice, equality and human rights (Fisher et al, 1998 and Refs p.5). Social justice and human rights are core factors in the need for digital accessibility for equality in society (Ref).

Babik and Gardner (2021) children developing greater empathy results in a better ability to understand others needs and feelings and a higher likelihood of responding in an appropriate manner and genuinely wanting to help (p.6).

Babik and Gardner (2021) both exposure to those with disabilities and non-physical imaginary exposure can have positive effects to reduce children’s biases (Refs)

Babik and Gardner (2021) refer to the duration of interventions, they offer an example of a several year long intervention involving reading stories about people with disabilities and participating in guided discussions improved young children’s attitudes towards individuals and peers with disabilities (Cameron et al, 2007), whereas a one-hour long intervention failed to reduce biases in children (Gonzales et al, 2017).

P.10

After having face to face exposure to peers with disabilities, 7 to 10 year olds were reported to have more favourable attitudes than 11 to 16 year olds (Armstrong et al, 2016), similarly, 9 year olds showed a higher level of positive attitudes and social inclusion than 12 year olds (Gasser et al, 2013). At 9 years old this refers to upper Key Stage 2.

Babik and Gardner (2021) explain that school based interventions can play an important role in shaping children’s perceptions of disability. Interventions are effective if they are structured, increase knowledge about disability, promote cooperation and focus on similarities rather than differences (p.14). #Microsoft model and the study that looked at similarities of permanent, temporary and situational#.

Gasser et al (2013) found that the majority of children evaluated disability exclusion as wrong for moral reasons, indicating that most children condemn this type of excluding behaviour.

Magiati, Dockrell and Logotheti (2002) conducted a study with 79 young people age 8 to 11 at both urban and rural schools to explore attitudes and awareness towards disabilities. It indicated that at that age they were developing rich representations of differences and diversities and already had an understanding of many sensory and physical disabilities, however this was mainly around physical disabilities and less familiar with invisible or cognitive disabilities such as dyslexia, ADHD or autism. (similar to permanent, temporary and situational paper and Microsoft).

Cameron et al (2011) claims that bias exhibited in children can be reduced through the implementation of prejudice reduction interventions. Early interventions may be more successful in tackling attitudes in children, compared with adults, as early attitudes are more embryonic and less entrenched than those found later in life. (#unlearning/ earliest opportunity/ lack of awareness#).

Cameron et al (2011) Extended contact or imaginary contact maybe useful where there is little opportunity for direct contact (p.709). (#videos/ personas/ simulations - capacity to have guest speakers and members of disabled community at scale #)

Anke de Boer (2008) research on attitudes has shown that peer attitudes improve when they learn more about disabilities (Favazza and Odom, 1997; Godeau et al, 2010).

Scope (2018) a person’s level of connection with a disabled person can have an impact on their attitudes to disability.

Scope (2018) to improve attitudes towards disabled people there needs to be an increase in meaningful interaction between disabled and non-disabled people to help more non-disabled people to perceive disabled people’s experiences and abilities more accurately.

Friesem (2017) disability theory applies to the construction of disability to advocate for changes in the environment because no two disabled people are alike, it also calls for a democratic society to be inclusive in order to accommodate all identities and needs (p.2).

Goggin and Newell (2007) we use computers in all sorts of employment contexts such as factories, offices, community and health settings and at home.

Goggin and Newell (2007) explain that legislation plays an important role in highlighting accessibility and the need for inclusive information.

Goggin and Newell (2007) Change has proven to be frustratingly slow.

Goggin and Newell (2007) digital accessibility is often perceived as extra work, time consuming and expensive, to help with this industry needs to be convinced about incorporating accessibility and inclusivity into the design process in the early conceptualisation of new products.

Goggin and Newell (2007) Often there are power relations in the social shaping of technology with industry players and policy makers requesting clearer economic and commercial information to argue if it is profitable to make technologies inclusive or what is the business case to do if.

In Goggin and Newell (2007):

Tusler (2005a) the participation of those directly affected, that is, the customers with disabilities, is essential to making products that are useful.

Tusler (2005b) underlines the importance of ‘accessibility champions’ in organisations to weave accessibility into the organisations DNA.

Goggin and Newell (2007) Standards play a pivotal role and unless they are referred to in legislation their adoption is likely to be minimal. Standards indicate a required minimal set of attributes for a technology to be acceptable. (#a minimum not the ceiling)

Goggin and Newell (2007) There have been tacit assumptions that disability can be an extra cost and nuisance.

Goggin and Newell (2005; 2007) argued in a study in Australia that people with disabilities still face a long struggle to be accepted in society and as equal members of their national communities and cultures.

Lewthwaite and James (2020) the success or failure of digital accessibility in the public sector will be centrally monitored for the first time.

Lewthwaite and James (2020) The need to establish an accessibility baseline is important, however many digital accessibility experts shy away from the ‘compliance culture’ as they fear it encourages rote box-ticking or automated overtly technisist approaches to accessibility that overlook the disabled person’s real experience online.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) lack of professional time and resources to create digitally accessible resources.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) When designing learning materials, especially digital materials, we need to involve those we are designing for.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) Accessibility, inclusion and universal design for learning cannot be treated as add-ons, they must be factored from the very beginning of the design process.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) There needs to be a basic standard that teachers who want to create their own materials could look to for guidance and direction.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) Owing to the higher expectations after the covid pandemic there is an opportunity for the Department of Education to establish an additional support service for teachers and leaders at primarily and secondary schools. This service could operate in conjunction with the National Standards Authority of Ireland to support, empower and promote accessibility and provide a formula that describes the best way of implementing it.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) The digital learning framework for post-primary schools (2015) have examples of highly effective practice, but no concrete details regarding accessibility. What is needed are practical examples and a populated digital resource repository of high quality materials.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) Not all teachers have the time, resources or skills.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) The DES has a teacher education section (TES) that promotes CPD programs and activities, it is time for them to seize the opportunity to establish a unit to provide materials but also educate the teaching community in the creation of high quality accessible learning materials.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) It would also be worthwhile to explore how open educational resources (OERs) could be promoted at the initial stage of teacher education.

Marcus-Quinn and Hourigan (2022) With many schools moving away from traditional text books to digital content and devices there is a real need for more high quality materials and the need for teaching staff to be able to make accessible materials. All students need to have equal access to high quality learning materials.

Alistair McNaught - study five years on from the introduction of the web regulations and specifically how HE and FE have progressed.