Assignment 3 so far to work on

 

Summary

Text

Background and context 

The trajectory of the digital age shows no sign of slowing down (Hassell, 2019), and just like the physical space has ramps, automatic doors, hearing loops and braille signage, the scale of digital provision and information needs to be as equally accommodating, and this is known as digital accessibility (AbilityNet, 2024). The need for digital content to be accessible permeates every aspect of public and private lives for millions of disabled people in society (Holmes and Maeda, 2018; Gilbert and Rateau, 2019; Lewthwaite, Horton and Coverdale, 2023). 

There have been significant advances in digital and assistive technologies, but most available mainstream assistive technologies only work when content is created in an accessible way (Gilbert and Rateau, 2019). Although this need is recognised in legislation both nationally and internationally (REF), inaccessible content that doesn’t work is still regularly excluding a significant amount of people in our society (Shinohara et al, 2018; Sonka, McArdle and Potts, 2021, Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022). Digital accessibility awareness is considered as a wholly mainstream issue that needs addressing (Christopherson, 2022) and applying this in everyday content should be the shared responsibility of everyone (Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022). However, even though some of the basic principles of digital accessibility are described as simple adjustments anyone could easily learn and apply (Hope, YEAR) this is not happening in the mainstream (Christopherson, 2022). It has been argued for some time that this type of education, training and awareness needs to be put in place to fundamentally support the shift towards an inclusive cyberspace (Wang, 2012; LEWTHWAITE OTHERS) and we need to educate our next generation towards an inclusive future digital society (Sonka, McArdle and Potts, 2021). 

Gaps in literature and rationale 

The digital accessibility of content is not yet taught on the school curriculum, and there is no significant body of research to inform this specific context of practice. It is also not yet regularly taught at other levels of the educational curriculum (Putnam et al, 2016; Nishchyk and Chen, 2018; Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton 2022; 2023). Where digital accessibility is included within education, studies reveal it is minimal, surface level or only an optional or elective unit either at degree, post-graduate level or the workplace (Nishchyk and Chen, 2018; Shinohara et al, 2018; Baker, Elglay and Shinohara, 2020; LEWHWAITE 2023; 2024). There are concerns in literature that most learners prior to entering degree level courses or the workplace have never been exposed to accessibility awareness or have little or no prior knowledge of digital accessibility from their school or college education (Keates, 2015; Elglaly, 2020; Soares, Guedes and Landoni, 2020; Sonka, McArdle and Potts, 2021, WebAim, 2023?). It has therefore been argued that digital accessibility awareness should be established much earlier in education, including in schools (Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022).

However, digital accessibility is described as challenging to teach (Lewthwaite and Sloan, 2016) and there are very few resources such as textbooks or toolkits to support the pedagogy for teaching of the subject (Shinohara et al, 2018; Patel et al, 2020; Lewthwaite, Horton and Coverdale, 2022), and as a result teachers currently lack the awareness, skills or confidence to teach it (Keates, 2015; Gay, Djafarova and Zefi, 2017; Shinohara et al, 2018; Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022; Sanderson, Kessel and Chen, 2022; Bohman, 2012; Kawas, Vonessen and Ko, 2019). Although there is a wealth of guidance and research available for web accessibility it is mostly aimed at the technical or web profession which is often far too complex for beginners (Alonso, 2010; Al-khalifa and Al-khalifa, 2011) and not suitable for teachers who are unfamiliar or never taught the subject before. To further compound the situation, the body of literature to inform the teaching of digital accessibility is limited and immature (REF), offers only small accounts (REF) to be able to inform practice. Most studies primarily focus on the development of student knowledge and skills from the perspective of specialist teaching practitioners or programmes (REF) or the development of skills to be able to make digital teaching materials accessible (ref), rather than the broader development of teachers basic pedagogical content knowledge or resources for classroom delivery. 

Rather than towards the end of the educational journey that prepares young people for the workplace, this research will specifically explore the gap where digital accessibility awareness could be first introduced or established within the school curriculum. ABOUT KS2. 

 

Research question

To answer the calls in literature for digital accessibility awareness to be taught earlier in schools, and to contribute to the gaps in research from the position of supporting teachers’ knowledge and resources, this research aims to answer the following question:

·        How can teachers plan and deliver the foundations of digital accessibility awareness education in the primary school Key Stage 2 classroom?

Participant recruitment 

The research will recruit experienced teachers rather than trainee teachers, so they have the pedagogical background and experience to enrich the study with their classroom and practice insights (Cajkler and Wood, 2016). Teachers and learners will be chosen from the upper Key Stage 2, years 5 or 6 teaching context, but this research will be mindful of SATs in year 6 to avoid any unnecessary disruption to participant teachers and students. It is aimed that three teachers from schools will participate, ideally from one Multi Academy Trust to gain some consistency of classroom protocols and parameters to work within. It is advised to over-recruit to avoid problems (REF), however, if over-recruited teachers were to remain, they would act as ideal contributors to lesson observations and debriefing sessions. 

Research phases and activities

Phase 1: Preparation and pre-assessment 

Mindful of the lack of teacher experience or exposure to digital accessibility awareness teaching, an initial research phase will be undertaken to assess an appropriate starting point and baseline prior to a new educational intervention.

The following objectives will help to prepare for the study and provide a pre-intervention assessment for the research:

·        Conduct a literature review to identify what digital accessibility skills and knowledge are suitable for beginners or those unfamiliar to the subject. 

·        Interview participant teachers as co-researchers to identify existing knowledge and experience in the subject of digital accessibility awareness prior to the research.

Phase 2: Planning for teaching and design of resources

To ensure teachers are prepared as co-researchers in the lesson study process, an exemplar lesson informed by initial research from phase 1 and will be delivered to participant teachers by the researcher in the position as subject knowledge expert.

·        Deliver an initial exemplar ‘research session’ to participant teachers.

·        Teacher participants develop the ‘research lesson’ and lesson resources appropriate for use in a school Key Stage 2 classroom.

Phase 3:  The lesson study process

Following the lesson study process as outlined by Dudley (2014) there will be iterative cycles of the lesson and resources covering the pedagogical process of pedagogy as planned, enacted and experienced (Billet, 2011; Nind, Hall and Curtin, 2016). The researcher’s role will change to moderator.

·        Participant teachers deliver the research lesson in the context of a Key Stage 2 classroom to develop the lesson resources and their pedagogical content knowledge.

·        Participant teachers evaluate and refine the lesson for the next iteration in the classroom.

Phase 4: Post intervention and evaluation interviews 

To be able to measure the distance travelled in the development of knowledge and insights of individuals, a post intervention interview with participants will be conducted.

·        Interview participant teachers to evaluate the individual development of their pedagogical content knowledge.

Theoretical perspective 

Text

Methodological framework 

DBR - IT IS COMMON Lit rev USED TO IDENTIFY assets to develop QUOTE.

What is and how will it work – design of artifacts

Lesson study

As a form of collaborative classroom action research (Dudley, 2019), lesson study has been widely used in Japan for decades and is often credited as improving instruction and education in Japan (Fernandez and Yoshida, 2004; Lewis and Tsuchida, 1997; 1998; Stiglet and Hierbert,1999; Lewis, 2009). It has since gained worldwide attention for the professional development of teachers’ knowledge for the context of teaching and learning (Stigler and Hierbert, 1999; Yoshida, 1999, Lewis, 2009; Dudley, 2014). From the perspective of socially constructed knowledge lesson study engages teachers jointly to construct new understandings and meanings for the classroom and develop a shared understanding of practice (Wenger, 2000) as well as building a shared repertoire of lesson ideas, resources and experiences within and for a specific situated learning context (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Cajkler and Wood, 2016). 

Adopting lesson study will put the teacher participants into the position and role of co-researchers (Lewis, 2009). Teachers will work together to appropriately plan the digital accessibility awareness ‘research lesson’ for the primary school context, teach the lesson with peers as observers with a focus on learner reactions, and then evaluate the lesson in debriefing sessions as a group to refine and reteach it iteratively (Dudley, 2015; Cajkler and Wood, 2016). There are typically three cycles of the ‘research lesson’ for the group to be able to clarify what has been learned (Dudley, 2013).

For teachers engaged in lesson study the object of learning is new knowledge about how to plan, deliver and improve the learning of pupils in specific classroom contexts (Dudley, 2013) which is pertinent to the research question of this study. The lesson study process will be the vehicle to test out the research lesson and resources in the classroom, but more specifically lesson study will expose the development of professional knowledge in teachers (Yoshida, 1999, Lewis, 2009; Dudley, 2014). This iterative journey aims to capture and evidence three types of developing teacher knowledge, such as knowledge of the digital accessibility subject matter, the teaching of the subject and how students respond to it (Lewis, 2009), this combination captured in lesson study is known as pedagogical content knowledge (Cerbin and Kopp, 2006).

Data collection and analysis

Pre and post intervention semi structured interviews:

Most studies related to the teaching of digital accessibility measure the impact of an educational intervention using pre and post course learning evaluations. Many use surveys, but the more in-depth studies adopt semi-structured interviews citing the words of either learner and teacher participants to validate and measure growth in confidence levels (Kearney-Volpe et al, 2019; Keates, 2015; Sonka, McArdle and Potts, 2021), the development of awareness (Gay, 2023, Poor et al, 2009; Shinohara et al, 2016; 2018) or the comparison of skills application (Kawas, Vonessen and Ko, 2019; Gay, 2017; Zhao et so, 2020). 

Semi-structured interviews are considered as the preferred data collection mechanism for qualitative studies, and social science has long recognised their usefulness (Kvale, 1996; Atkins and Wallace, 2012; Alshengeeti, 2014). They offer considerable leeway and flexibility to follow structured questioning, as well as the opportunity to follow up and probe further into noteworthy responses (Sahoo, 2022; Atkins and Wallace, 2012; Gill et al, 2008), elaborating on information that may not have previously been considered by the researcher (Gill et al, 2008; p.291). This depth will help to facilitate obtaining rich and detailed participant data to present the in-depth meaning of experiences through the voices of participants from their own point of view (Kvale, 1996; Berg, 2007; Cresswell, 2007). This study is keen to explore from the perspective of the participants pre and post intervention experience, both explore knowledge and perceptions prior to teaching an unfamiliar topic, to their experiences developing pedagogical knowledge after cycles of lesson study.

In preparation, schedules of the interview questions will be piloted to check they are clear, understandable and capable of drawing out the information needed to help answer the desired research questions (Gill et al, 2008). Piloting will also help to determine any flaws, limitations or weaknesses with the interview design and to make revisions and enhance the reliability and validity of the interview process (Kvale, 1996; Cresswell, 2007; 2009; Silverman, 1993).

Walford (2007, p.147) argues that interviews alone are an insufficient form of data to study social life, so the interviews will be combined and triangulated with other data collection methods to strengthen credibility and confirmability of the findings (Curasi, 2001). This study will therefore be using the individual participant interviews as pre and post intervention evaluations in combination with findings from lesson study focus groups. 

Focus groups:

Focus groups can facilitate the data collection during the debriefing, planning and refinement sessions of lesson study research (Watson et al, 2013; Vogh, Kishel and Jennings, 2014; Wood and Cajkler, 2016; Calvo et al, 2018; Slingerland et al, 2021) and are also used for exploratory studies and the design and refinement of artifacts (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010). Focus groups typically consist of 6-10 people (Krueger, 1994), but the size can range from as few as 4 to as many as 14 (Then et al, 2014). Krueger (1994) warns that smaller groups may result in a smaller pool of ideas, and lesson study typically uses only smaller groups around 3 - 6 participants (REF). However, Morgan (1996) claims that smaller groups like this can make it easier for the moderator, in this case moderator as researcher, to keep the discussion on the topic or questions of interest (Parker and Tritter, 2006; Stewart et al., 2007) and to encourage everyone to participate equally (Morgan, 1996).

Focus groups initially used in the discipline of marketing (Krueger, 1994), have grown in popularity with social scientists (Stewart et al, 2007; Tremblay, Henver and Berndr, 2020) and are now used in many disciplines, including education (Morgan, 1996). Focus groups involve social interaction that emphasises the extent of consensus and diversity of ideas amongst participants as well as the coproduction of knowledge and meaning (Morgan, 2012; Morgan and Krueger, 1993) which is ideal for lesson study. Focus groups also can simultaneously generate data at three levels of analysis, namely, multiple individual responses, the group response and the interactions that happen (Carey and Smith, 1994; Cyr, 2016; Kidd and Parshall, 2000). This aligns directly to gathering data from teachers working together for developing the lesson and their pedagogical content knowledge, both as individuals and through group interaction and consensus with peers. This is ideal to reveal how social processes unfold and how opinions and consensus derives (Kitzinger 1995; p.116).

It is anticipated that the interactions in such extended conversations may spark new ideas (Cyr, 2016) about the teaching topic of digital accessibility, and help to uncover nuances and complexities that may not otherwise have been anticipated by the researcher (Cyr, 2016; p.248).Conclusions from the lesson study focus groups will help to gain insight of how people will ultimately develop their iterative understanding of the topic and their teaching knowledge related to digital accessibility awareness.

For this study, the data yielded from a series of focus groups at three different school locations will help to corroborate wider findings providing opportunities for triangulation (Denzin, 1978; Morgan and Spanish, 1984), but additionally substantiate and triangulate evidence collected via alternative methods (Cyr, 2016; Morgan, 1996), such as the individual pre and post intervention interviews. 

As Seidman (2006) asserts, to observe the teaching process provides access to the behaviour, but interviewing allows the researcher to put the behaviour in the context of understanding their decisions, actions and experience in the classroom.Using both lesson study and interviews will help to reinforce and establish a measurement validity of indicators across the whole dataset (Cyr, 2016), and as pointed out by Crabtree et al (1993) and Morgan (1996) this will lead to greater depth and breadth of the information gathered. 

Thematic analysis

To evaluate the data, thematic analysis offers a theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data that is compatible with constructionist research paradigms (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.78). It also helps to provide rich and detailed accounts of more in depth and complex data, making it an ideal and flexible method for educational researchers (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; Peel, 2020). It is suitable to analyse data such as interviews and focus groups (Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Peel, 2020), with Massey (2011) and Wiggins (2004) pointing out that thematic analysis is the most common approach to the data analysis of focus groups, making it an ideal choice for adoption in this study.

Braun and Clarke (2006; p.87) offer six phases for thematic analysis, such as: researchers familiarising themselves with the full corpus of data; generating initial codes; searching for themes; reviewing themes; defining, naming and mapping of themes; and then producing the final report. They advise that as a first step researchers should become familiar with the entire body of data, known as the ‘corpus’ before any coding or interpretation begins. In this context it will offer an initial broad picture and wider reflection of the whole journey through the pre and post intervention interview stages and the iterative phases of the lesson study focus groups, it will also help to reflect and identify suitable initial codes. Following on from coding, codes will get grouped together to develop preliminary themes (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017) and then further refinement of these themes in relation to answering the research question (REF). Similar to grounded theory, the data analysis will not be a linear process, it will involve repeatedly moving back and forward through data to code, theme and refine it (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Unlike grounded theory, however, using thematic analysis will not commit fully to thematic saturation to develop a theory (Charmaz, 2002), more it will help to identify and work up themes and patterns that emerge within the data by using ‘data extracts’, which are quotations using the participants’ own words that can support and corroborate the interpretation of the researcher’s findings (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Wiggins, 2004).

Themes can emerge in an ‘inductive bottom-up’ way (Frith and Gleeson, 2004), driven directly by what emerges from the data (Charmaz, 2002), or a ‘deductive top-down’ way (Boyatzis, 1998; Hayes, 1997), driven specifically by the theoretical or analytical interests of the researcher or research questions. The flexibility of thematic analysis allows for both inductive and deductive methodologies (Frith and Gleeson 2004; Hayes 1997) and this research aims to adopt both. Firstly, by letting the participants words directly determine what insights and themes emerge from their experiences during the lesson study process and interviews, but also by adopting a framework of analysis based upon the development of pedagogical content knowledge, for example a framework of analysis from the perspectives of developing digital accessibility content knowledge, knowledge of teaching it in the classroom, and developing knowledge of how learners respond to the subject (REF) as well as individual knowledge and group interactions to produce knowledge (REF).

This research will take a semantic rather than latent approach to the data analysis, because its core purpose is to explore teachers experiences of developing knowledge and resources to teach digital accessibility awareness within a primary school classroom context. It does not intend to latently examine the data in any further depth beyond what has been said, nor does it intend to explore underlying ideas, assumptions, conceptualisations or ideologies to theorise. (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). 

Braun and Clarke (2019) explain that in thematic analysis, the researcher will be positioned in an active role within the process, making me as researcher the instrument of the research (Javadi and Zarea, 2016; Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). This means as a researcher, being reflexive and acknowledging any philosophical and theoretical assumptions central to the articulation of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021). However, any subjectivity or bias can be reduced by carefully choosing extracts in the words of participants. As Peel (2020; p.4) states, this rich mix of participant input provides opportunities for readers to make their own informed interpretations of the research. 

To aid the process of analysis Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; p.3356) point out that qualitative data analysis software can be very useful particularly with larger data sets. This research will follow the advice of Ibrahim (2012) who adds specifically that software such as NVivo is useful to be able to analyse qualitative data in terms of gathering all the evidence and subsequently organising, coding and grouping it into similar themes, and this will help to improve the rigour of the process.

Key ethical considerations

Research directly involving humans means that ethical considerations will be apparent before the research commences, during the collection of data and once data collection has been completed (Oliver, 2003; Brooks, Te Riele and Maguire, 2014). Prior to the research starting participants will need to give their informed consent. The aims, the commitment of time, and the type of data that will be discussed and collected will be fully communicated from the initial contact with schools, so all stakeholders have the opportunity to ask questions and make an informed choice to participate. Informed consent and the full conditions will be agreed in writing (Oliver, 2003; Sim, 2010).

Within the school context, consent will need to be gained from teacher participants, the head teacher as ‘gate keeper’ of the organisation (Brooks, Te Riele and Maguire, 2014) and parental consent because children would be observed to aid the lesson study process (REF). The consent will also provide the option for participants to withdraw from the study at any point (Faden and Beauchamp 1986) or to decline answering questions if they do not feel comfortable doing so. 

Both the interviews and the focus groups will be recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim for analysis (Then et al, 2014). They will also be checked for accuracy as often automated capture can produce errors (REF), and names will be removed to safeguard identifies (Oliver, 2003). 

During interviews, participants will be given an opportunity to reflect on their disclosures and rephrase or remove anything from the transcript they have said (Oliver, 2003). Focus group transcripts are potentially more problematic and won’t be shared in this way because issues can stem from the degree disclosure that is possible and captured (Sim and Waterfield, 2019). There is also a risk in focus groups that one character may dominate the discussion, silencing others and steering bias in the findings (Oliver, 2003; Lezaun (2007). It will therefore be made clear during the informed consent process the etiquette that will be established in focus groups so that participants don’t disclose anything that they do not want to appear in the final study, and that the focus groups intend to be an equal forum for all involved. 

After the research data has been collected, the storage of data will be managed using secure university platforms with two factor authentication, to ensure it complies with confidentiality standards (Oliver, 2003). To preserve anonymity and reduce deductive disclosure, data will be processes so participants are referred to by pseudonyms such as ‘Teacher A, B, C’, however as the participants are acting as co-researchers, they will be given the option to be identified should they wish to be acknowledged. Beyond the research and after publication of the thesis and any associated papers, it is intended that all transcripts and data will be deleted.

Contribution to knowledge and conclusion

Text – how it contributes to gap – schools – teacher support.

How methods offer an in-depth study, but due to using lesson study it will offer new theoretical insights into the teaching of DA through PCK.