Structuring for A3

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; Youngblood YEAR). The need for digital content to be accessible permeates every aspect of public and private lives for millions of disabled people (Holmes and Maeda, 2018; Gilbert and Rateau, 2019; Lewthwaite, Horton and Coverdale, 2023). There have been significant advances in digital technologies, but most mainstream available assistive technologies only work when content is created in an accessible way (Gilbert and Rateau, 2019), yet 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 is considered a wholly mainstream issue that needs addressing (Christopherson, 2022), a social responsibility recognised in law that society should be embracing (Gilbert and Rateau, 2019), and as the shared responsibility of everyone in society (Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022). However, even though some of the basic principles of digital accessibility in content are described as simple adjustments anyone could easily apply (Christoperson, 2022; Hope, YEAR) this is not happening in the mainstream. 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 ) and that we need to educate our next generation as a form of social justice towards an inclusive future digital society (Sonka, McArdle and Potts, 2021).

Gaps in literature and rationale 

The digital accessibility of content, however, is not yet taught in schools, with no significant body of research identified to inform this specific area. 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 in education, studies reveal it is minimal, surface level or only an optional or elective unit 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 also 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 is therefore 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) because 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). Although there is a wealth of guidance and research available for web accessibility it is often aimed at the technical web profession which is often far too complex for beginners (Alonso, 2010; Al-khalifa and Al-khalifa, 2011) or to inform practice 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 (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 and content knowledge and resources for classroom delivery. 

Participant recruitment 

Most studies related to the teaching of digital accessibility are positioned at the end of the educational journey to directly prepare students for the workplace. This research will however explore where digital accessibility awareness could be first introduced or established in the curriculum. ABOUT KS2. 

Experienced teachers. MAT. 3 diverse schools.

Research question and aims

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?

To achieve this, the research will situate the data collection directly alongside teachers and their classroom context and practice to iteratively refine teaching knowledge and resources for digital accessibility awareness education.

The following describes the phases, research activities and objectives of the research:

Phase 1: Preparation and pre-assessment 

Mindful of the lack of teacher experience or exposure to digital accessibility awareness teaching identified in the literature, 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:

• Conduct a literature review to identify what digital accessibility skills and knowledge are suitable for beginners or those unfamiliar to the subject. IT IS COMMON DBR USED TO IDENTIFY QUOTE.
• Interview participant teachers as co-researchers to identify existing knowledge and experience in the subject of digital accessibility awareness.

Phase 2: Planning for teaching

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 to exemplar EXEMPLAR LESSONS TYPICAL IN LS
• Teacher participants develop a research lesson 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 (Hall, Curtin ???; Billet, ???) with the following objectives:

• Participant teachers deliver the research lesson in the context of a Key Stage 2 classroom
• Participant teachers evaluate and refine the lesson for the next iteration

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 

Text

Data collection and analysis methods 

Pre and post intervention semi structured interviews:

Text

Focus groups:

Taking influence from literature, 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). 

Krueger (1994) advises that focus groups should typically consist of 6-10 people, but the size can range from as few as 4 to as many as 14 (Then et al, 2014). Lesson study typically uses around 3 - 6 participants (REF). 

Although Krueger (1994) warns that smaller groups may result in a smaller pool of ideas, Morgan (1996) claims that smaller groups can make it easier for the moderator, in this case the researcher, to manage active discussions that foster higher levels of participation and involvement. 

As moderator in this research it will involve….

Focus groups were initially used in the discipline of marketing (Krueger, 1994), focus groups have grown in popularity with social scientists (Liamputtong, 2011; Stewart et al, 2007; Tremblay, Henver and Berndr, 2020) and are used across many disciplines including education (Morgan, 1996). Focus groups are social events that involve group conversation and debate through the interaction of individuals (Smithson, 2000). This helps to open up the range of experiences and perspectives that can be uncovered (Morgan 1996).

This type of social interaction emphasises the valuable data on 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). This in turn will help to reveal how social processes unfold and how opinions and consensus will evolve (Kitzinger 1995; p.116), something that is not usually uncovered in other methods of data collection, or interviews alone (Tremblay, Henver and Berndt, 2010; Krueger, 1994)..

This means focus groups simultaneously can 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 the aim of this research of collecting data about how teachers will work together to tackle ideas for developing the lesson and their pedagogical content knowledge, both as individuals and through group interaction and consensus with peers.

In focus groups, specific interactions or moments in such extended conversations may uncover surprising and unexpected reactions to a question and spark new ideas about the phenomenon under consideration (Cyr, 2016).

This interaction allows answers to build and evolve (Stewart et al. 2009:594), uncovering nuances and complexities that may not otherwise have been anticipated.by the researcher (Cyr, 2016; p.248).

Prior research has shown that participants work through multiple and potentially conflicting views on a topic before arriving at a final, constructed opinion (Chong, 1993; Barabas 2004; Cyr, 2016; p.245) and this will be true, especially in initial sessions as participant teachers collaboratively adopt an unfamiliar lesson suitable for the primary school context.

Conclusions from the focus group conversations will help to gain insight and an assessment of how people ultimately develop their understanding, their teaching knowledge and lesson resources as well as how they speak of specific phenomena (Cyr, 2016; p.235), in this case the teaching of digital accessibility awareness.

For this study, the data yielded from a series of focus groups at different schools 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 pre and post intervention interviews to explore inherently individual perspectives. Using both 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) lead to greater depth and breadth of the information gathered.

Thematic analysis:

Both the interviews and the focus groups will be transcribed verbatim for analysis (Then et al, 2014; OTHER). 

They will be recorded digitally but also checked for accuracy as often automated capture can produce errors (ref). 

##

Thematic analysis is one of the most common methods for identifying and analysing patterns in qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2013; Javadi and Zarea, 2016). Braun and Clarke, (2006, p.78) argue that thematic analysis offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data that is compatible with constructionist research paradigms, providing rich and detailed accounts of potentially complex data, which makes it an ideal and flexible method for educational researchers (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; Peel, 2020).  

Thematic analysis is suitable to analyse data that is more in depth and complex, such as interviews and observations (Rubin and Rubin, 1995; Peel, 2020), with Massey (2011) and Wiggins (2004) pointing out that for the evaluation of research using focus groups, thematic analysis is the most common approach to data analysis, 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 the first step researchers should become familiar with the entire body of data, known as the ‘corpus’ before any coding or interpretation begins. At this point researchers just start to jot down some initial thoughts and notes as they get a feel for the data as a whole (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; p.3355). In this context it will offer an initial broad picture and wider reflection of the whole journey through the pre and post intervention interviews and the iterative phases of lesson study as well as their interviews.

Following on from coding, the researcher searches for initial themes that capture something significant towards the research question, the codes get grouped together to develop preliminary themes (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; p.3356) and further refinement of these themes in relation to answering the research question (REF).

The development of themes in thematic analysis is similar to grounded theory, in that data analysis is not a linear process, it involves repeatedly moving back and forward through data to code, theme and refine it throughout the entire analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). But unlike grounded theory, thematic analysis does not commit fully to thematic saturation to develop a theory (Charmaz, 2002), more it identifies and works up themes and patterns that emerge within the data and uses ‘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).

In thematic analysis, themes can emerge in an ‘inductive bottom-up’ way (Frith and Gleeson, 2004), similar to grounded theory which is 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, but also by adopting a framework of analysis based upon the development of pedagogical content knowledge, for example from the perspectives of developing content knowledge, knowledge of teaching it in the classroom and developing knowledge of how learners respond to the subject (REF).

Braun and Clarke (2006) explain two ways to analyse data, known as semantic and latent. In semantic themes, the researcher or analyst is not looking for anything more than what participants have said to be able to analyse and interpret the data to explain findings and their meaning within the theme. Latent theming looks beyond what has been said to further examine in more depth to explore underlying ideas, assumptions, conceptualisations and ideologies to theorise. (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017; p.3353). This research will take a semantic approach as its core purpose is to explore teachers experiences to teach digital accessibility awareness within a primary school classroom context..

In thematic analysis, the researcher is positioned as active within this process as they are the ones who are the tool of analysis who identify and decide the coding and the prevalence of the emerging themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006), and it is their assessment on what is considered as a theme that makes them the instrument of the research (Javadi and Zarea, 2016; Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). Braun and Clarke (2019) highlight that the researcher’s role in knowledge production is at the heart of a thematic analysis approach. They go on to explain that researchers need to be reflexive and acknowledge their philosophical and theoretical assumptions and position in the research as this is central to the articulation of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019; Braun and Clarke, 2021). As the researcher in this study acting as the knowledgeable other for digital accessibility expertise, and with experience as a former teacher, awareness of my position and subjectivity when analysing the data will be a crucial factor to define and be aware of throughout. In thematic analysis, however, researcher subjectivity can be supported by the carefully chosen extracts in the words of participants. Peel (2020; p.4) states that this rich mix provides opportunities for the readers to make their own informed interpretations of the research. Therefore, the conclusions, subjective through their construction and interpretation, include multiple perspectives such as existing knowledge, the voices of the participants, the researcher’s standpoint, and the readers’ constructions as the personal meaning makers.The aim of this study is for the findings to be relatable and recognisable to the teaching community.

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 usefully able to analyse qualitative data in terms of gathering all the evidence and subsequently organising and grouping it into similar themes or ideas and helping 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. According to Sim (2010) informed consent is seen as having four essential elements: disclosure (the adequacy of the information given by the researcher about the study); comprehension (the extent to which this information is understood by the participant); competence (the participant’s cognitive or emotional capacity to give or withhold agreement); and voluntariness (the absence of inducement of coercion). 

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).

Within the school context, consent will need to be gained from teachers participants, the head teacher as ‘gate keeper’ of the organisation (Brooks, Te Riele and Maguire, 2014) and parental consent because children would be involved to aid lesson study evaluations. 

The consent will also enable participants to withdraw from the study at any point (Faden and Beauchamp 1986), or will have the option during the research to decline answering questions if they do not feel comfortable doing so. 

During interviews, participants will be given an opportunity to reflect on their disclosures and rephrase or remove anything they have said (Oliver, 2003). Focus groups are potentially more problematic because issues can stem from the degree of conflict or disclosure that is possible and captured (Sim and Waterfield, 2019). There is also the risk that one character may dominate the discussion, silencing others in the group (Oliver, 2003; Lezaun (2007). It will therefore be made clear during the informed consent process the etiquette that will be established 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. 

The storage of data will be managed by the use of secure university platforms with two factor authentication, to ensure it complies with confidentiality standards (Oliver, 2003). To preserve anonymity and reduce deductive disclosure, during participants will be 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. 

During the analysis phase I will need to acknowledge my active role in the research context and as the tool of interpretation, I will therefore be adopting a reflexive approach to acknowledge my position, subjectivity and bias throughout the different roles played during each phase of the research process (Braun and Clarke, 2019; 2021).

Contribution to knowledge and conclusion

Text