Where taught - how taught
(Baker, El-Glaly and Shinohara, 2020):
However, the growing body of literature that encapsulates what should be taught and how it should be taught is a compilation of individual pedagogies (e.g., [Gay, Djafarova, and Zefi, 2017; Katsanos et al; 2012, Wang, 2012]), curricular suggestions (e.g., [Gellenbeck, 2005, Kawas; Vonessen and Ko, 2019; Putnam et al, 2016, Waller, Hanson and Sloan, 2009]), and anecdotal evidence (e.g., [Alonso et al, 2010; Carter and Fourney, 2007; Harrison, 2005).
Objectives: "Although quite a comprehensive body of research, it is unclear what aspects of accessibility are systematically covered in computing curricula" (Baker, El-Glaly and Shinohara, 2020).
Only 7.2% of web accessibility practitioners reported
learning anything substantial about accessibility in their formal education [WebAIM, 2018; 20??].
"Our literature review revealed that course implementations took one of three integration approaches: First, when accessibility was the entire topic of the course, i.e., a special topics course that is primarily focused on accessibility. Second, when accessibility was a theme, i.e., traditional computing courses whose primary
learning objectives are not accessibility (e.g., web programming, HCI) that had a semester focus on accessibility, including semester-long projects designing for users with disabilities. Third, when accessibility was an addition to the course, i.e., as a single module or throughout the course, but treated as just another topic that students needed to know. A few papers did not fit into any of these categories as they did not describe a specific course or module. Some examples of these papers are interviews with instructors, hypothetical courses or educational games/tools" (Baker, El-Glaly and Shinohara, 2020).
"The most common courses that covered accessibility were HCI and related courses (8 papers) and Web Design/ Programming and related courses (7 papers), representing 15 of the 21 papers (71%) analyzed. We note that oftentimes, these courses were electives. Only a few papers reported on accessibility in core courses (e.g., Intro Programming, Data Structures, etc.), and accessibility integration was on a much smaller scale. While HCI (8 papers), Web (7 papers), and software engineering (1 paper) courses included many concepts covered in Table 2, the few papers that reported including accessibility in Intro Programming (2 papers) and Data Structures (1 paper) only covered one or two accessibility concepts and with few details. As core courses are a direct representation of degree requirements, these findings indicate that accessibility is not yet considered core competency in computing in general. In addition to investigating the benefit to adding accessibility as a core competency, more research may be needed on accessibility integration in basic computing courses" (Baker, El-Glaly and Shinohara, 2020).
Found that capacity for curricular change appears to be held back only by a lack of knowledge and resources (Shinohara et al, 2018).
(Kearney-Volpe et al, 2019)
Trends in Teaching Accessibility
Ko et al. suggest “three basic strategies for including
accessibility and disability in courses: change a lecture, add a lecture, and add a new course.” [Ko and Ladner, 2016]. In the domain of changing and adding lectures, accessibility has been incorporated into courses about web design [Harrison, 2005], [Rosmaita, 2006], [Wang, 2012], HCI [Kurniawan, 2010], [Blaise W Liffick, 2004], [Liffick, 2004], [Petrie and Edwards, 2006], design thinking [Shinohara, 2018], [Shinohara et al 2017], software engineering [Ludi, 2007], introductory programming [Cohen et al, 2005], mobile app development [ El-Glaly et al, 2018] and student capstone projects [ Gellenbeck, 2005].
Add games to the list (Kletenik and Adler, 2022; 2023; Parthasarathy, 2023) Integrating Ethics into Introductory Programming Classes (Fiesler et al, 2021).
Parthasarathy, P.D. (2023) December. Digital Accessibility Education using Serious Games. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education Vol 2 (pp. 177-178).
Mostly individual accounts - apart from Lewthwaite etc (taking a collaborative approach to reporting in the teaching of ally
In the “add a course” domain, accessibility is also taught in stand-alone courses, including a course in adaptive
technology [Liffick, 2005], assistive technologies and universal design [Waller, Hanson and Sloan, 2009], accessible computing [Carter and Fourney, 2007], usability and accessibility [Keates, 2011; 2015]. A general education course on accessibility for non-CS majors has also been created [Kurniawan et al, 2010]. Two MOOCs on accessibility have reached over 10,000 students [Gilligan et al, 2018].
Some accessibility efforts have gone far beyond adding a
single course. At University of Dundee, accessibility topics are incorporated into a number of courses, including
programming, data structures and algorithms, and HCI
courses, throughout the four-year curriculum [Waller, Hanson and Sloan, 2009]. The Oslo
and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
developed a Master’s Program in Universal Design of
ICT [Chen et al, 2015]. Bohman provides an in-depth analysis of the integration of accessibility into three university graduate programs in the US in his thesis [Bohman, 2012].
(Kletenik and Adler, 2022)
As awareness about the importance of teaching accessibility increases within the CS community, a large number of educational initiatives centered on teaching accessibility have been created, such as the addition of new standalone courses [Carter and Fourney, 2007; Keates, 2015; Blaise and Liffick, 2005; Wald, 2008], general education courses for all majors [Kurniawan et al, 2010], graduate programs [Bohman, 2012, Chen et al, 2015] and even MOOCs [ Gilligan et al, 2018] on the topic of accessibility. In addition,
accessibility topics are now incorporated into existing courses as diverse as web design [Harrison, 2005; Rosmaita. 2006; Wang, 2012], Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) [Lazar, 2011, Liffick, 2004, Petrie and Edwards, 2006, Zhao, 2020], design thinking [ Shinohara et al, 2018 (tenets), Shinohara et al, 2017], software engineering [El-Glay, 2020, Ludi, 2007], programming [Cohen et al, 2005, Jai et al, 2021], mobile app development [El-Glaly e al, 2018], student capstone projects [Gellenbeck, 2005], as well as in multiple courses across an undergraduate curriculum [ Waller, Hanson, and Sloan, 2009]. Pedagogical methods in these courses include lectures, accessibility assignments and projects, service learning, including people with disabilities in the team or as stakeholders, guest speakers, and hands-on exercises trying out assistive technology devices such as screen readers. A recent initiative explored micro-professional development opportunities for faculty in accessibility topics mapped to course objectives [ Kawas, Vonessen, and Ko, 2019]. Resources for instructors include the AccessComputing Knowledge Base [Ko and Ladner, 2016] and the Teach Access consortium [ Kearney-Volpe et al, 2019] - (Kletenik and Adler, 2022).
Just as Fiesler et al (2021) proposed that “the logical place to begin emphasizing ethics is on day one of computing education,” we feel an identical claim can be made regarding teaching accessibility (Kletenik and Adler, 2022).
Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L Bennett, Jacob O
Wobbrock, and Wanda Pratt (2017) Teaching accessibility in a technology design course. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2017) 239-246y.
We add insights to related work (Poor et al. 2012; Putnam et al. 2015; Rosmaita 2006) for future design thinking courses (Shinohara et al, 2017).
Students reported an increased awareness of implications for inaccessible design; and changed their perspectives that accessibility is “someone else’s job” to understanding their role as designers in creating an accessible future (Shinohara et al, 2017).
Yet, few computer science courses include accessibility as a main theme (Shinohara et al, 2017), and those that do remain disability-specific (Bigelow 2012; Ludi 2007; Poor et al.2012; Waller et al. 2009).
Not including accessibility in computer science and informatics education risks omitting important elements of diversity, not just in technical domains, but in technology education overall (Shinohara et al, 2017).
The present technical landscape includes virtual and augmented reality (Microsoft’s HoloLens, OculusRift), intelligent speech recognition (Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana, Google Now), with self-driving cars on the horizon (Tesla, Google), with potential to benefit disabled and nondisabled users (Shinohara et al, 2017).
Despite research showing the benefits of a range of teaching accessibility practices (Putnam et al. 2015),students rarely consider disabled users without provocation, and are not taught to include accessibility as part of the “main event” of design (Shinohara et al, 2017).
We elevate the concern that most computer science and informatics students do not consider the role of disability in technology design without prompting, relegating accessibility as a niche subdomain to mainstream design. (Shinohara et al, 2017).
(Coverdale, Lewthwaite and Horton, 2022)
Reviews of recent research in accessibility teaching [Lewthwaite, Coverdale and Butler-Rees, 2020; Putnam et al, 2016] show an under researched field largely characterised by small, opportunistic studies and individual reflections on teaching, mainly in Higher Education. These studies draw considerably on models and approaches that are culturally embedded in Computer Science disciplines where much of the teaching is taking place. Examples include Universal Design and Inclusive Design [15], User-centred Design [16, 17], Design for All [18] and engineering life-cycles
[19].
Meanwhile, in academia where pedagogic knowledge may be more developed, research suggests instructors perceive a lack of the necessary content knowledge (Shinohara, Kawas, Ko,& Ladner, 2018) to sufficiently develop student expertise. At the same time, where pedagogic knowledge is developed, it may be developed in a very tacit way, making it hard to recognise and share (Lewthwaite, Coverdale and Butler Rees, 2020)
A focus on ‘pedagogy as enacted’ brings pedagogic content knowledge to the fore. In primary research, dialogic, collaborative methods are particularly salient here, to democratise the research process and establish community knowledge and collective understandings in an inclusive way (Seale, Nind,& Parsons, 2014).(Lewthwaite, Coverdale and Butler Rees, 2020)
Lewthwaite and Sloan, 2016 - specific to PCK in DA education.
(Lewthwaite and Sloan, 2016)
Prior work has established a lack of pedagogic culture in accessibility education [6, 9]. A lack of pedagogic culture is shown in limited debate and a fragmented literature, characterized by small, opportunistic studies and individual reflective accounts of teaching a single course or cohort [10]. Therefore, teachers cannot inform their practice by calling upon a substantial body of resources or knowledge. Instead, they are reliant on immediate peers, trial-and-error and technical know-how, rather than pedagogic knowledge informed by theory or evidence base.
(Lewthwaite and Sloan, 2016)
There is a real need to develop the pedagogic content knowledge that is unique to digital accessibility education. Pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) refers to the intersection of general pedagogic knowledge (broad multidisciplinary understanding of pedagogy) and content knowledge (about the subject matter) [1]. Many teachers of accessibility in higher education have strong pedagogical knowledge – generalised strategies concerning how to teach a range of learners in different contexts. However, despite a desire to embed accessibility within the curriculum, teachers of accessibility often report a lack of content knowledge [14]. As a result, teaching can be limited and shallow [14].
How Accessibility Practitioners Promote the Creation
of Accessible Products in Large Companies
(Azenkot, Hanley and Baker, 2021)
Azenkot, S., Hanley, M.J. and Baker, C.M. (2021) How accessibility practitioners promote the creation of accessible products in large companies. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), pp.1-27.
As one example, the WebAIM project (2018) found that at least 97.8% of the top one million homepages had accessibility problems.
This research shows that despite the availability of public resources that detail how technologies can be made accessible, it was difficult for novice programmers as well as accessibility experts to implement the guidelines (Azenkot, Hanley and Baker, 2021).
Many incoming employees had not had any prior training or exposure to disability or accessibility (Azenkot, Hanley and Baker, 2021).
...Also PEAT
Most respondents reported a main challenge to teaching accessibility was that it was “not a core
part of the curriculum.”(Shinohara et al, 2018). ADD NO CULTURE TO SUPPORT IT AND NO RESOURCES.
"Given the lack of formal structure and educational preparation, it’s not surprising that accessibility defects are commonplace in the digital world" (Horton, 2022; p101).
Microsoft Word - cse246-shinohara.v2.docx (acm.org)
Microsoft Word - cser318-baker (3).docx (acm.org)
Infusing Accessibility into Programming Courses (acm.org)
Best Practices for Teaching Accessibility in University Classrooms (acm.org)
Exploring pedagogical culture for accessibility education in Computing Science (acm.org)
Teaching Accessibility in a Technology Design Course (googleusercontent.com)
El-Glaly, Y., Shi, W., Malachowsky, S., Yu, Q. and Krutz, D.E. (2020) June. Presenting and evaluating the impact of experiential learning in computing accessibility education. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (pp. 49-60).
Presenting and Evaluating the Impact of Experiential Learning in Computing Accessibility Education
(El-Glaly et al, 2020)
Existing projects have created accessibility related educational activities and focused on different methods of accessibility education [7, Bohman, 2012, Burgstahler, 2015, Lazar, 2002, Poor et al, 2012].
7, 2019. Mozilla Accessibility. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/
Accessibility/
Teaching accessibility in computing courses has been a significant challenge in higher education [Bohman, 2012, Kawas, Vonessen, and Ko, 2019]. While some institutions have developed entire courses or degrees devoted towards the topic of accessibility, our work focuses on creating easily adoptable material that can readily integrate into existing curriculum (El-Glaly et al, 2020). The focus of presenting and evaluating a set
of unique experiential educational materials.
There are also accessibility teaching materials available online. For example, the ‘Teach Access Tutorial’ provides developers and designers with a set of lessons and exercises that teach basic accessible web development practices [Teach Access, n.d.]. Additional teaching resources are compiled by AccessComputing[2009], which is an alliance that supports students with disabilities learn computing. AccessComputing focuses on making computing courses accessible to students with disabilities, and also on supporting instructors teaching about accessibility. For example, AccessComputing shares curriculum resources e.g., educational components that teach students and developers how to create accessible mobile applications [El-Glaly et al, 2018]. To our knowledge, no existing material provides a complete educational experience (experiential activity, lecture slides, etc.) that have been evaluated to demonstrate their educational effectiveness as we have done with our Accessibility Learning Labs.(El-Glaly et al, 2020).
Educators have integrated accessibility into existing courses such as web design [Rosmaita. 2006, Wang, 2012], HCI [Petrie and Edwards, 2006, Poor et al, 2012], and software engineering courses [Ludi, 2007] using various pedagogical methods such as lectures [Wang, 2012], programming activities [El-Glaly et al, 2018], and projects [Lazar, 2011, Ludi, 2007, Poor et al, 2012].
Educators found that when students interact with individuals with disabilities, e.g., project stakeholders, they better understand and apply accessibility principles in their work [Lazar, 2011, Ludi, 2007]. Similarly, students who watched videos for individuals with disabilities [Putnam et al, 2016] and older adults [x Carmichael, Newell, and Morgan. 2007], or were required to use assistive technology e.g.,screen readers [Harrison, 2005] were found to be more aware of the needs of the diverse base of users [ Putnam et al, 2015]. (El-Glaly et al, 2020).
Our labs adhere to experiential learning principles, which have been shown to be beneficial to computing education [Wagner et al, 2016; Kiili, 2005; Kolb and Kolb, 2005] (El-Glaly et al, 2020).
##########
Comments
Post a Comment