Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 79–94 | Cite as

Learning about web accessibility: A project based tool-mediated approach

  • Christos Katsanos
  • Nikolaos Tselios
  • Athanasios Tsakoumis
  • Nikolaos Avouris
Article

Abstract

Many websites remain inaccessible for people with disabilities, despite the availability of relevant guidelines and tools. This is mainly due to lack of appropriate training of Web designers on accessibility technology. In this paper, a project based learning activity designed to instruct Web accessibility guidelines and good design practices is presented. The activity is mediated by a web-based learning environment, which presents real-world examples of accessibility impasses that arise when certain, established guidelines are violated, and then provides advice on how to avoid or resolve them. The learning material contained in the tool is offered through a faceted browsing approach, thus enabling active exploration by the learner. A within-subjects case study compared the learning effectiveness of traditional academic instruction (pre-condition) with the proposed project based activity (post-condition) in the context of a University course. A significant improvement in students’ academic performance and perceived learning was found.

Keywords

Human–computer interaction Web accessibility Project based learning Educational tool Accessibility study 

References

  1. Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–56). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Bloomenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palinczar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden. G. (2008, December 11). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20.
  5. Ceaparu, I., & Shneiderman, B. (2002). Improving web-based civic information access: a case study of the 50 US States. In Proc. of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society 2002, pp. 275–282.Google Scholar
  6. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs. I. (1999, May 5). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10.
  7. Clark, J. (2003). Building accessible websites. New Riders Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Cambell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. English, J., Hearst, M., Sinha, R., Swearingen, K., & Yee, K. (2002). Hierarchical faceted metadata in site search interfaces. In Proc. of CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2002, pp. 628–639.Google Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73–112). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  14. Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2003). Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In Proc. of 6th International ACM/SIGCAPH Conf., Pittsburgh, pp. 32–39.Google Scholar
  16. Harper, S., & Yesilada, Y. (2008). WebAccessibility. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Henry. S. L. (2005, September). Introduction to Web accessibility [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php.
  18. Ivory, M. Y., Sinha, R. R., & Hearst, M. A., 2001. Empirically validated web page design metrics. In Proc. of CHI '01. Seattle, Washington, United States: ACM, pp. 53–60.Google Scholar
  19. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge and skills: a cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katsanos, C., Tsakoumis, A., & Avouris, N. (2009). Web accessibility: design of an educational system to support guidelines learning. In Proc. of the 13th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI). Corfu, Greece, 10–12 September, 2009, pp. 155–164.Google Scholar
  21. Koyani, S. J., Bailey, R. W., & Nall, J. R. (2004). Research-based web design & usability guidelines. Computer Psychology.Google Scholar
  22. Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K. (2004). Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, C. I., & Tsai, F. Y. (2004). Internet project-based learning environment: the effects of thinking styles on learning transfer. J Comput Assist Learn, 20(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: What we find changes who we become, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  27. Nielsen, J. (1996, October). Accessible design for users with disabilities [Online]. Available at: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9610.html.
  28. Petrie, H., & Kheir, O. (2007). The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In Proc of CHI ’07, pp. 397–406.Google Scholar
  29. Psaromiligkos, Y., & Retalis, S. (2003). Re-evaluating the effectiveness of a web-based learning system: a comparative case study. JEMH, 12(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  30. Slatin, J. M., & Rush, S. (2002). Maximum accessibility: Making your web site more usable for everyone. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Sullivan, T., & Matson, R. (2000). Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the Web’s most popular sites. In Proc. of the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, Virginia, USA, pp. 139–144.Google Scholar
  32. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tselios, N., Avouris, N., & Komis, V. (2008a). Towards a unified usability evaluation approach for learning software environments: Issues and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 13(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tselios, N., Katsanos, C., Kahrimanis, G., & Avouris, N. (2008b). The notion of Information Foraging as a design and evaluation tool for Distance Learning Systems. In C. Pahl (Ed.), Architecture solutions for e-learning systems (pp. 320–339). Hershey: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies [Online]. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
  36. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models? A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaphiris, P., & Ellis, R.D. (2001). Website usability and content accessibility of the top USA Universities. In Proc. of WebNet 2001, Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Zaphiris, P., & Zacharia, G. (2001). Website content accessibility of 30,000 Cypriot Web sites. In Proc. of the 8th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics. Nicosia, Cyprus, pp. 128–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christos Katsanos
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Tselios
    • 1
    • 2
  • Athanasios Tsakoumis
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Avouris
    • 1
  1. 1.HCI Group, Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.ICT in Education Group, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood EducationUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations