Accessibility in Online Courses: Understanding the Deaf Learner
Online education is more popular and widespread than ever before, serving millions of students each year. These online course offerings have great potential to reach new and diverse populations of students who might otherwise not have access to those learning opportunities. At the same time, inherent barriers exist in an online delivery format that can disadvantage some groups of students, in particular deaf students. Typical accessibility efforts often fail to consider different layers of access that a student must navigate in order to fully access course content. This article proposes a model which describes the three barriers deaf students might encounter in an online learning situation: learning management system (LMS) barriers, course content and materials barriers and communication barriers. Recommendations and considerations are provided to better serve this unique population of students across all layers and points of access.
KeywordsAccessibility Disability Deaf Online learning Universal design
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Caitlin McKeown declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Julia McKeown declares that she has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson survey research group. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
- Biser, E. (2003). Theories and models of human development: Their implications for the education of deaf adolescents. In D. S. Martin (Ed.), Cognition, education, and deafness: Directions for research and instruction (pp. 84–87). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
- Brueggemann, B. J. (2004). Literacy and deaf people: Cultural and contextual perspectives. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
- Coyner, S. C., & McCann, P. L. (2004). Advantages and challenges of teaching in an electronic environment: The accommodate model [electronic version]. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 223–228.Google Scholar
- Hanson, V. L., & Richards, J. T. (2013). Progress on website accessibility? [electronic version]. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 7(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
- LaSasso, C. J. (2000). Critical literacy issues in deaf education in the United States [electronic version]. Proceedings from the 1998 Action Communication Formation Pour La Surdite (ACFOS) International Conference. Google Scholar
- Li, C., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations [electronic version]. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–458.Google Scholar
- Long, G., Vignare, K., Rappold, R. P., & Mallory, J. R. (2007). Access to communication for deaf, hard-of-hearing and ESL students in blended learning courses [electronic version]. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(3), 1–30.Google Scholar
- Mike, D., & Harrington, M. (2013). Retrofitting an online graduate course for ADA compliance: The case for Universal Design for Learning [electronic version]. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 789–794). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
- Moreno, L., Iglesias, A., Calvo, R., Delgado, S., & Zaragoza, L. (2012). Disability standards and guidelines for learning management systems: Evaluating accessibility. In R. Babo & A. Azevedo (Eds.), Higher education institutions and learning management systems: Adoption and standardization (pp. 199–218). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roberts, J. B., Crittenden, L. A., & Crittenden, J. C. (2011). Students with disabilities and online learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance and services [electronic version]. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
- Sligar, S. R., & Zeng, X. (2008). Evaluation of website accessibility of state vocational rehabilitation agencies [electronic version]. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74(1), 12–18.Google Scholar