Advertisement

Towards Truly Accessible MOOCs for Persons with Cognitive Disabilities: Design and Field Assessment

  • Pierre-Antoine Cinquin
  • Pascal Guitton
  • Hélène Sauzéon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10896)

Abstract

MOOCs are playing an increasingly important role in education systems. Unfortunately, MOOCs are not fully accessible. In this paper, we propose design principles to enhance the accessibility of MOOC players, especially for persons with cognitive disabilities. These principles result from a participatory design process gathering 7 persons with disabilities and 13 expert professionals. They are also inspired by various design approaches (Universal Design for Learning, Instructional Design, Environmental Support). We also detail the creation of a MOOC player offering a set of accessibility features that users can alter according to their needs and capabilities. We used it to teach a MOOC on digital accessibility. Finally, we conducted a field study to assess learning and usability outcomes for persons with cognitive and non-cognitive impairments. Results support the effectiveness of our player for increasing accessibility.

Keywords

Accessibility Cognitive disabilities MOOC Participatory design Ability based design Usability 

References

  1. 1.
    Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (eds.): e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matthews, C.K., Harrington, N.G.: Invisible disability. In: Braithwaite, D.O., Thompson, T.L. (eds.) LEA’s Communication Series. Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, pp. 405–421 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4(4), 295–312 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose, D.H., Meyer, A.: A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrow, D.G., Rogers, W.A.: Environmental support: an integrative framework. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 50(4), 589–613 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x312251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wobbrock, J.O., Kane, S.K., Gajos, K.Z., Harada, S., Froehlich, J.: Ability-based design. ACM Trans. Accessible Comput. 3(3), 1–27 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards, A.D.: Computers and people with disabilities. In: Extra-Ordinary Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 19–43. Cambridge University Press, December 1995Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Strategies for improving the level of accessibility in the design of MOOC-based learning services. In: 2016 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/siie.2016.7751841
  9. 9.
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
  10. 10.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Research challenges in accessible MOOCs: a systematic literature review 2008–2016. Universal Access in the Information Society (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0531-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohnsack, M., Puhl, S.: Accessibility of MOOCs. In: Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Peňáz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8547, pp. 141–144. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08596-8_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Roldán Martínez, D., Raffenne, E., Buendía García, F., Boticario, J.G., Montandon, L., Santos, O.C.: Accessible lifelong learning at higher education: outcomes and lessons learned at two different pilot sites in the EU4ALL project. JUCS J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 18(1) (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-018-01-0062
  13. 13.
    Sánchez Gordón, S., Luján Mora, S.:. Adaptive content presentation extension for open edX. Enhancing MOOCs accessibility for users with disabilities. In: ACHI 2015, pp. 181–183 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organization, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Indus. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Selm, M., Jankowski, N.W.: Conducting online surveys. Qual. Quant. 40(3), 435–456 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vallerand, R.J.: Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 29, 271–360 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60019-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, Y., Lee, J., Hwang, Y.: Relating motivation to information and communication technology acceptance: self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 418–428 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roca, J.C., Gagné, M.: Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: a self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(4), 1585–1604 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dupuy, L., Consel, C., Sauzéon, H.: Self-determination-based design to achieve acceptance of assisted living technologies for older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 508–521 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Saltarelli, A.J., Reich, J., Cohen, G.L.: Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science 355(6322), 251–252 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zahed-Babelan, A., Moenikia, M.: The role of emotional intelligence in predicting students’ academic achievement in distance education system. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2(2), 1158–1163 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., Coughlan, T.: What are the expectations of disabled learners when participating in a MOOC? In: Proceedings of the Fourth 2017 ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale - L@S 2017 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3053991

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Antoine Cinquin
    • 1
  • Pascal Guitton
    • 1
  • Hélène Sauzéon
    • 1
  1. 1.Bordeaux University & INRIATalenceFrance

Personalised recommendations