Does making your classes ADA Compliant mean that you will not be able to take advantage of multimedia and dynamic web technology? No.
In 1971, John Rawls dedicated a significant part of his book, Theory of Justice, to the importance of equality of opportunity in achieving Justice as Fairness. In this he demonstrated that equality and fairness does not mean redress. One does not have to remove opportunities in order to redistribute it or ensure that everyone has an equal share of it. Instead, it is important that each has that opportunity and that this may require more work for some and less for others. To illustrate this, consider the distribution of insulin. Being fair does not entail that everyone has the same access to an equal portion of insulin. Instead, those with diabetes (or people who have a significant need for it) may require more access to ensure an equality of opportunity among the people. Frankly, those not having access who do not need the insulin are not being harmed for not having as much access to it. Most would not care provided the same framework would benefit them when they have similar needs.
This same principle can apply to access to instructional technology. Removing all access to audio or video because it may not have a transcript can be equally problematic when considering ADA Compliance. If we only have large bodies of text, are we disadvantaging the dyslexic? If we remove audio, are we doing a disservice to the blind to accommodate the hearing impaired? It is important to note that simply removing technology is not an acceptable solution to ADA Compliance. Why not add options, and meet the needs of the more learners?
What we often overlook is the idea that making our courses and educational materials more accessible actually improves their instructional design. Ironically, to work towards ADA compliance may mean we need more multimedia and dynamic web content.
In 1971, John Rawls dedicated a significant part of his book, Theory of Justice, to the importance of equality of opportunity in achieving Justice as Fairness. In this he demonstrated that equality and fairness does not mean redress. One does not have to remove opportunities in order to redistribute it or ensure that everyone has an equal share of it. Instead, it is important that each has that opportunity and that this may require more work for some and less for others. To illustrate this, consider the distribution of insulin. Being fair does not entail that everyone has the same access to an equal portion of insulin. Instead, those with diabetes (or people who have a significant need for it) may require more access to ensure an equality of opportunity among the people. Frankly, those not having access who do not need the insulin are not being harmed for not having as much access to it. Most would not care provided the same framework would benefit them when they have similar needs.
This same principle can apply to access to instructional technology. Removing all access to audio or video because it may not have a transcript can be equally problematic when considering ADA Compliance. If we only have large bodies of text, are we disadvantaging the dyslexic? If we remove audio, are we doing a disservice to the blind to accommodate the hearing impaired? It is important to note that simply removing technology is not an acceptable solution to ADA Compliance. Why not add options, and meet the needs of the more learners?
What we often overlook is the idea that making our courses and educational materials more accessible actually improves their instructional design. Ironically, to work towards ADA compliance may mean we need more multimedia and dynamic web content.
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning is a framework that offers guidelines for developing flexible learning environments to accommodate all the different learning styles and pedagogical needs of the students. Defined by David Rose in the 1990s, it draws heavily on Ronald Mace’s Universal Design in Architecture proscribing designing products and environments usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the need for significant adaptation. Simply, design items so that most people can use them with minimal effort. The theory also draws heavily on cognitive learning theories promoted by the work of both Vygotsky and Bloom (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014).
There are three principles of Universal design for learning:
You should consider developing your courses, online and in the classroom, such that students have options for accessing the content they need to know. Video should have closed captions and you should consider accompanying text with other presentations of the content. Further, when designing assignments, and areas for engagement, such as online discussion sections, you should offer students a variety of options for engagement as well as how they can express themselves when doing so.
When considering ADA compliance, we should see it as another reason why multiple modes of presentation are important. Not only will you help students with a recognized disability, but you may be helping others. With 1 in 20 students being dyslexic and a disproportionate number of students with disabilities taking online classes to avoid perceived awkwardness when in a classroom, there may be a lot more students benefiting from your adoption of Universal Design principles than you thought.
Moreover, you may also benefit other students who do not have disabilities, but prefer a different learning representation or means of engagement than was otherwise offered.
There are three principles of Universal design for learning:
Principle 1: Provide Multiple Means of Representation:
Providing multiple means of representation gives learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge. This encourages offering learners a variety of presentation forms so that they can select the means of representation that best suits their learning style. For example, instead of just offering a video, be sure to offer closed captions or a transcript. Likewise, perhaps a visual illustration may accompany text to better explain a concept for visual learners. Remember:- there is no one means of representation that will be optimal for all learners
- providing options for representation is essential.
Principle 2: Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression
Learners differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what they know. Effective learning environments provide learners with alternatives for demonstrating what they know. There is never one means of expression that is optimal for all learners. Some may like oral discussion while others may prefer writing papers. Providing options for action is essential for promoting learning for everyone.Principle 3: Provide Multiple Means of Engagement
Effective learning environments tap into learners' interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn. By challenging the students, and recruiting their interest, the course will help sustain their effort and persistence. Allowing options and offering multiple means of engagement affords students the option to self-regulate their learning and choose the methods that work best for them.How does this effect you and teaching?
You should consider developing your courses, online and in the classroom, such that students have options for accessing the content they need to know. Video should have closed captions and you should consider accompanying text with other presentations of the content. Further, when designing assignments, and areas for engagement, such as online discussion sections, you should offer students a variety of options for engagement as well as how they can express themselves when doing so.
When considering ADA compliance, we should see it as another reason why multiple modes of presentation are important. Not only will you help students with a recognized disability, but you may be helping others. With 1 in 20 students being dyslexic and a disproportionate number of students with disabilities taking online classes to avoid perceived awkwardness when in a classroom, there may be a lot more students benefiting from your adoption of Universal Design principles than you thought.
Moreover, you may also benefit other students who do not have disabilities, but prefer a different learning representation or means of engagement than was otherwise offered.
References
Bloom,
B. 1984 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA
Meyer, A. Rose, D. & D. Gordon
(2014) Universal design for learning:
Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
Rawls, J (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (Vol. (Rev. Ed.)). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
No comments:
Post a Comment