Background
Attribute | Attribute Description | Guidelines | Guidelines Description |
---|---|---|---|
Perceivable | The content and interfaces of OER can be perceived by users. | Text Alternatives | Provide a variety of forms that people need for non-textual content, such as large print, Braille, and so on. |
Time-based Media | Provide access to time-based media. | ||
Adaptable | Ensure that all OER are available in some way to all users. | ||
Distinguishable | Make the default presentation easy to perceive by people with disabilities. | ||
Operable | OER, including the content and interface, must be operable for users. | Keyboard Accessible | Make all functionalities achievable by using the keyboard. |
Enough Time | Provide enough time for users to use OER. | ||
Seizures | Do not design OER in a way that might trigger seizures. | ||
Navigable | Support navigation and retrieval functions. | ||
Understandable | OER, including the content and interface, must be understandable by users. | Readable | Make OER text readable and understandable. |
Predictable | Make OER contents display and operate predictably. | ||
Input Assistance | Provide more assistance to avoid and correct mistakes. | ||
Robust | OER must be robust enough that it can be accessed by a variety of types of user agents, including assistive technologies. | Compatible | Increase compatibility with the current and future user agents, especially assistive technologies: i.e., screen reader or Braille display devices. |
- Permissions granted by an open license remove legal barriers to adapting and customising OER, making it possible to create learning environments that are more flexible and robust for all students.
- OER offer the opportunity for instructors to curate materials authored by a diverse set of individuals, including those who identify as disabled, normalising and reducing stigma while sharing viewpoints that have historically been marginalised.
- Unlike commercially published materials, OER that are adapted to meet accessibility requirements can be retained and freely shared with communities, reducing duplicative work at and across institutions.
- OER adoption can reduce costs, which benefits all students but can be especially beneficial for students with disabilities who may face additional financial pressures.
- It is more common for OER to be shared in formats that can be adapted for accessibility, unlike proprietary publisher content, from whom editable files are notably difficult to obtain (Thomas, 2018).
Methodology
Investigated research questions
- RQ1. What are the trends in publications on learning accessibility using OER and OEP in terms of time series, country and keyword distribution?
- RQ2. What kinds of disabilities and issues were investigated in the identified papers?
- RQ3. Which assessment methodologies were used in the identified papers?
Search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria
Data extraction and analysis
Item | Description |
---|---|
Authors | Author(s) information, including affiliation and country |
Year | Publication year |
Disability type | Type(s) of disability discussed in each paper |
Issues | Issue(s) discussed in each paper: e.g., metadata or system design |
Evaluation Methods | Methods applied to evaluate the accessibility of OER and OEP |
Evaluation results | Evaluation results obtained while using OER and OEP |
Challenges | Challenges that might impede the accessibility of OER and OEP |
Results and discussion
Trends in publications on learning accessibility using OER and OEP
Distribution by year
Distribution by country
Distribution by keyword
Disabilities and issues investigated
Disability type | Number of papers | Authors |
---|---|---|
Visual disabilities | 7 | |
Hearing disabilities | 7 | |
Motor disabilities | 6 | |
Speech disabilities | 1 | |
Cognitive disabilities | 6 | |
Age-related disabilities | 2 | |
Unspecified disabilities | 21 | Avila Garzon, 2018; Avila Garzon, Baldiris, Fabregat, & Graf, 2016; Coughlan, Rodríguez-Ascaso, Iniesto, & Jelfs, 2016; Hejer et al., 2017; Iniesto & Covadonga, 2018; Iniesto et al., 2017; Iniesto, McAndrew, Minocha, & Coughlan, 2019; Iglesias, Moreno, & Martínez, 2014; Iniesto & Rodrigo, 2016; Morales and Benedi, 2017; Moreno et al., 2018; Mulwa, Fitzpatrick, Trapp, & Moebs, 2016; Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015b; Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015c; Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2014; Politis et al., 2014; Rodriguez, Pérez, & Rommel Torres Tandazo, 2017; Rosa & Motz, 2016; Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2015; Yalcinalp & Emiroglu, 2012; Zervas, Kardaras, & Sampson, 2014 |
Issue | Number of papers | Authors |
---|---|---|
Personalisation | 6 | |
Metadata | 5 | |
System design | 12 | |
Authoring tools | 2 | |
Framework/Architecture | 12 | Avila Garzon et al., 2016; Avila Garzon, 2018; Iniesto and Rodrigo, 2018; Morales and Benedi, 2017; Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2018; Navarrete et al., 2016; Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2014; Navarrete et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2017; Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2015; Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2016; Zervas et al., 2014 |
Assessment methodologies used
Accessibility Evaluation Methods | Specific Methods/Tools | Authors |
---|---|---|
Using automatic tools method | eXaminator | |
TAW | ||
WAVE | ||
AChecker | ||
W3 Validation Service | ||
Hera | Iglesias et al., 2014 | |
SortSite | Iniesto & Rodrigo, 2014 | |
Tanaguru | Rosa & Motz, 2016 | |
Using simulator tools method | aDesigner | |
Spectrum | Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015a | |
NoCoffee | Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015a | |
Using manual evaluation method | Questionnaires | |
No assessment | N/A | Coughlan et al., 2016; Hejer et al., 2017; Iniesto and Rodrigo, 2018; Iniesto & Rodrigo, 2016; Iniesto et al., 2017; Iniesto et al., 2019; Kourbetis & Boukouras, 2014; Kourbetis et al., 2016; Morales and Benedi, 2017; Moreno et al., 2018; Navarrete et al., 2016; Politis et al., 2014; Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2015; Yalcinalp & Emiroglu, 2012; Zervas et al., 2014 |
Papers | Accessibility attributes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceivable | Operable | Understandable | Robust | |
Caruso & Ferlino, 2009 | Open software programmes complied with most requirements related to perceivable, such as ‘meaning of graphic symbols’, ‘presence of visual or textural equivalents with sound items’ and ‘accessibility of documents’. | ‘Flashinglight features’ and ‘recognition and operation within focus’, which are related to ‘operable’, are complemented by open software. | Few open software programmes complied with ‘reading of interface objects by the assistive technologies’. | About two-thirds of the open software was compatible with the operative system’s accessibility features. |
Iniesto & Rodrigo, 2014 | None of the three MOOC platforms, including UNED COMA, COLMENIA and Miriada X, included alternative text for audio content, and none supported images with text alternatives. | UNED COMA and COLMENIA provided no navigation function . | Link errors, which are related to the ‘understandable’ attribute’, exist on the three platforms, meaning that the same content on the three platforms leads to different pages. | Not mentioned. |
Rodriguez et al., 2017 | 31.81% of errors were associated with the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | 20% of errors were associated with the ‘operable’ attribute. | 17.64% of errors were associated with the ‘understandable’ attribute. | 50% of errors were associated with the ‘robust’ attribute. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015a | Images had alternative text. | Neither OER Commons and MERLOT offered retrieval function through their interface for disabled students. | Users employ 43% of the assistive technology for enlarging text size (setting button), 14% of screen readers and 7% of screen magnifiers. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015b | Based on the accessibility evaluation results obtained using TAW, eXamination, AChecker and Validator on three OER websites — namely MERLOT, OER COMMONS and OCW UPM — MERLOT achieved the highest score, followed by OER COMMONS. It was also found, however, that the MERLOT website had accessibility limitations on its home page for the person with blindness or limited mobility. | |||
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2014 | OER Websites — including MERLOT II, ARIADNE, OLI Carnegie Mellon and TILE (The Inclusive Learning Exchange) — had some accessibility barriers which affected disabled persons’ access to learning objects. | |||
Iniesto et al., 2014 | After evaluation of accessibility while surfing and the textual alternative functions for images were supported by MERLOT, OER COMMONS and OCW UPM. | The lowest results on OER platforms, which affected the usage of OER, were related to navigation. | Some negative results were also reported, including the fact that font size cannot be changed and that ‘title’ elements are missing. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2018 | Among seven OER websites (OER Commons, MERLOT, MIT OCW, OLI, AIRADNE, OpenStax, OERfAll), only one (OERfAll) provided adaptive interface functions. | Among seven OER websites, only one (OERfAll) provided accessibility options for the search function. | Disability profile and more semantic functions need to be improved to better comply with the understandable attributes. | Not mentioned. |
Avila Garzon, 2018 | After accessibility evaluation, the OER was 80.8% accessible in the ‘perceivable’ attributes. | The evaluation result showed that OER was 85.1% accessible in the ‘operable’ attribute. | The result showed that OER was 61.5% accessible in the ‘understandable’ attribute. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete et al., 2019 | Most of the OER supported text alternative and adaptive display transformability function. | The access mode was also variable depending on the different types of disability. However, full keyboard accessible is only provided for motor skills disability. | Descriptions were provided for all OER elements which is helpful for users to understand. | Not mentioned. |
Mulwa et al., 2016 | Adaption functions, such as text enlargement, are provided. | In searching, finding and navigation functions, users showed positive experiences after using the EAGLE (EnhAnced Government Learning) platform. | The combination of content components and design components for textual material were easy for users to understand. | Not mentioned. |
Rosa & Motz, 2016 | For the level A requirements related to the ‘perceivable’ attribute, of the eight investigated websites, seven comply with ‘Use of Color’ and ‘Sensory Characteristics’, six were satisfied with ‘Meaningful Sequence’; two sites complied with ‘Info and Relationships’ and only one complied with ‘Non-text Context’. | For the level A requirements related to the ‘operable’ attribute, of the eight investigated websites, seven comply with ‘Focus Order’, ‘Page Titled’, ‘Three Flashes or Below Threshold’ and ‘No Keyboard Trap’, six were satisfied with ‘Keyboard’; three complied with ‘Link Purpose’ and only two complied with ‘Bypass Blocks’. | For the level A requirements related to the ‘understandable’ attribute, among the eight sites, seven comply with ‘Error Identification’ and ‘On Focus’, six were satisfied with ‘On Input’, four complied with ‘Labels or Instructions’ nad three complied with ‘Language of Page’. | Among the eight sites, only three had no errors for ‘Parsing’ guideline and only two had no errors for the ‘Name, Role, Value’ guideline, which is related to the ‘Robust’ principle. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015c | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — = MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 26 errors and 187 warnings related to the ‘perceptible’ attribute were detected. Specifically, ten errors on OLI, nine errors on OCW UPM and five errors on OER COMMONS were detected. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI—19 errors and 149 warnings related to the ‘operable’ attribute were detected. Specifically, 17 errors were detected on OER COMMONS and 1 error each on OCW UPM and OLI. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 5 errors and 48 warnings related to the ‘understandable’ attribute were detected. Specifically, two errors each on OER COMMONS and OLI and one error on OCW UPM were detected. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 19 errors and 1441 warnings related to the ‘robust’ attribute were detected. Specifically, 14 errors on MERLOT, 2 errors each on OLI and OCW UPM and 1 error on OER COMMONS were detected. |
Iglesias et al., 2014 | After accessibility evaluation, the OER was 80.8% accessible in the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | The evaluation result showed that 85.1% was accessible in the ‘operable’ attribute. | The result showed that 61.5% accessible in the understandable attribute. | Not mentioned. |
Avila Garzon et al., 2016 | Accessible images contained an alternative text, which is related to the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | The results showed that the criteria related to the ‘understandable’ and ‘operable’ attributes are better complied with. | The results showed that criteria related to the understandable and operable attributes are better complied with. Abbreviations, however, which are related to the ‘understandable’ attribute, need to be enhanced; more functions are required. | Not mentioned. |
Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2016 | edX Studio cannot support authors adding fully accessible images or videos. | After accessibility evaluation, edX Studio did not comply with criteria related to the ‘operable’ attribute, such as keyboard navigation. | edX studio did not supply enough documentation for users to understand how to access and generate course content. | Not mentioned. |
Conclusion, recommendations and future directions
- A limited number of countries (nine) were involved in the investigation of the use of OER and OEP for accessible learning (research question 1). Therefore, researchers worldwide should be encouraged to get involved in this research field. This can be changed by raising awareness about the new opportunities that OER and OEP could provide to disabled students for effective accessible learning, or by launching new projects or policies (e.g., governmental or institutional) that encourage the use of OER and OEP for inclusive learning.
- Only two papers discussed the development of authoring tools with features to create accessible content, which might explain the reasons for having limited online OER and OEP for disabled students (research question 2). This should be changed by developing more inclusive authoring tools (that work with different functional diversities) that educators can use to create and publish open content.
- Most assessments conducted focused only on the accessibility of the provided OER (research question 3). Therefore, more research should also be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of OER and OEP in providing accessible learning experiences and enhancing disabled students’ learning achievements.
- There is still much room for improvement in OER accessibility (research question 3). Therefore, researchers and practitioners should consider different accessibility guidelines (e.g., WCAG 2.0) while developing their OER platforms, tools and devices. This helps provide an effective approach to accessibility, functional diversity and e-inclusion in educational settings.
- Only three assessment methods are used: automatic tools, simulator tools and manual tools (research question 3). Therefore, in the era of big data, researchers and practitioners should also begin applying learning analytics for more accurate assessment of the accessible learning experience provided to disabled and functional-impaired students.
- Among the four accessibility attributes, ‘robust’ has the highest percentage of errors (research question 3). Therefore, OER developers should place more emphasis on OER’s compatibility with most assistive devices, as well as operating systems (Windows, Mac OSX and Linux).