|
Transition : Access technology
Shirley Evans
ICT/ILT Task Force Team Leader
The Royal National College for the Blind
Herefordshire
HR1 1EB
England
01432 265725
E-learning has the potential to enable students to engage in independent, individualised and self-directed learning?
Since September 2000, the Royal National College for the Blind has implemented a research and development programme within the field of ICT Core Skills for people who are blind or partially sighted. This has resulted in the implementation of two key strands of work focussing on the issues of accessibility and usability of e-learning platforms and materials.
Two staff teams have subsequently been employed with the following remits:
1. To design and deliver an integrated learning and teaching package of training and support designed specifically to meet the ILT/ICT needs of blind and partially sighted people preparing for study and transition to employment or self-employment. This programme involves appropriate curriculum resource and material research, adaptation and development linked to associated collaborative initiatives.
2. To research and challenge the issues related to equality of accessibility and usability of learning materials with particular focus on e-learning through web-based virtual learning environments. This has now developed further into the field of specialist on-line tutoring demands and requirements.
Since September 2001, involvement in collaborative and advisory/consultancy work has extended to projects initiated through national agencies such as Becta, NILTA and the National Learning Network (nln) together with Higher Education institutions and commercial product developers.
The ultimate aim of the whole project has been to promote and facilitate inclusive learning opportunities for people who have a disability or learning difficulty.
Where are we now?
E- leaning has the potential to enable visually impaired students to engage in independent and individualised learning on a level playing field with other students? This is what we hoped for when we set out on our research mission by looking at virtual learning environments (VLEs). Initially our sole aim was to purchase one for the college. It soon became clear that very few VLEs are accessible (in terms of using keystrokes and a screen reader) and even if they are then they may be very difficult to use. In view of this there is a need to prepare learners for what they might meet when they go on to FE, HE or indeed the workplace. The college intranet is being developed with this in mind and it has is has been useful not just as a tool for rationalizing the curriculum but also as a stepping stone to a VLE. At present we are using Blackboard and WebCT fairly widely in house and some issues are set out below.
The Electronic Soap Group was set up in response to a call for an innovative and effective new way to deliver transition (life) skills to the 16 to 19 year age group. The idea was to frame discussion and exploration of social issues in the context of a popular soap. The initial delivery vehicle was Blackboard with extensive use being made of the discussion board. This VLE is accessible in the main from both the learner and tutor point of view (the next version should see all the snags ironed out). Even so it is not easy for our learners to use and navigation can be difficult. The screen reader we use with this is JAWS. The links list feature in this can be very useful. Pressing Insert and F7 will bring this up and will show links in a linear format with display and sorting options. It is a very useful navigational tool but only if links are logically named. Jaws will also display a Frames list and this again is a very useful navigational aid if the screen reader supports frames – some do not.
The students and staff involved in the Electronic soap Group are enjoying it very much and it has really worked in terms of promoting discussion on social issues as well as enabling familiarisation with a VLE. Additionally, using the discussion board appears to enhance face to face discussion and has been particularly successful with one student.
It soon became clear that there were issues involved with what to put in a VLE - i.e. the content and this is discussed below.
It is important here to consider what is meant by electronic content. Examples include:-
Content generated through collaborative tools eg. in a discussion board
Learning objects eg. small, interoperable chunks of learning and interactive scenarios
Video and audio eg. on-line lectures, digitised films
Text on-line eg. web pages
Links to external web pages
Materials that are not electronic but associated with the E-learning process eg. printed materials
The last point is very pertinent for us. Information in digital format is in general more easily accessible. If e-content extend to non-digitised information then this will be problematic in terms of accessibility. The same applies to e-learning which may involve traditional learning. Please bear this point in mind for the conclusion of this paper.
We are very fortunate to be involved in the accessibility trialling of the National Learning Network (NLN) materials. This is a range of new on-line learning materials commissioned by the NLN for use in post-compulsory education and can found at http://www.nln.ac.uk. There is a range of topics including agriculture, communications, catering, health care and science and mathematics.
There have been a variety of accessibility options with the first round of the materials. These options have included an accessible and a non-accessible version as well and a scenario with its own built-in screen reader. A text only version is very useful in any teaching situation and should not be seen as an alternative accessible version. In most cases learners are able to use a mouse or keystrokes to move around the links. Activities have been difficult in terms of accessibility throughout all subject areas. This has raised some interesting pedagogical issues. For example it is very difficult to produce a drag and drop exercise that can be carried out easily with keystrokes. This may lead to questioning of what is the point of drag and drop and in any case would an alternative activity be more appropriate. An interesting point that has come out of these trials is that our learners really enjoy using the highly interactive materials even though this might be very difficult for them to do so. In essence the more interactive the materials, the less accessible they are and this presents quite a challenge.
An aspect that we are looking into is the time spent into accessing, using and task performing within an e-learning environment (VLE and content). A frequent scenario is where most of the learner's time is spent on accessing (using the assistive technology) and using (navigating) rather than task performing (which may include learning). We are carrying out some research in conjunction with Techdis (part of the United Kingdom's Joint Information and System's Committee) to show how this may differ between a learner using a screen reader and a learner using a mouse. Another result of this research will be some advice notes for HE and FE on the accessibility and usability of VLEs.
Distance is indeed relative! Up until now our e-learning operation has been focussed at a local level i.e. within college. However we are aiming to move our e-learning experience to our distance learning course very soon. This will clearly have huge staff development implications. The most important factor is the need for e-support. This may be on a tutorial, technical and subject level. We are using the Electronic Soap Group to introduce staff to the VLE. Staff are encouraged to use a screen reader when accessing the VLE.
What next?
E- leaning has the potential to enable visually impaired students to engage in independent and individualised learning on a level playing field with other students?
There is now no doubt that technological developments will soon facilitate high level accessibility features within e-learning resources and modes of delivery which offer major opportunities for curriculum review and operational management.
However, directly or indirectly as a result of the RNC programme, further issues continue to emerge that challenge the traditional role of the classroom teacher or lecturer.
If one accepts the ideal of facilitated individualised and differentiated learning operations, these can only be achieved by teachers being able to accommodate individual blends that reflect all aspects of learning style and modes of delivery, reception and response. This suggests that the traditional concept of “classroom” teaching will need to change.
Does this mean that teaching becomes exclusively “learning management”?
This, of course, immediately raises the issues of staff training, development and competence across the whole education and training spectrum.
Initiatives are in place to introduce consistency in quality standards (ref: FENTO ILT Standards – The application of ICT to Teaching and Supporting Learning and Management, October 2001) but the very real danger inherent in such an approach is that, without parallel and appropriate high quality staff development, teaching skills become so diverse that very few staff are able to cope with the expertise needed to offer, facilitate and manage a true individualised blended learning experience.
There is also the real danger that compliance with such standards may well reverse the promotion and facilitation of inclusive learning opportunities for people who have a disability or learning difficulty. As learning resources and materials become more readily available and usable, and because of the increasing demands of blended learning, the tendency may well be to accept and use the “easy option” of the application of ICT as the sole learning mode for those learners who are classified in this category. This inevitably would promote a return to exclusion rather than inclusion.
Equally, in terms of the transition to employment or continuing education, consideration must be given to the possibility that the transfer and continuation of such a uni-dimensional approach becomes a normal expectation, thereby diminishing the status of multi-skill development and both the individuality and the roles that people who have a disability or learning difficulty can offer within today’s society.
There is no doubt that resolution of accessibility issues and improved usability of learning resources and materials within the e-learning context will provide some form of redress of the imbalance in learning and employment opportunities for people who have a disability or learning difficulty.
However, it must be accepted that this form of delivery is just one component in the individual learning blend and therefore, as technological interoperability advances, the imperative becomes increasingly focussed on the management of the total blended learning experience and skills development of the individual.
|
Please send comments or questions to webmaster@icevi.org.