You are here:

Toward Accessible Learning Resources
PROCEEDINGS

, , Simon Fraser University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-57-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

Learning technology designers often fail to consider the social and organizational contexts of their designs, a neglect that leads to gaps between products and user needs. An examination of current accessibility guidelines and the low level of compliance in learning object designs suggests a need for stakeholders (academic researchers, standards organizations, web designers, and disabled users) to collectively address the design misalignments created by their differing interests. This paper uses activity theory to analyze accessibility designs and offer methods for developing designers' accessibility knowledge. Specifically, we propose that professional education programs for learning and web technology design expose novice designers to the needs of disabled users through the convergent participation model for learning resource evaluation.

Citation

Adesope, O. & Nesbit, J. (2005). Toward Accessible Learning Resources. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2005--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1802-1807). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Carey, K. (2002). E-access bulletin. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.eDASHDASHaccessibility.com/issues/2002/apr2002.html
  2. CMEC Report (1997). Developments in information technologies in education. Conference of the Commonwealth Education Ministers, Botswana.
  3. Dobson, M., LeBlanc, D., & Burgoyne, D. (2004). Transforming learning technology design: Operationalizing activity theory. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 30, 21-45.
  4. Engestrom, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Y. Engestrom, Learning, working and imagining: twelve studies in activity theory. Orienta-Konsultit Oy: Helsinki.
  5. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-157.
  6. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction Research. In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, B. Nardi (Ed), MIT Press: Cambridge.
  7. Kuutti, K. (1999) Activity theory, transformation of work and information systems design. Perspectives on Activity Theory. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen& R. Punamäki, (Eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
  8. Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1997-98. (National Center for Education Statistics Report No. 2000-13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  9. Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent participation model for evaluation of learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28, 105-120.
  10. Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., & Leacock, T. (2003). Learning object review instrument (LORI). E-Learning Research and Assessment Network.
  11. Richards, G. & Nesbit, J.C. (2004). The teaching of quality: Convergent participation for the professional development of learning object designers. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 1, 56-63.
  12. Saylor, J.M. (2002). Why every digital science collection builder should contribute catalog information to the National Science Digital Library, retrieved August 25, 2005 from http://collections.comm.nsdlib.org/cgibin/wiki.pl?WhyJoin
  13. Scheepers and Lessing (2000). Towards accessible computer interaction for people with functional disabilities. Annual Conference on WorldWide Web Applications, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  14. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Third Edition. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
  15. Statistics Canada (2001). Prevalence of disability in Canada. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577-XIE/canada.htm #disability_rate
  16. WorldWide Web Consortium (2005). W3C Activities. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities Interaction,

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts