The open education movement seeks to remove barriers to learner access, and thus the word “accessibility” is important to the conversation.
Availability
When many people speak of “accessibility” in the context of open educational resources (OER), they are interested in the foundational open education principle of “availability.” Geith and Vignare (2008) define accessibility as removal of “[l]egal and administrative barriers, financial obstacles, discriminatory denials of access, [and] obstacles (fees, distance schedule)” (p. 107) clarifying further that “Accessibility is closely related to Availability” (p. 114). Failing to distinguish clearly between “accessibility” and “availability” as unique semantic terms muddies the waters when practitioners integrate the terms into their conversations.
The consequences for this definition of “accessible” as “available” for OER research is evident in claims practitioners make about the challenges and benefits of OER. For instance, in her article “Availability and Accessibility of Information Resources as Predictor of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness,” Odunlade (2017) determines accessibility barriers to be “lack of online access, absence of in-depth ICT skills and information searching skills, absence of adequate infrastructures (ICT), electricity problem and poor internet connectivity” (p. 8). Odunlade contrasts these criteria with “availability,” meaning that OER is an option that instructors are able to identity and select through institutional resources. Access, in this case, refers to the ways in which instructors have the ability to review and choose a resource. This definition speaks to the location of a resource rather than to the structural components of the resource.
Accessibility
In the effort to serve all users, “accessibility” has come to take on a more focused definition that CAST’s UDL on Campus (2013) has characterized in the context of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and WCAG (web accessibility): “Accessible content refers to instructional materials that are designed from the outset to be flexible and responsive to the needs and abilities of students with physical, sensory, or learning disabilities, by offering media in multiple formats and/or by being interoperable with assistive technologies.” This explanation suggests that accessibility extends far beyond where a resource is housed, or is made available.
Accessibility is a design priority that emphasizes structural components, or metadata such as headings, tags for elements like lists, and descriptive elements like link text and alt text for graphics. Assistive technologies like screen readers use this metadata to allow a learner to navigate through (or scan) documents for their organization choices and thus increases “access” to content. Accessibility in this context also speaks to the need to provide alternative information, such as tables that communicate the same data as a graphical representation but in a format that assistive technology can interpret and communicate to the user.
Implication for the End User
Since the open education movement does seek to eliminate access issues for as many learners as possible, it is important to consider both availability and accessibility when identifying potential OER that we can integrate into our learning contexts. Achieve (2011) identified accessibility (in terms of compatibility with assistive technologies) as a criterion we should consider before selecting OER in its recommended rubric for evaluating OER materials. The rubric indicates that accessible formats include tagged PDFs, ePUBs, or media with alt text and/or captions, but also points to the need to comply with WCAG and other organizational and governmental standards (p. 11). A few years later in 2014, Achieve released a handbook for its rubric tool that did not include guidance on adhering to its accessibility standard, citing, “Application of Rubric VIII [Assurance of Accessibility] requires a level of expertise not typical even among seasong educators. For this reason Rubric VIII is not included in the online Achieve OER Evaluation Tool” (p. 2). This position suggests a tension in the conversation about accessibility in OER, a willingness to acknowledge its need but also some hesitance about whether those who review and select OER can identify materials that adhere to accessibility standards.
Moving forward with OER, we need to be aware of two points:
One is that standards for web accessibility are erroneously perceived as an issue that only experts should be concerned about.
Thus, we tend to rely on claims that a source makes about accessibility of a learning object.
Two is that the term “accessibility” is ambiguous, referring to either open availability or to compatibility with assistive technologies.
Thus, we need to take an active role to interpret claims made about the accessibility of a learning object.
For instance, the Merlot OER repository provides a search tool for Finding Accessible OER. This search is intended to yield results “with accessibility information available.” However, the first item under the “Business” category links to an eMarketing textbook that is an untagged PDF, and thus is not accessible to assistive technology. The search results are “accessible” in terms of linking to available resources that we could review and select, but they are not consistently accessible in terms of being compatible with assistive technologies.
The Takeaway
We can and must seek to differentiate between definitions of accessibility in the OER conversation and use our knowledge to demand clarity from authors and repositories of OER materials. In order to eliminate the barriers to educational materials and adhere to the principle of equitable access that undergirds the open education movement, it is our responsibility as educators to make OER decisions that will benefit as many learners as possible.
Sources
Achieve. (2011, November 18). Achieve OER rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/publications/achieve-oer-rubrics
Achieve. (2014, March 11). Achieve OER evaluation tool handbook. Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/publications/achieve-oer-evaluation-tool-handbook
Geith, C., & Vignare, K. (2008). Access to education with online learning and open educational resources: Can they close the gap? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), 105-126. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ837472.pdf.
Odunlade, R. O. (2017). Availability and accessibility of information resources as predictor of lecturers’ teaching effectiveness. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1509, 1-17. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1509
UDL on Campus. (2013). Accessibility and open educational resources. Retrieved from http://udloncampus.cast.org/page/media_oer
Leave a Reply