Search

Accessibility of course content plays a critical role in student success. Among all college students, students with disabilities (SWD) face numerous additional challenges when digital content is inaccessible or difficult to use. The main contributions of this paper are firstly we examined different course delivery modalities to identify components that engage both SWD and students without disabilities (SWOD) and secondly, present new accessibility features for digital book creation that were implemented at the University of Illinois. An equitable, inclusive design for everyone is our ultimate goal, but we also wanted to understand the needs, and preferences of, SWDs in particular. A national survey instrument by the Collegiate Student Assessment of Textbooks (CSAT) to study student preferences was adapted and supplemented with questions that allowed students to optionally identify as SWD with a physical, mental and/or emotional disability. This survey enabled an analysis of the textbook preferences for engineering students with and without disabilities. Results from 50 SWD and 48 SWOD indicated that SWD and SWODs prioritized similar features. The main significant difference between SWD and SWOD were in the responses about how the instructor used the textbook and the importance of graphs in the textbook. The SWDs cared strongly about the accessibility features of a textbook. The top-five desired-features among all students were: 1) The book is low-cost or free, 2) There is a search feature for the book, 3) The book is up to date, 4) The examples used in the book matched the definitions, 5) The examples used in the book are relevant. Faculty were also surveyed using the same questions, providing insight into areas of alignment in preferences between students and faculty. Data from 10 faculty revealed similar textbook preferences: 1) The book is up to date, 2) Examples are representative of the definitions provided, 3) The book is low-cost or free, 4) The book is available online and as print copy, 5) The examples are relevant. Among the textbook features, all students were least interested in being called on during class with questions from the book. Additionally, SWDs did not value features pertaining to how the instructor used the textbook. By understanding the needs of SWD and SWOD, a faculty member can be informed about techniques to increase content accessibility. Secondly, we identified and designed new accessibility functionalities, including a visual table of contents, accessibility tags, and conditional publishing on students and instructors with a focus on meeting the needs of SWD. Recommendations and techniques are offered for instructors wishing to develop digital books to provide more accessible content delivery.

Accessibility of course content plays a critical role in student success. Among all college students, students with disabilities (SWD) face numerous additional challenges when digital content is inaccessible or difficult to use. The main contributions of this paper are firstly we examined different course delivery modalities to identify components that engage both SWD and students without disabilities (SWOD) and secondly, present new accessibility features for digital book creation that were implemented at the University of Illinois. An equitable, inclusive design for everyone is our ultimate goal, but we also wanted to understand the needs, and preferences of, SWDs in particular. A national survey instrument by the Collegiate Student Assessment of Textbooks (CSAT) to study student preferences was adapted and supplemented with questions that allowed students to optionally identify as SWD with a physical, mental and/or emotional disability. This survey enabled an analysis of the textbook preferences for engineering students with and without disabilities. Results from 50 SWD and 48 SWOD indicated that SWD and SWODs prioritized similar features. The main significant difference between SWD and SWOD were in the responses about how the instructor used the textbook and the importance of graphs in the textbook. The SWDs cared strongly about the accessibility features of a textbook. The top-five desired-features among all students were: 1) The book is low-cost or free, 2) There is a search feature for the book, 3) The book is up to date, 4) The examples used in the book matched the definitions, 5) The examples used in the book are relevant. Faculty were also surveyed using the same questions, providing insight into areas of alignment in preferences between students and faculty. Data from 10 faculty revealed similar textbook preferences: 1) The book is up to date, 2) Examples are representative of the definitions provided, 3) The book is low-cost or free, 4) The book is available online and as print copy, 5) The examples are relevant. Among the textbook features, all students were least interested in being called on during class with questions from the book. Additionally, SWDs did not value features pertaining to how the instructor used the textbook. By understanding the needs of SWD and SWOD, a faculty member can be informed about techniques to increase content accessibility. Secondly, we identified and designed new accessibility functionalities, including a visual table of contents, accessibility tags, and conditional publishing on students and instructors with a focus on meeting the needs of SWD. Recommendations and techniques are offered for instructors wishing to develop digital books to provide more accessible content delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As increasingly many classes are transitioning part or all of their content to online platforms, it becomes crucial to identify which aspects of learning management systems (LMS) are sufficiently accommodating the learning of students from different backgrounds. We conducted a survey across undergraduate STEM students at the University of Illinois regarding their perceptions on LMS, including how the students with disabilities (SWDs) perceive the quality and features of LMS, because online access to course materials has been identified as the number one feature needed for SWDs and SWDs preferred to use their institute's LMS [5]. We designed questions using four major constructs such as education equity, system quality, information quality, and performance impact of the LMS. Beyond demographic and disability disclosure, our survey also included the students' usage and view about the quality of specific features such as the calendar, message board, file uploading, assessments, LMS discussion boards, Gradescope integration, recordings posted in various capacities and accessibility of the features. In addition, we investigated the effect of students' mode of learning such as "in person", "hybrid", or "online" on their perceptions. Preliminary results from 131 responses (including 37 SWDs) that span 69 different courses predominantly show that students prefer to have a single website or LMS for their course, and SWDs have significantly stronger preference for such design. In the in-person learning mode, SWDs are significantly less pleased about the message posting on the course website. About the four constructs for LMS quality, the majority of students are giving high evaluations. We found there is a group of students (n=13) who did not have a particular officially accommodated disability but faced conditions that prevented them from attending class at some point. Including such a group of students with SWD together and naming them SWD-like, we found that SWD-like were significantly less pleased than students without disabilities (SWODs) with the way course materials were being posted to the existing course website. Furthermore, students with SWD-like status rated the efficacy of lecture video transcripts to be higher, and were generally less satisfied with how Canvas was being used as an LMS. From these results, we can identify valuable knowledge and opportunities to develop more inclusive LMS-based courses that serve all students, especially SWDs fairly following Universal Design Principles (UDL) [4]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]