Reflections on the value of participatory research methods in developing accessible design in higher

1
Reflections on the value of participatory
research methods in developing accessible design
in higher education

• Jane Seale, Mike Wald, E.A Draffan

2
Overview

• Reflect on our experience of running a JISC
  funded project called LEXDIS, which used
  participatory methods to explore the e-learning
  experiences of disabled learners in Higher
  Education.
• Focus on the extent to which the methods used
  enabled empowered participation
• Discuss what the emergent concepts of digital
  agility and digital decisions tell us about the
  empowerment of disabled learners in the context
  of e-learning in Higher Education.

3
The LEXDIS Project

• JISC funded Learner Experience Phase II
• Mike Wald, Jane Seale, E.A Draffan
• Produce 30 case studies describing disabled
  learners different e-learning experiences

Digital Stories
4
LEXDIS Objectives

• Explore the e-learning experiences of disabled
  learners
• Develop user-centred (participatory)
  methodologies for eliciting the e-learning
  experiences of disabled students

5
Underpinning conceptual framework voice

• JISC e-Learning Pedagogy programme focuses on
  allowing the learners voice to be heard and calls
  for methods that empower learners
• Butin Phase One of the e-Learning Pedagogy
  Programme there appeared to be little explicit
  exploration of the concept of empowerment beyond
  the notion that it involved giving learners a
  voice.

6
Underpinning conceptual framework empowerment

• We feel that it is important to understand
  empowerment as both a process and an outcome
• The outcome of empowerment is broadly understood
  as the attainment of choice and control
• The process of empowerment is broadly understood
  as the process by which disabled people develop
  increased skills to take control of their lives.
• It involves a transfer of power from service
  providers to service users.

7
Nothing about me, without me

• Working directly with learners in the evaluation
  of their learning experiences
• Early and continual participation of learners in
  order to produce improved teaching and support
  practices
• Engaging learners in the design, conduct and
  analysis of research
• Encouraging learners to own the outcome by
  setting the goals and sharing in decisions about
  processes.
• Mapped our approach against a framework offered
  by Radermacher (2006) which identifies six
  categories of participant involvement that range
  from non-involvement to participant-initiated,
  shared decisions with researcher.

8
(No Transcript)
9
Overview of Participatory Phases

• Phase One (May 2007-June 2007) Consultation
  regarding proposed research questions and
  research methods
• Phase Two (September 2007- May 2008) Opportunity
  to contribute own experiences of using
  e-learning
• Phase Three (May 2008- Feb 2009) Opportunity to
  validate and interpret the results of the study
  and to contribute to the design, content and
  dissemination of project deliverables and
  outcomes.

10
Phase One

• Online Survey
• Recruited via email which directed students to a
  web page with information and initial questions. 
  
• Totally anonymous reply by use of an accessible
  online form.
• Those who replied were given access to a hints
  and tips page while those who wished to
  participate further were given a chance to
  provide their e-mail address.
• Two questions
• Are we asking the right research questions?- are
  they important to you, do you understand the
  meaning and focus of the research questions
• What would be your preferred methods/media for
  sharing your e-learning experiences with the
  project

11
Phase Two

• Interview (plus)
• Interview- recorded 45 minute interview about
  their use technology to support learning
  experiences and beliefs about the impact, role
  and value of technology
• Plus artefact of their choosing that provided
  information about the strategies they employ when
  using technology in a learning context
• Photo, screenshot, PowerPoint slide, audio-clip

12
Phase Three

• Involving participants in validating and
  interpreting the results of the study
• Transcript validation
• Focus group
• Enabling participants to contribute to the
  design, content and dissemination of project
  deliverables and outcomes.
• collaboration over the design of strategy
  database and case studies for the project website.

13
Empowerment as a process reflections on the
LEXDIS method

• Sharing power
• Phase 1 dropping a research question
• Phase 2 requirements to use JISC Learner Profile
  Questionnaire
• Phase 3 Differing views regarding the design of
  the strategy database

14
Empowered participation control and choice

• In many ways we feel that LEXDIS participants
  were able to exert control and choice through
  their participation in the project. They
• Controlled the extent to which they were
  identified with the label disabled
• Controlled, through editing and validation
  processes, the content and presentation of their
  interview transcripts and case studies
• Exerted influence over the design and development
  of the data collection tools
• Chose whether or not to participate in each of
  the phases of the project
• Chose what strategies to offer for the database
  and the medium through which these strategies
  would be communicated.

15
Continued and expanded participation

• Two participants making significant contributions
  to the technical development of the website and
  the strategy database.
• One participant who became enthused about the
  focus of the research has taken up an internship
  with a view to pursuing a PhD in the area.
• Three participants will be joining further
  discussions with the funders Support and
  Synthesis group for dissemination meetings.
• Another participant has developed an interest in
  producing software to solve issues around colour
  for those who have deficiencies of this nature
  and hopes to pursue a PhD in the field of
  accessibility and technology.

16
Empowerment as an outcome reflections on the
LEXDIS results

• Digital agility
• Digital decisions

17
Digital agility

• Customising computers to suit preferences
• Swapping and changing from a range of
  technologies
• Being VERY well-informed about the strengths and
  weaknesses of particular technologies in relation
  to design, usability, accessibility and impact on
  learning
• Developing a range of sophisticated and tailored
  strategies for using technology to support their
  learning
• Using technology with confidence
• Feeling comfortable with technology so that it
  holds no fears
• Being extremely familiar with technology
• Being aware of what help and support is available.

18
Confidence levels

• High levels of confidence (Chloe, Elad, Jim,
  Robert, Sarah P, Stacey)
• I feel comfortable using technology (Andrew, Ben
  C, Chloe, Sarah P)
• Technology holds no fears for me (Chloe, Paul K,
  Russell, Stacey)
• Not afraid of breaking the technology (Andy L,
  Reena)
• Perceptions of confidence bench-marked against
  notions of super-techies (Nick, Reena).
• Im OK but I could do better (Andy J, Kate, Kim,
  Reena, Tracy)
• Confidence is influenced by familiarity (Nikki,
  Tom)

19
Familiarity levels

• Nine participants shared how they were extremely
  familiar with technology prior to coming to
  university.

Michael Have you done anything else to your
computer? I have re-built it! All Ive got of
the original computer is the 3 ½ inch floppy disk
which doesnt work any more. When did you get
this computer? I bought this computer in
2001. Was that with your DSA? No it was before
I started at university. I bought it and I
looked at it, and I thought I could do a lot more
with this. So, I changed the mother board, I
changed the CPU, I increased the RAM, didnt like
that so I put a new case onto it then as well.
20
Support requirements

• Preference for learning how to use technologies
• By trial and error
• Through support from peers, friends and family
• These findings regarding digital agility are
  significant in terms of encouraging us not to
  view disabled students as helpless, continually
  requiring support in order to avoid exclusion
  from successful learning experiences

21
Digital decisions cost-benefit analysis

• Decisions about technology use can be complex and
  may require students to adopt a cost-benefit
  analysis when making decisions.
• Nine participants talked about their decisions
  being influenced by time considerations
• six participants mentioned cost as a deciding
  factor and two mentioned perceptions of risk.
• Time however, seems to be an incredibly important
  factor particularly in relation to decisions made
  regarding use of assistive technologies and
  social networking applications.
• Participants are aware of the benefits or
  pleasures that use of these technologies might
  bring them, but are having to making a decision
  about whether the benefits (learning or social)
  outweigh the costs in terms of time, where time
  is predominantly mentioned in relation to taking
  time away from study.

22
Cost-benefit analysis an example

• Can I afford to invest time, in order to save
  time?
• e.g Stephanie about attending training for her
  A.T
• You said very early on, that Ive never
  forgotten I feel as if Im doing 2 courses. Im
  doing a physio course and a skills technology
  course because you were struggling. Do you
  still feel that?
• when I got all my software in autumn last year,
  and they said You need to have your training on
  this as you quite rightly have said I did
  feel like I was doing 2 courses and that was,
  frankly, too much. I had to stay with my old bad
  habits because I just didnt feel I had the time
  to take out to learn something new to help me.
  It was a vicious circle, really.

23
Digital decisions and inclusion

• Neil Selwyn (Selwyn, 2006273) talks about
  digital decisions in the context of users making
  empowered decisions not to use technology, where
  use or non-use of technology involves genuine
  choice.
• We need to explore further whether or not the
  decisions made are actually empowered ones or
  not.
• A good example of this would be the decision not
  to access support to learn how to use assistive
  technologies for fear that it will take time away
  from learning.
• Need a greater exploration of this dilemma or
  catch-22 for disabled learners
• To enable practitioners to evaluate potential
  implications such as the possible need for
  support services to acknowledge the fears
  regarding time
• or to provide meaningful and relevant information
  to students about how much time might be saved
  in the long run in terms of efficiency and
  improved learning outcomes.

24
Conclusions

• The participatory methods have revealed the
  complex relationship that learners have with
  technology, a relationship that challenges
  designers, lecturers and others to move beyond
  thinking about accessibility solely in terms of
  standards and guidelines.
• To argue that adherence to accessibility
  standards and guidelines alone will empower
  disabled learners is to ignore the agility of
  learners and the real-life choices and decisions
  that they make when using technology.

25
Discussion and Questions

• Copies of project reports can be found on our
  website
• http//www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
• Our methodology report to JISC offers guidelines
  and recommendations for other researchers who may
  wish to adopt this approach in subsequent learner
  experience related projects.