The eLearning Experiences of Disabled Learners

1
The e-Learning Experiences of Disabled Learners

• Jane Seale
• Feb 09

2
Overview

• Provide an overview of the results of the LEXDIS
  project with a particular focus on inclusion and
  exclusion
• Reflect on the implications of the results for
  how we work with disabled students and develop
  e-learning opportunities

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

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
Defining the LEXDIS Participatory Approach

• Involving disabled learners as consultants and
  partners and not just as research subjects. Where
  disabled learners help to identify and (re)frame
  the research questions work with the researchers
  to achieve a collective analysis of the research
  issues and bring the results to the attention of
  each of the constituencies that they represent.

6
Origins of the LEXDIS method

• Participatory Design
• Emanates from design technology field, has been
  specifically used in Assistive Technology HCI
  research and applied in education and healthcare
  settings
• Participatory research
• Learning Disabilities field (not-specific to
  education)
• Has a wider use in research (i.e. not specific to
  disability- has been used with children and older
  adults)

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 their 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. 
  
• This system provided for a 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
Data and analysis

• Interviews (31)
• Coded using NVivo
• Augmented with
• Participant provided personal accounts case
  studies (30),
• Focus groups (15)
• Email and other correspondence

14
Narratives of exclusion

• The usual stories of externally imposed exclusion
  due to accessibility problems
• Cant use technology, even if wanted to
• Some stories of self-imposed exclusion
• Can use technology, but choose not to
• Tensions when technology use marks student out as
  different stigmatisation

15
Cant use technology, even if wanted to

• Participants identified six main accessibility
  issues
• E-learning applications do not interact well with
  assistive technologies
• Navigability of library website
• Navigability and usability of Blackboard
• Problems opening and manipulating pdf files
• Learning environments influence whether or not
  student can assess preferred assistive
  technologies
• Difficulties scanning non-standard symbols or
  text.

16
An example Stacey

• I really like Blackboard, but I think that there
  is an awful lot on there, and it could be made a
  lot easier to use. The navigation is difficult.
  My lecturer might say Weve put up this, on
  this subject, and then I wont know which
  section its in. Id have to go into each
  section and open each document section to find
  it.
• .. There was an Inter-professional Learning
  forum, but that was really difficult to use. It
  didnt tell you whether or not you had read the
  Postings (the ones previously), so you had to
  just keep looking through to see if theres
  anything new. It got really tedious.
• .. If I was using forums, like on Blackboard, I
  really struggle, because Id have to go back and
  check all the time and not know when someone
  was sending me messages. But with FaceBook its
  mostly social, so I dont mind just leaving it
  there. Whenever we were doing group work this
  year, I had to tell them to send me a text to let
  me know when theyve put it up. That way I would
  be able to go straight to it and look, instead of
  wasting time.

17
Accessibility is a pedagogic resource issue as
much as it a design issue.

• Nikki On being required to post comments on
  discussion list in order to pass unit
• The website gets jammed up and crashes. On MSN
  you can see whos logged on. On there you cant.
  If you put a message on, you can sit there for 2
  hours waiting for a reply. I had to continue to
  go back to the library. Those who have internet
  at home can check it all day. But, I went to the
  library in my pyjamas because it got so late!
• This is unfair.
• If you dont communicate on there, you dont
  pass.
• The student residence are the ones who dont
  have the internet?
• Ours are 40 years old and condemned. The new
  ones are supposed to have the internet.
  Eventually I managed to do my project.

18
Can use technology, but choose not to

• Four participants talked about making decisions
  not to use assistive technologies (Andrew, Paul
  K, Jo and Ben C).
• For Andrew and Paul K the decisions were made on
  the basis of not needing to use them
• For Jo, her decision was influenced by the fact
  that she didnt get on with some assistive
  technologies, and for Ben C, it was because he
  was doing OK without them

19
Can use technology, but choose not to

• Reena
• OK, I use FaceBook (but not for learning).
• I think you mentioned to me that you find it
  quite distracting.
• Its really distracting, so it doesnt help my
  learning at all, but then I do find contacts on
  it, so its like networking But although
  this is time saving, it doesnt really help with
  getting the old PhD.

20
Stigmatisation

• Jim and Paul K describe how using assistive
  technologies in lecture theatres can draw
  attention to themselves, which makes them feel
  uncomfortable
• Nick and Reena outline circumstances under which
  they would not use assistive technologies in
  public for fear of standing out as different

Nick I wouldn't use voice dictation software in
public. I'd feel to self-conscious. Reena I have
to say that if Id got that technology, I would
use it at home. I wouldnt use it in the
lab. But with technology, I still think
theres a stigma to it. If I did have assistive
technology I would use it on my home computer.
Theres no way I would use a lot of it in the lab
because I wouldnt want that stigma on me like
that thing which is bad, but its how people
are.
21
Stigmatisation Focus group discussion

• Steph I find this that you get stigmatised, as
  such (I call myself special, because I am
  special!), but people are almost jealous of the
  facilities you have access to and they dont.
  They are not sneering at you because you are
  dyslexic , they are almost jealous that you can
  sit at a PC there, there is specially for you-
  you have got all this software available to you..
• Andy L In my department everyones got
  technology. Theyve all got laptops etc. Some of
  them might record their lectures, not because
  they are dyslexic or anything like that, it is
  just because they do the recording so that they
  can revise from them and its quite often that
  they track these people down e.g. disabled
  students not to give them dirty looks or
  anything, but to say can I borrow your
  recorder?.
• SarahD You are given the technology, to make it
  all even, but sometimes it is making you
  separate again.

22
Narratives of inclusion

• Digital agility
• Digital decisions

23
Digital agility

• Customising computers to suit preferences
• Swapping and changing from a range of
  technologies
• Being 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.

24
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)

25
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.
26
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

27
(No Transcript)
28
Digital decisions cost-benefit analysis

• The wide range of factors that appear to
  influence participants decisions suggest that
  these decisions 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.

29
Cost-benefit analysis an example

• Can I afford to invest time, in order to save
  time?
• e.g Stephanie
• 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 viscous circle, really.

30
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.
• A greater exploration of this dilemma or catch-22
  for disabled learners would enable practitioners
  to evaluate potential implications such as the
  possible need for support services to acknowledge
  the fears regarding time, but also provide
  meaningful and relevant information about how
  much time might be saved in the long run in
  terms of efficiency and improved learning
  outcomes.

31
Discussion and Questions

• Copies of project reports and presentations can
  be found on our website
• http//www.lexdis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

32
Overview

• Describe the participatory methods employed in
  the LEXDIS project and provide a rationale for
  their use
• Evaluate the use of the methodology

33
Evaluation of methodology

• Indicators of successful participation
• We have managed to recruit more than the planned
  30 participants
• The participation of these 30 participants has
  been maintained throughout the 24 months of the
  project

34
Illustrative quotes commitment
If you need any further assistance from me please
do not hesitate to get in touch and I will do
whatever I can. I sincerely hope the project is
going as well as you hoped.
Also, as we agreed before, feel free to e-mail me
about any other things that we could/should still
sort out re the LEXDIS project.

• I

Everything looks good from what I have read,
seems a bit silly really to read what has been
spoken! I am pretty busy at the moment as have a
lot of work to do and so little time but when I
am free maybe in two weeks or so I will email you
so we can meet up. Is that alright?
35
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 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.

36
Evaluation of methodology

• Meaningful and useful outcomes
• Rich, contextualised, authentic data about
  student experiences
• But, the nature and level of participation
  afforded to students needs to be constantly
  negotiated.

37
The challenges of using participatory approaches

• labelled participation
• informed participation
• valued participation
• non-hierarchical participation
• empowered participation
• transformative participation.

38
Labelled participation

• A continual tension for the LEXDIS project team
  throughout the whole of the project was the
  extent to which we labelled our participants as
  disabled.
• many students reject the label disabled as
  assigned to them by higher education assessment
  (e.g. dyslexia screening) and benefit systems
  (e.g. DSA) because they do not consider
  themselves to be disabled, or because disability
  is not an integral part of their self-identity.

39
Labelled participation

• The importance of interacting with participants
  primarily as learners rather than as disabled
  people.
• Careful not to put words in the mouths of the
  participants and instead left space and
  opportunity for participants to refer to
  themselves as disabled, if they wished to.
• This has meant that only 9 of the 30 participants
  explicitly referred to themselves as disabled or
  dyslexic in the interviews.
• In the participant authored case studies 40 have
  referred to their disability label but three of
  those were in such an oblique way that it was
  almost unnoticeable.
• All the students tended to describe functional
  difficulties related to the tasks undertaken and
  the technologies being used. We have carried
  this principle through to the design of the
  website and the strategy database

40
Empowered participation

• Key outcomes of empowerment are control and
  choice and in many ways we feel that LEXDIS
  participants were able to exert control and
  choice through their participation in the
  project. Participants
• 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.

41
Empowered participation

• We are concerned about how disempowering it might
  it be for LEXDIS participants if JISC and the ALT
  community dismiss the project findings as
  unrepresentative of other students?
• We would urge that this investment should not be
  dismissed carelessly due to slavish adherence to
  positivist notions of generalisability derived
  from quantitative research.
• We would argue, that for qualitative research
  such as the LEXDIS project we should not think in
  terms of empirical generalisability, but rather
  in terms of theoretical generalisability
• where links are made between the results from a
  particular study, the professional judgement of
  users of the study and the wider literature.

42
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.