Jane Seale, Mike Wald, E.A Draffan

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 • But…in 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.

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). • I’m 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 I’ve got of the original computer is the 3 ½ inch floppy disk which doesn’t 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, didn’t 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 I’ve never forgotten “I feel as if I’m doing 2 courses. I’m 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 didn’t 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, 2006:273) 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. 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. Discussion and Questions