Teaching Accessibility and Design
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2012 Teaching Accessibility and Design-For-All in the Information and Communication Technology Curriculum: Three Case Studies of Universities in the United States, England, and Austria Paul Ryan Bohman Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Recommended Citation Bohman, Paul Ryan, "Teaching Accessibility and Design-For-All in the Information and Communication Technology Curriculum: Three Case Studies of Universities in the United States, England, and Austria" (2012). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1369. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1369 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEACHING ACCESSIBILITY AND DESIGN-FOR-ALL IN THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM: THREE CASE STUDIES OF UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, ENGLAND, AND AUSTRIA by Paul R. Bohman A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Education (Curriculum and Instruction) Approved: J. Nicholls Eastmond, Ph.D. Cynthia J. Rowland, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor Co-Major Professor Martha L. Whitaker, Ph.D. Susan A. Turner, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Martha T. Dever, Ed.D. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright © 2012 Paul Ryan Bohman All rights reserved iii ABSTRACT Teaching Accessibility and Design-For-All in the Information and Communication Technology Curriculum: Three Case Studies of Universities in the United States, England, and Austria by Paul R. Bohman, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2012 Co-Major Professors: J. Nicholls Eastmond, Ph.D., and Cynthia J. Rowland, Ph.D. Department: Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences Digital technologies allow people with disabilities to participate independently in society in ways they never could before. The full realization of these new opportunities remains elusive, though, because working professionals in the information and communication technology (ICT) field rarely receive adequate training in how to make digital ICT accessible to people with disabilities. Adding accessibility to the university ICT curriculum can help create a critical mass of ICT professionals with accessibility awareness and expertise to finally realize the full accessibility potential of digital technologies. This dissertation provides a rich informational context from which ICT curriculum leaders can decide how to best infuse accessibility into their own curriculum. Part I consists of detailed case study narratives of curricula at three universities, documenting the context in which the curriculum was developed, the curriculum rationale, iv and the process of design and implementation. The three case studies were: (a) the Web Sciences master’s degree program at the University of Linz in Austria, (b) the Instructional Technology master’s degree program at George Mason University in the United States, and (c) the Digital Inclusion master’s degree program at Middlesex University in the United Kingdom. Part II consists of a thematic analysis across the case studies of six main themes: (a) the curriculum goals and rationale; (b) the curriculum design process, from idea to implementation; (c) defining the scope of the curriculum; (d) instructional materials and strategies; (e) instructional format and media choices; and (f) program sustainability. The last theme, program sustainability, proved to be one of the most crucial aspects of incorporating accessibility into the ICT curriculum. Part III situates the ICT curriculum within the broader theoretical economic development framework of the capability approach, which is an approach to economic development that takes into account many variables in the quality of human life, not just financial measures. The discussion addresses the unique power of digital ICT to create capabilities in people with disabilities, and the role of the ICT curriculum within an “accessibility ecosystem” of diverse, interconnected stakeholders. The discussion concludes with a list of indicators for measuring accessibility content in the ICT curriculum. (448 pages) v PUBLIC ABSTRACT Teaching Accessibility and Design-For-All in the Information and Communication Technology Curriculum: Three Case Studies of Universities in the United States, England, and Austria by Paul R. Bohman, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2012 Digital technologies allow people with disabilities to participate independently in society in ways they never could before, but only if the technologies are created with accessibility in mind. Unfortunately, too many technology professionals graduate from their college programs without knowing how to make technology accessibility to people with disabilities. This dissertation provides information to help curriculum leaders decide how to best add accessibility into their own curriculum. Part I describes programs at three universities, documenting how and why the curriculum leaders created and implemented the curriculum. The three programs are: (a) the Web Sciences master’s degree program at the University of Linz in Austria, (b) the Instructional Technology master’s degree program at George Mason University in the United States, and (c) the Digital Inclusion master’s degree program at Middlesex University in the United Kingdom. vi Part II analyzes six main themes across the three programs: (a) the curriculum goals and rationale; (b) the curriculum design process, from idea to implementation; (c) defining the scope of the curriculum; (d) instructional materials and strategies; (e) instructional format and media choices; and (f) program sustainability (which proved to be one of the most important themes). Part III discusses accessibility and technology within the theoretical perspective of the Capability Approach, which is an approach to economic development that takes into account many variables in the quality of human life, not just financial measures. Digital technology plays a special role in increasing the quality of life of people with disabilities. The last section provides a list of ways to determine whether a curriculum adequately addresses accessibility issues or not. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If I am to be honest, I have to say that creating this dissertation was one of the lengthiest and loneliest tasks I have ever undertaken. Thankfully, my co-major professor, Dr. Nick Eastmond, was a voice of optimism throughout the entire process, expressing faith in me, faith in the importance of my research topic, and faith that I could complete the often daunting tasks stretched out before me. He helped me secure a modest travel stipend for my research trip to Europe, and stood up for me in meetings with the rest of the committee during the proposal and defense. He tried his best to minimize my workload, even when department or university policies limited his ability to do so. He was kind and accommodating throughout the entire process, and I am grateful that he allowed me some leeway in meeting deadlines, while encouraging me to still do my part to get the job done. Nick, you were the ideal person to lead me through this process. Thank you. My other co-major professor, Dr. Cyndi Rowland, is the person most directly responsible for my involvement in the topic of disability access to technology. More than a decade ago, when I was working as a master’s-level graduate assistant, she encouraged me to apply to be the technology coordinator on a new federal grant for which she had recently received funding. The purpose of the grant was to provide web accessibility training to higher education institutions. I applied for the job. She hired me, and together we became the founding members of what would eventually become WebAIM: Web Accessibility In Mind. Under Cyndi’s direction at WebAIM, I wrote countless tutorials, articles, and conference papers about web accessibility, and provided training for viii universities, state and local governments, and corporations. I joined the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group to create version 2.0 of the guidelines. Thanks to Cyndi, I became an accessibility expert. She set me on this path. Through the dissertation process, her feedback was pointed and specific, showing that she cared about the topic, cared about my professional output, and that she actually paid attention to what I was saying! Committee member Dr. Martha Whitaker was also an instructor of mine in several courses prior to the dissertation. She is a master discussion facilitator with keen insights and the ability to diffuse tension on contentious topics. Her quiet and firm commitment to principles of justice in education and gender policy set the tone for many rewarding classroom experiences. Committee member Dr. Susan Turner treated me with the utmost respect during the proposal and defense, supporting my choices when other committee members questioned them. Committee member Dr. Martha Dever was graciously willing to participate on my committee despite her demanding schedule as the department