1.
The current state of accessibility of MOOCs: What
are the next steps?
Francisco Iniesto, Patrick McAndrew, Shailey Minocha and Tim Coughlan
Institute of educational Technology
and
Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology
The Open University

2.
1. Rationale. Study context
2. MOOCs and accessibility research
3. A research plan to support design of accessible MOOCs
4. Conclusions

3.
Indeed, the Porto Declaration on European
MOOCs highlights:
“Importantly, we stress that MOOCs must not be
seen as the outcome or exemplar of online
education. Rather they need to be understood in a
wider context as there is a long history of
research on open and online education and a
variety of approaches and tools to provide quality
learning opportunities to all.”
opportunities to all? -> MOOCs accessible to all.

4.
Context: ICT + Disabilities:
• ICT -> possibility of their insertion
into the work market.
• To make digital people increases the
work rate.
• 100% consider that the
incorporation of ICT into the
workplace has increased their work
possibilities.
Context: Accessible MOOC Learning:
Benefits such as:
• Openness
• Low cost
• Ubiquity (Time, place and
pace)
• Acquiring knowledge
• Social learning: Connectivism
• Achieving new competences
• Develop professionally
Image retrieved from Open Education Europa

5.
OU’s Equality and Diversity Annual Report:
“More than 21,000 disabled students are now registered, representing just over
12% of the OU student body. This is double the proportion of three years ago
and far in excess of the performance indicator in the University’s equality
objectives”.
Distance education and open education:
• 14% of students of the Open University
• (8% in the rest of UK universities)
• 23% of the users of open resources
published by the OU (via iTunesU, YouTube
and OpenLearn)

6.
MOOC platforms:
• Web based eLearning engines
• Scheduling academic curriculum
• Synchronous and asynchronous
communication
Interface elements:
• Logging in, logging out
• Navigating in courses and content
• Multi layered structures
eLearning materials:
• Specific technology.
Barriers :
• The interface elements
• The manner in which users interact
with these objects
• Components which do not always
share a consistency of interface
logic:
• Posting in a forum
• Making up elements in
tests or timed quizzes
• Embedded videos
• Variety of document
formats

7.
The minimum required level of
accessibility :
 Guarantee access to the
content by means of the
platforms.
 Produce the content
accessible in itself.
 Evaluate the access conditions.
 The technological platform.
 The content of the MOOC must
be the same for all of the
students.
 The students must be able to
access the content using assistive
technologies.
 It is necessary to offer alternative
textual descriptions for
multimedia content.
 Assistance must be provided.
How should the model for an accessible MOOC platform be?

8.
Group of papers Reference Description
Assessment with users
Sanchez-Gordon &
Luján-Mora, 2013
Five Coursera courses for evaluating the accessibility of the
Coursera platform and the contents of these courses, with a
particular focus on learners in their old age
Al-mouh, Al-khalifa &
Al-khalifa, 2014
Ten Coursera courses of different disciplines for their suitability
for blind or partially sighted learners; none of the courses
reached the minimum level of accessibility
Bohnsack & Puh, 2014 Five MOOC platforms for blind users: Udacity, Coursera, edX,
OpenCourseWorld, Iversity. Except for edX, all the other
platforms had severe accessibility problems.
Student data
Rizzardini, Chang,
Gütl & Amado-
Salvatierra, 2013
MOOC that incorporated accessibility features to benefit a true
open online education for the wider population. The MOOC at
Galileo University was designed to provide equity access
Liyanagunawardena &
Williams, 2016
Pre-course survey for 10 courses on the FutureLearn platform to
show evidence that learners in their old age are already
participating in MOOCs
MOOC framework
Sanchez-Gordon &
Luján-Mora, 2014
Two categories of web accessibility requirements: for personal
and for non-personal disabilities. Both MOOC's platforms and
contents must meet web accessibility requirements
Sanchez-Gordon &
Luján-Mora, 2015
Three-layer architecture to extend the Open edX platform to
enhance the accessibility
Rodríguez-Ascaso &
Boticario, 2015
MOOC framework consisting of services, standards and quality
procedures related to accessibility

9.
A RESEARCH PLAN TO SUPPORT DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE MOOCS
•Methodologically -> the study will be mixed-methods.
•Interviews
•Questionnaires
•Usability and accessibility test
•Technical accessibility evaluation-> evaluation instrument
Viewpoints of stakeholders in accessibility practice:
• Semi-structured Interviews: MOOC platform providers, course providers and
MOOC experts, end-users
• Existing data from FutureLearn -> Open University

10.
• Iterative method of trial and error.
• Iteration 0 -> results publised
• Iteration 1 -> the use of automatic tools, tutored by an expert from the
IET in order to avoid biases.
• Iteration 2 -> vector of characteristics, it will be reviewed by several
international accessibility experts.
• Iteration 3 -> the final vector of characteristics -> Adaptation
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

11.
Accessibility evaluation of MOOC
platforms and courses
• COLMENIA: Weprendo + UnX
• UNED COMA
• Miriada X
• UAb iMOOC
All platforms obtain average results 5 – 6 /10 ->. None of the platforms
achieve reasonable values (higher than 60%).
For the educational content -> no standards
Lack of accessibility of audiovisual resources.
In particular learning disabilities guidelines are very difficult to be
checked.

12.
eLearning platform
standards:
Web Content
Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG)
2.0 (2008)
Website Accessibility
Conformance
Evaluation
Methodology
1.0
•Documents: PDF, Word. Follow Accessibility guidelines for documents
•Videos (pills): Include subtitles, Sign Language Interpreter, Include
alternative text to the video content. Textual description

13.
A selection of a set of Web pages:
•The platform’s homepage.
•The registrationlogin page
•A representative page of the course.
•A course page including a test.
•A course page including a forum.
•A course page including a p2p.
 Educational resources (Knowledge Pills)
Text based: PDF, Word,…
Multimedia, Video lessons.
Methodology that combines:
 Conformance reviews.
 Screening techniques.

14.
Iteration 0:
Evaluation through automatic
accessibility tools :
WCAG Accessibility
Validation
 Disability Simulators
 Usability and User Experience
(UX)
Testing Tools
 User evaluation
 Educational content
evaluation
The MOOC
platform
The educational
content.

15.
Iteration 1:
• Evaluation through accessibility
tools:
• WCAG accessibility validation
• Disability simulators
• Text based documents and video
lessons accessibility validation.
• Evaluation of Usability and User
Experience (UX):
• Usability Testing tools
• Manual techniques of user
experience testing with learners
• Educational content (pedagogical
design) evaluation.
• Review of intended learning
outcomes.
• Activity run-throughs or
developmental testing with
users.

16.
Iteration 0
1 x platform
COLMENIA: Weprendo +
UnX:
UNED COMA
Miriada X
UAb iMOOC
Iteration 1
3 x platform, different course providers
FutureLearn
Coursera
edX
Udacity

17.
Iteration 0
Evaluation through automatic
accessibility tools :
WCAG Accessibility Validation:
eXaminator
Disability Simulators: aDesigner
 User Experience (UX)
Testing Tools: Sortsite
 Educational content evaluation:
Manually
Iteration 1
• Evaluation through accessibility tools:
• WCAG accessibility validation
• eXaminator
• Mobile: TAW
• Disability simulators, for example
• aDesigner
• NVDA
• Text based documents and video lessons
accessibility validation.
• Video-lessons: Manually
• PDF: PAC2
• Evaluation of Usability and User Experience (UX):
• Usability Testing tools
• Sortsite
• Achecker
• Pigdom
• Manual techniques of user experience testing
with learners
• Educational content (pedagogical design)
evaluation.

18.
CONCLUSIONS
Accessibility assessments and empirical investigations with stakeholder-groups:
 To derive recommendations for accessible MOOCs
 To develop guidance on how MOOCs can be accessed through the assistive
technologies.
 To provide the foundation for supporting those with disabilities to follow a
route to open learning that meets their particular needs.
Image retrieved from Mary Robinson Foundation

19.
Francisco Iniesto, Patrick McAndrew, Shailey Minocha and Tim Coughlan
Institute of Educational Technology
&
Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology
The Open University, UK
francisco.iniesto@open.ac.uk, patrick.mcandrew@open.ac.uk,
shailey.minocha@open.ac.uk, tim.coughlan@open.ac.uk