Accesibilidad y MOOCHacia una perspectiva integral

  1. Alejandro Rodriguez Ascaso 1
  2. Jesús G. Boticario 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

ISSN: 1138-2783

Año de publicación: 2015

Título del ejemplar: La filosofía educativa de los MOOC y la educación universitaria

Volumen: 18

Número: 2

Páginas: 61-85

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5944/RIED.18.2.13670 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: RIED: revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Para satisfacer una demanda creciente de disponer cursos abiertos masivos (MOOC) en los que se deben atender las necesidades de cada persona, también de quienes tienen alguna discapacidad, en el trabajo presente se propone un marco de servicios, estándares, normas de calidad y consideraciones que deberían atenderse. En este trabajo se analizan primero las cuestiones relacionadas y los antecedentes existentes, resaltando la aparente contradicción existente entre la pobre atención que se presta a las cuestiones de accesibilidad y adaptabilidad para atender la diversidad funcional de quienes participan en dichos cursos y los desarrollos y normas existentes que deberían ser utilizados. Se destaca aquí el trabajo previo en una arquitectura de servicios abiertos que atienden las necesidades detectadas en un proceso de recopilación de requisitos de usuarios con y sin discapacidad en instituciones de educación superior que utilizan tecnología, que ha sido evaluada en un proyecto de investigación europeo (EU4ALL). A continuación, y basándonos en las metodologías de diseño centrado en el usuario, se propone un conjunto de escenarios para ilustrar las necesidades de cualquier usuario MOOC, y las limitaciones derivadas de la falta de apoyo que actualmente se presta a la diversidad funcional de esos estudiantes MOOC. Posteriormente se discute la aplicabilidad en ese conjunto de escenarios de la antedicha arquitectura de servicios EU4ALL, así como de otras propuestas identificadas en la literatura. Finalmente, se apuntan las principales líneas de actuación presentes y futuras, en las que se está trabajando para la detección de estados afectivos del estudiante que condicionan su proceso de aprendizaje y que podrían utilizarse, por ejemplo, para intentar reducir los ratios significativos de abandono que se experimentan en los MOOC.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Al-Mouh, N. A., Al-Khalifa, A. S., & Al-Khalifa, H. S. (2014). A First Look into MOOCs Accessibility. En Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Computers Helping People with Special Needs Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 145-152.
  • Ball, S. (2006). Accessibility in e-Assessment Guidelines. Techdis. Recuperado de http://www.jisctechdis.ac.uk/assets/Documents/AccessibilityineAssessment.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Benedetti et al. (2007). D1.2.2. Description of existing services. EU4ALL Project. Recuperado de http://eu4all-project.atosresearch.eu/sites/default/files/content-files/page/11/03/d122-description-existing-services.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Blanchard, E. G., Volfson, B., Hong, Y.J. and Lajoie, S. P. (2009). “Affective Artificial Intelligence in Education: From Detection to Adaptation,” in Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 81–88.
  • Bohnsack, M., & Puhl, S. (2014). Accessibility of MOOCs. En Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Computers Helping People with Special Needs Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 141-144.
  • Autor. (2012a). Accessible Lifelong Learning at Higher Education: Outcomes and Lessons Learned at two Different Pilot Sites in the EU4ALL Project. J. UCS, 18(1), pp. 62-85.
  • Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, pp. 13-25.
  • Butler, B. (2012). Massive open online courses: Legal and policy issues for research libraries. Association of Research Libraries. Recuperado de: http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/issuebrief-mooc-22oct12.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance Learning: Universal Design, Universal Access. AACE Journal (10), pp. 32-61.
  • Burgstahler, S., Corrigan, B., & McCarter, J. (2005). Steps toward making distance learning accessible to students and instructors with disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 11(1).
  • Coursera. (2013a). How Facebook Groups Can Improve Your Experience With Coursera (And 6 Tips For Starting Your Own Group!). Coursera. Recuperado de: http://blog.coursera.org/post/59537162597/how-facebook-groups-can-improve-your-experience (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Coursera. (2013b). Add Coursera accomplishments to your LinkedIn Profile. Coursera. Recuperado de: http://blog.coursera.org/post/66959529107/add-coursera-accomplishments-to-your-linkedin (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • De Marsico, M., Kimani, S., Mirabella, V., Norman, K. L., & Catarci, T. (2006). A proposal toward the development of accessible e-learning content by human involvement. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(2), pp. 150-169.
  • De Marsico, M., Kimani, S., Mirabella, V., Norman, K. L., & Catarci, T. (2006). A proposal toward the development of accessible e-learning content by human involvement. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(2), pp. 150-169.
  • Autor (2012c). Apoyo adaptativo basado en IMS-LD y estrategias psico-educativas para la familiarización de estudiantes con discapacidad con su entorno virtual de aprendizaje. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, volumen 13, nº 2, pp. 133-166.
  • Discapnet. (2013). Accesibilidad de plataformas e-learning, recursos educativos y libros electrónicos. Discapnet. Recuperado de: http://www.discapnet.es/Castellano/areastematicas/Accesibilidad/Observatorio_infoaccesibilidad/informesInfoaccesibilidad/Paginas/Accesibilidad_plataformas_elearning_recursos_educ_libros_electr.aspx (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Dunn, S. (2003). Return to SENDA? Implementing accessibility for disabled students in virtual learning environments in UK further and higher education. London: City University. Recuperado de: http://www.saradunn.net/VLEreport/documents/VLEreport.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014)
  • European Telecommunication Standards Institute. (2010). ETSI EG 202 848 Human Factors; Inclusive eServices for all: Optimizing the accessibility and the use of upcoming user-interaction technologies. ETSI. Recuperado de: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/202800_202899/202848/01.01.01_60/eg_202848v010101p.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J. V., Barile, M., Ferraro, V., & Wolforth, J. (2009). Accessibility of e-learning and computer and information technologies for students with visual impairments in postsecondary education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(9), pp. 543-557.
  • Giorgini, F. (2010). An interoperable ePortfolio tool for all. In Wolpers, M. Et al. (Eds.) Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 500-505.
  • Grönlund, Å., Lim, N. & Larsson, H. (2010). Effective Use of Assistive Technologies for Inclusive Education in Developing Countries: Issues and challenges from two case studies. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(4), pp. 5-26.
  • Gruszczynska, A. (2012). OER-related accessibility issues and their relevance to practices of repurposing/re-use. Support Centre for Open Resources in Education. Recuperado de: http://www.open.ac.uk/score/oer-related-accessibility-issues-and-their-relevance-practices-repurposingreuse-0 (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Autor. (2012b). Kit alter-nativa: empoderando a los profesores para una educación en contexto de diversidad. En Actas del III Congreso Iberoamericano sobre Calidad y Accesibilidad de la Formación Virtual. pp. 309-318.
  • Harrigan, M., Kravčík, M., Steiner, C., & Wade, V. (2009). What Do Academic Users Really Want from an Adaptive Learning System?. En Houben, G. et al. (Eds). User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 454-460.
  • Harrison, C., & Petrie, H. (2007). Severity of usability and accessibility problems in eCommerce and eGovernment websites. En (Bryan-Kinns, N., Blanford, A., Curzon, P. and Nigay, L. (Eds.) People and Computers XX—Engage. Springer London, pp. 255-262.
  • Heath, A., Cooper, M. (2011). D.4.3.3 EU4ALL Contributions to Standards. EU4ALL project.
  • Hilera, J.R. (2008). UNE 66181:2008, el primer estándar sobre calidad de la formación virtual. RED, Revista de Educación a Distancia. Número monográfico VII. Recuperado de: http://www.um.es/ead/red/M7/hilera.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Iglesias, A., Moreno, L., Martínez, P., & Calvo, R. (2011). Evaluating the accessibility of three open‐source learning content management systems: A comparative study. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22(2), pp. 320-328.
  • ISO/IEC. (2008). ISO/IEC 24751-1:2008 Information technology. Individualized adaptability and accessibility in e-learning, education and training. ISO/IEC.
  • Jansen, D., Alcala, A., & Guzman, F. (2014). Amara: A Sustainable, Global Solution for Accessibility, Powered by Communities of Volunteers. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design for All and Accessibility Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 401-411.
  • Kelly, B., Phipps, L., Sloan, D., Petrie, H., & Hamilton, F. (2005). Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity? A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. Proceedings of the 2005 international cross-disciplinary workshop on web accessibility (W4A) online. ACM. Recuperado de: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/w4a-standardisation-or-diversity.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Kinash, S. & Crichton, S. (2007) Supporting the disabled student. En Michael G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education, 2nd Edition. Routledge, pp. 193-204.
  • Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, pp. 170-179.
  • Kinash, S. & Crichton, S. (2007) Supporting the disabled student. En Moore. M (Ed.) Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge, pp. 193-204.
  • Kulkarni, C. E., Socher, R., Bernstein, M. S., & Klemmer, S. R. (2014). Scaling short-answer grading by combining peer assessment with algorithmic scoring. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, pp. 99-108.
  • Law, P., Perryman, L.A., & Law, A. (2013). Open educational resources for all? Comparing user motivations and characteristics across The Open University’s iTunes U channel and Open-Learn platform. En Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2013. European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), pp. 204–219.
  • Lambropoulos, N., & Zaphiris, P. (Eds.). (2007). User-centered design of online learning communities. IGI Global
  • Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Disability 2.0: Student dis/connections. A study of student experiences of disability and social networks on campus in Higher Education. PhD Thesis. Nottingham University.
  • Maas, A., Heather, C., Do, C. T., Brandman, R., Koller, D., & Ng, A. (2014). Offering Verified Credentials in Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs and technology to advance learning and learning research (Ubiquity symposium).
  • May, H. & Bridger, K. (2010). Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice in higher education. York: The Higher Education Academy. Recuperado de: http://www-new1.h,eacademy.ac.uk/assets/Documents/inclusion/DevelopingEmbeddingInclusivePP_Report.pdf (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Mao, J. Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), pp. 105-109.
  • Autor. (2007). Usability and accessibility evaluations along the eLearning cycle. In Web Information Systems Engineering–WISE 2007 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 453-458.
  • Matkin, G. W. (2013). Open Educational Resources in the Post MOOC Era. eLearn, 2013(4), 1.
  • McAndrew, T.; Gruszczynska, A. (2013). Accessibility Challenges and Techniques for Open Educational Resources (ACTOER) Final Report. JISC TechDis.
  • McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Recuperado de https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final_0.pdf. (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2013). Open Learning at a Distance: Lessons for Struggling MOOCs. Science, 342(6165), pp. 1450-1451.
  • Miller, M. J. (2005). Usability in e-learning. Learning circuits, 48.
  • Mirri, S., Gay, G., Roccetti, M., Salomoni, P. (2009), Meeting learners’ preferences: implementing content adaptability in e-learning. En Proceedings of New Learning Technologies.
  • Mirri, S., Salomoni, P., Roccetti, M., & Gay, G. R. (2011). Beyond standards: unleashing accessibility on a learning content management system. In Transactions on edutainment V. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 35-49.
  • Norman, D. and Draper, S. (1986) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction.
  • Power, C., & Petrie, H. (2007). Accessibility in non-professional web authoring tools: a missed web 2.0 opportunity?. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A). ACM, pp. 116-119.
  • Power, C., Petrie, H., Swallow, D. (2011). D1.3.6 Final revision of the functional user requirements for accessibility in education. EU4ALL project. Recuperado de: http://eu4all-project.atosresearch.eu/sites/default/files/content-files/page/11/03/d136-functionalspecsuserrequirement-final.pdf (pp. 116-119).
  • Rodrigo, C., Read, T., Santamaría, M., Sánchez-Elvira, A. (2014). OpenED label for MOOCs quality assurance: UNED COMA initial Self-Evaluation, En: Actas del V Congreso Internacional sobre Calidad y Accesibilidad de la Formación Virtual (CAFVIR 2014).
  • Autor. (2011). Inclusive scenarios to evaluate an open and standards-based framework that supports accessibility and personalisation at higher education. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.612-621.
  • Rosewell, Jonathan and Jansen, Darco (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), pp. 88–100.
  • Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Scenario-based usability engineering. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM.
  • Rothberg, M. (2014). Accessibility Metadata Project: Final Report. Accessibility Metadata Project. Recuperado de: http://www.a11ymetadata.org/accessibility-metadata-project-final-report/ (Consulta: 17-12-2014).
  • Russell, M. (2011). Accessible test design. En Russell, M, Kavanaugh, M. (Eds.) Assessing Students in the Margin: Challenges, Strategies, and Techniques. Information Age Publishing.
  • Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2013). Web accessibility of MOOCs for elderly students. En Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). IEEE, pp. 1-6.
  • Autor (2014). Towards Emotion Detection from Facial Expressions and Body Movements to Enrich Multimodal Approaches. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
  • Autor. (2010). A standard-based framework to support personalisation/adaptation and interoperability in inclusive learning scenarios. In Learning Design: Handbook of Research on E-Learning Standards and Interoperability: Frameworks and Issues, United Kingdom, Information Science Reference, IGI Global.
  • Autor. (2013a) Emotions detection from math exercises by combining several data sources. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED’13). LNCS/LNAI 7926.
  • Autor. (2013b). Challenges for inclusive affective detection in educational scenarios. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for EInclusion. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 566-575.
  • Autor. (2014c). Extending web-based educational systems with personalised support through User Centred Designed recommendations along the e-learning life cycle. Software Development Concerns in the e-Learning Domain, 88(0), 92-109. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2013.12.004
  • Seale, J. K. (2013). E-learning and disability in higher education: accessibility research and practice. Routledge.
  • Seale, J., Georgeson, J., Mamas, C., & Swain, J. (2014). Not the right kind of'digital capital'? An examination of the complex relationship between disabled students, their technologies and higher education institutions. Computers & Education.
  • Autor (2014a). An evaluation of mouse and keyboard interaction indicators towards non-intrusive and low cost affective modeling in an educational context. Proceedings of KES.
  • Autor (2014b). Towards Emotion Detection from Facial Expressions and Body Movements to Enrich Multimodal Approaches. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
  • The OpenScience Laboratory (OU). (2013). The OpenScience Laboratory. Recuperado de: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/open-science/ (Consulta 17-12-2014).
  • Treviranus, J., & Roberts, V. (2008). Meeting the Learning Needs of all Learners Through IT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20), pp. 789-801. US: Springer
  • Autor. (2004). The Full Life Cycle of Adaptation in aLFanet eLearning Environment. Learning Technology newsletter. Vol. 4, p. 59-61, 2004.
  • W3C. (2008). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet