Inclusive Materials and Assessment: Results of an audit and recommendations Julian Priddle Anglia Learning & Teaching and Faculty of Science & Technology 27 June 2017

Outline Background to the study Accessible documents Inclusive assessment

Background Senate approved a policy for making online learning resources accessible in 2016 This set out specifications for Word, Powerpoint and PDF These standards were introduced to staff at a series of training events

Background The training raised a number of issues, especially in relation to workload Support was offered to faculties by AL&T to expedite the process FST undertook an audit of resources, and also looked at inclusive assessment

Accessible materials Two student researchers examined online resources on VLE sites, looking at 232 items in detail These comprised text documents in Word and PDF formats, and slidesets in Powerpoint

Accessible materials: Text docs (1) Nearly all (93%) used a sans-serif font, but only 59% used recommended point-size and line spaces Less than a quarter (24%) used styles to format headings

Accessible materials: Text docs (2) Few documents (28%) had numbered pages, and very few (6%) provided a table of contents Italic and underline were the main methods of indicating emphasis in text, with only 17% following the recommendation to use bold Page breaks were used in only 16% of documents

Accessible materials: Quick wins Use of styles Use bold for emphasis Number pages Use page- and section- breaks Use a hyperlinked table of contents

Accessible materials: Tables Generally poorly formatted Use alternating colours for rows Set the header row, and set this to repeat if the table over-runs Provide a title using table formatting

Accessible materials: Images Not always set to inline text, so text-wrapping issues Not always with an explanatory title or alt text

Accessible materials: PDF Several staff convert word-processed documents to PDF When accessibility standards are not followed, the resultant PDF will also have issues Typically have very limited scope for students to alter format or re-purpose

Accessible materials: Slide sets (1) Wider variation in formats and design Staff concerns over scope for expression and creativity

Accessible materials: Slide sets (2) Standards do not allow for the range of uses for slide sets Researchers judged that 35% of files had limited value as free-standing resources Only 18% used the notes facility in Powerpoint

Accessible materials: Slide sets (3) Nearly all (91%) used a sans-serif font, but 18% included text smaller than 18 pt Only 19% conformed to colour contrast recommendations Underline or capitalised text was used for emphasis in 21% of files, and italic in 88%

Accessible materials: Slide sets (4) Only 65% of files kept within the recommended limit of maximum ten lines of text per slide Most files (80%) kept within the recommendation for no more than two levels of bullet points Only 29% used the recommended technique of animating bullet points Only 11% of files used recommended table formatting

Accessible materials: Slide sets (5) Setting the reading order improves accessibility, but this was only used in 29% of the files audited Only 15% of slide sets included alt text for images and tables Most files (89%) used Powerpoint titles

Accessible materials: Slides to PDF Some features that improve readability are lost Users cannot change the format of slides Slides cannot be re-purposed as learning materials 21% of slides sets could not be edited

Accessible materials: Design considerations How will your slide sets be used? How do your slides function as a stand- alone resources? Can your students download and convert slides?

Inclusive assessment 472 assessment tasks were audited Information was contained in module guides in 98% of modules, and was available direct from the VLE in 73% of cases Overall, information was described by the researchers as ‘easy to find’ in 99% of modules

Inclusive assessment The assignment description referred to learning outcomes in 97% of tasks A marking scheme was provided for 97% of tasks Exemplars were provided online in 36% for assignments

Inclusive assessment The researchers found timetabled sessions to prepare for 50% of assignments, although this varied between departments 67% of tasks were described as ’coursework’ and 17% were exams

Inclusive assessment: presentations This category included a wide range of forms of assessment There were very few instances where an alternative was offered to all students In many cases, the ‘presentation’ was a hybrid with written tasks included

Inclusive assessment: essays and coursework There was abundant evidence for guidance in areas such as report writing In some cases, the submission process was poorly described

Inclusive assessment: in-class tests There was often ambiguity about whether a test allowed multiple submissions

Inclusive assessment: the way forward With the demise of the module guide, there is an opportunity to improve assessment information using Canvas course templating Follow ‘good and inclusive’ assessment guidance

With thanks to our researchers Petya Ivanova Laura Barkovska Sandip Debnath Bahram Firouzi

Anglia Learning and Teaching Inspiring Academic Excellence Contact Anglia Learning and Teaching Call: 01223 698896 Email: lta@anglia.ac.uk Web: www.anglia.ac.uk/lta Author(s): Julian Priddle Version: 1.0 June 2017 Anglia Ruskin University, 2017   Any part of this presentation may be reproduced without permission but with attribution to Anglia Learning and Teaching and the author(s) CC-BY-SA (share alike with attribution) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 Inclusive Materials and Assessment Dr Julian Priddle, 2017