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

2. Outline Background to the study Accessible documents
Inclusive assessment

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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%

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. 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

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

27. Anglia Learning and Teaching Inspiring Academic Excellence
Contact Anglia Learning and Teaching
Call: Web:
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)
Inclusive Materials and Assessment Dr Julian Priddle, 2017