A model of accessible m-learning

Accessibility is not necessarily about a disability; in fact it is not likely to be dependent on any single factor but will depend on several different things.
It’s easy to think that the small screen size, limited text options and fiddly buttons would immediately reduce the accessibility of the device for some learners. Whilst this is true it is only partly true because accessibility depends to a large extent on the context you’re working in. The model below has been developed to attempt to map the wider elements of accessibility in a more holistic way.



The model of accessible m-learning illustrates four accessibility criteria; the interface, the cultural capital (is this way of learning culturally appropriate), the accessibility of the task and the accessibility of the content. In the model, low values are in the middle and high values on the edges. Any learner who experiences high values for all four aspects has an “accessible learning experience”. Learners with low values (eg plotting in the coloured circle) will have less accessible experiences but may still have a net benefit compared to other types of learning. In the example above we’ve plotted three different learners.

Sample learner profiles

Kim

Kim is an older learner. She works for a local delivery firm and is studying part time for an English literature degree. The tutor loaned them all a PDA with several classic texts downloaded from Project Gutenberg. Between tutorials they each study a different text and summarise the key themes, copying and pasting verses into the inbuilt Memo Pad to support their argument. Next lesson they beam these to one another. Kim struggles with the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare - the content is not very accessible to her - but at least it is portable and always available to look at while waiting between deliveries. The interface provides her with no difficulties and she is wholly engaged by the task. She feels a real responsibility to the rest of the group to do a good job on the literature studies and says this this way of studying makes her “cooler than my grandchildren”.

Michael

Michael has mild learning difficulties and is partially sighted. He has recently moved into his own accomodation and wants to increase his independent living skills. The local college runs an adult “Cooking for beginners” class for people with learning difficulties and the tutor has been experimenting with creating podcasts of recipes. Michael has an MP3 player which is difficult to use due to the small screen and his poor vision. The cookery tutor has recorded different recipes for each week based on the skills they learned in the class. These are downloaded from the tutor’s laptop to the learner’s MP3 players. Michael finds this a huge aid to his independent living. He takes ages to find the right track on the MP3 player but once he has, he can stop, rewind and play the recipe much more easily than he can use a recipe book. He loves telling his friends and carers about his “podcast cooking” and explaining to them how it works.

Deepa

Deepa wants to improve her English skills. Her tutor is running a basic English class and loans PDAs to the learners to make notes of shop names in the local centre and take photos of the shops. In the class session they work in small groups, beaming the information to one another and the tutor. The tutor then uses presentation software to talk through each group’s photos and develop language around them. Deepa is reasonably competent to work the interface and finds the language development really helpful and but she is not comfortable for cultural reasons because (i) the group work involves working in a mixed group and (ii) she does not like “gadgets”.

In conclusion, accessibility needs to be seen in relation to:
•    The whole learner experience – what they do and how they do it.
•    The alternative learner experiences – what they would otherwise do to achieve the same learning objectives.
•    The alternative resources – whether m-learning offers more flexibility than traditional resources or pedagogies eg handouts.

A checklist for evaluating comparative accessibility

The model above attempts to map the “absolute” accessibility of a mobile learning experience from an individual learner’s perspective. Another simple way of evaluating the accessibility of an experience is to look at relative accessibility – is this experience more or less accessible than the alternative learning experience delivered in a traditional way?

A simple example is shown below:

Sample learning objective

A field course to the Studland Nature Reserve in Dorset requires learners to visit a number of areas in order to sketch and make notes on the physical features, measure the impact of tourists trampling on the footpaths and observe and record the way the National Trust have managed the tourist pressures.

m-Learning approach

The tutor has put together a mini-website on a set of PDAs as shown on the screenshots below. Students work in groups of 4 and each group has a PDA with the resources on. Some sample screen shots are illustrated below.


 
Figure 1 - The overview page provides a clickable map which takes the learner to localised information.



Figure 2 - At each locality a task list is given with links to additional information pages and relevant images.


 
Figure 3 - Photographs help learners orientate themselves and captions beneath them raise key issues to answer.


 
Figure 4 - where calculations are required there is a direct link  to a prepared spreadsheet so learners can see patterns developing in the field without having to wait until they do the calculations in the evening.



 
Figure 5 - where practical techniques are required these are available as video clips which have been subtitled in Windows MovieMaker.

Traditional alternative

This is a classic field study area and the classic field study approach would consist of a clipboard with a set of handouts including base maps, task sheets, background information on the site, instructions on the fieldwork techniques (eg how to use a sweep net, how to calculate diversity index) and data collection sheets. The learners would use the appropriate handouts in the appropriate places, shuffling them around as required. The data would be collected in a table but most likely processed back at base as part of the plenary follow up. In order to holistically assess the accessibility of the learning experience we need to compare it with the alternative. Even where accessibility is sub-optimal for a particular learner the learning experience may still represent a net benefit – indeed a “reasonable adjustment” – compared to the alternatives.

Accessibility comparison – Studland field course example

Motor impaired learner:
The motor impaired learner may struggle with navigation and data input on a hand held device. But they would also be challenged by the traditional approach where handling a clipboard full of papers and shuffling through paper resources could be equally difficult. In terms of physical strength and stamina requirements the PDA version would offer definite advantages.

Visually impaired learner:
The cost benefit ratio would depend on the nature of the visual impairment. For a completely blind learner a standard PDA would be inaccessible but with text to speech software installed it would offer a considerable advantage over traditional methods. For those with poor visual acuity the PDA screen would be less legible than large print handouts BUT this may be compensated by the PDA information being much easier to navigate than a wad of large print sheets flapping in the wind.

Deaf learner:
Although little of the content in this example is audio dependent a deaf learner may well have related literacy issues in which case the PDA with its rich visual content (maps, photos etc) may be better than the black and white photocopies from the handouts. The handouts are visually less rich owing to the additional photocopying cost resulting from lots of photographs – and the poorer resolution in black and white.

Specific learning difficulties:
For a dyslexic learner the navigability of a web resource may be far easier to manage than the wad of handouts; partly because the hyperlinks keep related information together but also because of the visual richness of the PDA materials. The video of the practical technique offers real added value for a dyslexic learner compared to a text description. The live spreadsheet template on the PDA also offers benefits. Since the results are instantly obtained when observations are entered, the learner has neither the burden of calculation nor the lapse of time to get in the way of them understanding the processes they are measuring.

This example demonstrates an m-learning approach that

• created some barriers for some accessibility needs,
• but created fewer barriers than the traditional teaching approach created.

Even where barriers were created (for example with a motor impaired learner) they were sometimes compensated by other benefits – like less kit and clutter to carry around. The reality is that no approach is universally accessible but that m-learning offers significant opportunities to tackle some of the barriers that some learners are constrained by – and in the process give a lot of other learners real added value.

Previous Section                                                            Next Section