4.4 Article

Higher education leaders' perspectives of accessible and inclusive online learning

期刊

DISTANCE EDUCATION
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 574-595

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2022.2141608

关键词

disability; higher education; online learning; leaders; instructional design

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Online learning leaders in higher education perceive a growing emphasis on accessibility and inclusivity, although there are still issues in providing accessible and inclusive online learning. They recognize instructional designers as the most knowledgeable and skilled in this area, but there is a lack of agency for instructional design teams and a need for support from senior leadership. Strategies such as faculty development, quality standards, and accessibility checkers are described to support faculty.
Online learning can potentially meet increasingly diverse students' needs in higher education, including disabled students. However, institutions have historically struggled in providing accessible and inclusive online learning. Higher education online learning leaders, those who manage instructional designers, are in a unique position to help institutions strategize and create accessible and inclusive online courses. In this qualitative study, we interviewed nine higher education online learning leaders to understand leaders' perceptions about how institutions provide accessible and inclusive online learning. Results demonstrated that despite varying conceptualizations of accessibility and inclusivity, online learning leaders perceive an insufficient but growing emphasis in higher education. Overall, participants described instructional designers as the most knowledgeable and skilled in this area. Participants described a lack of agency for instructional design teams and a need to advocate for buy-in from senior leadership. They also described strategies (e.g., faculty development, quality standards, and accessibility checkers) to support faculty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据