One model to rule them all, one model to bind them? A critique of the use of accessibility-related models in post-secondary education

Figures & data

Table 1. An overview of the similarity and differences of nine accessibility models.

Model/Criterion	Key publications which introduce and justify the model	Which stakeholder is the target of the model in terms of the practice that the model will be applied to?	What is the ultimate goal of the model?	Does the model embrace or reject the notion of universal solutions?
Universal Design for Higher Education	Burgstahler (2015)	Faculty	To minimise the need for disabled students to have to ask for accommodations.	EMBRACE
Holistic Model	Kelly, Phipps, and Swift (2004) Kelly et al. (2008)	Faculty	Solutions that are tailored to take into account the individual’s specific needs, institutional factors, the subject discipline and the broader cultural and political factors.	REJECT
The VIVID (Vision Impaired using Virtual IT Discovery) Model	Permvattana, Armstrong, and Murray (2013)	Faculty	To make it easier to identify potential solutions to the access barriers commonly faced by vision impaired students.	NEITHER
Composite Practice Model	Leung et al. (1999)	AT service providers	To offer a framework to help PSE institutions assessing their response to the AT needs of disabled students.	NEITHER
Staff Development Model	Papadopoulos, Pearson, and Green (2011, 2012)	Staff developers	To support academics to develop accessible and inclusive online-materials.	NEITHER
The Model of Accessibility Services Provision for Students with Disabilities in Higher Education	Kouroupetroglou, Pino, and Kacorr (2011)	Faculty and Institutional service providers	The implementation of a range of services within a PSE institution (not just AT services) that might support disabled students.	EMBRACE
EU4ALL	Boticario et al. (2012) Douce et al. (2010)	Faculty and Institutional service providers (e.g. library, AT services, student support services)	1) Enhance the learning experience of disabled students by presenting learning materials that are appropriate for and matched to modality and end-user devices preferences. 2) Provide a wide range of services that an institution can adopt to ensure that the needs of learners who have disabilities are most appropriately supported.	REJECT
Contextualised Model of Accessibility	Seale (2006)	All stakeholders within a PSE institution	Encourage all relevant stakeholders to develop and enhance their practice by taking into account all relevant factors that mediate an institutional response to accessibility: the stakeholders; the context (drivers and mediators); and how the relationship between the stakeholders and the context influences the responses made and the accessibility practices developed.	NEITHER
Model of Professionalism in Accessibility	Montandon, Arjona, and Weiermair (2010)	Senior managers in an institution	Enable a PSE institution to reflect and assess how well it is doing.	NEITHER

Figure 1. (a) Early version of holistic model of e-learning accessibility. (b) Later version of holistic model of e-learning accessibility.

Figure 2. The VIVID (Vision Impaired using Virtual IT Discovery) Model.

Figure 3. A staff development framework for inclusive learning design.

Figure 4. The stakeholders who mediate the relationship between a disabled student and the accessibility unit.

Figure 5. The contextualised model of accessibility.

Figure 6. The EU4ALL Framework.

Table 2. A model of professionalism in accessibility.

Intervention	Intervention/ institutionalisation	Institutionalisation/ professionalism	Professionalism
Low level of accessibility practice (T1)	Medium level of accessibility practice (T2)	Substantial level of accessibility practice (T3)	Outstanding level of accessibility practice (T4)
Responsibility and roles unclear, ambivalent Low awareness by senior management Low level of accessibility practice Weak legal frameworks	Low awareness and responsibility of management, accessibility no priority Considerable activity for students with disabilities by single persons Existing practice not institutionalised Ad hoc solutions to ad hoc problems Weak legal frameworks	Responsibility of senior management clear, accessibility a priority Community of Practice with high level of institutionalised processes Strong legal requirements	Responsibility clear High priority of accessibility Institutional processes and stakeholder involvement Development of policies Evaluation of implementation Legal framework strong driver

Table 3. Differentiating accessibility models based on the level of their focus.

Name of Model or framework	Focus	Level
Universal Design for Learning/Instruction	Online/Blended learning resources and activities	Micro
Holistic Model	Online/Blended learning resources and activities	Micro
The VIVID (Vision Impaired using Virtual IT Discovery) Model	Online/Blended learning resources; internal and external influencing factors	Micro/Macro
Composite Practice Model	Service Level: AT Services	Meso
The Staff Development Model	Service Level: Staff Development	Meso
A Model of Accessibility Services Provision for Students with Disabilities in Higher Education	Service Level: Accessibility Services	Meso
EU4ALL	Service Level: E-services	Meso/Macro
Contextualised Model of Accessibility	Institutional Level	Meso/Macro
Model of Professionalism in Accessibility.	Institutional Level	Macro

Table 4. An overview of the validity and efficacy of the nine models and frameworks.

	Validity		Efficacy
Model	How were they derived?	What evidence is there that they have improved practice or outcomes?	Level of granularity (detail)	Implemented in practice
Universal Design/Instruction	Literature review, practice examples, professional judgement	A little	3	Yes – wide-scale
Holistic Model	Literature review, professional judgement	None	2	Unclear
VIVID	Literature review, observations of students, interviews with staff and students	None	1	No
Composite Practice Model	Literature review, survey, practice examples	None	2	Unclear
Staff Development Model	Literature review, small scale pilots of some components, professional judgement	None	2	No
Model of Accessibility Services Provision	Analysis of student requirements	None	1	Yes – in one institution
Contextualised Model	Literature review, socio-cultural theory	None	1	No
EU4ALL	Literature review, large scale survey	A little	2	Piloted in two institutions
Model of Professionalism	Literature review, large scale survey	Unclear	2	Piloted in at least one institution

Figure 7. The University of Washington approach to accessibility.

Table 5. A framework for evaluating accessibility models in the context of ICT-related practice in PSE.

For each model being considered …	Questions to seek answers to	Possible Answers	Tick all that apply	Tick all that you require in order to be convinced to apply the model
Context	Which educational context can or has the model been applied to?	Campus-based
		Distance Learning
		Open Learning
		Online Learning
		Blended Learning
Focus	At what practice ‘level’ can the model operate?	Micro level: the practices involved in making all learning resources and activities (all teaching) accessible.
		Meso level: the delivery of services within a PSE institution that play a role in promoting the use of supportive ICTs that contribute to successful education and employment outcomes for disabled students. For example AT services, accessibility services, e-services, or staff development programmes.
		Macro level: the institution in which those services (meso) and practices (micro) take place, and the internal and external factors that influence or drive the institution’s development and organisation of those services and practices.
Validity	How was the model derived?	Literature review
		Practice descriptions (case studies)
		Professional judgement
		Observations of students
		Interviews with staff and/or students
		Small scale survey
		Large scale survey
		Small scale pilots of some or all components
		Large scale pilots of some or all components
		Analysis of student requirements
		Theory
	What evidence is there that the model has improved practice or outcomes?	None
		A little
		A moderate amount
		Extensive
Efficacy	How detailed are the models (what is their level of granularity)?	Level 1: Description of overarching principles, components and processes.
		Level 2: Examples (which may be hypothetical or real) given to illuminate the principles, components and processes.
		Level 3: Descriptions of the model or framework in action- typically provided by practice-based case studies.
		Level 4: Detailed critical evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of model.
	Has the model been implemented/piloted within a post-secondary institution?	No or unclear
		Yes – in just one institution
		Yes – in between two and ten institutions
		Yes – it is in wide-scale use (more than ten institutions)

Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 31–64). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

 Google Scholar

Kelly, B., Phipps, L., & Swift, E. (2004). Developing a holistic approach for e-learning accessibility. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.3/kelly.html

 Google Scholar

Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Draffan, E., & Fanou, S. (2008, May). One world, one web … but great diversity. Paper presented at the 2008 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A), Beijing, China. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1368044.1368078

 Google Scholar

Permvattana, R., Armstrong, H., & Murray, I. (2013). E-learning for the VI: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6(1), 15–30. Retrieved from http://www.academic-pub.org/ojs/index.php/IJCSE/article/viewFile/1029/229

 Google Scholar

Leung, P., Owens, J., Lamb, G., Smith, K., Shaw, J., & Hauff, R. (1999). Assistive technology: Meeting the technology needs of students with disabilities in post-secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99-6/eip99_6.pdf

 Google Scholar

Papadopoulos, G., Pearson, E., & Green, S. (2011, December). Tutor Accessibility Support Kit (TASK): A suite of staff development resources for inclusive online learning design. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2011, Hobart. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Papadopoulos-full.pdf

 Google Scholar

Papadopolous, G., Pearson, E., & Green, S. (2012). A provisional framework for supporting academics in accessible and inclusive e-materials development. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian computer-human interaction conference (pp. 459–468). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262203038_A_provisional_framework_for_supporting_academics_in_accessible_and_inclusive_e-materials_development

 Google Scholar

Kouroupetroglou, G., Pino, A., & Kacorr, H. (2011, February). A model of accessibility services provision for students with disabilities in higher education. In Proceedings of the international conference universal learning design (pp. 23–33). Brno. Retrieved from http://access.uoa.gr/Unit%20Publicity%20Files/Kouroupetroglou_Brno_2011.pdf

 Google Scholar

Boticario, J. G., Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Santos, O. C., Raffenne, E., Montandon, L., Roldán, D., & Buendía, F. (2012). Accessible lifelong learning at higher education: Outcomes and lessons learned at two different pilot sites in the EU4ALL Project. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(1), 62–85.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Douce, C., Porch, W., & Cooper, M. (2010, October 7–8). Adapting e-learning and learning services for people with disabilities. In 1st International AEGIS Conference: Access for All in the Desktop, Web and Mobile Field: an End-User and Developer Perspective, Seville, Spain.

 Google Scholar

Seale, J. (2006). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility theory and practice (1st ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Montandon, L., Arjona, M., & Weiermair, C. (2010, September). How to promote the adoption of an open framework to make lifelong learning accessible to all? In Strategies and Business Models for Lifelong Learning/Networking Conference (pp. 272–290). Zermatt, Switzerland: EADTU.

 Google Scholar