1 / 43

The Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy Enactment A Grounded Theory

This dissertation explores how five Local Education Agencies enacted technology accessibility policies and made meaning of the process. The study presents a substantive theory called the Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy Enactment (5eTAPE).

danielthompson
Download Presentation

The Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy Enactment A Grounded Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Natalie L. Shaheen Towson University Dissertation Defense September 13, 2019 slides available at nlshaheen.com/dissertation The Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy EnactmentA Grounded Theory

  2. Introduction

  3. In Brief • Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) • Policy enactment theoretical framework • Purpose: Understand how 5 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) enacted technology accessibility policy and made meaning of the process • Substantive theory: The Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy Enactment (5eTAPE) • Additional research and practice is essential

  4. Approach to Dissemination • Influenced by my lived experience as a blind person • Accessibility • nlshaheen.com/dissertation • Identity-first language • Disabled person = strong person (Brueggemann, 2013; Davis, 2013; Dunn & Andrews, 2015; Foley & Ferri, 2012; Longmore, 2003)

  5. Technology Accessibility (Kamei-Hannan, 2008; National Federation of the Blind, 2015; Riccobono et al., 2015; Riccobono & Rosenblum, 2016; Shaheen & LohnesWatulak, 2019)

  6. Sociotechnical Endeavor (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012; ISO, 1997; Jaeger, 2014, 2012; Jaeger & Burnett, 2010; Lazar et. al., 2015; Rose et. al., 2005; Vanderheiden, 2000)

  7. Sociotechnical Endeavor (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012; ISO, 1997; Jaeger, 2014, 2012; Jaeger & Burnett, 2010; Lazar et. al., 2015; Rose et. al., 2005; Vanderheiden, 2000)

  8. Literature Review

  9. Law • The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • Bartleson v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 2018 • Nightingale v. Seattle School District, 2014 • 2,400+ OCR complaints (29 U.S.C. § 794; 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(b)(1); Keierleber,2018)

  10. Literature • Inaccessible technology: web content and applications, assessments, and eBooks • Hurdles: lack of awareness, limited understanding • State-level initiatives in the early 2000s: • Kentucky • New Mexico • Maryland • South Carolina (Hendricks et. al, 2003; Kaplan et. al, 2006; Noble, 2005; Peterson, 2005; Wisdom et. al, 2007)

  11. Gaps in the Literature • Missing current information about the work occurring within LEAs • No data about how policies related to technology accessibility are translated into practice in K-12 • Lacks empirical rigor (Lazar et al., 2015; Shaheen & Lohnes Watulak, 2019; Wisdom et. al, 2007)

  12. Methodology

  13. Methodology Overview • Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) • Theoretical framework: Policy enactment • What is the process by which K-12 LEAs enact technology accessibility policy? • How does that process unfold and why does the process unfold as it does? • How do LEAs engaged in the process make meaning of the experience of enacting technology accessibility policy? ((Ball et al., 2012; Charmaz, 2014)

  14. Sites

  15. Sampling & Data Collection

  16. Data Analysis • Constant comparative method in 2 phases • Initial coding: named the “action” • Focused coding: sorted & synthesized to develop useful analytic tools • Memoing: throughout the research process, served to advance theory construction

  17. Constructing the Theory • Constructed tentative categories • Determined where more data were needed • Coded new data and wrote additional memos • Compared focused codes, tentative categories, and analytic memos  initial theoretical categories • Compared, rearranged, and integrated initial theoretical categories  final theoretical categories • Diagramed to outline the relationships between theoretical categories

  18. Trustworthiness • Reflexivity • Triangulation: Multiple forms of data • Member checking • Thick description • Chronological memo bank: 544 memos (411 analytic, 59 reflexivity, and 74 methodological) (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009)

  19. Limitations • Sample does not include all LEAs addressing technology accessibility • Sample does not include all artifacts associated with enactment processes • Sample does not include stakeholders who were peripheral to technology accessibility work • Generalizations must remain situated in the place and time in which this research occurred (Charmaz, 2014; Merriam, 2009)

  20. Introducing Key Participants

  21. Findings

  22. Part 1: 5 Elements

  23. Becoming Aware “Because this was a case that was brought to our attention, we were playing catch up from the beginning. There truly was not any knowledge within our district that we had done anything wrong… we thought everything was great and wonderful until all of a sudden we got contacted by the OCR out of the blue” (Anthony, Milford Point, Interview 1, February, 1, 2018)

  24. Strategizing, Learning, Practicing

  25. Strategizing • Putting out fires • Developing a plan • Creating policy. “We immediately engaged counsel, who had some experience working through these [complaints],” (Tom, Broad Ridge, Interview 2, July 11, 2018)

  26. Learning “Essentially, I literally started doing Google searches on accessibility, Department of Justice, anything” (Anthony, Milford Point, Interview 1, February 1, 2018). “… we had the student with the visual impairment do a demonstration and... took her to some websites that would be regular websites she would need to access in order to complete her curriculum... and in there were sites that are not accessible.... and watching and listening to what she goes through… and how that must hamper her learning.” (Sarah, Mishawaka, Interview 1, March 1, 2018)

  27. Practicing • Remediating inaccessible websites • Developing accessible websites • Communicating LEA policy • Tracking the LEA’s progress towards its goals • Building capacity “… they [LEA teams] are looking at what are the barriers to training other people in-house, so that. You know, we have a technical expertise now, but how are we going to get that out” (John, Access Ed, Interview 1, July 12, 2018).

  28. Iterating • Added a new type of substantive work • Expanded the scope of work in a substantive way “Our previous web accessibility monitoring system was only active on the District website. With the implementation of AccessibilityChecker, the District is able to cover all sites...” (Web News Story, Artifact ME9)

  29. Part 2: The Process Over Time

  30. Why the Process Unfolds as it does: Accelerants • Legal activity • Support from administrators • Developing ongoing relationships with technology accessibility experts “It [OCR complaint] did make a difference. I'm a little ashamed to say it, but it spurred it…” (Ben, Keystone, Interview 2, July 20, 2018).

  31. Why the Process Unfolds as it does: Decelerants • Being a novice • Limited resources and competing priorities • Confronting resistance • Large and complex website • Complexities of procurement “It's like looking at a whole new language and trying to figure out what it's telling you and trying to figure out then how to fix it.” (Gale, Mishawaka, Interview 1, March 1, 2018)

  32. Part 3: Making Meaning of the Process • Curating stories: Resentment & Injustice “being in trouble” (Rosie, Mount Elison, Interview 1, February 12, 2018). “…you have 1,200 complaints that have been filed with the Office of Civil Rights [sic], so everybody who’s coming to our training is coming with kind of a chip on their shoulder, in terms of…‘We’re really here because the lawyers are after us’…” (John, Access Ed, Interview 1, July 12, 2018)

  33. Part 3: Making Meaning of the Process • Curating stories: Riding the wave “It's a matter of taking all those people and trying to ride the tsunami wave of everyone's needs…. trying to make sure that the job is done… while at the same time, not making everyone’s lives so miserable that they lock the door as I’m walking up to their building.” (Anthony, Milford Point, Interview 1, February 1, 2018) “I feel good that we are above the industry benchmark… I wish it could be 100% but it’s just not possible …. I do think what I do is important…. if I can make it easier at least for one person, I am doing my job...” (Anika, Mount Elison, Interview 1, February 12, 2018)

  34. Part 3: Making Meaning of the Process • Articulating purpose • Compliance  helping disabled people & the right thing to do  educational imperative “It’s transformed from being a slap on the wrist to, ‘Hey, there’s some significant changes that we can actually make that will benefit people’” (Anthony, Milford Point, Interview 1, February 1, 2018) “…‘We must do it.’ It’s not, ‘It’s nice to do.’… when you say, “Oh, it’s the right thing to do,” it kind of gives you a sense of… chivalry almost… to me, it’s just a, ‘No, you have to do it, and you have to do it in a way that’s seamless and doesn’t make somebody feel like you’re doing them a favor.’” (Rosie, Mount Elison, Interview 2, July 25, 2018)

  35. Substantive Theory • The Five Elements of Technology Accessibility Policy Enactment in K-12 (5eTAPE) • Integrates: • Part 1: The five basic elements • Part 2: The process over time • Part 3: Making meaning of the process (Charmaz, 2014)

  36. Discussion

  37. Contribution to the Field • Technology accessibility work is occurring in K-12 today • Policy is translated into practice through a continual evolutionary process that is mediated by the context in which it occurs • Empirical explanation of the technology accessibility enactment process (Ball et al., 2012; Fullan, 2007; Noble, 2005; Rogers, 2003; Wisdom, 2007)

  38. Recommendations • Policy: Awareness, loose frameworks and diverse examples • Practice: Make connections to existing work, integrate technology accessibility into university coursework • Research: Different times and different places, awareness among K-12 stakeholders, disabled students’ lived experience

  39. Conclusion If you are “in the business of liberating human potential” (Gale, Mishawaka, Interview 1, March 1, 2018) and you “believe that all children can learn” (Tom, Broad Ridge, Interview 2, July 11, 2018), then technology accessibility is an equity imperative

  40. Questions & Comments? Please say your name to indicate you would like to participate.

  41. References 29 U.S.C. § 794 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(b)(1) Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Brueggemann, B. J. (2013). Disability studies/disability culture. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 279–299). New York, NY: New York: Oxford University Press. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE. Davis, L. J. (Ed.). (2013). The disability studies reader (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), 255-264. doi:10.1037/a0038636 Foley, A., & Ferri, B. A. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 192–200. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01230.x Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hendricks, P., Wahl, L., Stull, J., & Duffield, J. (2003). From policy to practice: Achieving equitable access to educational technology. Information Technology and Disabilities, 9(1), 1-23. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA205363895&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10735127&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true\ International Organization for Standards (IS0) (1997). Ergonomic of human system interaction. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber= 16873 Jaeger, P. T. (2014). Internet justice: Reconceptualizing the legal rights of persons with disabilities to promote equal access in the age of rapid technological change. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 9(1), 39–59. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy- fs.researchport.umd.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=55a82dc6-18af-4374-af31- 0dc4c5602a4e@sessionmgr4002&hid=4103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2N vcGU9c2l0ZQ==#AN=88779645&db=sih Jaeger, P. T. (2012). Disability and the Internet: Confronting a digital divide. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Jaeger, P. T., & Burnett, G. (2010). Information worlds: Social context, technology, and information behavior in the age of the Internet (Vol. 8). New York, NY: Routledge.

  42. References Kamei-Hannan, C. (2008). Examining the accessibility of a computerized adapted test using assistive technology. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(5), 261–271. Retrieved from https://www.afb.org/publications/jvib Kaplan, S., Weiss, S. & Allen, M. (2006). Promising Practices of Accessible Information Technology in K-12 Educational Settings. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 2284-2289). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Keierleber, M. (2018). A civil rights activist filed thousands of disability complaints. Now the education department is trying to shut her down. The 74. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/article/a-civil-rights-activist-filed-thousands-of-disability- complaints-now-the-education-department-is-trying-to-shut-her-down/ Lazar, J., Goldstein, D. F., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring Digital Accessibility through Process and Policy. Chicago, IL: Morgan Kaufmann. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Longmore, P. K. (2003). Why I burned my book and other essays on disability. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Federation of the Blind. (2015). We must stop the Amazon fail. Retrieved from https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/we-must-stop-amazon-fail Noble, S. (2005). The Kentucky Accessible Information Technology in Schools project. Information Technology and Disabilities, 11(1). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA207644353&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10735127&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true Peterson, K. (2005). Systems change regarding accessible information technology in the K-12 educational environment. Information Technology and Disabilities, 11(1). Retrieved from http://itd.athenpro.org/volume11/number1/peterson.html Riccobono, M., Brunson, M., Richert, M., Marshall, D., Wendorf, J., Cortiella, C., … Busch, A. (2015). [Letter to Smarter Balanced]. Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/pdf/nfb-letter-to-sb-ace.pdf Riccobono, M., Rosenblum, H. (2016). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; Accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities. Retrieved from https://nfb.org/ada-title-ii-internet-regulations-joint-sanprm-comments Rose, D. H., Meyer, A. D., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds) (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Education Press.

  43. References Shaheen, N. L., & LohnesWatulak, S. (2019). Bringing disability into the discussion: Examining technology accessibility as an equity concern in the field of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 51(1), 187–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566037 Vanderheiden, G. (2000) Fundamental principles and priority setting for universal usability. ACM Conference on Universal Usability: Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability. doi:10.1145/355460.355469 Wisdom, J. P., White, N., Goldsmith, K., Bielavitz, S., Rees, A., & Davis, C. (2007). Systems limitations hamper integration of accessible information technology in northwest U.S. K-12 schools. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 222-232. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/6979970/10.1.1.119.9967.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1480892524&Signature=0%2FEOjD5jkRt%2BzaX9ybnyWcvWu4c%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOntologies_for_effective_use_of_context.pdf#page=227

More Related