IHE Accessibility in OER Implementation Guide - Alamo Colleges
Overview
In this section, you and your team will engage in a Landscape Analysis to uncover key structures and supports that can guide your work to support Accessibility in OER. You may or may not answer all of these questions, but this is an offering.
May 11 - Section One: Landscape Analysis for Accessibility in OER in Local Context (Work on during May 11th implementation)
In this section, you and your team will engage in a Landscape Analysis to uncover key structures and supports that can guide your work to support Accessibility in OER. We exnourage to explore some of the questions from each category. You may or may not answer all of these questions, but this is an offering. We ask that you complete Parts One, Two and Six.
Part One: Initial Thoughts
What is your team's initial goal for this series?
Part Two: Introductory probing questions:
What does accessibility look like in our organization? How do we measure accessibility?
What does OER look like in our organization? How do we measure access to OER?
Part Three: Clarifying questions for accessibility:
What is the organizational structure that supports accessibility?
Who generates most of the accessibility structures/conversation in our organization?
Where do most educators get support with accessibility?
What content areas might have the largest gaps in access to accessibility?
Part Four: Clarifying questions for OER:
What is our organizational structure that supports curricular resources?
What is our organizational structure that supports OER?
Who generates most of the curricular resources in our organization?
Where do most educators get support with curricular resources?
What content areas might have the largest gaps in access to curricular resources/OER?
Part Five: Clarifying questions for Faculty learning and engagement:
What Professional Learning (PL) structures have the best participation rates for our educators?
What PL structures have the best "production" rates for our educators?
What incentive do we have to offer people for participating in learning and engagement?
Who are the educators that would be most creative with accessibility and OER?
Who are the educators that would benefit the most from accessibility and OER?
Part Six: Final Probing questions:
What is our current goal for Accessibility in OER and why is that our goal?
Who have we not yet included while thinking about this work?
What barriers remain when considering this work?
What would genuine change look like for our organization for this work?
Section Two: Team Focus (Finish before May 25th to share during Implementation Session Two)
Identifying and Describing a Problem of Practice
The following questions should help your team ensure that you are focusing your collaboration.
What is your Team’s specific goal for this series? You may consider using AEM Quality Indicators for Creating Accessible Materials to help add to or narrow your work.
We are currently training a cohort of instructors to produce OER for the upcoming AY. (The summer “OER incubator” course starts May 29.) One important goal is that all OER we produce meet UDL accessibility standards. This will involve pre-production training (Melissa), but also should incorporate a feedback/assessment process as the resources are actually being built.
What other partners might support this work?
A. OER ACCESSIBILITY REVIEW TEAM: One “ask” we might consider is to assemble a small (2-3 person) review team for OER drafts as they are in production, to evaluate how well they employ UDL principles.
- PAC Teaching and Learning Center (Megan)?
- PAC DSS Office ( Cindy Morgan)
- Someone from campus- or district-level accessibility committees
- Consider adding a student or someone from student success to review our OER drafts
B. STUDENT CROWDSOURCE PROJECT: It is best practice to include a brief alt text and vivid descriptions for images in OER resources. This process could be streamlined by crowd-sourcing the process to students as extra credit(?). This can be incorporated into current/future Art History courses and possibly Art Appreciation if we can get others in the unit behind the plan and provide images with a sample for students to follow.
What is your desired timeframe for this work?
The review team would need to be available in late summer or fall. This can be negotiated based on availability. Student crowdsourcing can recur on a semester-by semester basis.
How will you include diverse voices and experiences in this work?
One obvious way is to intentionally select folks with a range of backgrounds, ability levels, and life experiences. But beyond that, I think it’s important to make the entire process itself accessible – meetings and activities should incorporate UDL philosophy so that it is easy for folks to participate/give feedback: Flexible modalities, tools, feedback instruments, etc.
Please create a Focus Question that explains your goal and provides specific topics that you would like feedback on. This is what you will share in your breakout groups for feedback.
As we are developing an accessibility review process for new OER, it would be helpful to review examples of rubrics/instruments other institutions have used for similar purposes. In addition to these models, what types of other guiding questions/criteria would be most useful for reviewers?
Example:"Accessiblity Toolkit" from BCcampus: https://opentextbc.ca/accessibilitytoolkit/back-matter/appendix-checklist-for-accessibility-toolkit/
(Save for during May 25th's session.) What feedback did you receive from another team during the May 25th Implementation Session?
Section Three: Team Work Time and Next Steps (Complete by the end of Implementation Session Three)
Sharing and Next Steps
What was your redefined goal for this series?
What does your team want to celebrate?
What did your team accomplish? If you have links to resources, please include them here.
What are your team’s next steps?