To what extent does our Moodle design template support inclusive practice in relation to neurodiverse and disabled students?
The aim of this enquiry is to generate new knowledge about the experience of neurodiverse and disabled students when using Moodle pages designed according to a template which aims to be accessible and inclusive. This knowledge will allow us to tailor the template to better meet students’ needs and make more informed recommendations to course teams as well as the digital learning community across UAL.
Objectives:
Survey students on the BA Product and Industrial Design course at CSM who are neurodiverse, using an online questionnaire.
Facilitate one (or more) focus groups to have an in-depth discussion about Moodle usage, barriers and positive features.
The ARP needs to be small. I need to not make it unwieldy.
I want to focus on some of the key features of our Moodle design:
headings, contextual information, use of colour, announcements block, chronological structure and naming conventions
staff presence (photos, tone of language, contact details)
invitations to ask for help – to ask for accessible documents, who to contact
I want to see to what extent this is helpful to participants specifically to who have a neurodivergence or those who don’t come from an academic background. I want the participants to be invested in the information, not just be looking at it from an aesthetic point of view. Therefore participants would need to be feeding back on a page/pages that are their own.
I asked Lindsay if I should focus on a particular group of students/staff – participants – and she said it would be great to get feedback from all of them. I definitely want to hear from neurodivergent participants – dyslexic participants would be good to hear how they respond to the contextual information in particular.
Who do I especially want to hear from? People with dyslexia, ADHD, people who are visually impaired and using a screenreader (this may throw up a lot more complex issues less about design and more about underlying meta data – very useful, but beyond scope?), people who are ‘new’ to academia, participants with English as an additional language.
From questionnaires given to students at the beginning and end of Moodle redesign projects and also from direct and indirect feedback, we have evidence that the design is beneficial and an improvement from the rather sparse, somewhat disorganised space that has previously existed. However, we don’t have a detailed, qualitative response specifically relating to the potential benefits in terms of inclusivity. It is this that I want to delve into.
What don’t I know?
A lot.
I don’t know which pages to focus on. I could focus on a page we have already ‘done’.
For example the FAD page:
In this scenario, I could probably quite easily find both staff and students from the different categories who would be willing to talk to me about their experience of the page. Both staff and students are ‘invested’ in that they need to find information from the page and so would be able to give more in-depth answers. Staff would probably have experience of other Moodle pages or the previous one. Students would be less likely to have knowledge of other Moodle pages given the level of their course. I wouldn’t have another version of a page without the work done to compare it to. Maybe this doesn’t matter as it’s not about asking if it’s an improvement, it’s about asking if it ‘works’, or not, and in what way(s). I guess that runs the risk of indifference. I wonder if it’s possible/advisable to offer a different version part way through, based on responses. E.g. if there was a feeling there is too much text, to present a version without and see how that compares.
Having done an evaluation of this project already, I already have evidence that staff and students broadly find the redesign an improvement and that it is very embedded in teaching.
The BA PID pages:
As a current project, both staff and students (from Stage 2 and 3 at least) would have experience of the previous version of the page which was organised but sparse. It could inform the development of the project almost immediately. I don’t currently already know whether staff and student responses are positive. (I do know that one dyslexic member of staff finds the text overwhelming in places.)
There might be a more immediate response to the changes and it might feel more live for participants. On the other hand, part of their reaction might be too much to the change, rather than the design features.
I wonder how may variables are too many here? It’s action research so does that mean I don’t need to worry so much about this? I’m thinking maybe I could get reactions to both pages (FAD and BA PID)? Perhaps it doesn’t matter because it’s about their response to features, rather than the specifics of the individual page… (I need to talk this through, I’m going to ask Sarah to help.)
One of the PG cert pages:
Sorry PG cert, but your Moodle pages seem a bit unloved in places 🙂
When I was discussing digital accessibility and inclusive practice with Kwame in Unit 2, we talked about the possibility of redesigning/helping with the PG cert site(s). I think this would be a good thing for the course, as there are places where Moodle works, and we do really need it, but other places where it’s just not clear where to find things. It’s also not very visually interesting for a course in an art and design university.
The benefits here would be that the potential participants in my project would be classmates and therefore perhaps willing to help with an ARP. There are a wide cross section of people on the course and so the groups I’m specifically wanting to focus on would probably be represented. There is a need for us to use the pages, and we all have direct experience of the original version, for comparison.
The potential drawback is that whilst it’s relatively easy to introduce the different design features in isolation from the course, my feeling is that they would lack depth without the accompanying co-design process that has been/is being done on the FAD and PID pages. This process involves talking to staff (academics, admin, technical and wider support team) and students to understand their needs and the structure/teaching on the course. The templates for the page(s) are then constructed around that, feedback, given and training and ongoing support provided. Part of the aim of the co-design process is to make sure the page meets everyone’s needs, and part is to ensure the course team own Moodle and see it as something that is part of the team to support students.
Without that process, I feel the result of the page would be compromised (although this is also something that could be usefully tested), even from a more superficial perspective. So I think this option would require a much greater time commitment (from me and the course team) and given the limited time available, maybe that would be inappropriate.
On the other hand, I can hear Lindsay’s voice saying ‘do something and see what happens’. Maybe that’s the right way to go, rather than looking at what I’m already in the process of doing with the PID pages.
Ok, that’s helped clear my mind a bit. I’m imagining interviews for this, but maybe there is something more creative to add, perhaps as something optional, particularly given the context? Off to think about ethics…
Just realised I didn’t answer my own question. What is my research question? I don’t really know what these things are meant to look like but here’s a go…
To what extent does the Moodle redesign template support inclusive practice?
In what ways does it, or doesn’t it, support students and staff who are neurodivergent, come from non-academic backgrounds, have visual impairments, or speak English as an additional language.
Does it help to break down barriers and create a welcoming space? Why? Why not?
Update:
I wrote this blog at the very beginning of this project and much has changed! For more information about how I came to focus on Neurodiverse and disabled students, please see: Rationale: Moodle, Disability and Social Justice.
My name is Amy and I’m a Senior Digital Learning Coordinator at Central Saint Martins. I’ve worked at CSM since 2020, starting online in the middle of the pandemic. It was a big culture change for me as I had previously spent 17 years as an English Language Teacher and teacher trainer, most recently, 14 years at a Further Education College in North London. I worked with immigrant communities for a really long time and I am committed to breaking down barriers in education.
I realised during the course of this unit that I have had some barriers of my own, albeit not obvious ones. I always felt on the outside of academia, despite having a degree, good school exam results and family links to higher education. I realised my experience of almost failing my A-levels for want of a bit of study skills instruction, and dropping out of my first university, feeling invisible and unanchored, have perhaps helped shape some of what I want to do now to make students feel more welcome, to remove obstacles and make support more obvious and available.
In addition to this, in my professional life I come from a very student-centred pedagogy, where it’s all about listening to the students, providing guidance and support and trying to give them agency and independence. I think this has also shaped the way I’ve gone about this project (albeit very imperfectly, no doubt).
