5.6 Strengths and Limitations
This project benefited from rigorous methodological direction appropriate to the aims of the research including co-design and thematic analysis that focused on student experiences. The collaborative nature of the work centered the co-designers to ensure authentic student experiences were documented. The depth of responses from co-designers represents an extremely rich data source. Responses were detailed and reflective of the co-designers’ lived experience. In addition, while unique, each co-designer’s experience was similar enough that the data was saturated, evidenced by overlapping codes and strong themes.
While there are studies on the experience of disabled students in post-secondary education, no work addresses the barriers presented by inaccessible digital learning material. By illuminating what formats work and which do not, this novel research informs tangible, straightforward, and low-investment methods to improve accessibility and inclusive education. The direct connection between the student experience and the employees who create and choose digital learning material presents strong ecological validity for the findings. While this research presents a robust view of barriers to accessible digital learning material, this is not without limitations.
The sample size in phase 1 (n = 5) is a reasonable number of students and offers a model for future research. The limited generalizability of this sample size is of less concern within the lens of inclusive design. As this research found digital formats that work best for all the co-designers, the findings can be extended through the inclusive design practice ‘to solve for one person and then extend to many’ to make digital learning materials more usable for all. The sample size (n = 7) in phase 2 impacts the findings and generalizability of results. Given broader sector-wide trends of precarious academic employment and the associated fatigue and frustration, few instructors had the capacity to engage with and provide feedback on the resource. This was expected and addressed by amendments to the original research, as discussed in section 3.2.3. While this constrained generalizability, the quantitative responses showed the value of the co-designed resource while the depth of the qualitative responses provided meaningful insight into instructor perspectives. This research provides a replicable model for longitudinal and periodic study to measure sustainable improvement over time, reflective of changing dynamics and technology.
Ultimately, this research confirmed the hypothesis that a better understanding of the experience of disabled students may help post-secondary employees create and choose more accessible digital learning material. One survey respondent stated: “saying [accessibility] is legislated doesn’t seem to have the impact reading [student] quotes definitely does.” Survey responses indicate that post-secondary employees find reading about the disabled student experience a compelling incentive to create and choose more accessible content. However, other responses confirmed a lack of understanding by some post-secondary employees about digital accessibility and the disabled student’s experience. With respect to the limited number of respondents and the lack of generalizability of those results, this work produced a robust collection of student data about the actual human cost of inaccessible digital learning material.
