References
- 1Acosta, T and Luján-Mora, S. 2016. Comparison from the levels of accessibility on LMS platforms that supports the online learning system. Proceedings of EDULEARN 16, 8th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies,
4–6 July 2016 Barcelona. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2016.1579 - 2Adom, D, Yeboah, A and Ankrah, AK. 2016. Constructivism philosophical paradigm: Implication for research, teaching and learning. Global Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(10): 1–9.
- 3Badali, M, Hatami, J, Banihashem, SK, Rahimi, E, Noroozi, O and Eslami, Z. 2022. The role of motivation in MOOCs’ retention rates: A systematic literature review. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1): 1–20. DOI: 10.1186/s41039-022-00181-3
- 4Balula, A. 2015. The promotion of digital inclusion through MOOC design and use: A literature review. Indagatio Didactica, 7(1): 145–164.
- 5Berube, B. 1981. Barrier-free design–making the environment accessible to the disabled. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 124(1): 68.
- 6Brahim, HB, Khribi, MK and Jemni, M. 2017. Towards accessible open educational resources: Overview and challenges. 2017 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Accessibility (ICTA) (pp. 1–6).
IEEE . - 7Braun, V and Clarke, V. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4): 589–597. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
- 8*Cinquin, PA, Guitton, P and Sauzéon, H. 2021. Designing accessible MOOCs to expand educational opportunities for persons with cognitive impairments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(11): 1101–1119. DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1742381
- 9*Cinquin, PA, Guitton, P and Sauzéon, H. 2023. Toward truly accessible MOOCs for persons with cognitive impairments: A field study. Human–Computer Interaction, 38(5–6): 352–373. DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2021.2008250
- 10Dewi, SS and Dalimunthe, HA. 2019. The effectiveness of universal design for learning. Journal of Social Science Studies, 6(1): 112–123. DOI: 10.5296/jsss.v6i1.14042
- 11EADTU. 2014. Porto Declaration on European MOOCs. EADTU. Available at:
https://home.eadtu.eu/news/90-porto-declaration-on-european-moocs-available-online . - 12Ferguson, R, Herodotou, C, Coughlan, T, Scanlon, E and Sharples, M. 2018.
MOOC development: Priority areas . In: Luckin, R (ed.), Enhancing learning and teaching with technology: What the research says. London: UCL IOE Press. - 13Global Learning Consortium. 2015. 1EdTech accessibility specifications overview. Available at:
https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/accessibility . - 14Iglesias, A, Moreno, L, Martínez, P and Calvo, R. 2014. Evaluating the accessibility of three open-source learning content management systems: A comparative study. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22(2): 320–328. DOI: 10.1002/cae.20557
- 15Ingavélez-Guerra, P, Otón-Tortosa, S, Hilera-González, J and Sánchez-Gordón, M. 2023. The use of accessibility metadata in e-learning environments: A systematic literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 22(2): 445–461. DOI: 10.1007/s10209-021-00851-x
- 16Ingavélez-Guerra, P, Robles-Bykbaev, V, Teixeira, A, Otón-Tortosa, S and Hilera, JR. 2022. Accessibility challenges in OER and MOOC: MLR analysis considering the pandemic years. Sustainability, 14(6): 3340. DOI: 10.3390/su14063340
- 17Iniesto, F. 2020. An investigation into the accessibility of massive open online courses (MOOCs). UK: The Open University.
- 18*Iniesto, F, McAndrew, P, Minocha, S and Coughlan, T. 2022a. A qualitative study to understand the perspectives of MOOC providers on accessibility. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1): 87–101. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.6610
- 19*Iniesto, F, McAndrew, P, Minocha, S and Coughlan, T. 2022b.
Accessibility in MOOCs: The stakeholders’ perspectives . In: Rienties, B, Hampel, R, Scanlon, E and Whitelock, D (eds.), Open world learning: Research, innovation and the challenges of high-quality education. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 119–130. DOI: 10.4324/9781003177098-11 - 20*Iniesto, F, McAndrew, P, Minocha, S and Coughlan, T. 2023.
A mixed-methods study with MOOC learners to understand their motivations and accessibility needs . In: Olivier, J and Rambow, A (eds.), Open educational resources in higher education: A global perspective. Singapore: Springer Nature. pp. 175–201. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-8590-4_9 - 21*Iniesto, F and Rodrigo, C. 2016. A preliminary study for developing accessible MOOC services. Journal of Accessibility and Design For All, 6(2): 126–150.
- 22*Iniesto, F, Rodrigo, C and Hillaire, G. 2023. A case study to explore a UDL evaluation framework based on MOOCs. Applied Sciences, 13(1): 476. DOI: 10.3390/app13010476
- 23Iniesto, F, Tabuenca, B, Rodrigo, C and Tovar, E. 2021. Challenges to achieving a more inclusive and sustainable open education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1). DOI: 10.5334/jime.679
- 24Jordan, K and Goshtasbpour, F. 2022. JIME virtual special collection – 2012 to 2022: The decade of the MOOC. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1), 1: 1–14. DOI: 10.5334/jime.757
- 25Kessler, M and Pérez-Berenguer, D. 2023. Creating, consuming, remixing, and sharing accessible Open Educational Resources (OERs) using an authoring tool. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2023.2248175
- 26*Kosova, Y and Izetova, M. 2020. Accessibility of mathematics MOOCs to learners with disabilities. Educational Studies Moscow, (1 (eng)): 205–229. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-1-205-229
- 27*Królak, A and Zając, P. 2022. Analysis of the accessibility of selected Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for users with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–12. DOI: 10.1007/s10209-022-00927-2
- 28Lambert, SR. 2020. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18. Computers & Education, 145: 103693. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693
- 29*Lei, J, Jones, L and Brosnan, M. 2021. Exploring an e-learning community’s response to the language and terminology use in autism from two massive open online courses on autism education and technology use. Autism, 25(5): 1349–1367. DOI: 10.1177/1362361320987963
- 30Lewis, JR. 2014. Usability: Lessons learned… and yet to be learned. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(9): 663–684. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2014.930311
- 31*Martin, JL, Salvatierra, HA and González, JRH. 2016. MOOCs for all: Evaluating the accessibility of top MOOC platforms. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5): 2274–2283.
- 32McAndrew, P, Farrow, R and Cooper, M. 2012. Adapting online learning resources for all: Planning for professionalism in accessibility. Research in Learning Technology, 20: 345–361. DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.18699
- 33Meet, RK and Kala, D. 2021. Trends and future prospects in MOOC research: A systematic literature review 2013–2020. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3). DOI: 10.30935/cedtech/10986
- 34Meyer, A, Rose, DH and Gordon, DT. 2014. Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
- 35Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG and Prisma Group. 2010. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5): 336–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
- 36*Molanes-López, EM, Rodriguez-Ascaso, A, Letón, E and Pérez-Martín, J. 2021.
Assessment of video accessibility by students of a MOOC on digital materials for all . IEEE Access, 9: 72357–72367. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3079199 - 37Palacios Hidalgo, FJ, Huertas Abril, CA and Gómez Parra, MªE. 2020. MOOCs: Origins, concept and didactic applications: A systematic review of the literature (2012–2019). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(4): 853–879. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-019-09433-6
- 38Papathoma, T, Ferguson, R, Iniesto, F, Rets, I, Vogiatzis, D and Murphy, V. 2020. Guidance on how Learning at Scale can be made more accessible. In: Joyner, D, Kizilcec, R and Singer, S (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale.
Association for Computing Machinery . pp. 289–292. DOI: 10.1145/3386527.3406730 - 39*Park, K, So, HJ and Cha, H. 2019. Digital equity and accessible MOOCs: Accessibility evaluations of mobile MOOCs for learners with visual impairments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6): 48–63. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.5521
- 40Park, Y, Jung, I and Reeves, TC. 2015. Learning from MOOCs: A qualitative case study from the learners’ perspectives. Educational Media International, 52(2): 72–87. DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1053286
- 41*Patiño-Toro, ON, Valencia-Arias, A, Fernández-Toro, A, Jiménez-Guzmán, A and Gil, CAP. 2023. Proposed methodology for designing and developing MOOCs for the deaf community. Heliyon, 9(10). DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20456
- 42Pautasso, M. 2019.
The structure and conduct of a narrative literature review . In: Shoja, M, Arynchyna, A, Loukas, M, D’Antoni, AV, Buerger, SM, Karl, M and Tubbs, RS (eds.), A guide to the scientific career: Virtues, communication, research and academic writing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 299–310. - 43*Pérez-Martín, J, Rodriguez-Ascaso, A and Molanes-López, EM. 2021. Quality of the captions produced by students of an accessibility MOOC using a semi-automatic tool. Universal Access in the Information Society, 20(4): 677–690. DOI: 10.1007/s10209-020-00740-9
- 44Persson, H, Ahman, H, Yngling, AA and Gulliksen, J. 2015. Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: Different concepts—One goal? On the concept of accessibility—Historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4): 505–526. DOI: 10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z
- 45Petrie, H and Bevan, N. 2009.
The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience . In: Stephanidis, C (ed.), The universal access handbook. CRC Press. pp. 299–315. DOI: 10.1201/9781420064995-c20 - 46Petrie, H, Savva, A and Power, C. 2015. Towards a unified definition of web accessibility. Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference on – W4A, ’15, 1–13. DOI: 10.1145/2745555.2746653
- 47Psycharis, S, Theodorou, P and Kydonakis, P. 2022. The use of Indie4All platform for visually impaired students on the acquisition of learning objects with computational thinking practices in music, math and physics. In: Guralnick, D, Auer, ME and Poce, A (eds.), Innovative approaches to technology-enhanced learning for the workplace and higher education: Proceedings of ‘The Learning Ideas Conference’ 2022. Cham:
Springer International Publishing . pp. 608–619. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21569-8_56 - 48*Rai, L. 2018. Offline support model for low bandwidth users to survive in MOOCs. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 13(10): 270. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v13i10.8595
- 49*Robles, TDJÁ, González, AM, Gaona, ARG and Rodríguez, FA. 2020.
Addressing accessibility of MOOCs for blind users: Hearing aid for screen orientation . In: Information Resources Management Association, (ed.), Accessibility and diversity in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice. IGI Global. pp. 535–549. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1213-5.ch027 - 50*Rodrigo, C. 2015.
Accessibility in language MOOCs . In: Bárcena, E and Martín-Monje, E (eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries. De Gruyter Open. pp. 106–126. DOI: 10.2478/9783110420067.7 - 51Rodríguez, G, Pérez, J, Cueva, S and Torres, R. 2017. A framework for improving web accessibility and usability of Open Course Ware sites. Computers & Education, 109: 197–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.013
- 52*Sanchez-Gordon, S and Luján-Mora, S. 2016. How could MOOCs become accessible? The case of edX and the future of inclusive online learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(1): 55–81.
- 53Sanchez-Gordon, S and Luján-Mora, S. 2018. Research challenges in accessible MOOCs: A systematic literature review 2008–2016. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4): 775–789. DOI: 10.1007/s10209-017-0531-2
- 54*Sanchez-Gordon, S and Luján-Mora, S. 2020.
Design, implementation and evaluation of MOOCs to improve inclusion of diverse learners . In: Information Resources Management Association, (ed.), Accessibility and diversity in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice. IGI Global. pp. 52–79. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1213-5.ch004 - 55Saripudin, S, Djohar, A, Rohendi, D and Abdullah, AG. 2019. Comparison of accessibility of OER repositories of developed countries and developing countries based on WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1402(7): 077042. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1402/7/077042
- 56Stracke, CM and Trisolini, G. 2021. A systematic literature review on the quality of MOOCs. Sustainability, 13(11): 5817. DOI: 10.3390/su13115817
- 57United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2020. Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.
- 58Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). n.d. WCAG 2 Overview. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Available at
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/ . - 59Zhang, X, Tlili, A, Nascimbeni, F, Burgos, D, Huang, R, Chang, TW, Jemni, M and Khribi, MK. 2020. Accessibility within open educational resources and practices for disabled learners: A systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1): 1–19. DOI: 10.1186/s40561-019-0113-2
- 60Zhu, M and Doo, MY. 2022. The relationship among motivation, self-monitoring, self-management, and learning strategies of MOOC learners. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1–22.