Investigating Faculty Perceptions of Creating and Enhancing Accessible Online Courses with Ally

Demand for Online Courses

For the last two decades, enrollments in online learning have grown. However, those enrollments increased substantially since 2019, primarily due to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Smalley, 2021). Moreover, the number of students from marginalized populations taking online courses has significantly increased over the last few years (Kim & Fienup, 2021; NCES, 2019). Students with disabilities who require accommodations, such as accessible course materials, are part of this group identified as marginalized. As far back as 2011, the United States Department of Education noted that the number of post-secondary students with reported disabilities was 11%—or roughly two million students–and that this number was likely to increase (Fenlon et al., 2016). Jaeger (2012) warned that this group would become further marginalized if those in charge of designing online courses did not begin to take meaningful steps to create more inclusive courses. While arguments have been made that online courses are lower quality than courses offered in person (Altindag et al., 2021), those with disabilities reported an increased preference for online courses, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mullaney, 2021).

Legal Foundations for Accessibility

Several legal requirements and federal statutes form the foundation for accessible online learning (Burgstahler, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Among the most significant in the U.S. are Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandates that federal agencies and entities receiving federal funding make electronic and information technology accessible, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Section 504 also applies to online courses, requiring that web accessibility be provided to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access (Burgstahler, 2017).

In the United States, a critical development occurred on April 24, 2024, when the Department of Justice (DOJ) published its final rule updating regulations for Title II of the ADA. This update establishes specific requirements for ensuring that web content and mobile applications are accessible to individuals with disabilities. The rule outlines compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, the international standard for web accessibility, which addresses areas such as mobile accessibility, low vision accommodations, and cognitive disabilities. The DOJ’s final rule officially extends the reach of ADA compliance, requiring that educational institutions, particularly those offering online courses, ensure their web content and mobile applications meet these updated standards to prevent discrimination based on disability (ADA, 2024).

Additionally, the 2024 rule reinforces the importance of designing accessible online learning environments from the outset, emphasizing that educational institutions must prioritize equal access in both web and app-based educational platforms. Failure to comply with these updated regulations could lead to legal challenges, including formal complaints with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which continues to oversee compliance with these laws. Through the OCR, the U.S. Department of Education defines accessibility as ensuring that individuals with disabilities can acquire the same information, engage in interactive learning, and benefit from services on equal terms with those without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Institutions that proactively implement these guidelines can avoid the risk of costly legal repercussions while fostering inclusive educational environments.

Inaccessible Content

Students with a disability should have an equal opportunity to participate fully in online courses (Massengale & Vasquez, 2016; WebAIM, 2022). One of the most significant problems students with a disability face with online learning is inaccessible content. Some common examples of inaccessible content include learning management system tools (e.g., HTML pages) and course material developed by instructors or others (e.g., textbook publishers), including Word documents, PDFs, PowerPoints, and audio and video files (Behling, 2017). In fact, in one study, Kent (2016) researched students at 15 different universities with many different disabilities. Some common issues he found included selective release of materials, lack of variable assessment methods, excessive content quantity and readability, and inclusion of third-party products with issues. In a more recent study of 500 institutions, Moody (2020) found that 50% of PDFs in online courses contained accessibility problems. Designing online courses that already pose hurdles, including inaccessible content, only exacerbates issues faced by students with disabilities.

Accessibility Tools for Course Design and Use

Anyone involved in online course design must be aware of and able to use current accessibility tools available to help students with disabilities (Baldwin & Ching, 2021). Several accessibility tools have been developed that instructional designers and faculty can use to improve the accessibility of online courses; these include accessible checkers in commonly used products such as the Microsoft Suite (e.g., Word, PowerPoint) that enable someone to identify accessibility errors and fix them (Microsoft, 2022); there is even an add-on for Google Docs and Slides, Grackle, that can identify accessibility issues. Other tools native to an individual learning management system include the Accessibility Checker option in Canvas (Instructure, 2022) or Brightspace (Dahl, 2022). Other third-party products integrate into an LMS, such as UDOIT for Canvas or Ally (which works in various learning management systems).

In each case, tools like these can ensure accessibility issues in content and materials are “headed off at the pass” before students access the course or are identified through existing means of disclosure or self-identification (Roberts et al., 2011). Moreover, waiting until self-identification in all cases results in a multi-stage design, which is less proactive, can increase costs, and lead to less efficient or ubiquitous design following principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CANnect, 2010). Further, simply notifying a faculty member that one or more students in their course have a disability does not satisfactorily help students succeed or easily overcome barriers with course content (Massengale & Vasquez, 2016). Often, the accommodations recommended by a disability services office or advocate are more focused on extended time on assessments or other individualized services rather than remediating course content or materials.

Once a course is live and front-end issues rectified, students can use tools such as Ally to access alternative formats of course content (Blackboard, 2022). Alternative formats provided by Ally include an audio version, an e-reader file, an immersive reader format, and others. Learners benefit from multiple alternative versions as disabilities present in such learners are often variable. It is important not to assume which format will be effective for any learner (McKeown & McKeown, 2019). Tools such as Ally help instructors and their respective institutions to make course materials accessible to all learners (Almufarreh & Arshad, 2021). This concept is often called the “Curb-Cut Effect” (Blackwell, 2017). Tools like Ally can ultimately prevent issues once the course is live, as the preparation stage presents an opportunity to ensure accessible design.

Responsibility for Accessibility

The design of online courses with accessibility in mind prevents or decreases issues during implementation, and doing so creates a mindset where accessibility is less of a burden and more of a productive endeavor (Baldwin & Ching, 2021). While this sounds ideal, it is unclear who may be responsible for accessibility at institutions of higher education. Lowenthal & Lomellini (2023) found that many institutions do not have a clear policy or stance on who bears this responsibility. Similarly, Guilbaud et al. (2021) determined that faculty viewed the accessible design process as very time-consuming and believed it was the responsibility of another department, such as disability services. Regardless of where responsibility lies, institutions with a collaborative mindset where several departments and personnel work together to ensure courses are accessible are far better equipped than those that deflect internally to other entities (Behling, 2017; Linder et al., 2015). Effectively, this approach ensures accessibility can be–and will remain–a top priority at the institutional planning level (Kent, 2016). The use of a collaborative approach can pay dividends. For example, Madaus and colleagues (2021) noted that students who took courses designed through such an effort felt far more supported by their institutions in meeting their needs.

Challenges

Identifying who is responsible for ensuring that online courses are accessible to all learners is only part of institutions’ challenges. Several scholars have identified other challenges, such as the lack of resources available to make online courses and materials accessible–such as having access to Adobe Acrobat Pro to fix inaccessible PDFs or transcription services to caption videos–as well as the time and cost of faculty and staff to fix issues retroactively (Asgari et al., 2022; Linder et al., 2015; Fenlon et al., 2016; Lomellini et al., 2022; Lowenthal et al., 2021). Another challenge is the lack of training faculty and staff have access to when designing online courses (Gladhard, 2010; Guilbaud et al., 2021). Those involved in online course design often lack an understanding of the process, work, or needs of students with disabilities (Kulkarni, 2019; Oswal, 2013). Finally, even further problems arise with the use of external products, such as third-party publisher platforms, that were not designed with accessibility in mind either because of a failure to consider those with needs or simply because the cost was too significant to bear (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006; Stienstra et al., 2007).

While the research base for accessible online learning is growing, there is still little research on faculty experiences in creating accessible online courses and using tools like Ally. We set forth to address this shortcoming by examining what faculty and staff involved with online course design think of tools like Ally. Our inquiry focused on answering the following research questions:

1. What are faculty perceptions and experiences with the Ally accessibility tool?

2. Why do faculty use accessibility tools such as Ally?

3. Who do faculty think is responsible for accessibility on their respective campuses?

Research Method

We used a survey instrument focusing on faculty views and experiences of using Ally, their rationale for using it, and who they felt was ultimately responsible for accessibility on their respective campuses. Responsibility on campus was defined as policy, enforcement, programming, and resources. Creswell & Creswell (2018) suggest the survey method has many benefits, including the potential for gathering data from a large sample size and allowing respondents to share information on their attitudes and opinions on or of a particular facet. Additionally, surveys enable the identification of trends or patterns within the sample that may apply to the larger population.

Our survey was descriptive and exploratory in nature as we wanted to gather and analyze data on the specific facets related to perceptions of the Ally tool. An exploratory survey aims to explore a topic or issue to gain an initial level of understanding with the intent of further or later research and inquiry. Similarly, a descriptive survey often collects quantitative and qualitative data to further explain or reveal information about a topic or issue. In our case, the survey focused on better understanding participants’ perceptions, experiences, and motivation to use Ally (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Sampling

We conveniently sampled our networks because we knew those populations had individuals who used the tool; currently, there is no readily available dataset from which we could pull this type of data. Additionally, Ally is owned and licensed by Anthology, a for-profit firm; thus, no client or user list is available to the public. This approach was fitting given the proliferation of tools like Ally at higher education institutions (Arshad et al., 2020). Participants represented a strong cross-section of two and four-year institutions. After removing incomplete responses, 78 online educators completed the survey, though some chose not to answer all of the survey questions. Participants were somewhat evenly split between institutional type and tenured status (see Table 1); however, 91% worked at public institutions, and 61% reported teaching full-time.

Research Procedures

We designed a survey using Qualtrics with questions focused on faculty views and experiences of using Ally, their rationale for its use, and who they felt was ultimately responsible for accessibility on their respective campuses. The instrument contained quantitative Likert-scale and qualitative open-ended questions. After receiving institutional review board approval, we administered the survey by posting the link to our professional networks (e.g., AECT, ITC, WCET). The results were analyzed in two phases. First, we calculated frequencies and descriptive statistics for the quantitative Likert-style questions. Then, we analyzed the qualitative open-ended question through first—and second-cycle coding (Saldana, 2016). The findings from this approach are discussed below.

Validity and Reliability Measures

We took several steps to improve our research’s validity and reliability as Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommended. First, we ensured alignment between the items on the instrument and the study’s research questions to ensure content, construct, and criterion validity. In doing so, we could ask for responses from participants that would ultimately give us the data we sought to answer our research questions. Next, we revised our questions to verify that they contained concise and clear language free from ambiguity to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation by participants. Finally, we used a standardized administration process through delivery online and used Likert scales as an established rating method to ensure reliability. By using these approaches, we can ensure actionable and credible findings applicable to a broad audience.

Awareness and Knowledge of Ally

We first wanted to understand better participants’ awareness and knowledge of Ally and how faculty and students use it (See Table 2). As we hoped, given our focus on Ally in this study, most participants reported that they knew what Ally is (M = 4.62) and that their institution uses Ally (M = 4.58). Most participants also reported knowing how to use Ally (M = 4.32), but fewer reported knowing how students might use Ally in online courses (M = 3.53).

General Perceptions and Use of Ally

Once we had an idea of their awareness of Ally, we asked questions about their perceptions and use of Ally. First, 66% reported that they find Ally easy to use (M = 3.78) and they are confident in their use of it (M = 3.77). This could be due in part to prior training that they took part in, as about 66% reported that they had attended training on Ally (M = 3.62), yet 61% reported that they could use more training on using it. Most participants still reported that they find Ally easy to use (M = 3.78) and use Ally at least once a semester (M = 3.92). However, participants were more divided on the time it takes to use Ally; 32% reported that they either agree or strongly agree, and 19.5% reported a neutral opinion of neither agreeing nor disagreeing on whether it takes much time to use Ally. However, the majority still reported that they thought Ally was worth the time it takes to use (M = 4.07), with 76% of participants reporting that they agree or strongly agree that Ally improves the student learning experience (M = 4.13) (see Table 3).

We asked participants why they use Ally and their overall perceptions of using it in two open-ended questions. A few themes emerged from their responses. One theme focused on supporting students using accessible content in multiple formats. These participants focused not only on how Ally can check that content is accessible but also on how Ally provides students with content in multiple formats. The following quotes capture some of these sentiments:

• “I use Ally because I have benefited from Ally as a student. It also increases general access to my materials for all students.”

• “I use Ally so all students can benefit from having accessible content; or, all students can choose which alt format they wish to download.”

• “I’m an instructional designer. We use Ally when we are creating and building online courses. We also use Ally to help faculty create their ADA compliant courses.”

Some pointed out that they did not have a choice to use or not use it, as using Ally was a campus requirement. For instance, one participant noted:

• “A few years ago, a lawsuit was brought against our institution. That was the primary push for making courses accessible.”

• “I didn’t have a choice – it was turned on for me at the admin level.”

It is difficult to determine, though, whether, in these cases, the participants are more dissatisfied with top-down edicts from upper administration or whether they have problems with Ally itself.

Other themes about participants’ overall perceptions focused on ease of use and usefulness for all learners, as well as how Ally can be frustrating, time-consuming, and even buggy.

• Easy to Use. Ally was generally very user-friendly and easy to use.

• Useful for all learners. Even those without a disability.

• Frustrating and time-consuming. Many respondents found the tool to be frustrating, difficult, painful, or time-intensive to use.

• Limiting & Buggy: The tool was useful but contained limitations and bugs requiring rectification.

We then wanted to learn more about how they use Ally and whether they think their peers use it. While the majority (80%) of participants reported that they check the accessibility of materials before adding them to their course, almost half (47%) reported that they wait to use Ally to check the accessibility of content in their course. Moreover, 39% reported that they are only satisfied when the Ally gauge is green, indicating that the content is almost perfect or perfect (regarding accessibility).

Responsibility for Accessible Online Courses

Finally, Table 4 displays the results supporting who or which entity on campus participants felt was responsible for creating accessible content in online courses.

A little more than half of the participants reported that they thought faculty members were responsible for ensuring that online courses and materials were accessible, followed by a third who felt a combination of faculty and staff were responsible. Less than fifteen percent felt that other entities, such as distance learning centers, disability resource centers, or IT staff, were responsible for ensuring that online courses were accessible.

The themes from the remaining open-ended questions aligned with the quantitative results. For instance, several noted that faculty were the main driver of accessibility but cautioned against faculty being solely in charge. One participant explained, “This needs to be a faculty-driven initiative” and “Primarily, faculty should be ensuring accessibility of their course, but staff are available to assist and answer questions.” Most noted that a joint effort was necessary from a campus perspective. For example:

Other open-ended responses stated, “It’s a team effort between the faculty and staff” and, “I think as a campus community, we need to adopt an accessibility mindset rather than one or two champions.”