University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Full-Time Distance Education Faculty Perspectives on Web Accessibility in Online Instructional
Content in a California Community College Context: An Evaluation Study
by
Justin A. Gatewood

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Justin A. Gatewood
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To say that I would not be here without my amazing wife, Karen, is the most profound
understatement I can produce. You have always encouraged me to work harder and strive for more
to give us a better future together. From the time you said I should return to school to pursue an
Associate’s degree to where we are now - this dissertation and doctoral degree - and my every
success in life in between, all of them have happened because of your love and support. Thank you
for always inspiring and encouraging and pushing me to be better for our family. Thank you for
standing by me as we have walked through this life together these past 28 years. You are the most
beautiful and insightful person I have ever known. It is my goal to now model your life of
purposeful and loving support and encouragement for me by lifting you up to pursue all that you
dream to accomplish. I love you Karen. I am forever changed for the better because you chose me.
Thank you for loving me.
To my son, Michael, I am and forever will be proud to be your father. Your insightful and
questioning approach to the difficult questions in life inspire me to think more deeply and
thoroughly about the world around me. When you succeed, I rejoice. As you walk into the next
chapters of your life, I pray I have a role on some of those pages, and I am thankful and grateful
to have you in my life. Most of all, I see the strong, hard-working, and insanely talented man you
have become, and your Mother and I can’t wait to see where your creativity and passion will take
you in the future.
In loving memory of my dear friend and mentor, Harry J. Ford, Ed.D. (1927-2008) who
showed me what it meant to be a real man at a time in my life when I needed it most.
To Dr. Charles Speelman, you have been a hand of guidance and a voice of reason
throughout my adult life, and your friendship and advice have helped me more than I can say.
iii

To our close friend and my ‘work mom’ Quynh Tran, thank you for teaming up with Karen
and pushing me to go back to school, and for your support and encouragement to pursue this
doctoral degree. Karen and I appreciate you and thank you for all the walks you have taken with
us, and the kind and thoughtful words you have always freely given. Thank you for being someone
we could hang out with and talk about life and family. Karen and I will always be grateful and
honored to call you a friend.
To our extended family member, Austin Hunt (and your wonderful mother and sister),
thank you for your kind and thoughtful support and encouragement to keep pushing me to get this
dissertation and degree done. When you said you admired me for doing this doctoral program, you
inspired me to work harder to produce a better-quality research study. You are now a member of
our family, and we are grateful and thankful to have you in our lives. From the bottom of our hearts
– thank you.
To my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Helena Seli, for giving me direction, insight and
helping me think more clearly and deeply about how to best approach this process. Thank you for
your encouragement and your unwavering support. Your clarity and attention to detail has caused
me to reflect on what I write with more purpose and commitment, and I am grateful and honored
to have had the good fortune to have met you in this academic journey. Thank you!
To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox,
for pushing me to refine and improve and ask questions about my research, and to make sure I
push myself to produce the best work possible. The way you have challenged me to work through
my goal to discover the best outcomes possible in my research has inspired me to refuse to settle
for the easy answer, and to be willing and ready to question the status quo in my search for
solutions to difficult problems. Thank you both!
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... IXix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice .............................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 2
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 3
Related Literature................................................................................................................ 4
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups..................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Dissertation and Questions ....................................................................... 11
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 12
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 14
Influences on the Problem of Practice .............................................................................. 14
Overview of Web Accessibility ........................................................................................ 15
History of Web Accessibility and High Value of Providing Accessible Content ............ 15
General Lack of Web Accessibility Compliance at Institutions of Higher Education ..... 16
Legal Considerations Regarding Web Accessibility Compliance .................................... 17
Web Accessibility in Education ........................................................................................ 18
National High School and Online Community College Student Graduation Rates ......... 19
College Education as a Pathway to Success for Persons with Disabling Conditions ....... 19
Financial Benefits of Providing Accessible Online Course Content to Students with
Disabling Conditions ........................................................................................................ 20
Best Practices for Web Accessibility in Higher Education .............................................. 21
Organizational Barriers to Change May Impact Accessibility Initiatives ........................ 22
Importance of Training Faculty on Web Accessibility for Online Instructional Content 22
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 24
Distance Education Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ..... 24
Knowledge and Skill-Related Influences.......................................................................... 25
Motivational Influences .................................................................................................... 29
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 33
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Distance Education Faculty’s Knowledge,
Motivation, and the Organizational Context..................................................................... 38
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 45
v

Sampling and Recruitment Narrative................................................................................ 45
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 45
Participating Stakeholders................................................................................................. 45
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale ........................................................................ 46
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................................................. 46
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale....................................................................... 47
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .............................................. 47
Explanation for Choices.................................................................................................... 48
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 54
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................. 58
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 58
Participating Stakeholders................................................................................................. 59
Survey Participants ........................................................................................................... 59
Interview Participants ....................................................................................................... 60
Research Question One: What is the Distance Education Faculty Knowledge and
Motivation Related to Implementing Web Accessibility Standards in Their Courses? ... 61
Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 61
Motivation Results ............................................................................................................ 69
Research Question Two: What Is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture and
Context and Distance Education Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related to
Implementing Web Accessibility Standards in Their Courses? ....................................... 82
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’ Data .................. 105
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN ........ 107
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ......................................... 107
Knowledge Recommendations ....................................................................................... 107
Motivation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 111
Organizational Recommendations .................................................................................. 115
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 119
Implementation and Evaluation Framework................................................................... 120
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ............................................................ 120
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators......................................................................... 121
Level 3: Behavior............................................................................................................ 122
Level 2: Learning ............................................................................................................ 125
Level 1: Reaction ............................................................................................................ 128
Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................................. 128
Data Analysis and Reporting .......................................................................................... 129
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 131
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 131
Opportunities for Future Research .................................................................................. 132
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 133
References ....................................................................................................................... 135
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 141
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 141
vi

Survey Items and Analysis Plan ..................................................................................... 141
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 144
Interview Protocol........................................................................................................... 144
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 149
Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following Training ............................................... 149
Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 150
Evaluation Instrument 90 and 180 Days Following Training......................................... 150

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 11
TABLE 2 Knowledge Influences, Types, and Influence Assessments 29
TABLE 3 Motivation Influences and Assessment Methods 33
TABLE 4 Organizational Influences and Influence Assessments 38
TABLE 5 Interview Participants 62
TABLE 6 Definitions of Accessible Course Content from Interview Participants 64
TABLE 7 Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Assets or Needs 102
TABLE 8 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 105
TABLE 9 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 109
TABLE 10 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 112
TABLE 11 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 118
TABLE 12 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 119
TABLE 13 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 120
TABLE 14 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 123
TABLE 15 Components to Measure Reaction to the Program 124

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Clark and Estes (2008) KMO Conceptual Framework 41
FIGURE 2 Survey Item 1: Knowledge Question 65
FIGURE 3 Survey Item 2: Knowledge Question 66

FIGURE 4 Survey Item 3: Motivation Question 68

FIGURE 5 Survey Item 4: Motivation Question 69

FIGURE 6 Survey Item 5: Motivation Question 70

FIGURE 7 Survey Item 6: Motivation Question 74

FIGURE 8 Survey Item 7: Motivation Question 75

FIGURE 9 Survey Item 8: Organization Question 81

FIGURE 10 Survey Item 9: Organization Question 81

FIGURE 11 Survey Item 10: Organization Question 82

FIGURE 12 Survey Item 11: Organization Question 83

FIGURE 13 Survey Item 12: Organization Question 84

FIGURE 14 Survey Item 13: Organization Question 91

FIGURE 15 Survey Item 14: Organization Question 95

FIGURE 16 Survey Item 15: Organization Question 96

FIGURE 17 Survey Item 16: Organization Question 97

FIGURE 18 Survey Item 17: Organization Question 99

FIGURE 19 Example: Displaying Accessible v. Inaccessible Online Courses Over Time 126

ix

ABSTRACT
Many higher education institutions are not presenting accessible instructional course content in
their online classes. This is an issue of equitable access to education, as it creates a barrier to
academic success for students with disabling conditions (SWDs). The purpose of this mixed
methods study was to understand faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of
organizational culture and priorities regarding the implementation of training and a stated goal of
100% accessibility compliance for all online instructional course content at a medium sized
public institution in central California. The study participants were full-time faculty members
from various academic disciplines who teach online at a two-year public community college
campus. Data was collected via survey, interviews, and document analysis. The results and
findings indicated that the most significant obstacle to achievement of the stated organizational
goal was faculty’s insufficient knowledge of web accessibility remediation methods, and a lack
of support from the organization regarding the amount of time accessibility work takes to
complete. An organizational culture that did not prioritize supporting SWDs as demonstrated by
a lack of establishing explicit policies requiring accessibility in online courses and a lack of
recognizing and rewarding faculty doing the work of providing accessible online course content
was an additional obstacle. This study provides recommendations developed by using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The recommendations identified
are intended to assist the organization in developing a culture that clearly articulates the needs of
SWDs and provides what faculty need to ensure SWDs have every opportunity for academic
success.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This dissertation addressed the problem of a lack of compliance with web accessibility
standards in online instructional course content on websites of higher education institutions. Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are the globally accepted standards published by the
World Wide Web Consortium and used by vendors and developers of software to conform to the
needs of end-users with physical or cognitive impairments. Studies conducted where large
quantities of higher education websites were evaluated (Thompson et al., 2013) by both
automated scanning software (Kimmons, 2017) as well as by human assessment (Iseri et al.,
2017) demonstrated that there is a general lack of compliance on a global scale. Instructional
course content that does not conform to or comply with the published standards makes the
content difficult or impossible to read, access or understand for students who must use assistive
technology. This issue presents a further problem that a lack of compliance constitutes a lack of
equity in providing access to educational materials to site visitors who have physical or cognitive
impairments. To quantify the impact of this issue at Desert Coast College (pseudonym) – the site
where this research study took place – over 1,000 students received disability accommodations
from the institution’s Disabled Students Program and Services department during the 2019-2020
academic year, according to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Datamart
website (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2020). In evaluations conducted
on all higher education institutions in the United States, it was found that well over 90% of basic
Priority 1 issues were out of compliance (Kimmons, 2017). Priority 1 levels of compliance are
defined as malformed page structure, improper use of or formatting of headings, incorrectly
formatted links and lists of items, poorly structured tables or using them for layout purposes,
2

online forms with fields that trap keyboard-only users or fail to provide understandable options
for completion of required elements and a lack of synchronized captioning or text transcription
alternatives of web-based videos in the WCAG 2.0 Level AA Standards (World Wide Web
Consortium, 2008).
Organizational Context and Mission
Desert Coast College (a pseudonym, “DCC”) is a public 2-year institution of higher
education in the California Community College system. The mission of DCC is to provide an
environment where students can grow intellectually and develop their awareness of
environmental and social accountability. DCC strives to provide opportunities for life-long
learning to help students become competitive in the global marketplace. DCC embraces
diversity, actively works to integrate learning between cultural groups, and leverages innovative
teaching methods to provide powerful and successful learning experiences. Finally, DCC
considers the needs of each student by providing a model of citizenship, integrity in academic
pursuits, and contributing to the world in meaningful and lasting ways.
DCC has a student population of over 10,000, with a student to counselor ratio just over
1,000 students to each available counselor as of the Fall 2019 semester. As of 2019-20 reported
data on disability services to the Chancellor’s office, over 1,000 students are receiving support
due to reported and diagnosed disabling conditions (California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2020). Over half of the student body identify as Hispanic, nearly six out of
every ten students are female, and almost seven out of ten students are 24 years old or younger.
As of the most recent available data, the percentage of first-generation college students was not
able to be determined. Finally, nearly one-third of all students attending DCC transfer to a four-
year university or earn a degree or certificate (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
3

Office, 2017). In more recent years, DCC has expanded its distance education course offerings to
both provide more convenient options for students and to respond to changes in technology that
allow for more comprehensive academic interaction. In 2020, the world was impacted by the
global COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of this situation, DCC shifted all instruction online
during the Spring 2020 term to reduce person to person contact and help slow the spread of the
virus. This sudden shift to online learning for all courses significantly raised awareness of the
need for providing accessible online course content to all its students, and subsequently increased
the priority of this work to be done as quickly as possible. In addition, this required change in
instructional methods due to COVID-19 made every full-time faculty member an online
instructor, which was a first time teaching online for many of them.
The full-time distance education faculty stakeholder group is comprised of over 150
members varying in age, ethnicity, academic credentials, and seniority at the college. Nearly
every general education academic discipline is represented, as are many other vocational and
elective subjects. Many members of this stakeholder group are actively involved in college
shared governance activities, and many others attend statewide and national academic events.
Organizational Goal
It is the organization’s goal that by Fall 2021, DCC will provide 100% compliant and
web accessible educational content in all online courses. This goal has been established based
upon a preliminary compliance scan that was performed on all distance education courses
provided through the college’s learning management system in Fall 2017. At that time, only 17%
of online courses were found by the college’s Learning Management System Administrator to be
compliant with published web accessibility standards. The Executive Vice President of
4

Instruction and Student Services verbally announced that he was requiring the college to set a
goal to reach 100% compliance in this area.
Training was initiated in Spring 2018 to provide tools and best practices to faculty
members teaching online courses regarding how to resolve and correct issues with web
accessibility compliance in their online content. The college is in the process of converting all
online course offerings to a new learning management system which has improved support for
faculty to assist in providing accessible and compliant educational content to students. Finally, it
has been determined that follow-up web accessibility scans will be performed annually during
the fall term from 2018 through 2021 to determine progress towards the completion of this goal.
It is anticipated that full compliance may be achieved long before the date established in this
goal, however a four-year target has been set at this time. Progress towards the stated goals will
be revisited as the results of each annual accessibility scan are performed and communicated
with individual and department successes highlighted and recognized.
Related Literature
A lack of compliance with published web accessibility standards represents a significant
barrier for site visitors to websites of healthcare and higher education institutions around the
world. In 2017, Kimmons conducted a study in which they found that most higher education
institutions in the United States did not adhere to basic web accessibility issues. Their major
finding was that over 90% of basic Priority 1 web accessibility issues, were not properly
addressed on the websites of the 3,141 institutions evaluated. As another example that same year,
Iseri, Uyar, and Ilhan (2017) found that higher education institutions of the islands of Cyprus do
not meet accessibility standards. Their study of the website accessibility compliance of all 38
higher education institutions of the Cyprus Islands indicated that all of their respective websites
5

failed one or more of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), 2.0 Level AA
standards, which are similar in most respects to the previously stated Priority 1 issues and
articulate the need for standardization regarding methods used in web content to present page
structure such as headings, ordered and unordered lists, links, images, tables, forms and
interactive elements (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
Web accessibility standards began as a discussion in April 1997 with the circulation of
academic and scientific papers addressing the issue and the need for guidelines to aid in the
development of web content that could be accessed by users of assistive technologies. From the
beginning of the web as a communication medium, its founders kept the topic of accessibility at
the forefront of the discussion and provided insight and perspectives regarding how to make web
content more accessible. The basics of these discussions outlined the need for the proper use of
HTML, which incorporated standards around use of headings, links, tables, online forms, lists of
items and media files (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
Further, they concluded that web accessibility was virtually non-existent among the
hundreds of healthcare agency websites scanned for WCAG accessibility issues in their
geographic region. Based upon the evidence, websites in the healthcare and higher education
industries are major contributors to an overall lack of web accessibility compliance worldwide.
The lack of web accessibility compliance represents a major barrier to site visitors with physical
or cognitive impairments. Further, this problem contributes to a greater degree of difficulty in
accessing instructional materials.
A lack of compliance with published web accessibility standards represents a significant
barrier for students who are attempting to access their online instructional materials. Gornitsky
(2011) found that when education agencies adopt approaches to distance education that do not
6

consider designing instructional content for accessibility, barriers are created for student success
and learning. As a potential solution, Gornitsky discussed alternative options for approaching the
design of instructional distance education content in a way that reduces barriers to access for
students, some of which include videos without captions or text transcripts, page structures that
are confusing or non-linear, tables and online forms that prevent structured and simple
navigation through the content presented, and provided references to multiple additional sources
for research and learning.
Poore-Pariseau (2010) indicated that enrollment in online courses has been and continues
to grow at a higher rate than traditional on-ground courses, which based upon student population
percentages is likely to cause a similar increase in the number of disabled students enrolled in
online courses. According to a report by the National Council on Disability, 8 students with
disabilities represented nearly 10% of all U.S. college students and postsecondary enrollment
grew by 1.2%, while online course enrollment grew by 17%. It is therefore reasonable to infer
that a similar increase would be found specifically among disabled students enrolling in online
courses, thus the need to ensure that the online instructional experience is accessible. Eleven
years later, the National Council on Disability reported that enrollment in college for students
with disabling conditions is now similar to the enrollment rates of non-disabled students,
however there is a disparity in the graduation rates of disabled students, as they are not
demonstrating as high of a level of success (Romano, 2019). Burgstahler (2015) stated that
online courses provide a unique opportunity for social inclusion of students with disabilities if
those courses are designed with accessibility in mind. She pointed out multiple methods and
sources that indicate that the technology exists to provide full social inclusion to students with
disabilities, however, the online courses must be designed considering the needs of disabled
7

students as well as the methods employed by assistive technologies to allow them to access
instructional content. According to research, a lack of accessibility compliance in distance
education instructional content presents a significant barrier to students with disabilities. Further,
this issue creates the potential for significant legal liability for institutions of higher education.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Web accessibility is a critical topic in the realm of online instruction. The primary reason
it is important is that without accessible online course content, students who require the use of
assistive technologies may be unable to perceive or access the necessary information for
knowledge transfer to take place, which subsequently prevents them from achieving academic
success due to barriers to access. This dissertation reviews the literature that highlights the
influences related to the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that are vital for
full-time distance education faculty members to be effective in creating online instructional
content that can be used by their online students with disabling conditions.
The World Health Organization and United Nations have reported that persons with
disabling conditions account for 15% of the global population, making them the world’s largest
minority (United Nations, 2015; World Health Organization, 2011). The United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics has reported that the unemployment rate among persons with disabling
conditions is 81% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019) which means that, in the United States,
the largest global minority group also has the highest rate of unemployment. Within the 19% of
disabled persons who are employed, a majority of them are working either part-time or are at or
below the poverty level (Torpey, 2018) leaving a minority of disabled persons employed at a
level where they can support themselves or their families. Reports indicate that college graduates
have a 60% higher career earning potential and have been shown to have the ability to earn
8

$900,000 more during their careers than high school graduates (Social Security Administration,
2015; Torpey, 2018) with community colleges in California reporting that graduation from one
of their programs doubles the chances of gaining employment compared to those who don’t
graduate high school and doubles their earnings within three years (California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2020). DCC, the organization being studied, is a member of the
California Community College system, which due to its 100% admission rate and low cost per
unit of $46.00 is one of the primary pathways for residents of the state to enter higher education
(California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2017). Thirty seven of the 58 counties in
the state report that 25% or more of all high school graduates are enrolled at a California
Community College (Public Policy Institute of California, 2010). According to a recent study,
online and distance education enrollment for public institutions increased for the fourteenth year
in a row in 2016 (Babson Survey Research Group, 2016) which demonstrates that the demand
for online course content seems to be growing steadily. These findings indicate that a potential
pathway for students with disabling conditions to have an improved opportunity for future
success in their employment and income potential is to attend and graduate from a public
community college. Based upon DCC’s recent finding that 87% of their online courses contained
were not accessible to students with disabling conditions, a lack of accessibility in these courses
poses a potential barrier to future prosperity and independence for these students.
Students, particularly those with disabling conditions, will experience a more usable and
accessible online experience once DCC is able to meet its goal of providing full accessibility to
100% of its online courses, as the course content provided to them will be more accessible, will
perform better on more devices and web browsers, and will be easier to use overall. Feedback
that the institution is already gathering from students in the form of existing online course
9

evaluations will be used by the institution to measure overall satisfaction with the course content
as this goal is pursued, and this feedback may also be used to direct the efforts and focus of
accessibility remediation methods. In addition, completion of this goal will reduce legal liability
and risk to the institution of potential litigation due to inaccessible online course content.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At DCC, several stakeholder groups are directly involved with the implementation and
completion of the organizational performance goal of implementation of accessible online course
content in 100% of distance education courses offered. Full-time distance education faculty are
the primary group involved as the course content to be remediated resides in their classes. Either
through direct remediation of compliance issues, or through coordination with other campus
groups, faculty input and involvement are a key requirement of the institution’s success in this
area. Administrators benefit from the completion of this goal through reduced liability and risk
as well as through improved service to the student constituency group from optimized course
content. Resources including financial and political support provided by administrators directly
contribute to the completion of this goal through their ability to provide funding for professional
development, to provide political support through communicating that this initiative is a priority
to the institution and without these, any effort to resolve and correct existing accessibility
compliance issues is likely to fall short of the 100% compliance goal. Finally, full-time distance
education faculty members are directly involved in the completion of this goal as their online
instructional course content is made to be easier to use for their students, thereby increasing the
likelihood of improved academic outcomes in their online courses. These faculty are able to
directly contribute to the success of this goal through their increased understanding of the
10

benefits of creating accessible online course content, and through professional development gain
an improved ability to develop and implement accessible instructional content of their own.
Table 1

Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Create exceptional and accessible lifelong learning opportunities that afford students within our
expanding communities the attainment of knowledge and skills necessary for success in the
global economy.
Organizational Performance Goal
By Fall 2021, 100% of Desert Valley College's (pseudonym) online educational content will be
compliant with published web accessibility standards.
Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2021, 100% of full-time distance education faculty will implement web accessibility
standards in their courses.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although there is only one stakeholder group of focus for this study, the full-time
distance education faculty, a full and complete analysis of this issue would ideally include and
involve all stakeholder groups at the organization. Full-time distance education faculty members
were chosen as they have the most immediate and direct impact on the ability of the organization
to achieve its goal of 100% accessibility compliance in all online courses. As these faculty
design the curriculum for all online courses that are offered by the institution, their involvement
in the process of improving accessibility compliance is critical. Further, these faculty understand
the specific requirements of each assignment, what media is or is not provided in support of each
assignment, and what accommodations may or may not be able to be made depending upon the
course content they have developed. Initial scans of all online course content in Fall 2017
11

demonstrated that 83% of online courses were not compliant with published web accessibility
standards. Without the direct and full involvement of this stakeholder group, the institution will
remain vulnerable to legal liability, students with disabling conditions will either be fully or
partially prevented from accessing necessary course content, and the potential for negative
academic outcomes such as reduced persistence in class attendance, lower assessment scores,
lower retention, reduced degree and certificate achievement and a lower rate of transfer to higher
level academic programs may persist (Romano, 2019).
Purpose of the Dissertation and Questions
The purpose of this dissertation was to evaluate the degree to which the organization is
meeting its goal of 100% compliance with published web accessibility standards of DCC online
educational content by Fall 2021. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all
stakeholders, the group focused on in this analysis was all full-time distance education faculty.
The analysis focused on faculty knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to
implementing web accessibility standards in online content and through that, supporting the
organizational compliance goals.
The following questions guided the study:
1. What is the distance education faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing
web accessibility standards in their courses?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and distance faculty
knowledge and motivation related to implementing web accessibility standards in their
courses?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to faculty implementing web
12

accessibility standards in their courses and ultimately, all online educational content
being compliant with published web accessibility standards?
Methodological Framework
This study was conducted using a mixed method approach, guided by a modified version
of Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences conceptual
framework. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed from the
perspective of the stakeholder group of focus defined above. Initially, a quantitative survey was
distributed to the entire stakeholder population. At the end of the survey was an invitation for
volunteers to participate in one-on-one interviews, which were conducted entirely online using
the Zoom video-teleconferencing platform to minimize direct contact due to the global COVID-
19 pandemic. From those who responded to the request for volunteers at the end of the survey,
both a convenience sample and a partial random sample was conducted to invite 10 individuals
to one-on-one interviews.
Definitions
World Wide Web Consortium (abbreviated: W3C): “The World Wide Web Consortium is
an international community that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the
Web.” (World-Wide Web Consortium, 2008)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (abbreviated: WCAG): “The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 cover a wide range of recommendations for making Web
content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider
range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss,
learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities,
13

photosensitivity, and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also often make
your Web content more usable to users in general.” (World-Wide Web Consortium, 2008)
Web Accessibility Standards: Throughout this study the term web accessibility standards
is referenced often. Generally, this refers to methods of content construction that include
addressing potential accessibility issues that exist in the structure of a web page, including
headings, links, lists of items, and paragraphs. Additionally, this also covers appropriate use of
alternative text to describe images (photos and/or graphics), media (such as video and audio
files) with captions or text alternatives, forms that collect data and allow the user to submit
information and properly structured tables. (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This first chapter provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about web accessibility
noncompliance. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the framework for the
project were introduced. In the second chapter, a review of the relevant literature was provided
that defines how the problem has grown over time and continues to be an issue. In the third
chapter the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were explored, and the
methodology used, and research questions were provided. In the fourth chapter an analysis of the
data collected was shown, and in the fifth and final chapter, potential solutions to the problem of
practice were presented.

14

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Influences on the Problem of Practice
The problem of practice in this dissertation is the level of accessibility in online distance
education courses at higher education institutions. In particular, the lack of compliance with
published web accessibility standards, and the negative effects on student learning, academic
engagement, future employment and earning potential, and potential legal liability that result
from this problem not being resolved. A review of the literature examined existing research
findings as they related to the stated problem, and the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework was presented to explore the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences for
addressing the problem and completing the stated stakeholder performance goal of 100% of full-
time distance education faculty implementing web accessibility in their distance education
courses by Spring 2021.
This dissertation reviewed and reflected on the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that impact the problem of practice as it relates to the stakeholder group of focus.
How those influences affect the ability of the institution to comply with web accessibility
standards in all its online courses was also examined. In addition, root causes of the discovered
influences were reviewed.
This literature review analyzed the foundational causes of gaps of a higher education
institution’s ability to provide accessible online course content to students with disabling
conditions. To start, the global Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) from the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is discussed along with research regarding general web
accessibility compliance in higher education. Following is a comparison of the lifetime earning
potential of high school graduates against that of college graduates according to the United States
15

Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a correlation between the national unemployment rates of persons
with disabling conditions as compared to able-bodied adults of working age when correlated
show a gap of greater than 80% between the two groups. Once these areas have been presented,
the review looks to the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework whereby
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on faculty members’ capacity to
implement accessible online instruction is examined.
Overview of Web Accessibility
From the early years of the World Wide Web accessibility has been an item of serious
consideration. Although this discussion has been one of the items at the forefront of web content
development and complying with published standards, research studies have shown that most
organizations with an online presence do not provide an accessible experience for their varied
constituents (Burgstahler, 2015; Burke et al., 2016; Cifuentes et al., 2016; Gornitsky, 2011;
Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken & Djenno, 2017; Poore-Pariseau, 2010; Thompson et al., 2013).
Lack of accessible web content is particularly lacking on websites of institutions of higher
education. The lack of compliance demonstrated by educational organizations creates barriers to
access for students with disabling conditions, while the increasing litigiousness of the legal
environment around this issue creates greater risk for institutions who do not address the
problem.
History of Web Accessibility and High Value of Providing Accessible Content
Web accessibility has been an active initiative on the global internet for nearly 23 years,
with standards and methods for making online content accessible a major topic of discussion
(World Wide Web Consortium, 2009). When web accessibility guidelines are followed, content
is more accessible to a wider range of persons with disabling conditions. Additionally, accessible
16

content is easier to use for all internet users. Finally, accessible content works better on all
devices, browsers, and platforms (Usability.gov, 2015). On the website of the World Wide Web
Consortium’s history of the Web Accessibility Initiative, the early aspects of these discussions
are recorded (W3C, 2020). From the beginning of the invention of the world wide web in the
early 1990s, attention has been given by its inventors to make the web-based content useful,
usable and accessible to anyone (CERN, 2020). Discussions regarding how to make web pages
and content work more consistently for all internet users have taken place across the globe since
1997, with specific meetings focused on addressing accessibility needs in education beginning in
March 1999 (World Wide Web Consortium, 2009).
General Lack of Web Accessibility Compliance at Institutions of Higher Education
Despite the long history and wealth of material available to assist higher education
institutions to make online instructional content accessible to their students with disabling
conditions, most institutions find themselves far from providing an equitable or usable online
learning experience. Research studies conducted have determined that automated scanning of
large quantities of higher education websites showed a general lack of web accessibility
(Kimmons, 2017; Iseri et al., 2017). Further, when U.S. higher education institutions were
evaluated specifically, well over 90% of their websites were not accessible at a basic level
(Kimmons, 2017). Ultimately, the research finding of their study was that thousands of
institutions fail to comply with the published web accessibility standards, which demonstrated
that the problem is massive in scale. Additionally, research has shown that organizations have a
tendency to resist incorporating proposed positive change, which is defined in the literature as
organizational resistance (Agocs, 1997) or they refrain from dialogue and meaningful discussion
regarding how to engage in the change process, which is articulated in the available research as
17

organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). However, web accessibility is not just a
problem for institutions of higher education in the United States. Researchers conducted a
manual human-based assessment of the websites of all 38 higher education institutions on the
islands of Cyprus. Their research found that all the institutions in Cyprus failed to comply with
the published standards, which indicates that a general lack of web accessibility compliance may
exist for higher education across the globe (Iseri et al., 2017).
Higher education institutions have access to the information they need to achieve a higher
level of compliance with published web accessibility standards; however, trends have not yet
demonstrated a significant shift in a positive direction. When researchers have evaluated the web
accessibility of large groups of higher education institutions’ websites, the results have been
discouraging. Even though an enormous amount of valuable and helpful information exists to
assist institutions in complying with web accessibility standards, few have used that information
to implement significant positive change in their online content. Although some institutions have
been able to achieve benefits for their students with disabling conditions, most of the online
content remains inaccessible and difficult if not nearly impossible for disabled students to use
(Thompson et al., 2013).
Legal Considerations Regarding Web Accessibility Compliance
In addition to continued lack of compliance with published web accessibility standards
creating barriers to access for students with disabling conditions, it also poses legal liability for
institutions. Even though a federal legal mandate does not yet exist requiring web accessibility,
policy requirements are either in place or are being adopted in many states across the country
(Burke et al., 2016; Cifuentes et al., 2016). These requirements typically apply for public
agencies in the states where they have been adopted. Affected state public agencies include K-12
18

organizations as well as state colleges and universities (Burke et al., 2016). Generally, the legal
environment regarding web accessibility has been changing, and not in favor of non-compliant
organizations. Higher education institutions find themselves in litigation or dealing with
complaints from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) for failing to demonstrate an ability to provide
accessible online instructional content in their courses. In one instance, the researchers noted that
a university had been forced into a settlement agreement with the National Federation of the
Blind in 2010 because the institution had begun using an e-Reader that was not accessible to
students with visual impairments (Cifuentes et al., 2016).
Web Accessibility in Education
Providing accessible online educational content that complies with Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008) is a legal responsibility
of higher education institutions around the country. Many educational researchers in higher
education have proposed methods for remediating accessibility issues found in online course
content and suggested potential solutions for helping higher education institutions accomplish
the task of ensuring their distance education courses are not creating a barrier to entry for
students with disabling conditions (Burgstahler, 2015; Burke et al., 2016; Cifuentes et al., 2016;
Gornitsky, 2011; Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken & Djenno, 2017; Poore-Pariseau, 2010). Despite
these efforts, inaccessible online course content is more often the standard (Thompson et al.,
2013). There is a tremendous need for faculty members to learn and apply the skills necessary to
address these accessibility concerns in the distance education courses they teach, as inaccessible
instruction does not provide equitable access to learning for students with disabilities. In
addition, a lack of accessible online course content forms a barrier to access which creates an
environment that could negatively impact a disabled student’s learning experience and cause
19

multiple issues including erecting a barrier to learning which results in making learning less
effective for the affected students (Burgstahler, 2015).
National High School and Online Community College Student Graduation Rates
According to 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate data from the National Center for
Education Statistics (2020), 67% of public high school students with disabilities served under the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) graduated from high school in school year 2017-18
compared to 85% for students without reported disabling conditions (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2020). Graduating from high school is a standard requirement for admission
to a college or university, where the earning of a degree through college graduation provides
considerable additional opportunity for future success for these students (Torpey, 2018).
Regarding online courses and the associated degree completion rates for community college
students, a research study was conducted using a national data set on the assumption that
students who participate in online education graduate at lower rates than students who do not.
Contrary to the expectations of the researchers, they found that not only did online learning not
inhibit degree completion, rather online community college students completed their degree
programs at higher rates than classroom-only students (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). Based upon
these data, although work need to be done to improve the high school graduation rates of
students with disabling conditions, it seems clear that for those who do, taking an online degree
program from a community college potentially provides a better path to academic success.
College Education as a Pathway to Success for Persons with Disabling Conditions
Graduating from college provides significant benefits for all students and greatly
improves the potential for higher income earning potential in future financial outcomes.
Graduation from college on average provides a graduate with a nearly 60% higher income
20

earning potential over their lifetime. College graduates experience much lower rates of
unemployment than high school graduates, and financial stability is greatly improved for college
graduates as compared to high school graduates (Torpey, 2018). A student who graduates from
college has a much higher income earning potential and lower chance for unemployment over
the course of their lifetime compared to one who does not (Torpey, 2018), which shows that the
attainment of a college degree is a worthwhile and valuable pursuit and provides a pathway to
better financial outcomes.
Financial Benefits of Providing Accessible Online Course Content to Students with
Disabling Conditions
Online courses in higher education provide a pathway for persons with disabling
conditions to achieve the goal of graduating with a college degree. According to the research,
online community college students experience higher graduation rates then their on-campus
counterparts (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014), which indicates that if those online courses provide
accessible learning experiences to students with disabling conditions, a pathway to college
graduation and degree attainment for these students can lead through the community college
system. Earning a college degree provides the average working-age adult in the United States a
lifetime earning potential of nearly double that of a person who only graduates from high school
(Torpey, 2018). Moreover, persons with disabling conditions in the United States have an
employment-to-population ratio of 19.1% (over 80% unemployment), whereas the overall
unemployment of the general public was 3.6%, with Asians at 2.2%, Hispanics at 4.2% and
Blacks at 6.7% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). This disparity demonstrates that there is
a need among the disabled community for equitable access to learning opportunities to provide a
pathway to financial stability and potential future prosperity for themselves and their families.
21

Within this group of working disabled persons, they are less likely to have graduated from
college or hold a degree, and it is far more likely that members of this demographic are working
on a part-time basis when they are able to find a job. This demonstrates a tremendous disparity
between able-bodied and disabled persons when it comes to the ability to become and remain
gainfully employed. According to a 2015 study by the Social Security Administration, a college
graduate with a bachelor’s degree is likely to earn $900,000 more in their lifetime than a high
school graduate. These data highlight the value of a college degree to persons with disabling
conditions, however, if the available online courses into which they enroll are not accessible, this
pathway is potentially closed to them.
According to research done by the World Health Organization (World Health
Organization, 2011), persons with disabling conditions make up more than 15% of the global
population, making them the world’s largest minority group (United Nations, 2015). The report
further articulates that everyone will eventually become a member of this minority in their
lifetime due to illness, injury, or the effects of the aging process.
Best Practices for Web Accessibility in Higher Education
To improve the learning experience for their students with disabling conditions, many
researchers (Gornitsky, 2011; Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken & Djenno, 2017; Poore-Pariseau,
2010, Thompson et al., 2013) have begun looking into methods for bringing faculty members to
a level of understanding and familiarity with assessing and remediating online course materials.
Educational organizations must take issues with accessible online course content seriously.
Organizations need to ensure that the proper use of captions and text transcripts for audio and
video media are incorporated into their distance education programs, as well as correctly
structuring course documents such as syllabi, course outlines, presentations and web pages in
22

learning management systems to improve the experience of their online students with disabling
conditions when they are using assistive technology such as screen readers (Gornitsky, 2011;
Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken & Djenno, 2017; Poore-Pariseau, 2010, Thompson et al., 2013).
Additional considerations include making sure content is accessible when viewed in high
contrast or significantly enlarged for low-vision students, and providing text alternatives and
verbal descriptions of visual elements such as graphics, photographs or artwork presented in
course content or in media elements.
Organizational Barriers to Change May Impact Accessibility Initiatives
Institutions that begin to incorporate these changes into their processes may experience
two phenomena known as organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and organizational
resistance (Agocs, 1997). Organizational silence is described as a cultural condition that
develops within any organization undergoing change where employees purposefully fail to
engage or communicate their disagreement. Typically, this is due to a concern that they will
either experience some form of retaliation, or because they do not believe that speaking up will
make any difference in their situation (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Organizational resistance is
less passive and more assertive an activity of employees where they directly engage in their
attempts to prevent the proposed or implemented change from taking place (Agocs, 1997).
Importance of Training Faculty on Web Accessibility for Online Instructional Content
Faculty who understand how to correctly create accessible content or fix online course
content accessibility issues remove barriers to learning for their students (Gornitsky, 2011).
Providing resources, information and learning opportunities to distance education faculty
members has the potential to positively transform online learning for disabled students
(Gornitsky, 2011). For example, most accessibility issues with web content are related to
23

structural mistakes, such as not using prescribed heading levels, misuse of ordered and unordered
lists, failing to include alternative text to explain graphics and photographs, and text transcripts
or captions for audio or video files that are provided. Technology tools and aids are available that
can help in this process for faculty. Many of these accessibility tools are freely available online
or are already incorporated into the software faculty regularly use to prepare course materials.
Accessible online instruction is better overall online instruction for all students. Improved
online instruction benefits not just disabled students, but the institutional outcomes as well.
Accessibility creates an inclusive and equitable learning experience when incorporated into
online courses (Poore-Pariseau, 2010). Research (Gornitsky, 2011; Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken
& Djenno, 2017; Poore-Pariseau, 2010) demonstrates that implementing web accessibility in
online courses is not only challenging but is not happening to the degree necessary to create an
equitable learning experience for all students. Faculty are the individuals closest to both the
student and the course content. This proximity and direct involvement with both make them the
ideal group to address regarding real solutions in implementing rapid, lasting, and positive
change in online instructional web accessibility. Student learning outcomes are a direct function
of each faculty member, so they are ideally placed to get the most benefit from learning how to
assess and remediate accessibility issues in online course content (Lewthwaite, 2014).
In their 2017 study, Mulliken and Djenno found that a web accessibility trained faculty
member can more directly and immediately correct web accessibility issues in their course
content because they are most likely to know the course material better than anyone else.
Perspectives on web accessibility from faculty researchers show that the issue is an instructional
content problem, and therefore falls to faculty to fix. For faculty to be in the best position to be
24

effective, they need to be provided clear, unambiguous, and simple to follow instructional
materials on how to assess, identify and correct web accessibility issues in their course materials.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’
Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational (KMO) gap
analysis framework analyzes gaps in organizational and its stakeholders’ performance that are
potentially contributing to a problem of practice. The specific gaps addressed by the framework
are knowledge, motivation and organizational influences upon individuals and groups within the
institution. Through research and data collection, these gaps can be identified, potentially leading
to a greater understanding of what the organization might be able to do to not only address the
discovered issues in these three areas, but to possibly create an action plan to begin work towards
accomplishing the goals of the organization and the stakeholder group of focus of the study. The
framework will be adapted to an exploratory study in order to focus on the capacity of faculty to
implement web accessibility in their online course content.
Distance Education Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Accessibility is a critical topic in the realm of online instruction. The primary reason it is
important is that without accessible online course content, students who require the use of
assistive technologies may be unable to perceive or access the necessary information for
knowledge transfer to take place, which subsequently prevents them from achieving academic
success by erecting a barrier to access (Burgstahler, 2015). The following sections review the
literature that highlights the influences related to the knowledge, motivation and organizational
cultural models and settings that are needed for full-time distance education faculty members to
be effective in creating online instructional content that can be used by their online students with
25

disabling conditions. Each section will be presented separately starting with knowledge and skill-
related influences, then motivation, and finally organizational influences contributing the any
identified gaps in DCC’s ability to achieve its stated goals.
Knowledge and Skill-Related Influences
To be able to solve problems, it is important to understand whether the level of required
skills have been acquired for addressing the problem. According to Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001), knowledge is categorized into several types such as factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive. Factual knowledge is the awareness of specific elements or details of a topic,
including terminology and definitions. Conceptual knowledge is understanding the complexities
of a topic including the principles and theories involved; procedural knowledge is the ability to
implement the specific steps necessary to understand what is needed to complete any identified
tasks to begin to remediate a problem (Krathwohl, 2002). Finally, metacognition is the
individuals’ ability to recognize and understand what is needed to be adjusted to achieve the
desired outcome (Baker, 2006).
Faculty Need to Understand the Impact of Published Web Accessibility Standards on Their
Course Content and Learning Outcomes
To implement accessibility in their online courses, full-time distance education faculty
need to understand and have familiarity with the published standards and the legal liability
involved with a lack of compliance. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has published
web content accessibility guidelines in a publicly available online format which is available for
review and application in the production of online content (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
These guidelines include the proper use of page structure, appropriate formatting of headings,
links, lists, forms, and tables. Additionally, the guidelines require that text alternatives to media
26

such as video and audio files are provided for site visitors. These guidelines have become the
standard across the globe and have been used by the courts to assess whether organizations are
meeting the standards in development of web content, and additionally, whether the lack thereof
rises to the level of legal liability. Without the knowledge of the published web accessibility
standards, faculty cannot produce online content that meets required compliance levels. This
would likely result in the production of instructional online materials that unintentionally create
barriers to access for students with disabling conditions such as video content without a text
equivalent for hearing impaired students or images without descriptions for visually impaired
students. These types of compliance issues are not only absent of consideration for students with
these limitations but are also potentially creating legal liability for their educational institutions
(Burke et al., 2016). In order to optimally engage in the process of implementing accessible web
content in online courses, distance education faculty need to understand how accessible web
content potentially positively and negatively affects their students, particularly those with
disabling conditions that require assistive technologies to help them understand and access web
content. According to research, without accessible course content students are prevented from
being able to understand or engage in lessons, complete online assessments and exams,
communicate effectively with their instructors or fellow students and generally are restricted
from the ability to be successful in their online academic work entirely (Fichten et al., 2009). The
converse is also true, that when students have the ability to easily and readily engage with all
intended instructional content in their online course without a lack of accessibility preventing
them from understanding what is presented, their ability to succeed is limited only to their
personal choice as to whether or not to do the work necessary to achieve a positive outcome,
rather than a barrier to access making that decision for them (Fichten et al., 2009).
27

Faculty Need to Know How to Assess and Remediate Web Accessibility Issues
In order to implement accessibility standards, distance education faculty need to be able
to apply acquired factual knowledge regarding what content needs to be assessed, and procedural
knowledge of the steps necessary to assess their course content for web accessibility as identified
in the research (Cifuentes et al., 2016). Methods of remediation for web accessibility issues
require an understanding of how to assess existing online instructional content for issues
(Burgstahler, 2015). This assessment cannot be made without a thorough understanding of the
fundamentals of the published web accessibility standards (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
This study explored the degree to which, if any, faculty have the necessary procedural
knowledge to effectively evaluate and examine existing online course content for accessibility
compliance. This knowledge is also a requirement for faculty to be able to contribute to solving
the problem of inaccessible online instructional content (Burgstahler, 2015; Cifuentes et al.,
2016). Full-time distance education faculty are the most closely connected to the course material
at an institution, as it is faculty who write and deliver the curriculum to students. This proximity
to and knowledge of the details of each lesson, learning objective and desired student
competencies at the completion of each course seem to position faculty to be in the most
advantageous position to address web accessibility issues in their courses more efficiently than
any other stakeholder group without negatively impacting the intended knowledge transfer they
have created for their students. For this reason, distance education faculty need to know how to
address web accessibility issues and how to correct them using the tools available to them. The
steps to addressing web accessibility issues are consistent and procedural in their
implementation, and therefore can be followed by distance education faculty members using
provided instructional materials (Cifuentes et al., 2016). Although there are many accessibility
28

rules that can be applied if a comprehensive approach to providing an equitable online learning
experience to students with disabling conditions is desired, a majority of the most common
issues can be resolved by faculty members who demonstrate the capacity to incorporate a step by
step process of accessibility assessment and remediation into their content creation process. The
procedural knowledge needed to assess and remediate accessibility issues in online course
materials is a matter of following a set of prescribed steps and adhering to a formulaic process to
ensure that the content provided does not constitute a barrier for students to learn (Burgstahler,
2015; Krathwohl, 2002). Acquisition of the procedural knowledge regarding learning how to use
these tools to assess and correct content accessibility issues or to initially create instructional
content without compliance problems is required (Poore-Pariseau, 2010). Whether the tool is a
setting or modification in an online learning management system, a process in a desktop software
application such as Microsoft Word, PowerPoint or Adobe Acrobat, or typing a text file as a
transcript of an audio or video file, accessibility can be achieved for much of the online course
content without using anything that is unfamiliar to the faculty member.
Table 2 presents the knowledge influences that may be contributing to the difficulty Desert Coast
College (DCC) is having in achieving its stated goal of 100% compliance to published web
accessibility standards in providing accessible instructional web content in all its distance
education courses.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Influence Assessments
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
29

Faculty need to
understand the impact
of published web
accessibility standards
on their course content
and learning outcomes.
Factual / Conceptual
Multiple Choice items that assess existing
knowledge of web accessibility standards and
the potential legal liability if standards are not
met. Interview with qualitative questions
discussing the impact of several major assistive
technologies (and the lack thereof) used by
disabled students to access online content.

Faculty need to know
how to assess and
remediate web
accessibility issues.

Procedural
Interview with qualitative questions focusing
on steps to assess course content for
accessibility and discussion of available
accessibility remediation methods. Artifacts
were also to be reviewed that were pulled from
the Learning Management System to assess
level of accessibility compliance in existing
online courses.

Motivational Influences
Motivation is that which drives an individual to work toward the completion of a goal,
the attainment of a skill or the decision to engage in any activity (Eccles, 2006). Factors relevant
to motivation are how a person perceives the value of any activity and if they believe the pursuit
to be worthwhile (Eccles, 2006; Bandura, 2000). Motivation is important because the level of
motivation a person has compared to what is needed to accomplish the task may have a
significant gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section will discuss and review the literature that
evaluates the values, perceptions and beliefs that exist regarding faculty motivation to engage in
the activity of producing accessible online instructional content. Attainment value, intrinsic
value, cost associated with the time, energy and learning process, and self-efficacy will be
reviewed (Eccles, 2006; Bandura, 2000) as they relate to the motivation of full-time distance
education faculty members with published web accessibility standards (World Wide Web
Consortium, 2008) in their online courses.

30

Faculty Need to See Value in and Believe That Accessible Online Instructional Course
Content Provides Better Quality Instruction to Students with Disabling Conditions
To be successful with implementing accessible course material, faculty need to
understand the personal and professional value of knowing the methods for providing accessible
online instructional content to students with disabling conditions. Attainment value is part of the
expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006) that addresses whether a person believes that an activity
will provide them with a sense of personal value once attained. The degree to which full-time
distance education faculty value the idea of providing students with an accessible learning
experience in their online courses is indirectly connected to whether or not faculty believe it is
worthwhile for them to provide assistance to the institution in meeting the legal requirements
regarding web accessibility. Institutions face a potentially tremendous legal liability issue as they
recognize that they must have the help of their distance education faculty members to accomplish
the goal of web accessibility compliance (Burke et al., 2016). Additionally, faculty members
determine the level of connectedness and engagement experienced by their students as they work
through the course material, and these factors directly contribute to the success of students and
can have a long-lasting impact on their ability to participate in learning environments, and even
in the greater world outside of school (Repetto et al., 2010). Attainment value is part of
expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006) which speaks to whether a person believes that the
pursuit of the ability to demonstrate competency in a subject area is worthwhile to pursue. Full-
time distance education faculty need to believe that producing accessible online content is
fundamentally equitable and is a superior method of providing online instruction. Additionally,
faculty need to believe that doing this work not only provides equitable access to students with
disabling conditions, but also produces better quality instructional content for all online students,
31

and connects with the purpose of why students need faculty to deliver instruction using methods
and approaches that give equal opportunity to help all of them learn (Poore-Pariseau, 2010).
Faculty need to believe that all students should be provided with an accessible online learning
experience, as the level of ability of a student to access and interact with course content directly
affects their learning and can determine success or failure in regards to their completion rates and
feelings of connection with the faculty members and their fellow students (Lewthwaite, 2014;
Repetto et al., 2010).
Faculty Need to Believe the Costs Associated with Learning the Skills Necessary to Produce
Accessible Online Instructional Content are Worth the Result of an Improved Online
Learning Experience for All of Their Students
In order to be successful with implementing effectively accessible course material,
faculty need to believe that the cost associated with learning the skills necessary to produce
accessible online instructional content are worth the result of an improved online learning
experience for all their students (Burgstahler, 2015). The cost to a person to learn something new
involves a variety of different factors. Those factors include the time it takes to learn a task, the
energy necessary to be expended to accomplish the learning of a task, and the actual learning
process itself. These ideas are all part of the expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006). According
to Mulliken and Djenno (2017), faculty expressed concern about the amount of learning
necessary for them to be capable of successfully completing the prescribed web accessibility
remediation tasks in their online course content, and this stated concern indicates a gap in
knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008) relative to the implementation of accessible
online instructional content.
32

Faculty Need to Feel Confident in Their Ability to Implement Accessible Online Instructional
Content for Students with Disabling Conditions
Self-efficacy is the level of confidence a person has in their ability to complete a task or
to demonstrate competency in a subject area (Bandura, 2000). For faculty to engage in the
process of implementing web accessible online course content, they need to believe that they can
learn and implement the methods necessary to create accessible online instructional content for
students with disabling conditions. Bandura (2000) defined this concept in the literature, and the
assessment of self-efficacy is a necessary part of any gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) or
capacity analysis. Faculty need to believe they can learn web accessibility assessment and
implement the necessary remediation steps to resolve web accessibility issues in their online
course content (Burgstahler, 2015; Cifuentes et al., 2016; Repetto et al., 2010). Research has
shown that faculty find learning new technology approaches to instruction have a learning curve
that is steep and many of them attribute the difficulty in acquiring this knowledge to a lack of
organizational professional development and technical support (Ward & Selvester, 2012). Table
3 presents the assumed influences on faculty motivation that are affecting their ability to
accomplish the goal of 100% compliance with implemented web accessibility in online
instructional course content.
Table 3
Motivation Influences and Assessment Methods
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attainment Value - Faculty need
to see value in and believe that
accessible online instructional
course content provides better
quality instruction to students
with disabling conditions.
Qualitative (Likert 1-5 scale – Strongly Disagree –
Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly Agree) questions
to ask faculty:
1. Providing accessible online instruction to students
is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit.
33

Organizational Influences
The role of the organization in the knowledge, motivation and organizational gap analysis
and conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) is important to the completion of stated goals
and outcomes. In 2001, Gallimore and Goldenberg discussed the concepts of cultural models and
cultural settings, explaining how a cultural model is a series of agreed upon and well understood
values, ideals and rules that define acceptable methods of interaction between persons in an
organization. These cultural models can oftentimes seem completely invisible due to how
familiar they are to persons in the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Schein (2017)
provided additional insight into the concept of the culture of an organization in that he describes
2. Learning the methods to create accessible online
educational content is valuable to help each
student’s academic career.

Qualitative (open-ended interview question):
1. Explain in your own words the value to produce
accessible online educational content.
Cost (Time, Energy, Learning) –
Faculty need to believe the costs
associated with learning the
skills necessary to produce
accessible online instructional
content are worth the result of an
improved online learning
experience for all of their
students.
Qualitative (Likert 1-5 scale – Strongly Disagree –
Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly Agree) questions:
1. The time, energy and effort involved with learning
how to create accessible online educational
content is worth the potential outcomes for
students.

Qualitative (open-ended interview question):
1. Explain how learning accessibility methods for
producing online instructional content is or is not
worth the time, energy and effort involved.
Self-Efficacy – Faculty need to
feel confident in their ability to
implement accessible online
instructional content for students
with disabling conditions.
Qualitative (Likert 1-5 scale – Strongly Disagree –
Disagree – Neutral – Agree – Strongly Agree) questions:
1. I feel confident in my ability to create accessible
online instruction for students with disabling
conditions.
Qualitative (open-ended interview question):
2. Tell me how you feel about your ability to learn
and implement the methods necessary to create
accessible online instructional content.
34

the idea as the climate of regular behaviors that can be observed when individuals within that
organization interact with one another. Further, cultural settings are the specifics of how the
policies and procedures define what is provided to and what is required from individual
employees within an organization, such as professional development funding, team structures
and work assignments, as well as mandated processes and methods of interaction between
departments. Within Desert Coast College (DCC), several potential organizational influences
exist in the form of cultural models and cultural settings.
The Organization Needs to Have Policies and Procedures that Require Assessment and
Remediation of Web Accessibility for Online Instructional Content
In 2017, Kimmons conducted a study of higher education institutions in the United States
and they found that there were little to no indicators of formal policies or procedures in place
when it came to the topic of web accessibility in distance education courses. In nearly every
institution they studied that was without a formal web accessibility policy, they found a lack of
compliance with published web accessibility standards (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
According to the research, the typical cultural model is one of acceptance of the current lack of
accessibility. This is only supported by the cultural setting at DCC, where there are no formal
web accessibility policies or procedures defined for online courses. This study will explore the
potential effect this lack of organizational support has on the faculty members’ ability to
accomplish the goal of 100% compliance in providing accessible course content to students.
The Organization Needs to Provide Resources for Professional Development in Web
Accessibility Skills for all Full-Time Distance Education Faculty Members
Burgstahler studied the practices of online learning in institutions of higher education and
found that resources for faculty professional development in the area of web accessibility were
35

basically non-existent. She further articulated how this lack of investment in the learning needed
by distance education faculty members directly contributes to a lack of equitable online learning
opportunities for students with disabling conditions. This study seeks to understand and explore
the degree to which training in web accessibility assessment and remediation is perceived as
effective and necessary by full-time distance education faculty members (Burgstahler, 2015;
Mulliken & Djenno, 2017; Lewthwaite, 2014).
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Open Communication and Collaboration
Regarding Topics of Web Accessibility in Online Instruction, and Organizational Silence and
Resistance Needs to be Addressed and Remedied
Research shows that it is not uncommon for employees in an organization to refrain from
contributing their opinions or perspectives on issues because they feel that their input will be
dismissed as inaccurate. Additionally, employees may keep quiet if they believe their input will
bring retaliation from their supervisors. This condition is called organizational silence, and a
culture of open communication and a collaborative approach from leadership can help prevent
this from occurring (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In other circumstances employees may solicit
political assistance from within their stakeholder group or with others who share their
disagreement without sharing this concern publicly. When this takes place, it is known as
organizational resistance (Agocs, 1997). Either one of these issues can prevent or delay the
progress of change efforts if not addressed appropriately.
The Organization Needs a Culture of Making Supporting the Needs of Students with
Disabling Conditions a Priority
Clark and Estes (2008) researched how organizations should align the use of resources to
communicate to its various stakeholders that an identified need is a priority. In the case of
36

addressing the needs of students with disabling conditions, the organization can ensure that this
support is appropriately prioritized by allocating personnel, time, equipment, and money to the
task. To maintain a level of focus on ensuring these needs remain a priority, the organization can
make sure to schedule regular audits of their use of resources in this regard, and make
adjustments to prioritize students with disabling conditions if issues are discovered that are
preventing this from being accomplished.
The Organization Needs to Recognize and Reward Full-Time Distance Education Faculty
Members who are Engaging in the Activity of Web Accessibility Assessment and Remediation
in Their Online Courses
Mulliken and Djenno (2017) researched the perspectives of faculty members and their
views on teaching accessibility within their own constituent group to foster improvements in
online learning for disabled students. What they found was institutions did not indicate that they
valued this activity, nor was there any form of encouragement or appreciation observed in most
of the studies scenarios. Although faculty members expressed interest in both facilitating and
attending the proposed web accessibility training sessions, the cultural models of the
organizations studied failed to reinforce what the faculty were doing. Further, the cultural
settings of the organizations lacked policies and procedures to require this to be done, and
without the support of the organization, interest faded among faculty involved (Kimmons, 2017;
Mulliken & Djenno, 2017). Lewthwaite (2014) studied the perspectives of the academic side of
web accessibility standards and the need to incorporate official reward and recognition programs
for those faculty members who engaged in and produced positive outcomes as it related to the
accessibility of the content in their online courses. The researcher determined that a purposeful
program of recognition for the additional effort needed for a faculty member to engage in
37

assessing and remediating web accessibility issues in their online courses was well received and
beneficial to the learning outcomes of disabled students, and for the institution’s stated academic
goals (Burgstahler, 2015; Kimmons, 2017; Lewthwaite, 2014; Mulliken & Djenno, 2017).
Further, the importance of this work was discussed in studies by Burgstahler (2015) and
Kimmons (2017) and the value of accessible content provided to distance education students is
deserving of recognition when done well. Table 4 presents the assumed organizational influences
on full-time distance education faculty members’ ability to accomplish their stated goal of 100%
of them implementing accessible instructional content in their online courses.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Influence Assessments.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
(Cultural Setting)
The organization needs to establish policies
and procedures that require assessment and
remediation of web accessibility for online
instructional content.
Assessment of this organizational influence
was done by a study of documents, such as
artifacts from accessibility scans of the online
learning management system and a review of
the institution’s existing policies and
procedures. Additionally, faculty perception
of organizational communication regarding
policies and procedures was explored both in
the survey and interview portions of the
study.
(Cultural Setting)
The organization needs to provide resources
for professional development in web
accessibility skills for all full-time distance
education faculty members.
Assessment of this organizational influence
was done by a study of documents, such as
artifacts from committee meetings, such as
budget, instruction and professional
development to determine if this had been
discussed or was not yet an item of interest to
the institution. In addition, faculty perception
of organizational communication regarding
the availability of resources was assessed in
the survey and interviews.
(Cultural Model)
The organization needs a culture of open
communication and collaboration regarding
topics of web accessibility in online
instruction, and organizational silence and
Assessment of these organizational influences
was done both in the survey provided and
during the interview process to determine
faculty perception of the organization’s
willingness to accept constructive criticism
38

resistance needs to be addressed and
remedied.
and feedback without retaliation or dismissal
of employee input.
(Cultural Model)
The organization needs a culture of making
supporting the needs of students with
disabling conditions a priority.
Assessment of this organizational influence
was done by document analysis and interview
with faculty members to see if the institution
had demonstrated a willingness to invest in
allocation of resources to indicate this is a
priority.
(Cultural Settings)
The organization needs to recognize and
reward full-time distance education faculty
who are engaging in the activity of web
accessibility assessment and remediation in
their online classes.
Assessment of this organizational influence
was done by interviewing distance education
faculty members to determine if the college
had expressed appreciation in tangible,
meaningful ways for their work on web
accessibility remediation.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Distance Education Faculty’s Knowledge,
Motivation, and the Organizational Context
Conceptual frameworks are used to demonstrate what is happening with the issue
presented, including the environment and participants to be studied (Maxwell, 2013). The
conceptual framework combines perspectives gained through thought experiments, use of the
literature, and personal experiences to demonstrate the interaction of isolated influences
(Maxwell, 2013). Through this combination of inputs and information derived from existing
research and data, the conceptual framework either modifies or builds upon existing theories in
the area of study, while articulating how to contribute to a higher level of knowledge through the
work of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual and theoretical framework
proposed in this study has considered existing studies and research done regarding the
importance of web accessibility in online instructional courses, faculty perspectives on the topic,
and the impact inaccessible web content has with online students with disabling conditions.
Additionally, this framework gathers literature from previous and existing research on the state
of web accessibility in higher education, as well as the knowledge, motivation, and
39

organizational influences that contribute to or detract from the ability of full-time distance
education faculty to implement accessible instructional content in their online courses.
The worldview that shapes this study is pragmatic. According to Creswell (2014), the
pragmatic worldview brings together perspectives and ideas from multiple inputs to create a
method of approaching a problem with solutions that take these factors into consideration. To
approach a problem with a pragmatic worldview is to have the freedom to choose which
techniques, procedures and methods will be used to develop a clear understanding of many
different perspectives of the research problem (Creswell, 2014). This framework is intended to
produce viable solutions, effective strategies and ensure appropriate application to help full-time
distance education faculty create accessible online instructional content.
Each knowledge, motivation and organizational influence presented is separate, with its own
causes, effects, outcomes and origins; however, all of them are interrelated in that each one has
some effect on each of the others (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study will explore whether the
cultural models and settings of DCC, and the policies and procedures provided in that
environment have a clear impact on the motivation of the full-time distance education faculty.
This impact of the knowledge gained may in turn impact the level of motivation the full-time
distance education faculty have to accomplish the stated performance goal and implement web
accessibility in their online courses. This study will demonstrate these connections, explain the
interactions observed and gathered between them, and analyze the outcomes of the instruments
and gathered data. Figure 1 demonstrates this conceptual framework.

40

Figure 1
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 shows the organizational influences that affect full-time distance education
faculty knowledge and skills in regards to accessible instructional content, faculty motivation
regarding whether or not they have confidence in their ability to do the work and whether they
Desert Coast College
Cultural Models: Organizational resistance, organizational silence
Cultural Settings: Policies and procedures, resources, appreciation & encouragement,
recognition & reward
Faculty Knowledge/Skills
• Factual/Procedural: Do
faculty know the standards?
• Procedural: Can faculty
assess and correct issues?
• Conceptual: Do faculty see
the relationship between
accessible content and
learning outcomes?
Faculty Motivation
• Attainment Value: Do faculty
value providing accessible
content to students?
• Self-efficacy: Do faculty
believe they can do it?
• Cost: Do faculty see a benefit
to learning this?
• Utility Value: Do faculty
believe accessible content is
better overall content?
Stakeholder Goal
100% of full-time distance education faculty
will implement accessible instructional
content in all of their online courses.
Key
Organization

Stakeholder
Influences

Simultaneous
Interaction

Interaction Leads
To

Stakeholder Goal
41

believe learning how to implement accessibility is beneficial to them. The black rectangle
represents the organization DCC and the cultural models and settings within that organization.
DCC has a cultural model of organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and
organizational resistance (Agocs, 1997) as indicated by their campus climate surveys and
qualitative data collected from open-ended questions and comments. DCC stakeholders are
aware of the need to implement change as it relates to web accessibility in their online courses,
however, there is a lack of discussion around policies and procedures needed to implement any
sort of lasting change, and this is a model of organizational silence. DCC further resists change
across the institution due to factors that would require collective bargaining, additional pay to
employees or funding requirements to provide the tools and training to faculty members, which
is a model of organizational resistance to this change. This additionally represents the ability of
the organization to either positively or negatively influence the degree to which the necessary
knowledge, skills and motivation are gained by the stakeholders based upon the cultural setting
and cultural model shown.
Full-time distance education faculty are the stakeholder group of focus of this study and
are represented in Figure 1 above. Faculty construct their understanding of the problem of a lack
of accessibility in online instructional course content through the acquisition of skills gained as
factual and procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002), which is represented by the blue rectangle
on the left. The knowledge and skills represented are as follows: the factual knowledge a faculty
member needs to be aware of the published web accessibility standards (World Wide Web
Consortium, 2009), and the procedural knowledge of assessing and implementing accessibility
within their online courses (Burgstahler, 2015; Cifuentes et al., 2016; Poore-Pariseau, 2010).
Faculty motivational influences are represented by the blue rectangle on the right as: self-
42

efficacy and whether faculty believe they can learn what is necessary to create accessible online
instructional content (Bandura, 2000), and the utility value of providing a benefit to their online
students by doing this work (Burke et al, 2016; Eccles, 2006; Mulliken & Djenno, 2015; Rueda,
2011). Between these two rectangles is a bidirectional black arrow which indicates the
simultaneous interaction of these two elements of the framework and demonstrates that the
influences of motivation and knowledge directly interact in order to accomplish the
organizational global goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, this shows that the importance of
motivation and knowledge are equal in the framework.
The combination of the organizational, knowledge and motivational influences (Clark &
Estes, 2008), represented by the black and blue rectangles, interact to produce the desired
outcome of the accomplishment of the stakeholder goal that 100% of full-time distance
education faculty will implement accessible instructional content in all of their online courses.
The orange rectangle represents the stakeholder goal in the figure above. Therefore, this
conceptual framework proposes the theory that if the organizational cultural problems are
addressed appropriately, and full-time distance education faculty members gain the necessary
knowledge and motivation to produce accessible online content, it is probable that the stated
stakeholder goal of all full-time distance education faculty implementing accessible online
instructional content in all of their online courses will be accomplished. The downward pointing
black arrow between the organization and the stakeholder goal demonstrates that when these
influences act together, the result leads to the achievement of the stated stakeholder goal,
represented by the rectangle at the bottom of Figure 1. Accomplishing the stakeholder goal is an
integral and necessary part of the organization being able to reach its goal of 100% compliance
with published web accessibility standards in all its online courses by Fall 2021.
43

Within the organizational context of Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework,
stakeholders work to accomplish the goals that have been set for them by the organization, as
well as within their stakeholder group itself. The cultural setting and model of the organization
are influencers of stakeholder motivation and knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl,
2002). If the organization provides an environment that values stakeholder professional
development as it relates to learning and understanding what is necessary to properly assess and
remediate web accessibility issues in online instructional content, full-time distance education
faculty members may experience a higher level of motivation to take on the additional cost, time
and energy it takes to acquire the necessary factual and procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002)
to improve and correct accessibility issues in their online classes, which might then remove
barriers to academic access and education for their students with disabling conditions
(Burgstahler, 2015; Thompson et al., 2013). The level of knowledge gained, steps followed and
compliance with the published web accessibility standards (World Wide Web Consortium, 2009)
have the potential not only to reduce the potential for complaints from regulatory agencies and
possible legal liability to the institution due to improved compliance (Burke et al., 2016), but to
raise faculty self-efficacy to provide an equitable learning experience for their students (Bandura,
2000).
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the level of web accessibility compliance in
online instructional courses and full-time distance education faculty’s understanding of the
problem. The literature presented demonstrates the depth and breadth of approaches that have
been taken to research this problem and have attempted to determine potential solutions.
Researchers have evaluated websites of higher education institutions across the United States and
44

around the world and have found that a general lack of compliance with published standards is
the typical result. The stakeholder group of focus is full-time distance education faculty
members, and the research has shown that these faculty are influenced by their factual and
procedural knowledge of how to implement accessible online instructional content. Additionally,
faculty are influenced by their personal values, beliefs and perceptions regarding whether they
are motivated to do the work necessary to implement accessible online instructional content.
Finally, the chapter looked at the influences within the organization such as web accessibility
policies, procedures, rewards and recognition, and organizational support for professional
development. The conceptual framework of Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation and
organizational approach is applied to and used in this study. In Chapter Three, the
methodological approach to be used will be discussed and presented in more detail.

45

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Sampling and Recruitment Narrative

In this chapter of the dissertation, the research design will be presented, including the
process for selecting participating stakeholders, data collection methods and a data analysis plan.
In addition, the participant sampling and recruitment methods are provided, as well as the ethical
considerations such as validity and reliability and credibility and trustworthiness for protecting
the confidentiality of participant data.
Research Questions

1. What is the distance education faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing
web accessibility standards in their courses?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and distance faculty
knowledge and motivation related to implementing web accessibility standards in their
courses?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to faculty implementing web
accessibility standards in their courses and ultimately, all online educational content
being compliant with published web accessibility standards?
Participating Stakeholders
The identified stakeholder population of focus is the full population of over 150 full-time
distance education faculty members at Desert Coast College (DCC). Potential participants from
this population are directly engaged in online instruction and are therefore considered typical of
the average person that reflects awareness of and experience with the phenomenon of interest
being studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015), which is the level of web accessibility in
46

online instructional content. All individuals in the population of focus were invited to participate
anonymously in the quantitative survey portion of the study. Criteria used for sampling of
participants in the qualitative interview process was both convenience and random sampling
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015) from those participants who chose to participate in the interviews
at the end of the quantitative survey by providing their contact information. Due to potential time
and resource constraints, the approach taken was sequential (Johnson & Christensen, 2015)
where the full population participates anonymously in the quantitative survey, and then
qualitative participants were randomly selected (Johnson & Christensen, 2015) from the
respondents to the quantitative survey who volunteer to participate in the one-on-one interviews.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale

The full population of full-time distance education faculty at Desert Coast College were
invited to participate in the survey. This approach constitutes a full population study of the
stakeholder group of focus. This allowed the researcher the potential to receive anonymous
feedback from as large a sample as possible, thereby reducing the potential for non-response
bias, and increasing the likelihood of valid and reliable data from the survey (Fink, 2013). All
full-time distance education faculty at DCC were invited to participate so that all potential
typical respondents that have experience with the subject of the research study can provide their
perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The survey was distributed from the perspective of conducting a census, or a study of the
entire population of focus (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). This comprehensive sampling
approach is intended to best evaluate the perspectives and input of the typical, purposefully
selected, homogenous, full-time distance education faculty population at DCC (Johnson &
47

Christensen, 2015; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Studying the entire
population allowed the researcher to best gather as comprehensive a set of data as possible
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The survey was provided to the participant population at the
beginning of the data collection period and was available to all potential respondents throughout
the process. Review of received survey responses was conducted prior to scheduling of one-on-
one interviews, and a follow up request to participate in the online survey was done with those
who had not responded (Fink, 2013; Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Participants in the quantitative survey of full-time distance education faculty population
at DCC were asked if they wanted to volunteer to participate in one-on-one interviews (Johnson
& Christensen, 2015). If there had been less than 10 volunteers to participate in the interview
portion of the study, the researcher would interview them all, however if there were more than
10, a random sample of that subset would be taken. The individuals in the full-time distance
education stakeholder group were best suited to provide insight and perspective on the subject
being studied (Patton, 2002), and were indicative of the typical or average individual that is
representative of the population of focus and were directly related to the central questions of the
research study (Lecompte et al., 1993; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale

Participants were initially recruited for one-on-one interviews using a nested sampling
relationship criterion and random sampling approach from within those survey respondents who
volunteered to participate in interviews (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). This means that the
entire population of full-time distance education faculty were invited to participate in both the
survey and the interviews. Essentially, the researcher intended to send the survey to the entire
48

population of distance education faculty members and included a separate link at the end of the
survey requesting volunteers for the one-on-one interviews. Fink (2013) stated that simple
random sampling can be used when the researcher wants to ensure objectivity in the selection of
potential participants. In this study, if more than ten respondents volunteered to participate in
interviews, a random sample would be taken from within the pool of volunteers using a table of
random numbers. If about ten volunteers are received, all of them would be interviewed (Fink,
2013). The researcher desired to complete ten interviews if possible. In order to improve the
likelihood of interview recruit participation, the researcher offered a drawing for a single $100
gift card as an incentive to potential interview participants to volunteer for an interview, as well
as a $25 gift card to each interview participant as they were invited to participate at the end of
the survey. The researcher was very clear with potential recruits regarding how the data would be
used and what the privacy safeguards in place would be, communicated that all responses would
be reported in the aggregate and that all responses would be kept strictly confidential (Fink,
2013).
Explanation for Choices

The researcher decided not to use focus groups in this study. According to Krueger and
Casey (2009), research data gathered from focus groups is not typically used to draw inferences
or to determine generalizable outcomes that may apply to the larger population of similar
subjects. A significant priority of this research study was to be able to draw inferences and
provided generalizable suggestions from the data collected, therefore the focus group method d id
not seem ideal in this case (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Although Krueger and Casey (2009)
indicated that focus groups are typically homogenous in composition, and homogeneity is a
factor the researcher took into consideration in the selection of the stakeholder population of
49

focus (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Lecompte et al., 1993; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton,
2002), this factor alone was not enough to include focus groups as a method of qualitative data
collection in this study.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Surveys
Survey Instrument
Clark and Estes (2008) provided a framework for performing a gap analysis of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that have an impact on accomplishing
organizational goals. The survey instrument contained between 20-30 questions that were used to
evaluate faculty knowledge and motivation and organizational influences related to culture and
context as it related to web accessibility in online instructional course content (Clark & Estes,
2008). Items provided on the survey were Likert-type responses to measure levels of agreement
or disagreement with statements made regarding the central research questions and conceptual
framework. For example, faculty responded to a statement that the organization provides
professional development and training regarding web accessibility in online instructional
content, and were presented with a four-level range of potential responses, with a response of
one indicating strong agreement with the statement and four indicating strong disagreement
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Survey Procedures
Surveys were conducted entirely online and were administered at the same time as the
collection of documents and artifacts was taking place. Survey responses were recorded in an
encrypted and password-protected database to ensure confidentiality and protect the data from
unauthorized access. Tracking of responses was monitored by the researcher, and up to two
50

reminders were sent to prospective respondents after the initial email message was sent to each
of them to try to maximize the number of responses received. At the end of the survey was a
question asking for participation in interviews and including a link to another online form where
respondents to the survey could choose to indicate their interest in participating in a one-on-one
online interview. No identifying information was requested in the online survey, however if a
respondent decided to volunteer to participate in an online interview, that separate online form
requested their contact information. Surveys were conducted prior to interviews in order to
provide the researcher the ability to identify potential areas of interest to be used in the
development of additional probing and transitional questions during interviews. The purpose of
the online survey was to gain quantitative data regarding the knowledge, motivational and
organizational influences and respondents’ perceptions of the potential gaps that existed in each
of these areas in accordance with the central research questions and conceptual framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell, 2008; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The qualitative data collection methods chosen were interviews and review of documents.
This method was chosen to better understand knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences of full-time distance education faculty as it related to their perspectives, understanding
and perceptions of the problem of practice regarding web accessibility of the instructional
content in their online courses. Interviews assisted the researcher in gathering meaningful data
regarding faculty motivation and knowledge to help the institution reach its stated organizational
goal as well as on the influences of the organizational culture and context on these factors. As the
problem of practice is related to online courses and faculty who teach in the online and mostly
51

asynchronous space, observations were not used in this research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Patton, 2002).
Documents and Artifacts
Documents that were requested or collected from public sources regarding the
organization were existing policies and procedures related to web accessibility in online
instructional content (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). College graduation rates and enrollment
comparisons inclusive of comparisons with online student outcomes were collected from public
sources and requested from the institution as well. Success rates of students with and without
disabling conditions were compared to determine the importance of the problem in relation to the
organization. According to Bowen (2009), review of documents and artifacts is an important part
of triangulation methods for maintaining credibility in the data collection process. Considering
credibility factors, agendas, and minutes of relevant instructional, student success and institution
wide committees were gathered for analysis. Finally, any documentation of provided trainings
including course materials was evaluated to determine if the organization provided a culture of
professional development to its various stakeholders. These documents or the lack of them
helped the researcher determine the cultural setting of the organization as it related to the
problem of practice and identify areas where knowledge and motivational gaps existed to explore
in the semi-structured interviews of faculty members (Clark & Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Interviews
Interview Protocol
The researcher used a semi-structured interview protocol (Creswell, 2008). This method
allowed for the use of probing and transitional questions in the event the respondent provided
52

information in their responses that indicated a benefit in going deeper into that area for
clarification or further explanation. Allowing for this flexibility in the interview process helped
the researcher create a more relaxed and informal discussion style interview where follow-up
questions asked might largely be based upon the answers provided, giving the interviewer the
potential ability to develop a deeper understanding of faculty knowledge, motivational and
organizational influences on their perceptions and understanding of the problem of practice
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Weiss, 1994).
Interview Procedures
Interviews were conducted after the online quantitative survey was completed. All
participants in the survey were invited to be interviewed. If more than 10 volunteers were
received, the researcher would have randomly sampled 10 to participate. Interviews were
conducted online using a videoconferencing platform in order to provide a greater chance for
participation, as well as to make the interview process simpler to manage from the perspective of
logistics for the researcher. Additionally, online interviews could be conducted between the
researcher and each participant at a location, date, and time that are most convenient to the
participant, and the online platform provided recording capabilities to aid the researcher in
ensuring accuracy and accountability regarding participant responses to the interview questions.
Interviews were conducted after surveys and document and artifact collection to provide
additional potential areas of interest from which the researcher could formulate more relevant
probing and transitional interview questions based upon the data collected from those methods.
Each interview was scheduled for 45 minutes in length to allow for a single scheduled interview
for each participant. Interviews were conducted in a professional and formal manner yet
provided the flexibility and privacy for an informal discussion regarding each question asked of
53

the participants. The researcher took written notes during each interview, as well as used an
audio recording device in addition to the video recording provided by the online platform to
ensure data was collected in the event of a technology failure or malfunction. Should a
malfunction have taken place during an interview, a phone call would have been initiated to
complete the interview, and the same note taking, and audio recording device methods would be
used to capture data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

The credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative portion of the study was maintained
using triangulation, rich, low inference data, respondent validation and critical self-reflection by
the researcher (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The first of these strategies was the
use of triangulation. This approach incorporated data points from three different sources
regarding the same activity. More specifically, data points were extracted from documents and
artifacts, interview responses and survey data with analysis to determine if the data showed any
meaningful correlations. The next strategy to be employed was rich data with low inference. This
means that what the data showed is what was reported, with little to no subjective opinion
inserted into the story that the data told. Additionally, the data collected was reported with as
high a level of detail and transparency as possible without sacrificing the confidentiality of the
participants. Fourth, the researcher looked to identify numerical patterns and reported the
frequency in which they appeared in the data. This approach was purely mathematical, which
helped to reduce subjectivity in reporting. The researcher also critically self-reflected on biases,
assumptions, personal experience and any potential reflexivity to ensure that these d id not
change or skew the analysis of the data (Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019; Salkind, 2017).
54

Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability of the quantitative elements of the research study was maintained
and maximized through several different methods. The sample to be surveyed was a census of
the entire population of all full-time distance education faculty members at the organization. The
survey instrument waw reviewed and discussed with peers working in higher education and web
accessibility as well as with colleagues and faculty generally to provide input and suggestions on
questions and methods used in the instrument. Survey questions were mapped directly to central
research questions, to the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework, and to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences referenced in the research study to ensure content
validity. Administration of the survey involved regular review of responses received after the
initial invitation to participate was sent to potential respondents, and two additional follow-up
invitation reminders were sent to non-respondents within the full-time distance education faculty
stakeholder group. In order to address non-response bias, the researcher utilized an existing well-
known administrative person at the institution to encourage stakeholders to respond to the
survey. In addition, potential respondents were told that the survey could be completed in just a
few minutes, and that no personal information would be requested as all submissions were
completely anonymous (Creswell, 2008; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019; Salkind, 2017).
Ethics
As a mixed methods researcher the focus was to gather both objective and subjective data
for my research questions to be answered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My responsibilities as a
researcher go deeper than the methods used in data collection and include the ethics of decisions
made pertaining to the human participants in the study. All participants were verbally read
options for informed consent prior to participation in the study (Glesne, 2011). This approach
55

ensured that each participant knew that their choice to participate was voluntary, that all
identifying information collected would be kept strictly confidential and stored in an encrypted
and password-protected database, and that they could withdraw from the study at any time with
no penalty whatsoever. For the qualitative interviews, a University-provided Information Sheet
template was used as a guide to build the introductory script that was read to all interview
participants in order to provide the details of the research study methods to each randomly
selected participant to gain separate approval to record the interviews. No signatures were
required. If requested, each participant could be provided with a copy of the recorded interview
so that they each could verify that nothing that they stated was modified or incorrectly analyzed
and reported. In addition, in order to ensure that the study was being performed in an ethical and
appropriate manner, all questions, the research instruments and the research methodology went
through the approval process of the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board, or IRB (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
I have worked for more than thirteen years in higher education technology dealing with
learning management systems, online courses and web accessibility. I did not have any direct
relationship with the research site, the specific stakeholder group of full-time distance education
faculty members, or the study participants themselves outside of the context of this research
study. Additionally, the interview protocol, survey instrument, and data collected were available
for review against the findings produced for validation and credibility purposes.
I have taken the approach of evaluation and exploration of the topic to attempt to answer
the research questions with as little bias as possible. Due to my experience in remediating web
accessibility issues in the past, it is likely that I might have assumed that the faculty members
would want to learn the necessary skills to do this work, however, that may not have been the
56

case. As I wanted to answer the research questions with the data that was collected and not my
preconceived notions of the problem of practice, I invited criticism and scrutiny of the findings
that I produced from analysis of the collected data.
Finally, in order to prevent coercion to participate in the survey portion of the study, or
pressure to provide the data that is perceived that I wanted from the respondents, I did not offer
any direct monetary or reward-based compensation for participation to all survey participants.
This was communicated directly to all potential survey participants. In order to incentivize
participation in the interview process, I offered a drawing for a single $100 gift card to all
interview volunteers and individual $25 gift cards to each individual interview participant. This
announcement was placed at the end of the survey where the invitation and link to participate in
interviews appeared.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the study included self-selection bias, as the participants were able to
choose whether to participate in both the quantitative survey and qualitative interview. The
potential also existed that full-time distance education faculty may have chosen not to participate
in the study or not to respond to one or more of the presented questions, which could have
introduced a non-response bias. A further limitation would have been any lack of knowledge or
interest in the topic of the research study on the part of the individual participants. Bias based on
the experience of the researcher was also a potential limitation. As only one institution’s full-
time distance education faculty group was being studied, the potential existed that this particular
population may have had a bias for or against the topic of the research study based upon
organizational culture, policies, procedures and the existence or lack of professional
development opportunities surrounding the topic of the research study. As there were not any
57

focus groups conducted during this study, it was possible that participants may have been more
inclined or less inclined to respond, based upon their level of comfort with one-on-one
interviews. The questions asked in both the survey and interview portions of the study may not
have been worded well enough for participants to fully understand what was being asked, and
this may have caused the data collected to be skewed in one or more ways.
Delimitations of the study included researching a single higher education institution, and
only surveying and interviewing a single stakeholder group at that institution. Additionally, the
Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational conceptual framework was a
delimitation, as the focus the research adhered to was what was articulated therein. Finally,
should the organizational culture have been markedly different than asserted in the chosen
conceptual framework from the perspective of the full-time distance education faculty, results
and findings may have ended up being different than expected (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell,
2008; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019, Salkind, 2017).

58

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Chapter Four presents the findings and results of this research study analyzed through the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences informed by the gap analysis framework of
Clark and Estes (2008). Each assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influence
presented in Chapter Two is analyzed with findings described. Each assumed influence receives
a thorough analysis as to whether or not each is determined to indicate a gap or an asset.
Research Questions
The following research questions have guided the study:
1. What is the distance education faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing
web accessibility standards in their courses?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and distance faculty
knowledge and motivation related to implementing web accessibility standards in their
courses?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to faculty implementing web accessibility
standards in their courses and ultimately, all online educational content being compliant with
published web accessibility standards?
Several sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Specifically, survey,
interview, and artifact data were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assets and barriers faculty members may encounter in implementing accessible
online course content at Desert Coast College (DCC, pseudonym). The survey was administered
online and was delivered to the entire stakeholder population. One-on-one interviews were
conducted online using the Zoom platform to minimize direct contact due to the COVID-19
59

pandemic, followed by collection and review of documents and artifacts from publicly available
websites.
Participating Stakeholders
Survey Participants
A list of over five hundred faculty members was provided to the researcher by the
organization. Email addresses from the provided list were imported into the Qualtrics system and
used by the researcher to distribute the anonymous link to the online survey instrument. In order
to ensure that only full-time faculty members were included in the study, the researcher verified
each of the 577 names provided by the institution against two publicly available online sources.
These online sources were the organization’s own web-based, searchable faculty and staff
directory, and the searchable public employee salary database found on the Transparent
California website (Transparent California, 2020). After verifying each name on the list of
provided contacts against publicly available datasets of employee information, the researcher
was able to remove more than four hundred part-time faculty records from the list, which were
not requested from the institution. The remaining list of 165 participants invited consisted of
individuals of a diverse racial and ethnic background, all full-time faculty members with an even
gender distribution. In order to protect the identity of individual participants, no demographic or
other identifying information is provided beyond the summary aggregate details provided above.
Ultimately, there were 165 prospective participants, which constituted the entire full-time faculty
member stakeholder group at the institution, and 55 individual responses were completed, for a
response rate of 33.3% from the full-time faculty member stakeholder group population.
60

Interview Participants
At the end of the anonymous survey, a separate link was provided, requesting volunteers
to provide their contact information to participate in an online one-on-one interview. Seven
respondents provided their contact information to participate in interviews. One of the
respondents indicated that they had never taught online and withdrew from the interview list by
choice during the interview scheduling process with the researcher. At this point, the researcher
was left with six potential interview participants. The researcher then used a random number
generator to create a list of twenty prospective interview participants from the verified list of 165
faculty contacts and sent out personalized email messages to all twenty inviting them to
participate in one-on-one interviews. Three individuals responded to this request. Ultimately,
nine full-time distance education faculty members participated in one-on-one interviews. Of the
participants, five were male, four were female, and all employed at the full-time level. Due to the
specificity of the subjects taught by several of the participants, the academic discipline in which
they currently work has been omitted to prioritize anonymity. Table 5 lists each interview
participant by their assigned pseudonym.
Table 5
Interview Participants
Pseudonym Gender Employment Level
Participant 1 or P1 Female Full-time
Participant 2 or P2 Male Full-time
Participant 3 or P3 Male Full-time
Participant 4 or P4 Female Full-time
Participant 5 or P5 Male Full-time
Participant 6 or P6 Male Full-time
Participant 7 or P7 Male Full-time
Participant 8 or P8 Female Full-time
Participant 9 or P9 Female Full-time

61

Research Question One: What is the Distance Education Faculty Knowledge and
Motivation Related to Implementing Web Accessibility Standards in Their Courses?
Results and findings on survey, interview and document data collected based on the
assumed knowledge and motivation influences are presented in this section and related to the
stated research question. Each category of results is provided under its own heading for clarity
and includes a brief summary section after the quantitative and qualitative sections. Some of the
stated knowledge and motivation influences presented in this chapter did not produce data in one
or more of the stated data collection methods. For those instances where survey, interview or
document analysis data were not produced for a particular stated influence, the corresponding
data results or findings section is omitted.
Knowledge
In order to gain understanding regarding full-time distance education faculty members’
knowledge as it relates to accessible online course content, the researcher invited them to
participate in surveys and interviews. Quantitative data were collected from the online survey
that was distributed to all members of the stakeholder group. Qualitative data were collected
from the online one-on-one interviews of nine individual participants from within the same
stakeholder group.
Faculty Members’ Varied Definitions of Accessible Online Course Content
Faculty members articulated numerous and detailed perspectives on what constitutes
accessible online course content. The researcher noted more than thirteen different named types
of accessible content from participant responses to interview questions. Document data provided
a more specific and standards-based definition by referring to Section 508 of the ADA, as well as
stating in course outlines and training materials provided to faculty members in accessibility
62

workshops and professional development sessions that accessibility means, ‘usable by all
regardless of technology or access method’.
Interview Findings. The researcher conducted one-on-one interviews as a portion of the
qualitative aspect of this mixed methods study. The interview protocol was structured in order to
obtain responses that would explore the knowledge influences assumed to impact full-time
faculty members’ ability to implement accessible online course content for their students. The
questions were consistent with the conceptual framework and included the following:
1. When I use the term accessible online course content, what does that mean to
you?
2. How do you think your organization defines the term accessible online course
content as it relates to supporting students with disabling conditions?
Interviewees articulated a factually simple yet functional definition as it relates to the
definition of accessible online course content. All nine of the participants held that the definition
of accessible online course content was content that was available to all students in all
circumstances, regardless of the presence of a disabling condition or not. Specifically, Participant
1 stated that, “for me, it means making sure that the course content is available in a variety of
modalities so that all my students can access what they need from the course.” Similarly,
Participant 2 said, “it means that … the course content is available to everyone. Whether it is
more useful to some than others, it should be available to everyone.” When asked to explain
whether or not accessible course content provides any benefits to learners, Participant 5 stated
that providing accessibility makes, “the courses richer, and [provides] better content…more
opportunities to learn.” Expanding on that perspective, Participant 6 said, “what I’ve observed is
the better I organize it [course content] with an accessibility focus, the better the organization is
63

overall, so it’s benefiting all my students, not just students who have disability accessibility
needs.” As a group, the interview participants also provided clarity as to what constitutes
accessible course content. Table 6 lists the different definitions of accessible course content
mentioned by the specific participants. As indicated below, gaps were identified in faculty
members’ knowledge as manifested by their varied definitions of accessible course content.
These gaps were in the area of content that could be enlarged by the end user, the use of high
contrast colors for visual clarity, the use of text transcripts as an alternative to audio or video
media elements, and the use of color as the only way to communicate meaning.
Table 6
Definitions of Accessible Course Content from Interview Participants
Content Type Participants Using This Definition
Accessible Course Documents P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P9
Alternative Text P1, P2, P4, P6, P7, P8
Availability – Benefit to All All Participants
Captions P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P9
Enlarging Content P2
High Contrast Colors P1, P2
Multiple Modalities P1, P2, P3
OCR (Optical Character Recognition) P2
Screen Readable Content P1, P2, P4, P9
Structured Content P1, P4, P6, P7, P9
Text Transcripts P3
Use of Color to Indicate Meaning P2, P8
Verbal Description of Visual Media P5, P7, P8

Document Analysis. The definition of accessible online course content was provided
through artifacts found in document analysis as well. Course outlines from professional
development and training sessions articulate the definition of accessible course content simply
as, “usable by all regardless of technology or access method.” Accessibility statements found on
the college’s public website, which were produced and approved by faculty members through the
64

institution’s Distance Education Committee and Academic Senate, reference accessibility as
meeting the, “seven principles of universal design, including: equitable use, flexibility, simple
yet intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for errors, low physical effort for task
completion, and appropriate design for approach in use.” These data show that faculty have been
provided a definition that ultimately references Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.0, Level
AA as provided by the World Wide Web Consortium (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008), and
that this definition has been shared with them from 2018 to 2020 in training sessions and through
shared governance discussions regarding accessibility.
These data show that full-time faculty members have a basic level of factual knowledge
regarding the definition of what constitutes accessible online course content. Additionally,
participants provided responses that indicated a basic level of the conceptual knowledge
necessary to successfully articulate how the implementation of accessible course content is more
than just functionally acceptable pieces of content, but an important piece of providing quality
instruction and a pathway to success for their students.
Faculty Members’ Varied Levels of Knowledge Regarding How to Implement Accessible
Online Course Content
One of the assumed knowledge influences was that faculty need to know how to assess
and remediate web accessibility issues in their online instructional content. Quantitative survey
items were used to collect data to measure this influence. In addition, qualitative interview
questions were posed to faculty members to determine their level of comfort with and areas of
struggle as it relates to creating accessible instructional course content.
65

Survey Results. When presented with survey questions about their level of knowledge to
implement accessible online course content, most respondents indicated a level of familiarity
with the procedural knowledge necessary to perform the tasks. Figures 2 and 3 below measure
the degree to which respondents have this knowledge. Figure 2 shows that 77.3% of respondents
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that they have the knowledge of how to assess their online course
content for accessibility issues, while only 22.8% of respondents expressed any level of
disagreement. With values of “1” for “Strongly Agree,” “2” for “Agree,” “3” for “Disagree,” and
“4” for “Strongly Disagree,” the mean was 2.1 and the standard deviation was 0.7.
Figure 2
Survey Item: I know how to assess my online course content for accessibility issues. (n=44)

Figure 3 shows that 68.2% of respondents indicated that they have the knowledge to
correct accessibility issues found in their online courses, while 31.8% disagreed with that
statement. Using the same values as in Figure 2 above, the mean was 2.2 and the standard
deviation was 0.6. While these data demonstrate that over two-thirds of respondents have the
knowledge and skills to engage in the implementation of accessible online course content, nearly
66

one-third of faculty members surveyed still lack the knowledge necessary to be successful in
accomplishing the goal of 100% compliance across all online courses.
Figure 3
Survey Item: I know how to correct accessibility issues found in my online courses. (n=44)

Interview Findings. Participants were asked if there were aspects of creating accessible
instructional course content that they were comfortable with and others where they were not.
This question was asked this way in order to allow the faculty members to explain their
conceptual and factual knowledge around the topic of accessibility without leading them in any
particular direction by the wording of the question itself. The responses indicated that faculty
members are very comfortable with some of the more basic aspects of accessibility, such as well-
structured Microsoft Word or PowerPoint documents, and adding closed captions to videos using
YouTube. Conversely, some of the responses showed that faculty have very little knowledge of
many other varied aspects of accessibility. Participant 01 explained that there are some areas in
which they did not have expertise when it comes presenting complex visual information to
visually impaired students. Participant 01 stated that having to provide a verbal description of a
complex visual element, “would require me to interpret the [complex visual element] for them
67

and then that takes away the learning outcome,” and then explained how this issue affects many
academic disciplines with similarly complex visual instructional elements by stating that for
“those discipline specific areas…are not something that I understand that there’s a good answer
for,” and continued by saying, “if I was in that situation, I don’t know how I would handle it.”
Participant 05 had a slightly different perspective as they explained the difficulty they had in
presenting instructional content to a deaf student. They stated that, “up until last year, I’d never
had a deaf student in a class…so that was a whole complete learning curve for me…and trying to
communicate to that person…was a huge leap.” Regarding some of the types of visual or hands-
on instructional content that are complex, Participant 05 stated, “how do we even pull this
off…you know, online, you can’t do a [complex hands-on] lab online. It’s just not possible, and
so that’s the kind of thing that I think we struggle with…because [we] don’t really have answers
for that stuff right now.” When addressing this question, Participant 06 explained that some
learning outcomes require very specific deliverables from students, and in some cases, the
disability accommodation can actually prevent the student from achieving the required course
outcome. They further articulated, “so what’s appropriate and what’s not an appropriate
accommodation? To allow one student to not have to complete the academic learning outcomes
of the course? Then none of the other students would have to…” and this was explained by
Participant 06 as a significant potential concern when it comes to the process of learning and the
pre-defined required course outcomes. Ultimately, Participant 06 stated that they had typically
been able to collaborate with the disabled students program and come to an agreement on an
acceptable alternative, but that this was an issue that needed to be looked at more closely.

68

Faculty Members’ Clear Conceptual Understanding of the Impact of Implementing Accessible
Online Course Content
In the interview portion of the study, faculty members explained their understanding of
the impact of providing accessible online instructional course content to all students, particularly
those with disabling conditions. Faculty members had strong opinions about the impact
accessible online course content can have when it is or is not provided. In particular, most faculty
agreed that a lack of accessible course content could completely prevent their students from
being able to achieve their educational goals.
Interview Findings. Participants responded to conceptual knowledge questions with
detailed understanding as to how accessible online course content is critical to the success of
their online students. When participants were asked to explain the potential impact to students if
accessible online course content was not provided, each provided insightful reflections based
upon their personal experience and observation of the stated problem of practice in their courses
and with their students. Participant 1 stated, “It makes it more difficult for them to be
successful,” Participant 3 said, “the results can be disastrous for the student,” and Participant 6
articulated, “You can basically change the trajectory of their life because they could drop out of
college because they think they can’t do it.” The interview comments indicate that faculty
recognize the importance of providing accessible online course content when asked questions
related to their factual and conceptual knowledge influences on the stated problem of practice.
For the seven of nine faculty members interviewed who both responded to procedural and
faculty knowledge questions in the interviews and have attended training sessions or researched
how to implement accessible content in their online courses, the presence of competency in the
creation of accessible online course content is high. This same group of faculty members have
69

indicated through their responses that if they were to refuse to participate and engage in the
provided training sessions, that they would subsequently not have obtained the necessary skills to
provide an accessible online instructional experience to their students.
Motivation Results
In this section, data are presented regarding results and findings for assumed motivation
influences. Faculty members’ levels of self-efficacy are discussed as well as their desire to learn
how to implement accessible course content. Results of data gathered also provide a review of
the high level of value faculty placed on the need to support online students by providing
accessible course content, and the subsequent high cost involved for faculty to acquire the skills
necessary and time required to implement accessibility in their online courses.
Faculty Members’ Varied Level of Self-Efficacy Related to Supporting Students by Providing
Accessible Online Course Content
Respondents were presented with survey items and interview questions intended to
measure their levels of self-efficacy as it related to three criteria. These criteria were the creation,
assessment, and correction of accessible online course content. Interestingly, respondents to the
interview questions expressed a lack of self-efficacy for highly complex instructional or
discipline-specific content but were generally confident in their abilities to produce basic
accessibility in their course content.
Survey Results. Figure 4 shows survey responses received regarding faculty levels of
self-efficacy regarding their presence or lack of skills to create accessible online course content.
Using the same values as the previous questions, the mean was 2.28 and the standard deviation
was 0.73. Although more than 60% of respondents reported having self-efficacy in their skills
70

for this task, nearly 40% indicated a lack of confidence in their skills to create course content that
is accessible for their students.
Figure 4
Survey Item: I feel confident in my ability to create accessible online course content. (n=44)

Figure 5 shows that most respondents reported a high-level agreement that they have self-
efficacy in their skills for assessing content to determine if it is accessible. With a mean of 2.21
and a standard deviation of 0.59, nearly 70% of respondents reported confidence in their
assessment skills regarding accessibility. Nearly 30% of respondents indicated that they are not
confident in their skills to assess their course content for accessibility issues.

71

Figure 5

Survey Item: I feel confident in my ability to assess my online course content for accessibility
issues. (n=43)

On the topic of confidence in their skills to correct accessibility issues found in their
online course content, over 67% of respondents agreed that this was something they felt they
could do. Figure 6 also shows that nearly one third of respondents are not confident in their skills
to perform this task. Using the same values as in previous questions, the mean for this survey
question is 2.26, and the standard deviation is 0.72.

72

Figure 6

Survey Item: I feel confident in my ability to correct accessibility issues found in my online
courses. (n=43)

Interview Findings. Participants were asked to explain their level of self-efficacy with
creating accessible online course content in the one-on-one interviews. From the nine individuals
interviewed, only Participant 1 stated, “very high”. The remaining eight expressed a medium
level of comfort in their ability to create accessible online course content, most of which
amounted to skills in producing accessible course documents such as syllabi and adding captions
to videos. Eight of the nine faculty members interviewed expressed concern over what they
referred to as discipline-specific issues with accessible online course content. Participant 1 talked
about complex visual pieces of instructional content – such as geographical maps or graphs of
equations - and how a student’s ability to discern and interpret what they represent is oftentimes
a critical learning outcome. Participant 1 continued by explaining that offering a verbal or text-
based description of those complex visual elements could actually prevent the student from
learning, as those descriptions would almost need to be the answer in order to make any sense,
and therefore, “those discipline specific areas, I think, are not something that I understand that
73

there’s a good answer for.” Participant 5 spoke about concerns they have regarding how to make
hands-on labs and class activities accessible for students, when those activities and the student’s
ability to demonstrate competency are required learning outcomes for the course. Participant 5
clarified that when it comes to those types of required activities, they did not know how they
would approach providing an accessible experience for their students, and continued by saying,
“there’s all kinds of issues there that even the industry groups have yet to figure out.” In
commenting about discipline-specific accessibility issues, specifically complex visual pieces of
instructional course content such as detailed geographical maps or graphing of complicated
equations, Participant 9 talked about the accessibility requirement to provide a text or verbal
description of those pieces of content. They continued by expressing their concern over how that
practice could provide the answer to their students, potentially eliminating learning altogether.
Participant 9 specified how this could be an issue “for profoundly blind students…what would
that student need to succeed…without [accessibility accommodations] giving away sort of the
answer.” From an instructional perspective, these faculty members are not certain how to provide
an equitable online learning experience when faced with an accommodation request to make
aspects of their courses accessible.
Document Analysis. A review of minutes from distance education committee meetings
from 2018 to 2020 shows that faculty members have been reporting an increased level of self-
efficacy from 2018 to 2020 with basic accessibility skills, specifically creating accessible
documents and adding captions to online videos. Additionally, it has been reported that many
faculty members have attended professional development sessions offered by the institution,
have completed on-demand accessibility training sessions, and have engaged with provided
accessibility resources such as accessible document templates and course shells for the colleges’
74

learning management system to build accessible online courses for their students. According to
discussions found in the minutes, engaging in these professional development activities have
helped faculty members continue to increase their levels of self-efficacy as it relates to producing
accessible online course content. There is further evidence in discussions that these training
resources and professional development sessions have been well received by attendees, but that
one of the challenges is that not all faculty attend these sessions or utilize these resources, which
results in a lower level of self-efficacy and a subsequent lack of accessibility skills for these
referenced faculty members.
Faculty Members’ Desire to Learn How to Implement Accessible Online Course Content in
Their Online Courses to Improve the Quality of Their Instruction
As demonstrated in Figures 7 and 8, survey responses to conceptual knowledge questions
demonstrate that a majority of faculty agree that accessible online course content is necessary in
order to ensure academic success for all students, including those with disabling conditions. In
this section, participants were asked questions related to the value they perceived in providing
students with accessible online course content and their self-efficacy for producing accessible
course content. More specifically, the researcher asked participants about their motivation related
to learning the skills necessary to implement accessible online course content as well as any
observed or experienced benefits to their instructional quality.
Interview Findings. In the interviews, faculty members expressed the benefits they have
experienced with how practical and beneficial learning methods for creating accessible online
course content is to the overall quality of their online course materials. Participant 1 said, “I like
learning about it [accessibility] while I was developing course materials,” and continued by
stating that if the department came together and each created a different type of accessible
75

instructional content, “in the end, we all come walking out of it with this magnificent body of
course materials to use.” Participant 2 addressed the benefits of being proactive as it relates to
being in a position to provide accessible and available disability accommodation requests to
students with disabling conditions in their online courses by saying, “It means that [I] don’t have
to adjust when an accessibility need arises. [I’ve] been proactive in their creation of the content.”
Participant 3 indicated that the shift to completely online instruction, “has made me rethink a
little bit how I’m going to use videos and things like that both in the classroom and online in the
future, even when we’re back on campus…I think it’s immensely helpful for all of us.”
Participant 5 said, “I think just making the courses richer, and providing better content, providing
more opportunities to learn.” Participant 6 stated, “what I’ve observed is the better I organize it
[course materials] with an accessibility focus, the better the organization is overall.” Participant 7
said that creating accessible online course content results in, “having students that are more
engaged and more interested in your course.” Participant 8 said that the process of approaching
course materials from an accessibility perspective, “makes me think of, oh, I could do this, or I
could change this or I could pull this in,” and that it has, “been an opportunity for me to refresh
my material…to see my own stuff in a completely different way…it’s refreshing.” Finally,
Participant 9 stated that an accessibility focus, “forces me to put a structure on whatever I’m
creating.”
Participants generally responded with positive and confident comments about how
learning methods for creating and implementing accessibility into their online course content has
improved the quality of their instructional practices. Further, they articulated how students are
the ultimate beneficiary of the greatest degree of benefit from these practices, as the instructional
76

content they are provided is better structured, more organized and easier to access regardless of
method or device used to do so.
Faculty Members’ High Level of Value of the Need to Support Online Students Through
Implementing Accessible Online Course Content
As shown in Figures 7 and 8, faculty agree that accessible online course content is an
important factor in providing students with what is needed to be successful. In the responses
provided to the survey, not a single faculty member disagreed with either of those two survey
questions, which indicates a unanimous perspective that is shared among all survey respondents
regarding the high value placed on accessible course content as a component of student success.
Survey Results. In the survey, faculty were asked two questions specifically about the
impact of accessible online course content for students. The first question was regarding the
importance of creating accessible course content for all students. Figure 7 shows that faculty
support the position that creating accessible course content is important for students to be
successful. With “Strongly Agree” assigned a value of “1,” “Agree” assigned a value of “2,”
“Disagree” assigned to “3” and “Strongly Disagree” to “4,” the resulting mean was 1.2 with a
standard deviation of 0.4 in the responses provided with the bulk of the responses in the
“Strongly Agree” category.

77

Figure 7
Survey Item: Creating accessible online course content is important to support the success of
online students. (n=45)

Note: Faculty overwhelmingly support the creation of accessible course content for all online
students.
Figure 8 shows faculty responses with a similar but slightly different question, focusing
on whether or not accessibility is important for the success of students with disabling conditions.
Using the same values as the previous question, the responses were slightly more weighted
toward “Strongly Agree.” In this case, the mean was 1.1 with a standard deviation of 0.3. This
result indicates that when emphasis is added for students with disabling conditions, the
perspectives of faculty indicate strong agreement with the concept presented in the survey
question.

78

Figure 8

Survey Item: Accessible online course content is important for the success of students with
disabling conditions. (n=43)

Note: Faculty overwhelmingly support the importance of accessible online course content for
students with disabling conditions.

Interview Findings. In the interviews, faculty members articulated the specifics of their
perspective. Participant 1 stated that accessible online course content is valuable, “so that all my
students can access what they need from the course,” and as a deeper indication of a desire for
continual improvement of the accessible course content provided, they wanted, “some sort of
anonymous place where the student could give me feedback about how it went and what could
be better next time.” Participant 2 explained that accessible course content helps students by
making it possible for them to, “navigate and perform in the course without needing personal
support because they can access the content either on their own or with the accessibility tools
they have.” Participant 6 stated that:
There’s something genuine about building your own material and ensuring that
you’re accountable for ensuring that your students have what they need. And so I
think there’s a genuineness, there’s an intimacy between you and the student,
because you’ve ensured that those needs are available.
79

Regarding the level of value attributed to providing accessible content, Participant 8 said:
I just feel like my job as an instructor is to make sure that all of my students are
getting the information I’m putting out, they are understanding it…that they’re
able to be successful in the class…the disability that they have is not holding them
back because the content is accessible. It’s not a hindrance to them.

Throughout the interview process, all of the participants shared a similar sentiment, that
providing accessible online course content to students makes it possible for them to be successful
and removes barriers for them to be able to learn.
All of the interview participants demonstrated that they share a focus on making sure that
their students are successful and that they have every opportunity to access their course content
and learn without hindrance. Similarly, all participants agreed that providing accessible course
content is a key factor in making that a reality. Finally, it was clear that all faculty shared the
perspective that a lack of accessibility in online course content creates barriers to student success
by preventing them from having full access to an equitable learning experience, and could
ultimately cause students to give up on education if not provided.
Faculty Members’ Perception on the High Cost Related to Accessible Online Course Content
As the creators and delivery mechanism of learning and instruction at any higher
education institution, faculty members are uniquely positioned to address issues of accessibility
in course content that is presented online to students. Learning the skills necessary to be effective
at providing accessible online course content can be challenging, not only as a new competency,
but due to the amount of time needed to provide an equitable learning experience for students.
As the data has clearly shown, faculty overwhelmingly agree that providing accessible course
content is important to ensure the academic success of their students, but the significant amount
80

of time involved for faculty to be able to complete these tasks can oftentimes be overwhelming
to them.
Interview Findings. In the interviews, faculty expressed concerns over the amount of
time involved with both learning the skills necessary and the process of actually creating
accessible online course content. Participant 1 explained that “just making these videos takes
twice as long as the length of the video and then captioning it would take an additional amount of
time and they’re just aren’t enough hours,” and then continued by saying, “There’s not really
time in our teaching load for course prep,” and, “I worked for most of the summer making these
materials for free.” These comments indicate that the cost to faculty is not only the loss of time
in learning and creating the content, but in not being compensated for the additional time it takes
to create accessible course materials for their online students. Participant 3 also addressed the
issue of captioning videos and stated that for, “a half hour long video it was taking me at least an
hour to go through and manually update,” which in their opinion seemed like a task that would
be better suited to be done by someone else. Participant 3 elaborated on this perspective by
saying that “I don’t need to be doing this. I could hand this transcript off to a work study
student.” Participant 3 commented further regarding what would happen in their daily schedule
and explained that “I wouldn’t be sleeping…and that’s the push and pull…if you want to engage
in any sort of qualitative give and take with the students and active interaction,” if they were to
do all the work necessary to completely address the accessibility needs of their online students.
Participant 5 articulated the steps and the time involved to create and prepare a MP4 format
video file for YouTube in order to take advantage of YouTube’s captioning function, and
explained that once that file was created and uploaded, they had to, “go through YouTube’s
process of closed captioning and then editing the closed captioning…and so that was a huge
81

amount of work. And you know, I’m going to do everything I can to help students, but that was
huge,” and continued by stating, “I had to learn about YouTube and closed captioning and
making videos that way. I still haven’t figured it out yet.”
Document Analysis. The document review included a list of shared governance
committee activity articulated by minutes taken at meetings from 2018 through 2020. Through
their work and discussions on distance education and academic senate committees, full-time
faculty members expressed concerns over the amount of time it takes to learn the necessary
accessibility skills. Further, the additional time required to achieve implementation of
accessibility compliance across all of their individual online courses creates a considerable
amount of stress due to the stress the additional work puts on their schedules. Professional
development offerings provided by the institution’s staff and faculty, its training partners and
state-provided accessibility learning organizations contain language in the course descriptions
that states how quickly and easily faculty members can learn how to implement additional
accessibility skills for their online course content.
State and federal requirements to achieve accessibility compliance put pressure on faculty
to produce accessible online course content. When the institution adopts policies that require
faculty members to accomplish this compliance in their courses, the impact of that high cost
becomes clearer. The combined effect of learning and applying newly acquired accessibility
skills - when added to existing faculty course loads and other institutional responsibilities each of
them have - has created an environment where faculty members feel as if the responsibility and
time necessary to achieve institutional compliance with web accessibility standards in their
online course content has been placed almost exclusively on them.
82

Research Question Two: What Is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture and
Context and Distance Education Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related to
Implementing Web Accessibility Standards in Their Courses?
Results and findings on survey, interview and document data collected based on the
assumed organization influences are presented in this section and related to the stated research
question. Each category of results is provided under its own heading for clarity and includes a
brief summary section after any appropriate quantitative and qualitative sections. Some aspects
of the study only produced survey data, and did not produce interview data, while other areas of
the research gathered interview or document data and may not have collected specific survey
data. In these cases, narrative sections providing survey results or interview findings are omitted
where data was not collected.
Survey, interview, and document data were collected regarding the role of Desert Coast
College’s organizational influences on working toward resolving the problem of practice.
Although these data show evidence of an organization beginning to establish a culture of
collaboration and learning, evidence has also been gathered that faculty members experience a
lack of time to accomplish the work of producing accessible online course content, and that the
organization has yet to establish clear policies as to how to achieve their goals in this effort.
Further, the evidence suggests that faculty members and the organization have differing opinions
on where responsibility and accountability should be assigned regarding accessibility
compliance, and that a formalized recognition or reward program for faculty who engage in this
work would be a welcome addition to the organizational culture.

83

Evidence of the Beginnings of a Collaborative Culture of Learning and Support
According to survey, interview and document data, professional development and
accessibility awareness training sessions have been provided by the organization and are readily
available to faculty members who take the time to engage by attending and learning what is
presented to them. There is evidence that shows a common purpose between faculty members
and the institution in the shared approach to accomplishing the organizational goal of 100%
compliance in implementing accessibility in all online course content. Although policies have
not yet been completed to codify exactly how the institution intends for this goal to be
accomplished, considerable work has already been completed through shared governance and
faculty members taking the initiative to learn and apply accessibility skills in their online
courses.
Survey Results. The organization has provided nearly 50 online accessibility on-demand
training resources that can be accessed by faculty on the institution’s public website as well as an
ongoing, instructor-led accessibility course offered twice per term to interested faculty members
who register and complete an online registration form to participate. These resources are
provided by the organization with the intent to aid faculty in achieving their goal of accessibility
compliance. Figure 9 shows that full-time faculty members recognize the institution’s investment
in professional development and agree that is taking place. With the “Yes” response valued at
“1” and “No” valued at “2,” the resulting mean was 1.02 and the standard deviation was 0.15
which demonstrates almost unanimous agreement among all faculty respondents that the
organization is providing professional development opportunities to them for learning how to
implement accessible online course content.

84

Figure 9

Survey Item: My organization provides professional development opportunities regarding
accessible course content for distance education faculty members. (n=43)

Figure 10 shows the result on an item that probed for evidence of a collaborative culture
on the topic of accessibility in online course content. Seventy-two percent of respondents agreed
that the organization has a group that meets regularly to discuss accessibility topics as they relate
to online course content, with less than 28% indicating disagreement with the statement. Using
the same values as the previous figure, the mean was 1.3 and the standard deviation was 0.4,
which shows a significant majority of respondents feel the organization
provides opportunity to engage and collaborate on this topic.

85

Figure 10
Survey Item: My organization has a group that meets regularly to discuss topics related to
accessible online course content. (n=43)

Figure 11 uses the same values as the previous two survey items and focuses on the
technical support provided to faculty members who are working to provide accessible course
content to their online students. Nearly 84% of respondents indicated that the organization
provides the technical support they need to complete these tasks for their students with disabling
conditions, while 16% do not think that support is provided. With a mean of 1.2 and a standard
deviation of 0.4, an overwhelming majority of faculty agree that the institution is providing
technical support to assist them with completing these tasks. What is not communicated by this
specific result is whether or not the institution provides assistance with the actual creation of
accessible content. Where a technical support person can answer a question and review the steps
necessary to accomplish a task, the work required to create that content is an entirely separate
matter.

86

Figure 11

Survey Item: My organization provides technical support and assistance to distance education
faculty who want to make their online course content accessible to students with disabling
conditions. (n=43)

Figure 12 provides a survey result that addresses the issue of assistance in the work
needed to create accessible online course content. Faculty members are somewhat split in their
responses to this question, with 60% indicating that the institution does provide assistance with
accessible content creation, but 40% stating the opposite. Using the same values as the previous
three figures, this question has a mean of 1.4 and a standard deviation of 0.5, indicating that even
though there is support in various ways to learn the necessary skills, the perception of many
faculty is that actually doing the work of implementing accessibility is more heavily dependent
upon them alone.

87

Figure 12

Survey Item: My organization employs technical personnel that assist faculty with the creation of
accessible online course content for distance education courses. (n=43)

Figure 13 shows the responses received when respondents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement using a four-point scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree,” “2” for “Agree,” “3” for
“Disagree,” and “4” for “Strongly Disagree” when asked if the organization welcomes questions,
comments and feedback from stakeholders regarding policies and procedures related to methods
of instruction. This question was asked to determine the cultural setting of the organization as it
relates to openness of communication and collaboration. Over 85% of respondents indicated that
the organization does welcome this type of open communication regarding its policies, with just
under 14% expressing disagreement that a collaborative culture exists in this context. The mean
was 1.8 and the standard deviation was 0.7.

88

Figure 13
Survey Item: My organization welcomes questions, comments, and feedback from stakeholders
regarding policies and procedures related to methods of instruction, including, but not limited to
accessible online instructional course content. (n=43)

Interview Findings. Participants generally agreed that a collaborative approach to
accomplishing the goal of creating accessible online course content is optimal, and in many
respects, that is what their responses indicated. Evidence of faculty desire to not only continue
the collaboration that has begun but expand it to a much more comprehensive approach to
accessibility compliance in their online courses emerged clearly. Regarding the idea of
expanding collaboration across academic departments, Participant 1 thought that it would be
optimal if faculty across the institution came together to create a library of accessible course
content, stating that it would be, “nice to have the option to say here is a set of course materials
that are ready to go and you can pilfer from them.” Participant 3 spoke about collaboration from
the perspective of faculty offering support to one another by stating that there are “people on
campus…who are very well versed in this and a lot of times there are other faculty that have
figured this stuff out…and then again they become the people that teach the professional
development workshops,” and continued by saying that the idea of a collaborative culture of
89

learning and support, “should look more like a team based approach rather than an individual
instructor’s responsibility.” Participant 6 talked about communication and collaboration within
their department by stating that, “since the beginning of the school year…we started having
meetings and at least four or five times we’ve had a general department conversation of, okay,
what are you doing…and can I get any other resource to meet the accessibility requirements,”
which indicates that faculty are already working together amongst themselves to achieve their
goal of providing accessible online course content to their students.
On the topic of whether or not the organization welcomes questions and feedback
regarding policies and procedures, responses from participants supported the survey results
shown in Figure 13, although some of the interview responses indicated that such correlation
with the survey results above were only applicable in relation to the department or academic
division leadership to whom they reported in the organization, or based on their existing
relationships in the organization. Seven out of nine participants stated that the organization does
welcome questions and feedback on its policies, although some responses indicated a lack of
feedback from the organization on what it does with faculty questions and comments. When
asked whether or not the organization welcomes questions, comments and feedback on its
policies and procedures related to accessible course content, Participant 1 talked about their
department chair and division dean and said, “where I am in the pyramid, yes,” meaning that
they are able to provide that feedback within the context of their own academic department and
division. Participant 4 stated, “I think that if I have to say something…I will be listened to. I will
be heard. What they do about that, I don’t know, but they [administration] are approachable.”
When asked if the organization welcomes questions and feedback from faculty members on its
policies and procedures, Participant 5 seemed amused by the question and had a slightly different
90

perspective than the other respondents when they replied with a bit of sarcasm, “I don’t know
about ‘welcoming’ [of questions and comments], I would say they get comments,” and then
clarified how the organization typically responds to feedback received from its constituents by
stating, “the question becomes, are they willing to act on it?...if it favors the management side,
well it’s going to get addressed. If it doesn’t, then it’s going to get pushed down the list.”
Participant 6 stated, “while you’d have to know…what door to knock on, when you knocked on
that door, the door would probably be open and accepting that information.” Participant 8
articulated, “I think they [administration] are willing to listen to hear what we have to say.
Following through on that is another question.” Data indicate that even though faculty generally
agree that the organization is open to receive their questions, comments and feedback, there is a
potential gap in the lack of feedback faculty receive back from the organization regarding any
action that takes place based on what faculty communicate to the organization.
Document Analysis. Documents analyzed included agendas and minutes from academic
senate and distance education committees from 2018 to 2020. These data show that faculty have
been engaging in robust discussion through the shared governance process working toward
providing accessible online course content to all students through training, departmental support
and a shift in awareness to better serve students. Ongoing collaboration across the institution
regarding how best to approach the task of producing and providing accessible online course
content to students has also been taking place according to agendas and minutes of distance
education committee meetings, items appearing on agendas of the Board of Trustees, as well as
in professional development opportunities provided to faculty members to help them learn the
skills necessary to be successful in the completion of the organization’s goals around the topic of
accessibility in online instruction. Shared governance discussions recorded in committee minutes
91

from 2018 to 2020 further indicate a focus on the quality of instruction and the benefits that
come from producing accessible online course content. Training sessions offered to faculty
members over that same time period by the institution and its training partners through the
California Online Education Initiative focus on improving the quality of instruction by making
course materials compliant with accessibility standards.
In addition, evidence of faculty showing their support and high value of producing
accessible online course content exists through discussions about the academic senate taking a
leadership role in helping the “College and District to develop an Accessibility Plan that
specifically addresses instructional materials and content.” Further, agendas and minutes of
shared governance committees from 2018 to 2020 demonstrated that faculty members have been
engaging in discussions and planning sessions regarding how best to implement accessibility into
their online instructional practice.
Providing training, collaborative discussion forums and technical support personnel to
answer the tougher questions about accessibility does not alleviate the resulting work required to
actually accomplish the goal of implementation of accessibility standards in 100% of online
courses offered at the institution. Despite this fact, a collaborative culture of learning and support
does exist between faculty and the organization, and data indicate a shared sense of purpose and
focus in making sure students receive the best educational experience possible. Working
together, the organization and its faculty members are committed to making sure that barriers to
online students’ ability to learn are removed. Even though the organization does accept faculty
input, there is no clear feedback loop to communicate back to faculty what the organization has
done to follow-up on their input.
92

Faculty Members’ Lack Time to Provide Online Students with Comprehensive Accessibility in
Online Course Content
The organization needs a culture of making supporting the needs of students with
disabling conditions a priority. For Desert Coast College, part of creating an environment where
this can occur is through supporting the needs of the full-time faculty members who are
implementing accessible online course content for their students with disabling conditions.
During the qualitative interviews and document data analysis portions of this research study, data
were collected that indicated faculty are not given the time they need to perform the tasks of
creating accessible online course content. These data are presented below and include narrative
discussion of the findings produced.
Interview Findings. When asked how the organization could help faculty make the task
of creating accessible course content more of a priority, the general response from participants
was that more time is needed to complete the necessary work. From a practical perspective,
faculty indicated that between their instructional course load and other required institutional
responsibilities, the availability of time to be effective in implementing accessibility in their
course content is challenging from a time management perspective. Participant 1 talked about
their view regarding the institution’s stated priority of making sure accessible course content is
provided to online students by saying, “I think if they really wanted to encourage that, I would
either need someone to caption the videos for me or have time released to do that.” Participant 4
spoke to the same issue by stating that the institution could better support the accomplishment of
the goal, “by giving them [faculty] time to work on that [accessibility] because if the college
wants the instructor to be dedicated to the students, which should be the priority, I think they [the
college] need to give more time.” On the same issue, Participant 6 stated, “there are those
93

[faculty] who would absolutely do it [implement accessibility] but don’t because they aren’t
given release time.”
Document Analysis. A review of the collected document data from 2018 to 2020 does
not show evidence of discussions taking place regarding the stated faculty need for release time
discovered in the qualitative interview process above. In addition, these discussions, reflected in
committee meeting minutes documents, address a recent 2020 mandate from the California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office to make all courses ready for delivery online by the
end of Fall 2020, which creates an atmosphere of urgency regarding the completion of all work
necessary to implement this mandate across the institution. Although robust discussion exists in
the minutes from committee meetings discussing these issues, and prospective solutions are
recommended including continuing and increasing collaboration, professional development and
technical support, the issue of the availability of time is oddly absent from these discussions. As
this particular need relates to compensation, it is possible that faculty members do not see a
potential benefit in raising this topic in a shared governance context.
From the perspective of full-time faculty members, the organization has not demonstrated
a clear understanding of the time it takes for them to learn and implement accessibility in their
online course content. This lack of organizational awareness is exhibited by a lack of procedural
consideration for time release for faculty from other areas of institutional responsibility such as
shared governance work, curriculum development and administrative tasks such as accreditation
and student learning outcomes assessment. Faculty generally agree that if the organization was to
provide them with time release from these activities, the goal of accessibility compliance and
implementation would be less stressful to achieve and more plausible to complete in a shorter
amount of time. Faculty members communicated a sense of being overwhelmed with the recent
94

position of the institution and the resulting addition of a requirement to implement accessible
course content in the short time frame created by the mandate from the Chancellor’s Office.
They perceived the pressure for the requirement to implement accessible course content not only
coming from the organization, but from their perception of the needs of online students, and the
recognition and understanding that faculty have regarding how inaccessible content could
prevent their students from achieving academic success. Ultimately, faculty are looking to the
organization to provide time release options to them to be able to succeed in implementing
accessible online course content for their students.
Faculty Members’ Varied Awareness of Clear Policies and Procedures for Accessibility in
Online Course Content
Desert Coast College needs to have policies and procedures that require assessment and
remediation of web accessibility for online instructional content. To evaluate this assumed
organizational influence quantitative and qualitative data were gathered regarding whether or not
the organization provides clear communication of its policies and procedures related to
accessible online course content. These data are presented below including narrative discussion
of the results and findings.
Survey Results. Figure 14 shows the faculty responses to the question about whether or
not the organization provides clear direction regarding its expectations for faculty performance
regarding the implementation of accessibility through policies and procedures. Although nearly
63% indicated that the organization does have policies and procedures in place to ensure
accessible online course content is created, it is possible that this result reflects expectations
discussed in formal trainings, as the findings in the interview process do not support this
quantitative result pertaining specifically to official institutional policy on the topic. On this
95

question, using a value of “1” for “Yes” and “2” for “No,” the mean was 1.4 and the standard
deviation was 0.5, indicating a general perception among nearly two-thirds of survey respondents
that either policies or procedures are in place at their organization to support the accessibility
goals.
Figure 14
Survey Item: My organization has policies and procedures in place to ensure that accessible
online course content is created. (n=43)

Interview Findings. Responses from interview participants tell a different story than the
survey result above. When asked how the organization communicates new or existing policies
about learning accessible online course content and what faculty members know if anything
about the policies that the organization has in place regarding creating accessible course content,
the responses were primarily that the organization does not have policies, or that if they do, they
are not enforcing them.
On the topic of official policies, Participant 1 stated, “I’m not sure what the official
[accessibility] policies are, because they are not necessarily enforced completely,” and “so I
know that the policies are there. I don’t know if anyone’s being held to them.” Participant 2
stated, “I don’t think we have a standard [accessibility] policy. We do have procedures as far as
96

in the trainings…but as far as process policies, I would say that no, that’s not something that
we’ve done.” Participant 5 said, “I don’t know about direct policies that are written or that are
codified through the Board of Trustees.” On the topic of policies regarding the creation of
accessible online course content, Participant 7 stated, “I don’t know of any [accessibility
policies]… I don’t exactly.” Similarly, Participant 8 replied, “if there are specific [accessibility]
policies, I have no idea.” Participant 9’s comment summed up the perspectives of all of the
interview participants, “I think there’s an assumption that they [courses] should be [accessible]
there’s sort of this unwritten assumption and it’s probably written somewhere, that they should
be accessible, but there’s no follow through. There’s no support. There’s no evaluation of it. So
pretty much non-existent.”
On the topic of how faculty believe the organization could best enforce a policy, once it
exists, it was generally agreed by all participants that substantive evaluation should be taking
place to ensure that accessible course content is being created. Participants articulated the need
for this activity to be tied to faculty evaluations and potentially disciplinary action if it is not
being done. Participant 2 stated, “I suppose one way to make things clearer to everyone would
be…through the evaluation process. So that’s really the main point where things get done,
actually due to faculty evaluation.” Participant 5 gave prescriptive instructions as to how they
believed a policy could be effective when they said, “the only way I think to do that is to do that
through the evaluation process and really hold faculty to that…when they get evaluated, they get
that ‘needs to improve’, they don’t get a ‘satisfactory’, and that ‘needs to improve’ has different
ramifications in the evaluation process…I think it affects whether they stay employed or
not…so…I think the evaluation process is where it needs to work.” Participant 6 stated, “what it
will require…the only thing that I think could be improved is that in the end, that becomes a
97

critical component of the evaluation is accessibility...” and, “to get it even further, we would
need to necessitate a critical evaluation of online classes regularly.”
Document Analysis. Document data analysis produced evidence that an institution-wide
policy regarding online courses is in progress, but the details of the document are not yet
available publicly. Distance Education committee documents speak to the work being done on
that policy, but specific policy details are not addressed in the minutes provided to the public by
the committee. If discussions are occurring regarding including accessibility considerations in
the faculty evaluation process, it is likely that those are taking place in private or confidential
settings or in a contract negotiation context, and are therefore unavailable to the researcher as
well from a document analysis perspective.
These data indicate that although a majority of full-time distance education faculty
members agree policies and procedures exist, communication of these policies and subsequent
enforcement of them is lacking. Although there is agreement among faculty that they know the
institution expects them to address issues with accessibility in their online course content, this
expectation is not codified in an official policy document. Faculty members articulated the lack
of clearly communicated policies and subsequent lack of any real enforcement activities
regarding the creation of accessible online course content by their organization. Although there
seems to be agreement from a majority of faculty that there are procedures, and this has been
communicated to them by their organization through training and professional development
resources and activities, these have yet to be codified into official institutional policies with
articulated consequences if they are not followed. The general sentiment from interview
participants is that any such accessibility policy that might be created and put into practice needs
to include an enforcement aspect that is tied to critical and ongoing regular evaluation of both
98

online course content accessibility compliance and the professional performance of faculty
members themselves.
Differing Opinions on Where Responsibility and Accountability for Implementing Accessible
Online Course Content Should be Assigned in the Organization
On the subject of accountability and responsibility for implementing accessible course
content, the responses from both quantitative and qualitative research approaches are somewhat
mixed. While many faculty are willing to take on the responsibility of the necessary tasks to
accomplish this goal, still many others do not feel that it is appropriate for the organization to
place this task on faculty as a constituent group, and expect the organization to exhibit more
leadership and accountability for ensuring this work gets done by investing resources and
bringing additional staff members on to engage in the work of helping faculty with implementing
accessible online course content.
Survey Results. The first two organizational questions posed to survey respondents were
purposefully contradictory to each other to gauge faculty perspectives on who should be
responsible for the creation of accessible online course content. Initially, faculty respondents
were asked if they felt they should be held responsible for creating accessible online course
content. Figure 15 shows the results of the first question, with values of “1” for “Strongly
Agree,” “2” for “Agree,” “3” for “Disagree,” and “4” for “Strongly Disagree,” the mean was 2.1
with a standard deviation of 0.8 Over 75% of respondents agreed that faculty members should be
responsible for creating accessible course content, with nearly 25% indicating that they think the
institution or its support staff should be doing this work.

99

Figure 15
Survey Item: Full-time distance education faculty members – rather than the institution or its
technical staff – should be responsible for creating accessible online course content. (n=45)

As a follow-up, Figure 16 shows faculty responses with the question flipped to place
responsibility on the institution or its technical support staff. Interestingly, the responses were
not exactly opposite to the previous question. Using the same response values, the mean was 2.6,
and the standard deviation was 0.8. Although nearly 60% of respondents still agreed that faculty
members should be the responsible party for creating accessible online course content, this
demonstrates a 15% shift in the response values when compared to the previous question, and
when the subjects of responsibility are reversed. Ultimately, between the two opposing
questions, approximately two-thirds of survey respondents think full-time distance education
faculty members should be the ones responsible for the creation of accessible online course
content, with only one-third responding that the institution or its technical support staff should be
the ones responsible for doing that work.

100

Figure 16
Survey Item: The institution or its technical support staff – rather than full-time distance
education faculty members – should be responsible for creating accessible online course content.
(n=45)

The next survey question presented to respondents touched on the topic of the
organization’s role and how active they felt it should be. Figure 17 shows that nearly 98% of
respondents indicated that the organization should take a more active role in ensuring that online
instructional content is made available to distance education students. This shows that
respondents overwhelmingly agree that the organization is accountable for this result and should
ultimately take full responsibility if it is not taking place. Compared with Figures 15 and 16,
these data indicate that although the faculty perspective is that the organization should be much
more engaged in managing the overall progress on how accessible course content is implemented
across the institution, this does not indicate a change in faculty perspective as to who should be
creating the accessible content. Using the same values as in the previous two questions, the mean
was 1.4 and the standard deviation was 0.5. Only one respondent disagreed with the idea that the
organization should be engaging with the completion of this goal in a much more active manner.
Based on the overwhelming result of this particular question, it is safe to say that single contrary
response is an outlier. Aside from the recognition that the organization provides professional
101

development opportunities for faculty members, this single question has the most definitive set
of responses in the entire survey.
Figure 17
Survey Item: My organization should take a more active role in ensuring that online
instructional content is accessible to distance education students. (n=43)

Interview Findings. Comments from faculty members are consistent with the
perspective that the organization has implied that faculty are responsible for ensuring accessible
content is created for their online students. When asked directly, Participant 1 stated, “everyone’s
saying you should do this [create accessible course content], and if you don’t, it’s on you, but no
one’s actually checking or seems to actually really care.” Similarly, Participant 3 stated that,
“[the organization’s] version of support is your strategy for you to figure out how to do it [create
accessible course content] yourself,” then continued by saying, “the expectation is that all
content will be accessible, and the policy is basically it is your [faculty’s] responsibility.”
Finally, Participant 8 articulated a more concerned and interrogatory perspective by saying, “for
a lot of faculty they just sort of feel like why is the burden on me? How come the college is not,
you know, helping me in this process [of creating accessible course content]?”
102

Still other faculty members believe they are the appropriate group to take on the
responsibility of creating accessible online course content. Participant 4 stated very plainly, “I
think it’s the instructor’s duty to do it.” Participant 6 stated, “I think there’s something genuine
about building your own material and ensuring…that you’re accountable…that your students
have what they need.” Participant 9 said, “I’m willing to experiment. I’m willing to try,” and in
response to other faculty members’ objections to this perspective replied, “do you necessarily
want them [the organization] to take your material and make it accessible? Do you want to hand
it over to them?” This second set of responses from participants demonstrates opposing views
within the faculty constituency as to where this responsibility should be assigned in the
organization.
Based on the data collected, faculty members have different opinions on how to best
resolve the issue of the assignment of responsibility and accountability to ensure accessible
course content is created and provided to online students. Some faculty are concerned with the
level of expectation the organization puts off on them as individuals to ensure accessibility
standards are met. Others are willing to fulfill the demands of the new requirement in order to be
personally involved with providing the best experience for their students. In contrast, nearly all
of them agree that the organization needs to take a much more active role in making the creation
and implementation of accessible course content a priority at the institution.
Faculty Members’ Perspective on the Absence of Any Formalized Recognition or Reward
Programs for Implementing Accessible Online Course Content and the Perceived Potential
Benefit if Provided by the Organization
On the topic of formalized recognition or reward programs for implementing accessible
online course content, the majority of faculty were in favor of the organization establishing a
103

documented and communicated program of recognition. Additionally, most faculty were also in
agreement that the organization could be doing more, but that whatever program they might
setup would not have to be complex or significant. Most faculty indicated that they would be
satisfied just knowing that their work was appreciated and recognized. In both the quantitative
and qualitative approaches, data show that faculty show support for this idea.
Survey Results. Figure 18 shows the results from respondents to a question about
whether the organization should recognize and reward faculty members who demonstrate
competency in the creation of accessible online course content. Using a four-point scale, with
“Strongly Agree” valued at “1,” “Agree” at “2,” “Disagree” at “3,” and “Strongly Disagree” at
“4,” the mean was 1.9 and the standard deviation was 0.8. Nearly 80% of respondents agreed that
the organization should be doing this, with approximately 20% in disagreement.
Figure 18
Survey Item: Full-time distance education faculty members should be recognized and rewarded
by the organization when they demonstrate competency in the creation of accessible online
course content. (n=43)

Interview Findings. When asked whether the organization rewards or
104

recognizes faculty members for learning about making online learning accessible for their
students, participants were mixed in their idea as to what might constitute such a program. The
general consensus among participants was that if a formalized recognition program was put into
practice on a regular basis that would be a welcome addition to their organizational culture.
When asked about receiving a reward from the organization for learning about accessibility
skills, Participant 1 stated, “I have never gotten a pat on the back for doing these things.”
Regarding receiving anything from the organization for learning accessibility skills, Participant 2
said, “indirectly because faculty can earn…professional development credit…but they can also
do so in other ways, so that credit is not specific to accessibility, so…not a direct reward [for
learning about accessibility].” Participant 5 articulated, “I think it should be available, that
recognition should be there, it should be possible, it should be something that on a much wider
scale it can be worked toward, because frankly, there are things that I know faculty have done
that have gone unrecognized.”
During the interview process, the question of whether or not a recognition program of
awarding micro-credentials for prescribed levels of demonstrated competency in learning and
implementing accessible online course content emerged. Essentially, the concept of micro-
credentialing is a pre-defined set of learning modules that each provide a level of core
competencies that the learner must successfully demonstrate. Each module would contain
significantly more content and required learning outcomes than any single training session or
workshop and would require substantive commitment on the part of the learner to complete.
Upon successful demonstration of the required core competencies for any module, the learner is
provided with a certificate of completion which is a micro-credential. Six of the nine interview
participants expressed interest and support for the concept, particularly if the awarded micro-
105

credentials were accompanied by an incremental permanent pay increase for each level achieved.
Participant 2 said that type of program, “would be advisable and beneficial.” Participant 3 stated,
“the idea of making micro-credentials available for people, so they have something to show that
they’ve completed the training, and then having some professional benefit come out of that,
particularly if it’s in a monetary way would I think be much more appealing to many people.”
Participant 5 stated, “I think that would be kind of cool,” and Participant 9 summarized by
saying, “Micro-credentialing with permanent, ongoing compensation as you progress through
that program, I think absolutely, absolutely, yes.”
These data indicate that the organization would be well-advised to consider implementing
a reward or recognition program for their faculty members who engage in learning how to
implement accessibility in their online course content. Respondents to the survey support the
concept of a formalized recognition program, as do participants in the qualitative interviews. If
the organization can respond appropriately to these findings, the potential for successful
improvement in this area as well as achievement of 100% compliance in online course content
accessibility becomes more likely.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’ Data
Table 7 presents the knowledge, motivation and organization influences explored in this study
and their determination as an asset or need.
Table 7
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Influence Asset or Need
Faculty need to understand the impact of published
web accessibility standards on their course content
and learning outcomes.
Asset
Faculty need to know how to assess and remediate
web accessibility issues.
Gap
106

Faculty need to see value in and believe that
accessible online instructional course content
provides better quality instruction to students with
disabling conditions.
Asset
Faculty need to believe the costs associated with
learning the skills necessary to produce accessible
online instructional content are worth the result of
an improved online learning experience for all of
their students.
Asset

Faculty need to feel confident in their ability to
implement accessible online instructional content
for students with disabling conditions.
Asset
The organization needs to have policies and
procedures that require assessment and remediation
of web accessibility for online instructional content.
Gap
The organization needs to provide resources for
professional development in web accessibility skills
for all full-time distance education faculty
members.
Asset
The organization needs to have a culture of open
communication and collaboration regarding topics
of web accessibility in online instruction, and
organizational silence and resistance needs to be
addressed and remedied.
Gap
The organization needs a culture of making
supporting the needs of students with disabling
conditions a priority.
Asset
The organization needs to recognize and reward
full-time distance education faculty members who
are engaging in the activity of web accessibility
assessment and remediation in their online courses.
Gap

According to the data, several gaps have been identified above. Chapter 5 will present
recommendations for solutions for these influences based on evidence presented in the research
literature.

107

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN
Based upon the data gathered and analyzed in Chapter 4 and the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences presented in Chapter 2, this chapter will propose recommendations
for organizational practice to address identified gaps in order to help the organization achieve its
stated goal of 100% compliance in accessible online course content. Additionally, an
implementation plan will be articulated that addresses the required drivers in order to engage in
the critical behaviors necessary to produce the desired internal and external outcomes to produce
the results needed to be successful. Finally, a detailed evaluation plan based on the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be presented to provide measurable
metrics and methods of ensuring the implementation plan is working. Potentially affected
stakeholders are primarily students with disabling conditions, and from this particular group, it is
anticipated that more than 80% of them would be negatively affected by a lack of accessibility
knowledge from the courses they take where faculty members lack knowledge in this area.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The following sections apply the results and findings from the previous chapter to the
assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences to determine if a gap was
identified or if an asset was discovered. These results are then written as recommendations for
the organization to put into practice to address the completion of its stated goal of 100%
accessible online course content in all online courses. Relevant academic theories are also
referenced to ensure these recommendations are applied based upon peer-reviewed research.
Knowledge Recommendations
Knowledge influences explored involved full-time distance education faculty as the
stakeholder group of focus and determining how well these individuals are able to assess and
108

remediate matters of web accessibility in their online instructional content. In particular,
although it was assumed that many members of this stakeholder group would have considerable
knowledge gaps in their ability to understand, assess and remediate accessibility issues, the
findings indicated that a majority of survey and interview respondents had a basic understanding
of the fundamental knowledge necessary to implement accessibility in their online instructional
course content. Despite these findings, these data also indicate that a significant number of
faculty lack basic accessibility skills and familiarity with how to implement it in their own
course materials, therefore the stated recommendations below are provided for the organization
to put into practice. Krathwohl’s (2002) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy was the approach taken
to examine and prioritize these knowledge influences. In Table 8, the studied knowledge
influences are articulated and recommendations specific to the context are provided as potential
examples of pathways to accomplishing the stated organizational goal.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
(D) Faculty need to understand the
impact of published web
accessibility standards on their
course content and learning
outcomes.
Knowledge of what is and
the information between
facts that form more
substantive connections,
leading to greater
understanding of how to
apply factual information to
a situation. (Krathwohl,
2002)
Provide training and
job aids to faculty
members to help
them learn and retain
the information
provided regarding
the impact of
published web
standards on their
course content and
learning outcomes.
(P) Faculty need to know how to
assess and remediate web
accessibility issues.
Knowledge of the steps
necessary or the
understanding of how to
complete a task.
(Krathwohl, 2002)
Provide training and
job aids to faculty
members to help
them practice and
109

apply the learned
concepts.

Increase Faculty Knowledge of Web Accessibility Standards in Online Instructional Course
Content
It was assumed that a majority of full-time distance education faculty members had
minimal knowledge of current web accessibility standards (World Wide Web Consortium,
2008), however, data analysis showed that two-thirds of faculty had a basic level of accessibility
skills. Due to the goal of 100% compliance, the remaining one-third of these stakeholders still
need to gain the factual and conceptual knowledge necessary to begin to do this work, therefore
the stated recommendation is still beneficial to the organization. As shown in Table 8 above,
according to Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge is understanding what is, and conceptual
knowledge is understanding how to connect facts together to gain a greater understanding of
what they mean together. Gaining the factual and conceptual knowledge of web accessibility
standards will help faculty members produce instructional content that works for students with
disabling conditions. It is recommended that the faculty members continue to be trained and
provided job aids in the organizational pursuit of 100% web accessibility compliance in their
online instructional content.
According to Mayer (2011), presenting instructional information within the context of a
situation that is familiar increases germane load for the individual, thereby improving knowledge
transfer. Germane load is the work engaged in by the individual toward permanently storing a
logically organized schema of information. Additionally, intrinsic load - which is the effort
associated with a subject - can be more effectively managed by breaking down complex
information into manageable, simpler parts (Kirshner et al., 2006). Another way to increase
germane load and improve knowledge transfer for learners is to create mnemonics and analogies
110

in the form of a job aid that is provided before, during or after a training session (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009). One example of a potential analogy or mnemonic that could be used in job aids
provided to learners to help them remember the core aspects of creating accessible online course
content is the World Wide Web Consortium’s P.O.U.R., which stands for “Perceivable,”
“Operable,” “Understandable,” and “Robust” in relation to accessible content creation (World
Wide Web Consortium, 2008).
Improve Faculty Ability to Assess and Remediate Accessibility Issues in Online Instructional
Course Content
It was also assumed that the majority of full-time distance education faculty members had
a minimal understanding of the necessary steps to assess and remediate accessibility issues in
their online course content. Data analysis showed that most faculty do have a basic knowledge of
how to engage in the assessment and remediation of accessibility issues, however, nearly one-
third of faculty were discovered to be lacking in the procedural knowledge necessary to be
successful with these tasks. Krathwohl (2002) stated that gaining procedural knowledge of a
topic provides an individual the ability to engage in appropriate tasks regarding a topic of
instruction. If faculty members gain the procedural knowledge regarding assessing and
remediating accessibility issues in their course content, they will be able to contribute more
effectively to meeting the organizational goal of 100% compliance. It is recommended that
faculty members continue to be provided training and job aids to assist them in learning how to
practice and apply the presented concepts.
According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), individual learners should be provided
with experiences that help them make sense of the instructional content and aid them in
processing the information they are learning. Additionally, they should be provided opportunities
111

for frequent practice of their learning during shorter training sessions, which is shown to be more
effective for knowledge transfer than a single extended length session (Mayer, 2011). Also, as
the content to be trained is procedural in nature, learners should be given worked examples as
these will help them by improving how they process the new information (Kirshner et al., 2006;
Mayer, 2011; Van Gervan et al., 2002). Two potential worked examples that could be used
would be the following: (1) a comparison between a properly structured and an improperly
structured course syllabus as two separate Microsoft Word documents demonstrating how each
affect the experience of a student with disabling conditions, and (2) a comparison between two
short instructional videos – one with captions and an accompanying text transcript, and another
without any of those additional accommodations, with the instruction to turn off the volume and
then report back to the course instructor about the substance of the instructional content
presented in the short video.
Motivation Recommendations
One of the possibilities that was studied was that the distance education faculty lack the
motivation to engage in or carry out the function of helping the organization reach its goal of
100% compliance in delivering accessible instructional course content. However, data analysis
demonstrated that overall, faculty motivation was high as it relates to creating and delivering
accessible online course content to their students. According to Eccles (2006), individuals need
to see value and worth in taking the time necessary to achieve competency in the proposed skills.
In addition, Pajares (2003) found that a lack of self-efficacy or confidence in one’s ability to gain
competency was a significant factor in an organization’s ability to achieve its stated goals. Table
9 presents the assumed motivation influences, followed by the accompanying academic principle
and a context-specific recommendation for organizational practice.
112

Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
(Attainment Value) Faculty need to
see value in and believe that
accessible online instructional
course content provides better
quality instruction to students with
disabling conditions.
Including discussions of
the utility value and
importance of the
learning or work to be
done in the rationales
presented can help
positive values to
develop in learners
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Include rationales about
the utility value and
importance of accessible
course. Ensure that
trainers and peer
mentors purposefully
model interest in and
enthusiasm for the value
of these tasks.
(Value - Cost) Faculty need to
believe the costs associated with
learning the skills necessary to
produce accessible online
instructional content are worth the
result of an improved online
learning experience for all of their
students.
If the learner values the
task, motivation and
learning are enhanced
(Eccles, 2006).
Include rationales about
the utility value and
importance of accessible
course content. Ensure
that the activities and
materials presented to
learners are useful and
relevant, based on actual
tasks they would
perform and connected
to what interests them.
(Self-efficacy) Faculty need to feel
confident in their ability to
implement accessible online
instructional content for students
with disabling conditions.
When learners are given
positive expectancies for
their success and are
provided with modeling
of successful tasks and
appropriate levels of
feedback, motivation and
learning are enhanced,
and self-efficacy is
increased (Pajares, 2006).
Provide small,
achievable goals with
instructional support and
opportunities for hands-
on and goal-directed
practice that give each
individual learner
confidence in their
ability to master and
engage in the necessary
work on the goal.

Sustain and Increase Faculty Self-Efficacy for Learning the Skills Necessary to Produce
Accessible Online Instructional Course Content
Data analysis found that a majority of faculty have the self-efficacy to produce accessible
online instructional course content at a basic level, although evidence also demonstrated that
113

there are several aspects of accessible content creation where faculty seek technical assistance or
lack the confidence to be successful. Expectancy value motivation theory and self-efficacy
theory are used to create recommendations. According to Pajares (2006), individuals need a
sufficient level of self-efficacy in a task to engage in and successfully complete what is
necessary to be proficient. In the case of full-time distance education faculty and accessible
online instructional course content, an increase in their self-efficacy on discipline-specific topics
of accessibility would help them be more successful in engaging in, learning and having the
motivation necessary to succeed in creating accessible online course content. Additionally, as the
goal is to achieve 100% compliance in all online course content, the recommendation is to
continue to provide faculty with more detailed and discipline-specific training that includes
small, achievable learning goals, positive feedback while learning and the ability to practice and
gain efficacy to succeed at this task.
When training goals are set that allow learners to see that they can learn the material this
experience increases self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). It is further helpful to construct training in
such a way as to help each person be successful at completing the required tasks (Pintrich, 2003).
Additionally, it is beneficial to the learner to receive immediate and balanced feedback
articulating where they are doing well and where they have room for improvement (Borgogni et
al., 2011). This could be done by slowly introducing accessibility concepts such as correctly
structured heading levels in a document, or properly formatted bullet lists, alternative text for
graphic or photographic imagery, and closed captioning exercises for simple example
instructional videos.

114

Sustain and Increase the Value that Faculty Give to Learning How to Create Accessible
Online Instructional Course Content
Data analysis showed that an overwhelming number of faculty place a high degree of
value on the concept of creating accessible online instructional course content, therefore this
motivational influence was found to be an asset to the organization. According to Eccles (2006),
when an individual places value on learning the skills necessary to achieve a goal, they become
more motivated to engage in working toward its achievement. In the case of full-time distance
education faculty members, it is likely that maintaining the high level of value may correlate
with a continued high level of motivation to work toward producing accessible online
instructional course content. The recommendation then is to continue to provide faculty with job
aids and training that demonstrate the benefit to students of accessible online course content in
order to maintain their value of this skillset and the motivation necessary to persist in their
engagement to achieve the goal of 100% compliance across all online courses offered by the
institution.
Similar to self-efficacy theory, research on expectancy value theory shows that a
learner’s motivation and educational outcomes will be improved if that person values the tasks
set before them (Eccles, 2006). In addition, an increase in motivation has been seen in instances
where the individual is given options to control and choose aspects of their training, which
activates their personal interest in the task (Eccles, 2006). Positive values can be instilled in the
learner through purposeful discussion of the importance or utility value of the learning or work
to be done (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Finally, as with self-efficacy theory, if the individual
receives feedback while also experiencing real success on tasks that present a challenge to them,
this will positively influence motivation and their perceptions of their own competence
115

(Borgogni et al, 2011). One way to build value in the performance of these accessible content
creation tasks could be to show a video of how a student with disabling condition had difficulty
with course content that was not accessible, and then how much their experience improved when
basic accessibility compliance was provided in their course content.
Organizational Recommendations
Organizational influences on change initiatives can provide some of the most significant
obstacles faced by an organization regarding effective implementation of that change. Cultural
models and settings define the written and unwritten operational rules of an organization and
what is expected and acceptable (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Lack of defined and agreed
upon policies and procedures are not uncommon, and internal resistance to almost any change
proposed can make it difficult for leadership to engage with stakeholders in meaningful ways
that move the organization in the desired direction. However, when approached in the right way,
meaningful and lasting positive change can take place, provided communication, collaboration
and openness to feedback are included in the change process. Table 10 provides assumed
organizational influences organized into these cultural models and settings as well as context-
specific recommendations that are supported by the literature.
Table 10
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
116

(Cultural Setting) The
organization needs to
have policies and
procedures that require
assessment and
remediation of web
accessibility for online
instructional content.
Effective organizations insure
that
organizational messages,
rewards, policies
and procedures that govern the
work of the
organization are aligned with
or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
Conduct meetings
between DCC leadership
and Academic Senate
leadership to establish
goals and time frames
around developing and
implementing policies and
procedures for the
assessment, remediation,
and creation of accessible
instructional course
content.
(Cultural Setting) The
organization needs to
provide resources for
professional
development in web
accessibility skills for
all full-time distance
education faculty
members.
Effective change efforts ensure
that
everyone has the resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc) needed to
do their job,
and that if there are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Conduct regular meetings
between DCC leadership
and Academic Senate
leadership to review
organizational priorities
and the alignment of
available organizational
resources with those
priorities.
(Cultural Model) The
organization needs to
have a culture of open
communication and
collaboration regarding
topics of web
accessibility in online
instruction, and
organizational silence
and resistance needs to
be addressed and
remedied.
Institutional resistance to
organizational change: Denial,
inaction, repression.
Theoretical and research
literature on organizational
change suggest that there is
always a degree of resistance
to change initiatives (Agocs,
1997).

Organizational silence is a
barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic
world. People in organizations
will hold information
pertaining to potential
problems or issues because of
a conditional response to
culture or internal dynamics
(Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
Conduct whole
organization meetings to
discuss topics of web
accessibility and to
communicate policies,
procedures, and individual
and team
accomplishments. Foster
and cultivate a culture of
participation by
encouraging
communication and
feedback with all
stakeholder groups.
(Cultural Model) The
organization needs a
Effective change efforts ensure
that
Schedule consistent time
for DCC and faculty
117

culture of making
supporting the needs of
students with disabling
conditions a priority.
everyone has the resources
(equipment,
personnel, time, etc) needed to
do their job,
and that if there are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008).

leaders to meet to audit
the organization’s use of
resources to ensure they
are being allocated to
prioritize students with
disabling conditions.
(Cultural Setting) The
organization needs to
recognize and reward
full-time distance
education faculty
members who are
engaging in the activity
of web accessibility
assessment and
remediation in their
online courses.
Effective organizations insure
that
organizational messages,
rewards, policies
and procedures that govern the
work of the
organization are aligned with
or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
Conduct meetings
between DCC and faculty
leadership to discuss and
develop a recognition and
reward program that
includes internal
communication and public
recognition of faculty
accomplishments, and a
micro-credentialing
program with incremental
increases in compensation
for educational
achievements.

Address Issues of Lack of Engagement Due to Organizational Silence and Resistance
It was assumed that a majority of full-time distance education faculty were affected by a
tendency to resist or be silent about proposed organizational changes. The theories of
organizational resistance and organizational silence were evaluated in the context of this
organization. According to Agocs (1997), organizational resistance to change initiatives shows
itself in the form of stakeholders denying or repressing the change proposed. Additionally,
Morrison and Milliken (2000) found that stakeholders who do not think their perspectives will be
heard or that they will face potential retaliation tend to engage in organizational silence. In the
context of this organization, these two factors were not found be represented by the data
collected, as the institution engages in regular collaboration and communication on the topic of
118

accessible online course content creation through shared governance and professional
development activities. In order to maintain this success, it is recommended that the organization
continue to provide training and job aids to leadership regarding verbal and non-verbal
engagement strategies to address these issues directly and affect positive change for the
institution.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that organizational barriers and needs in the areas of
knowledge and skills needs could be addressed once the group is made aware of why they need
to change through appropriate addressing of motivational influences. Further, they found that
when all stakeholders’ perspectives were incorporated into the design and decision-making
processes used in making the required changes, this approach made the change efforts more
impactful to the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, it was discovered that solutions
based upon evidence that considered what was most important to the organization’s stakeholders
and culture were able to be more effective (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Implement a Reward and Recognition Program for Faculty Who Engage in Web Accessibility
Learning and Implementation in Their Online Course Content
Data analysis shows that the organization is not providing an engaging and effective
reward and recognition program for full-time distance education faculty. An evaluation of the
use and planning of available institutional resources and how those resources are aligned with the
completion of institutional goals from the perspective of full-time faculty members was used.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), it is critical to ensure that available resources are
purposefully planned to be used to accomplish the mission and goals set by the organization and
that alignment must be clear. Full-time faculty who teach online at the institution should be
provided with the resources and recognition of their hard work when they help the institution
119

accomplish its goal of 100% web accessibility compliance in its online course offerings. The
recommendation then is that training and job aids be provided to the institution to assist them in
the implementation of an engaging and effective recognition and reward program for faculty
members who teach online classes and work toward the goal of web accessibility compliance in
those courses. During the interviews, participants agreed that a formalized micro-credentialing
program that is tied to faculty accessibility learning objectives and training and included
permanent and incremental increases in pay for achievement in demonstrating competency and
ultimately mastery of accessibility compliance skills would be well received. Additionally,
faculty also agreed that public recognition of the work faculty are doing to learn and implement
web accessibility in online course content through campus wide communication and
announcements to the Board of Trustees showing the organization’s appreciation would also be
effective.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that when an organization aligns its use of rewards and
communication with its stakeholders with the goals and values of the organization, the result is a
more effective organization overall. Additionally, Elmore (2002) found that incentive structures
that were designed and used in accordance with a data-driven and research-based approach were
successful. Finally, it was determined that various types of reward and recognition programs and
systems could be used effectively as long as the organization ensured that the goals and mission
of the organization were aligned with the expectations and roles of each individual (Elmore,
2002).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Building from the assumed influences and the collected quantitative and qualitative data,
the researcher has developed a plan for implementation of the context-specific recommendations.
120

In addition, to measure the effectiveness of the recommendations, a plan for evaluation is
provided which specifies the metrics and methods incorporated, as well as the expected
outcomes. The details of the plans and follow-up methods of evaluation are also included.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
For this implementation and evaluation plan, the researcher will be using the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is taken from the Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This new model asserts that it is
best to work from the end to the beginning when planning methods of evaluation. Further, this
reverse approach makes it much easier to align organizational goals with the solutions that are
recommended. In this context, three additional actions become available: 1) assessment of
behaviors at work through solution outcomes, 2) being able to identify that during the
implementation process learning took place, and 3) the strategies utilized during implementation
are satisfactory to members of the organization. This model provides methods by which the
organizational goals and recommended solutions can be explicitly connected (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of DCC is to provide access to higher education for their local and distance
education communities at a low cost. Within that mission is an ever-changing instructional
landscape where the institution is now providing instruction entirely online, however, most of the
instructional content delivered online is not accessible to students with disabling conditions. This
study examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational influences that have
made it more difficult for full-time distance education faculty members to create, assess and
correct online instructional course content without accessibility issues. The proposed
121

recommendation, a thorough and engaging training program, affiliated job aids, and a transition
in the organization’s reward and recognition program, should produce the outcome that is desired
- fully accessible content being produced in all of DCC’s online courses.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 displays the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the presented
format of outcomes, metrics, and methods for internal and external outcomes for DCC. If the
stated internal outcomes of improved accessibility compliance in instructional course content can
be achieved based upon the proposed recommendations, then the stated external outcomes of a
reduced risk of legal liability and improved public relations due to accessibility compliance
should also come to pass.
Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Reduced risk of
legal liability due
to inaccessible
web content.
The number of pieces of public
web content that are compliant
with published web accessibility
standards.
Solicit accessibility scan reports
for public web-facing content
from the DCC staff or
department that perform these
scans.
2. Improved public
relations due to
accessibility
compliance.
The level of accessibility
compliance of web-facing
content.
Solicit accessibility scan reports
for web-facing content from
DCC staff or department that
performs these scans.
Internal Outcomes
3. Improved learning
outcomes for
online students
with disabling
conditions.
The completion and persistence
rates of students with disabling
conditions in online courses.
Solicit quarterly report from
DCC administration.
4. Increased number
of online courses
that provide
accessible
The number of courses without
accessibility issues at a given
time.
Solicit accessibility scan reports
for LMS environments from the
DCC staff or department that
perform these scans.
122

instructional
course content.
5. Decreased number
of inaccessible
pieces of online
course content.
The number of courses that
demonstrate compliance with
accessibility requirements and
standards.
Solicit a monthly report of
accessibility compliance for
LMS environments from DCC
administration.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholder group of focus is all full-time faculty members who teach one or more
online courses at the institution. The first critical behavior is that these faculty gain the
knowledge and capability to create accessible online instructional course content. The second
critical behavior is that they must be able to assess existing course content for and identify
accessibility issues. The third critical behavior is that they must also be able to remediate
identified accessibility issues in course content to make them accessible. Table 12 presents the
metrics, methods, and timing for each of these critical behaviors.
Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Correctly create
accessible online
instructional
course content.
The number of
pieces of created
content.
1a. The department
chair or designee shall
track content creation in
the LMS and ensure the
content is accessible.
1a. During the first
90 days after
completion of
accessibility
training - weekly.

Thereafter -
quarterly reviews by
team leads.
2. Identify
accessibility
issues in online
course content.
The number of
pieces of
inaccessible
content.
1b. The department
chair or designee shall
track content creation in
the LMS and flag any
inaccessible content.
1b. During the first
90 days after
completion of
accessibility
training - weekly.

123

Thereafter -
quarterly reviews by
team leads.
3. Correctly
identified
accessibility
issues.
The number of
corrected
accessibility
issues.
1c. The department
chair or designee shall
track content
remediation that is
completed.
1c. During the first
90 days after
completing
accessibility
training - weekly.

Thereafter -
quarterly reviews by
team leads.

Required Drivers
Faculty members need to be supported by the organization and their department chairs
and team leads to help retain and successfully adopt what has been learned in accessibility
training sessions into their daily practice of creating, assessing and remediating issues discovered
in their online course content. A reward and recognition system needs to be implemented to
ensure that faculty members who achieve competency are provided with support from the
organization in the completion of its goals. Potentially, the creation of a micro-credentialing
system with compensatory rewards for achieved levels of professional development could be
implemented to demonstrate competency and to create a systemic method of accountability
around faculty members’ accessibility skill sets. Table 13 displays the drivers that are
recommended to help faculty members continue to engage in the defined critical behaviors.
Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including step by step
methods for creating
accessible course content.
Ongoing 1,2,3
124

Job Aid including checklist
for how to assess course
content for accessibility
issues.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Accessibility team meetings
to discuss training and
implementation methods.
Weekly 1,2,3
Encouraging
Collaboration and hands-on
demonstrations during team
meetings.
Weekly 1,2,3
Rewarding
Compensation for meeting
performance goals.
Quarterly, or project-based 1,2,3
Recognition at team and other
larger meetings when
departments reach a pre-
defined performance goal.
Quarterly 1,2,3
Monitoring
Follow-up with department
chair or designee regarding
accessibility learning and
skills learned.
Monthly 1,2,3
Accessibility scans of online
courses to determine progress.
Monthly 1,2,3

Organizational Support
Time and resources will need to be given by the organization in order for this plan to
positively contribute toward the completion of the organizational goal of 100% accessibility
compliance in all online courses. Department and team leads will need to ensure that they
incorporate accessibility training topics into every meeting in which the faculty members are
present. Policies and procedures will need to be discussed and drafted to institutionalize the
processes involved with accessible online creation.

125

Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Following successful completion of the recommended training program and other solutions,
individual stakeholders will be able to:
1. Articulate the fundamentals of what constitutes accessible instructional course content,
(D)
2. Articulate the process for creating an accessible piece of online course content, (P)
3. Recognize accessibility issues in existing online course content, (D)
4. Remediate discovered accessibility issues in course content, (P)
5. Articulate the connection between accessible online instructional course content and
positive student learning outcomes (particularly for students with disabling conditions).
(C)
Program
The goals for learning articulated in the earlier section will be achieved using a
program of training and the provision of simple job aids that detail the standards of accessibility.
The faculty stakeholders will engage in instructional course content that discusses all aspects of
accessibility and demonstrates methods of assessment and remediation of identified issues. Using
the publicly available published web accessibility standards from the World Wide Web
Consortium (2008), learners will be taken through a thorough and detailed set of lessons that
provide a hands-on and practical method for learning how to implement accessible online course
content.
The asynchronous portion of the provided training will equip learners with job aids that
list the appropriate definitions and accessibility standards broken down into four distinct
126

categories of content following the P.O.U.R. principles for learning how to approach web
accessibility (World Wide Web Consortium, 2008), which stands for: P = Perceivable, O =
Operable, U = Understandable, and R = Robust. These four categories are the most typical areas
where accessibility issues with web content create barriers to access for persons with disabling
conditions who use assistive technology. According to the research, breaking down complex
instructional content into simple segments improves the learning and knowledge transfer process
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). The provided job aids will further articulate the typical accessibility
issues that exist within these four areas, how to identify them, and what a compliant and
accessible method look like to aid the learner in the remediation process for their own
instructional content.
For the synchronous portion of the learning process, training sessions will focus on
providing learners hands-on experience with the concepts presented in the above-referenced
P.O.U.R. principles in order for them to solidify the aspects of this approach to assessing,
identifying and remediating accessibility issues in their content. In addition, the work product of
each learner will be reviewed for accuracy in the application of the concepts presented, and well-
performing learners will be identified as mentors to assist those others who have more difficulty
in gaining the necessary knowledge and skills to correctly engage in the accessibility assessment
and remediation process.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Having the ability to demonstrate a learned skill because of obtained knowledge is an
important factor that requires evaluation. To know that the instructional material taught to the
stakeholders has translated from declarative to procedural and conceptual, methods of evaluation
have been developed to measure these outcomes. Table 14 displays the methods and activities to
127

be used to evaluate the knowledge of stakeholders from training, as well as the timing of the
evaluations.
Table 14
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using questions with multiple
choice answers.
Before, during and after instructional
demonstrations within the courses.
Verification of knowledge through group
activities and/or discussion.
During instructional sessions.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Scenarios requiring demonstration of ability to
repeat instructed activities with multiple-choice
options.
At the end of each instructional lesson.
Demonstration as an individual and in small
groups of the ability to use the provided job aids
to perform the desired skills successfully.
During instructional sessions.
Validation of knowledge by peers during group
discussions.
During instructional sessions.
Validation of individual knowledge using real-
world accessibility scenarios.
At the end of each instructional lesson.
Pre- and post-test proficiency assessments. At the end of the instructional sessions.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Participants’ behavior observed by instructor
demonstrating and understanding of the benefit
of what they are being taught to do.
During instructional sessions.
Group discussions of the value of on the job
skills being taught.
During instructional sessions.
Pre- and post-test assessment. After instruction ends.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Likert-scale survey items. After each lesson and after the end of
instruction.
Practice and feedback discussions. During instructional sessions.
Pre- and post-test assessment. After instruction ends.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Likert-scale survey items. After each lesson and after the end of
instruction.
Practice and feedback discussions. During instructional sessions.
Pre- and post-test assessment. After instruction ends.

128

Level 1: Reaction
To measure the learners’ reactions to the training program, various methods and tools
will be used. Table 15 displays these methods and tools and indicates the timing in which they
will be employed. Primarily, this aspect is intended to encourage continuous follow-up support
and encouragement to keep learners engaged during and after the training program in order to
foster a culture of collaborative learning and communication around the topic of accessible
online instructional course content.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
LMS data analysis Ongoing during instruction
Online lesson completion rate Ongoing during instruction
Instructor observation During instructional sessions
Attendance During instructional sessions
Course evaluation Two weeks after instruction ends
Relevance
Brief check-in with participants via online
survey and ongoing discussion
After each instructional lesson and the entire
course
Course evaluation Two weeks after instruction ends
Customer Satisfaction
Brief check-in with participants via online
survey and ongoing discussion
After each instructional lesson and the entire
course
Course evaluation Two weeks after instruction ends

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
During the on-demand portion of the training, the instructional system will provide
incremental skills checks to ensure participants are gaining the confidence necessary to apply the
skills they have learned when they return to their jobs. In addition, the same system will also
129

administer short reaction surveys that allow each learner to report their experience with the
course and its content and its applicability to their work.
During the face-to-face training sessions, to satisfy Level 1 evaluation, the instructor will
ask learners to report on how they feel about the relevance and value of the content they are
learning to their individual jobs, as well as how well they think the course content is organized,
how well it is being delivered, and how well the learning environment is setup for the training
sessions. To satisfy Level 2 evaluation, hands-on scenarios, demonstrations of skill level of
participants relative to the content being taught during that session as well as open-ended
questions will be used to determine how well the learners are understanding and feel comfortable
and committed to taking the newly learned information back to their daily work.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately 90 days after the training has been provided and completed, and then
again at six months, management will administer a survey comprised of scaled and open-ended
questions to all participants using the Blended Evaluation approach in order to effectively
measure, from the perspective of each learner, their satisfaction and individual thoughts on the
relevance of the training (Level 1), how confident they are in the value of and applicability of the
training sessions (Level 2), whether they are receiving support from their Department Chairs and
peer mentors on applying what they have learned to their everyday job duties (Level 3), and
whether or not they are or have seen positive results in their organizational outcomes as a result
of having attended and completed the training (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal is measured by the number of online courses that are found to have
accessible instructional content once faculty members have attended and completed the training.
130

Courses will be assessed for accessibility issues prior to training, with a follow up accessibility
assessment of all courses done at 90 days following the completion of the training session. The
chart below (or a similar data visualization) could be updated each quarter following with a
comparison of total courses compared to courses meeting the required accessibility standards.
Figure 19 shows a potential data visualization that could be used to assist in communicating
progress to the institution and its stakeholders regarding potential progress in the completion of
the stated goals.
Figure 19
Example: Displaying Accessible v. Inaccessible Online Courses Over Time

Using a chart like the one shown in Figure 19 will help the organization communicate to
its stakeholders how it is improving over a one-year period in providing accessible online
courses to its students by conducting an accessibility assessment of all online courses each
quarter.
131

Summary
The implementation and evaluation approaches have been structured using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model starting from the Level 4 Results and how those results will be
validated using methods of measurement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). From that point, the
plan was setup to determine the necessary Level 3 Behaviors needed to achieve those results, the
Level 2 Training and Learning required by stakeholders in order to provide the skills and
knowledge needed to successfully engage in those behaviors, and finally the Level 1 Reaction
from the organization based upon the level of effective engagement, satisfaction and relevance of
the interventions recommended in order to achieve the stated goal of 100% accessible content in
all online courses.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The primary strength of the approach taken by the researcher is the decision to engage in
a mixed methods study. Gathering both quantitative survey data for objectivity as well as
qualitative data from both interviews and documents and artifacts to triangulate the results is an
additional strong aspect of the research methodology. Focusing on full-time distance education
faculty members is another strength of the study, as this particular stakeholder group was best
positioned at the organization to provide insightful and experienced perspectives on the problem
of practice and assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences.
The primary weakness of the approach is the limited time of the researcher to engage in
data collection and analysis. In addition, another weakness is that only a single institution was
involved in data collection. Therefore, results and findings are more likely to be context specific
to the one institution and may not be as likely to be generalizable to the larger population of
institutions in the greater California Community College system. Although the focus on full-time
132

faculty members is referenced above as a strength of the approach, not including additional
stakeholder groups at the institution in data collection and analysis is a weakness of the chosen
approach, as additional insights may have been able to be discovered to help address the problem
of practice.
Opportunities for Future Research
The potential for future research on the topic of this research study exists in several areas,
most notably by including full-time faculty members from additional community college
campuses and comparing the results and findings between institutions to see if any strong
correlations develop. This expansion of the scope of the research would also make the results and
findings more generalizable to the entire community college system. Expanding the research to
additional institutions could also increase the value of and potentially change the focus of the
proposed context-specific recommendations.
Additional potential also exists in the study of alternative stakeholder groups such as
administration, staff members, and students. Specifically, gathering data on the experiences
students have regarding accommodations that are provided and whether those are meeting their
needs would be beneficial and instructive. Collecting data on the perspectives of these other
stakeholder groups would allow the researcher to determine how each group’s participation – or
lack of participation – in the development of strategies and policies at the organization regarding
accessible instructional course content correlate with the subsequent accomplishment of the goal
of 100% compliance with published web accessibility standards. It is also likely that additional
areas of research could emerge from the data collected as the perspectives of these other
stakeholder groups may provide insights into potential solutions that were not previously
discussed or considered.
133

Conclusion
This dissertation examined the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
impacting a single higher education institution’s goal of implementing 100% compliance with
published accessibility standards in all its online instructional course content. The full-time
distance education faculty member stakeholder group was used as the focus of the study and
were the subjects of both the quantitative survey and qualitative interview data collection
methods. The researcher used the KMO framework from Clark and Estes (2008) to determine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps in Desert Coast College’s pursuit of the
accomplishment of the stated goal above.
Many of the results and findings in this study were different than had been assumed by
the researcher based upon the review of the literature. At this institution, professional
development and training offerings focused on the topic of accessibility in online instructional
course content had significantly increased in the last few years. Faculty members were very
familiar with and expressed self-efficacy in their understanding of the basics of what is required
to implement accessibility in their courses for their students, however gaps in knowledge were
identified and further training was recommended to address those gaps. In addition, most of the
faculty indicated that the organization needed to take a more active role in ensuring accessible
course content was being produced across the campus. One way in which faculty stated the
organization could accomplish this would be by hiring a dedicated full-time accessibility expert
or staffing an accessibility office with professionals dedicated solely to faculty members and the
creation of accessible course content. Another recommendation from faculty was for the
organization to grant them additional paid release time from their course load to do this work.
134

Faculty also agreed that the organization needed to establish written policies and procedures as
well as a recognition and reward program to highlight individual and team accomplishments.
Further the study sought to apply existing academic research literature to determine how
best to provide context-specific recommendations to the organization’s problem of practice
including a detailed implementation and evaluation plan to aid in measuring the effectiveness of
the recommended interventions. By following the provided plan in chapter five and
incorporating the researcher’s recommendations into organizational culture, Desert Coast
College and its stakeholders will be best positioned to accomplish their goals and serve their
students for years to come.
135

References
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and
Teams, Organizations, and Society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/ metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), pp. 27-40.
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning practices and
students with disabilities. Social Inclusion, 3(6), N/a.
Burke, D., Clapper, D., & McRae, D. (2016). Accessible online instruction for students with
disabilities: Federal imperatives and the challenge of compliance. Journal of Law and
Education, 45(2), 135-180.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2017). 2018 Student Success Scorecard.
https://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecardrates.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2020). DSPS (Disabled Students Programs
& Services) Status Report. https://datamart.cccco.edu/Services/DSPS_Status.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (n.d.). California Community Colleges
Chancellor's Office. https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts

136

CERN. (2020). A short history of the web. CERN. https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-
web/short-history-web.
Cifuentes, L., Janney, A., Guerra, L., & Weir, J. (2016). A working model for complying with
accessibility guidelines for online learning. TechTrends, 60(6), 557-564.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Fichten, C., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M., … Wolforth, J.
(2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: an exploratory study.
(Report). Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241–256.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Gornitsky, Marcelle. (2011). Distance education: Accessibility for students with disabilities.
Distance Learning, 8(3), 47-53.
İşeri, Uyar, & İlhan. (2017). The accessibility of Cyprus Islands’ higher education institution
websites. Procedia Computer Science, 120, 967-974.
137

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Kimmons, R. (2017). Open to all? Nationwide evaluation of high-priority web
accessibility considerations among higher education websites. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 29(3), 434-450.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Chapter 2: Planning the focus group study. In Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.) (pp. 29-31). SAGE Publications.
Lecompte, M., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993) Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. (2nd

ed.). Academic Press.
Lewthwaite, S. (2014 July 10.). Web accessibility standards and disability: Developing critical
perspectives on accessibility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1375–1383.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.938178
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.

138

Mulliken, A., & Djenno, M. (2017). Faculty visions for teaching web accessibility within LIS
curricula in the United States: A qualitative study. The Library Quarterly, 87(1), 36–54.
https://doi.org/10.1086/689313
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, May). Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate (ACGR), by selected student characteristics and state: 2010-11 through
2017-18. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_219.46.asp.
Patton, M. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research &
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 348-380). SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Poore-Pariseau, C. (2010). Online learning: Designing for all. Journal of Usability Studies. 3(4),
147-156.
Preliminary investigation leads to agreement on web accessibility. (2018). Disability Compliance
for Higher Education, 23(9), 12-12.
Public Policy Institute of California. (n.d.). Maps of College Enrollment Rates in California's
Counties. https://www.ppic.org/data-set/maps-of-college-enrollment-rates-in-californias-
counties/
Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). VIRTUAL HIGH SCHOOLS:
Improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 11(2), 91-104,145-146. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/854049273?accountid=14749
139

Robinson, S.B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Romano, N. (2019, June 26). NCD Letter regarding Expanding Access to Higher Education Act.
https://ncd.gov/publications/2019/ncd-letter-expanding-access-higher-education-act
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). SAGE.
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5
th
edition. Jossey-Bass.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national
study of community college students. Computers and Education, 75, 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009
Social Security Administration. (2015, November). Education and Lifetime Earnings.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html
Thompson, T., Comden, D., Ferguson, S., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2013). Seeking
predictors of web accessibility in U.S. higher education institutions. Information
Technology and Disabilities, 13(1).
Torpey, E. (2018, May). Measuring the value of education: career outlook.
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm
Transparent California. https://transparentcalifornia.com/.
United Nations (UN). (2015, December 14). Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/persons-disabilities/index.html

140

Usability.gov. (2015, February 26). Accessibility Basics. https://www.usability.gov/what-and-
why/accessibility.html.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, May 03). Employment situation summary.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, February 26). Persons with a disability: labor force
characteristics summary. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm
W3C. (2020). Making the Web Accessible. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
https://www.w3.org/WAI/.
Ward, H., & Selvester, P. (2012). Faculty learning communities: improving teaching in higher
education. Educational Studies, 38(1), 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.567029
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1-14). The Free Press.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from:
http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/
World Wide Web Consortium. (2018). Accessibility. W3C.
https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2008, December 11). Web content accessibility
guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

141

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Survey Items and Analysis Plan
Definition of “accessible online course content”: Content that provides students with disabling
conditions the ability to access and engage when using assistive technologies such as a screen
reader. This would include descriptive text added to the properties of photos and images, text
transcripts of video and audio files, and potentially closed captioning on video materials.

Research Question/
Data Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question
and response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analyses
What are the necessary
levels of faculty
knowledge and motivation
that will help Desert Coast
College in its goal of
becoming 100%
compliant in all its online
courses with standards of
web accessibility?
K –
Factual

M –
Utility
Value
Creating accessible online
course content is important
for online students.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know |Disagree |
Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
The organization needs a
culture of appreciation
and encouragement for
distance education faculty
members who express an
interest in learning web
accessibility skills for
their online courses.
M –
Goal
Orientation

O –
Cultural
Setting
Full-time distance
education faculty should be
responsible for creating
accessible online course
content.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
O –
Cultural
Setting
My organization provides
professional development
opportunities regarding
accessible course content
for distance education
faculty members.
Yes | No | Don’t Know

Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
O –
Cultural
Model
My organization has
policies and procedures in
place to ensure that
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
142

organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
accessible online course
content is created.
Yes | No | Don’t Know
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
O –
Cultural
Setting
My organization provides
technical resources and
assistance to distance
education faculty who want
to make their online course
content accessible to
students with disabling
conditions.
Yes | No | Don’t Know
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
What are the necessary
levels of faculty
knowledge and motivation
that will help Desert Coast
College in its goal of
becoming 100%
compliant in all its online
courses with standards of
web accessibility?
M –
Utility
Value
Accessible online course
content is important for
distance education courses.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
O –
Cultural
Setting
My organization has a
group that meets regularly
to discuss topics related to
accessible online course
content.
Yes | No | Don’t Know

Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
O –
Cultural
Setting
My organization should
take a more active role in
ensuring that online
instructional content is
accessible to distance
education students.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
O –
Cultural
Setting
My organization has
technical personnel on staff
that assist faculty with the
creation of accessible
online course content for
distance education courses.
Yes | No | Don’t Know
Nominal Percentage,
Frequency
143

What are the necessary
levels of faculty
knowledge and motivation
that will help Desert Coast
College in its goal of
becoming 100%
compliant in all its online
courses with standards of
web accessibility?
K –
Procedural
I know how to assess my
online course content for
accessibility issues.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
What are the necessary
levels of faculty
knowledge and motivation
that will help Desert Coast
College in its goal of
becoming 100%
compliant in all its online
courses with standards of
web accessibility?
K –
Procedural
I know how to correct
accessibility issues found
in my online courses.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree

Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range
What is the relationship
between the culture and
context of the
organization and the
levels of faculty
motivation and
knowledge?
M –
Utility
Value

O –
Cultural
Setting
Full-time distance
education faculty members
should be recognized and
rewarded by the
organization when they
demonstrate the ability to
create accessible online
instructional content.
Strongly Agree | Agree |
Don’t Know | Disagree |
Strongly Disagree
Ordinal Mode, Median,
Percentage,
Frequency, Range

144

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Due to the current public health concerns regarding the COVID-19 virus and
recommendations for social distancing, all interviews will be conducted online using the Zoom
video-teleconferencing software solution.
Before we begin, I want to share with you the purpose of this study, the procedures, and
provide an opportunity for any questions you may have. The purpose of this study is to explore
faculty practices in the area of providing accessible instructional content to students in online
classes. I am the Principal Investigator for this study. Do you have any questions about the
purpose of the study?
As a participant in this study, you should know that everything is strictly confidential.
The findings will be reported in the aggregate. In the study, I use terms such as a “DCC” or
“Desert Coast College” to identify the location of the study. No names will ever be used in the
study. You should also know that participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may decide
not to answer a question. Or, you may decide not to participate in the study at any point in time
without penalty. Do you have any questions thus far?
The last part I need to cover before we begin is related to the logistics of the interview
process. I have a recorder to accurately capture what you share. The purpose of the recorder is to
assist me with focusing on our conversation rather than notetaking. Recordings will be deleted
upon completion of the study. Your participation is voluntary in all aspects of this study,
including data collection. May I have your permission to record? May I have your permission to
begin the interview?
Great. Thank you. We will begin by reflecting on accessible online course content.
145

Interview Questions
I am going to start by asking a few questions about your knowledge of and experience with
accessible online course content.
1. When I use the term “accessible online course content,” what does that mean to you?
a. How do you think your organization defines the term “accessible online course
content” as it relates to supporting students with disabling conditions?
2. Would you say that creating accessible course content has a high, medium, or low priority
for you? Why?
a. Would you say that creating accessible course content has a high, medium, or low
priority for your organization? Why?
3. In your opinion, how could your organization encourage faculty to give accessible course
content a higher priority?
4. Can you talk to me about a time – if any – when an online student requested an
accommodation regarding making a piece of content in your online course accessible, and
what that meant for you as far as additional workload to provide the requested
accommodation?
5. What level of comfort do you have with creating accessible course content?
6. Are there aspects of accessibility that you are comfortable with and others where you are
not?
7. What areas do you struggle with when you think about accessible course content?
a. The accessibility standards themselves?
b. Organizational support?
c. Technical support?
146

d. Professional development and learning the skills needed?
e. Communication from your organization regarding students requiring disability
accommodations?
8. Who – if anyone – do you lean on or turn to with these sorts of questions?
a. Fellow faculty members?
b. Technical support staff?
c. Self-help websites?
9. In your own words, what do you think it looks like to provide accessible online course
content to your students?
a. Transition: What resources – if any - has the institution provided to you to help you
discover what is required to provide accessible online course content to your
students?
i. Trainings?
ii. Technical support?
iii. Clear direction through policies and procedures?
10. What are some potential consequences to students if accessible online course content is not
provided?
a. What particular outcomes come to mind for students with disabling conditions?
b. Transition: Describe a hypothetical scenario that you think might take place for a
legally blind student taking an online course that does not provide course content
that is accessible.
147

i. What if that course contains many graphical or photographic visual aids and
video lectures using similar methods? How might you address offering an
accessible alternative to these visual pieces of instructional material?
11. What steps would you take to assess existing instructional content to determine if
accessibility issues exist?
a. Transition: What tools – if any – are you aware of that are provided to you by your
organization to help in this assessment?
b. Transition: Explain how student learning outcomes might be affected in an online
course that contained inaccessible course content.
12. In your opinion, what are the benefits to all students – not only those with disabling
conditions – of providing accessible instructional content?
a. Transition: What might the benefits to faculty be?
b. Transition: What could the organization do to help you with this task?
As the final portion of the interview, I would like to ask a few questions about your
organization, and the position the organization takes regarding accessible instructional
content in online courses.
13. How does your organization communicate new or existing policies about learning
accessible online course content to you and your colleagues?
a. Please tell me what you know, if anything, about the policies that your organization
has in place regarding creating accessible online course content.
14. Describe the professional development opportunities – if any – that exist at your
organization – for learning about creating accessible online course content.
148

a. Transition: What professional development would you like to see the organization
offer about how to create accessible online instructional course content?
15. Does your organization recognize or reward full-time distance education faculty members
for learning about making online learning accessible?
a. Transition: Is there a recognition program, and if one exists, how does it affect your
desire to engage in learning about this topic? Examples of this type of activity might
be an online instructor’s micro-credentialing program, certificate(s) of completion
for learning new skills related to accessible online course content or similar.
16. Does your organization welcome questions, comments, and feedback from its stakeholders
regarding its policies and procedures related to methods of instruction?
a. In your opinion, how could your organization improve internal communication and
feedback regarding issues related to accessible online instructional course content?

149

Appendix C
Evaluation Instrument Immediately Following Training
The following evaluation instrument will be used immediately following training on accessibility
in online instructional course content with full-time distance education faculty members as a
means of measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2:
1. I feel confident in applying the accessibility skills I have learned when I return to my
regular job duties.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
2. The content presented during accessibility training is beneficial to me in the performance
of my regular job duties.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
3. I think the content presented during accessibility training will give me the skills I need to
make online learning more accessible to my students with disabling conditions.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
4. The accessibility training was presented in an easy to learn and well-structured format.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree

150

Appendix D
Evaluation Instrument 90 and 180 Days Following Training
The following evaluation instrument will be used at 90 days and six months following training
on accessibility in online instructional course content with full-time distance education faculty
members as a means of measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 through 4:
5. I continue to feel confident in applying the accessibility skills I have learned when I
return to my regular job duties.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
6. Explain your process for using the accessibility skills you learned in assessing and
remediating issues in your online instructional course content.
7. The content presented during accessibility training continues to prove itself beneficial to
me in the performance of my regular job duties.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
8. I think the content presented during accessibility training has given me the skills I need to
make online learning more accessible to my students with disabling conditions.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
9. In your own words, describe how accessible online instructional course content improves
the learning experience for your students with disabling conditions.
10. The accessibility training was presented in an easy to learn and well-structured format
that has helped me remain committed to applying the learned skills in my regular work.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
11. Do you have any suggestions for how the accessibility training could be improved?
151

12. My organization continues to provide me with support and encouragement in applying
the accessibility skills I learned during training.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
13. My organization encourages collaborative communication around the topic of
accessibility in online instructional course content.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
14. My organization has developed and implemented policies and procedures regarding
accessibility in online instructional course content.
a. Yes | No
15. How should your organization provide support to the effort of improving accessibility in
its online courses?
16. I have seen positive results in student learning outcomes because of incorporating
accessibility skills into the creation and remediation of online instructional course
content.
a. Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Community college faculty member perspectives of workforce development-oriented public-private partnerships

PDF

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Gatewood, Justin Alexander (author)

Core Title Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/01/2020

Defense Date 10/27/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accessibility,accessibility assessment,accessibility remediation,accessibility solutions,accessible content,California community college,community college,Disabilities,Distance education,faculty perspectives,full-time faculty,gap analysis,implementation plan,KMO framework,mixed methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,online courses,online instruction,qualitative,quantitative,recommendations,students with disabling conditions,triangulation,web accessibility

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member)

Creator Email jgatewoo@usc.edu,lightjump@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-388737

Unique identifier UC11666364

Identifier etd-GatewoodJu-9087.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-388737 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GatewoodJu-9087.pdf

Dmrecord 388737

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gatewood, Justin Alexander

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA