Evaluating Instructor Strategy and Student Learning Through Digital Accessibility Course Enhancements
Abstract
University students graduating and entering into technology design and development fields are underprepared to support digital accessibility due to a lack of awareness and training. Teach Access is a consortium of 10 industry partners, 5 advocacy groups, and 20 university partners working to address this issue. In an attempt to bridge the gap between what is taught to students and the increasing demand from industry, the initiative described here was aimed at awarding instructor grants to support the development of accessibility modules in tech-related courses. In our study we surveyed student attitudes toward accessibility pre- and post-instruction of these modules, as well as, instructor strategy. We found that across all courses, student confidence in accessibility-related concepts increased. The largest increases were found in student confidence in defining the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Our work makes the following contributions: 1) A detailed description of how accessibility was integrated into 18 different university and college courses 2) Instructional delivery methods found to be effective by participating instructors 3) Insights for resource materials development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multi-perspective, mixed-methods designs are effective in capturing mechanisms underlying these outcomes.
“Multi-perspective, mixed-methods designs are effective in capturing mechanisms underlying these outcomes [11].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
Structured co-design processes that still admit authentic input are valuable.
“Prior work in inclusive and participatory computing education underscores the value of structured co-design processes that still admit authentic input [11].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A model of an accessibility curriculum in higher education
Weeden, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1139350 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Kang, J., Patton, K., & Gardiner-Walsh, S. (2024) · Journal of Special Education Preparation · doi:10.33043/4a6kfo46 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education
Hermann, J., Jansen, N., Richter, U., Fleer, A., & Doganün, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3769994.3770007 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Prior work in inclusive and participatory computing education underscores the value of structured co-design processes that still admit authentic input [11].”
- Authors
- Ferrari, C., Kletenik, D., Sonka, K., Sturm, D., & Hurst, A.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- City University of New York (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-10-24
- Pages
- 377-388
- OpenAlex
- W2981798587
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 5.70
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- digital accessibility, accessibility education, course module development, student self-confidence, Americans with Disabilities Act, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, instructional delivery methods, industry-academia gap
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review