Cited by 25Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesArtificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Technology in Learning

AccessiLearnAI: An Accessibility-First, AI-Powered E-Learning Platform for Inclusive Education

Open access
Stelea, George Alex, Robu, Dan, Sandu, Florin·2025·Education Sciences

Abstract

Online education has become an important channel for extensive, inclusive and flexible learning experiences. However, significant gaps persist in providing truly accessible, personalized and adaptable e-learning environments, especially for students with disabilities, varied language backgrounds, or limited bandwidth. This paper presents AccessiLearnAI, an AI-driven platform, which converges accessibility-first design, multi-format content delivery, advanced personalization, and Progressive Web App (PWA) offline capabilities. Our solution is compliant with semantic HTML5 and ARIA standards, and incorporates features such as automatic alt-text generation for images using Large Language Models (LLMs), real-time functionality for summarization, translation, and text-to-speech capabilities. The platform, built on top of a modular MVC and microservices-based architecture, also integrates robust security, GDPR-aligned data protection, and a human-in-the-loop to ensure the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated outputs. Early evaluations indicate that AccessiLearnAI improves engagement and learning outcomes across multiple ranges of users, suggesting that responsible AI and universal design can successfully coexist to bring equity through digital education.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci15091125

Cites

46 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Adherence to WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508, along with the provision of a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), is mandatory.

    “Adherence to WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508, along with the provision of a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT), is mandatory (Stelea, Robu and Sandu, 2025).”

    From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Stelea, Robu and Sandu, 2025

    Section 2.4, “Identified Gaps” (page unavailable), calls Section 508 a legal mandate and refers to W3C guidelines. The paper also discusses WCAG 2.1 in its front-end design section, but the passages do not establish that WCAG 2.1 AA compliance or provision of a VPAT is mandatory. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards are a non-negotiable criterion in institutional procurement analysis.

    “Institutional procurement analysis identifies FERPA compliance, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards, and data residency requirements as non-negotiable criteria.”

    From A Multi-Dimensional Decision Framework for Evaluating and Selecting AI-Enabled Instructional Technology in U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Stelea, Robu and Sandu, 2025

    Section 2.1 discusses WCAG 2.1 compliance in e-learning platforms, and Section 3.2.1 says the platform follows WCAG 2.1 guidelines. Neither passage addresses WCAG 2.1 AA as a non-negotiable institutional procurement criterion; searches for procurement, FERPA, data residency, and WCAG 2.1 AA did not locate such an analysis in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Nasereddin, M., ALKhamaiseh, A., Qasaimeh, M., & Al-Qassas, R. (2021). A systematic review of detection and prevention tech- niques of SQL injection attacks. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 32(4), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393555.2021.1995537. · DOI
  2. Reddy, V. M., Vaishnavi, T., & Kumar, K. P. (2023, July 19-21). Speech-to-text and text-to-speech recognition using deep learning. 2nd International Conference on Edge Computing and Applications (ICECAA) (pp. 657-666), Namakkal, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECAA58104.2023.10212222. · DOI
  3. Sagi, S. (2025). Optimizing LLM inference: Metrics that matter for real time applications. Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Cloud Com- puting, 2025(4), 2-4. https://doi.org/10.47363/JAICC/2025(4)446. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stelea, G. A., Robu, D., & Sandu, F.
Affiliations
Transilvania University of Brașov (RO)
Corresponding author
Stelea, George Alex
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-08-29
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
1125
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413817022
Cited by
24
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 3
FWCI
146.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Transilvania University of Brașov
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
e-learning accessibility, inclusive education, students with disabilities, large language models, text-to-speech, machine translation, content summarization, progressive web app, offline learning, Universal Design for Learning, human-in-the-loop, microservices, GDPR compliance, responsible AI, personalized learning

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