Towards Truly Accessible MOOCs for Persons with Cognitive Disabilities: Design and Field Assessment

  • Pierre-Antoine CinquinEmail author
  • Pascal Guitton
  • Hélène Sauzéon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10896)


MOOCs are playing an increasingly important role in education systems. Unfortunately, MOOCs are not fully accessible. In this paper, we propose design principles to enhance the accessibility of MOOC players, especially for persons with cognitive disabilities. These principles result from a participatory design process gathering 7 persons with disabilities and 13 expert professionals. They are also inspired by various design approaches (Universal Design for Learning, Instructional Design, Environmental Support). We also detail the creation of a MOOC player offering a set of accessibility features that users can alter according to their needs and capabilities. We used it to teach a MOOC on digital accessibility. Finally, we conducted a field study to assess learning and usability outcomes for persons with cognitive and non-cognitive impairments. Results support the effectiveness of our player for increasing accessibility.


Accessibility Cognitive disabilities MOOC Participatory design Ability based design Usability 


  1. 1.
    Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (eds.): e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2016). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matthews, C.K., Harrington, N.G.: Invisible disability. In: Braithwaite, D.O., Thompson, T.L. (eds.) LEA’s Communication Series. Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, pp. 405–421 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4(4), 295–312 (1994). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose, D.H., Meyer, A.: A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrow, D.G., Rogers, W.A.: Environmental support: an integrative framework. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 50(4), 589–613 (2008). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wobbrock, J.O., Kane, S.K., Gajos, K.Z., Harada, S., Froehlich, J.: Ability-based design. ACM Trans. Accessible Comput. 3(3), 1–27 (2011). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards, A.D.: Computers and people with disabilities. In: Extra-Ordinary Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 19–43. Cambridge University Press, December 1995Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Strategies for improving the level of accessibility in the design of MOOC-based learning services. In: 2016 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (2016).
  9. 9.
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
  10. 10.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Research challenges in accessible MOOCs: a systematic literature review 2008–2016. Universal Access in the Information Society (2017). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohnsack, M., Puhl, S.: Accessibility of MOOCs. In: Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Peňáz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8547, pp. 141–144. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Roldán Martínez, D., Raffenne, E., Buendía García, F., Boticario, J.G., Montandon, L., Santos, O.C.: Accessible lifelong learning at higher education: outcomes and lessons learned at two different pilot sites in the EU4ALL project. JUCS J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 18(1) (2012).
  13. 13.
    Sánchez Gordón, S., Luján Mora, S.:. Adaptive content presentation extension for open edX. Enhancing MOOCs accessibility for users with disabilities. In: ACHI 2015, pp. 181–183 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organization, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Indus. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Selm, M., Jankowski, N.W.: Conducting online surveys. Qual. Quant. 40(3), 435–456 (2006). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vallerand, R.J.: Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 29, 271–360 (1997). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, Y., Lee, J., Hwang, Y.: Relating motivation to information and communication technology acceptance: self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 418–428 (2015). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roca, J.C., Gagné, M.: Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: a self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(4), 1585–1604 (2008). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dupuy, L., Consel, C., Sauzéon, H.: Self-determination-based design to achieve acceptance of assisted living technologies for older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 508–521 (2016). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Saltarelli, A.J., Reich, J., Cohen, G.L.: Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science 355(6322), 251–252 (2017). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zahed-Babelan, A., Moenikia, M.: The role of emotional intelligence in predicting students’ academic achievement in distance education system. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2(2), 1158–1163 (2010). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., Coughlan, T.: What are the expectations of disabled learners when participating in a MOOC? In: Proceedings of the Fourth 2017 ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale - L@S 2017 (2017).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Antoine Cinquin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pascal Guitton
    • 1
  • Hélène Sauzéon
    • 1
  1. 1.Bordeaux University & INRIATalenceFrance

Personalised recommendations