Core Area 3: The Wider Context

3a) Understanding and engaging with legislation

Description

Referencing WCAG 2.2, captions have become an essential part of all spoken recorded audio, to ensure students with learning requirements are not disadvantaged.

“Captions are provided for all prerecorded audio content in synchronized media, except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such.”

This is significant as it means for all recorded content, a workflow has to occur so that those who require captions are in no way disadvantaged. For all lecture recordings on the University system, automatically generated captions are applied, however there was a situation recently which required more attention due to a number of factors. The originally in-person lecture had to be moved online due to a serious staff injury, and the cohort of students included a Deaf student who should have the option to engage with the material in the same way as others. For a number of reasons, including issues with the staff member’s device and her familiarity with the system, Blackboard Collaborate was chosen as the technology of choice for this situation. After the session took place, it was essential that the automatically generated captions were applied so the student could watch the recording. It necessitated quick action to ensure no time was wasted and the student could engage properly. Live captions were also considered and offered through use of Google Chrome’s extension to live caption audio, however this extra step was not perfect for the student’s requirements. Setting this up in a way which was as smooth as possible was also necessary for the academic, whose injury required accessibility alterations.

Evidence 

Reflection

I was happy with how this situation was handled quickly and efficiently, as the move to online learning was unexpected and the academic had not anticipated the legislative implications of recording content. I explained what was needed, however the learning curve was steep and I was glad to support the member of staff at every point to avoid unnecessary stress.

It was important for me to consider the ethics of the situation, particularly the themes of Accessibility and Accuracy. Increasing the Accessibility of the course meant the student was not disadvantaged by the method of teaching and this also aligns with the University policy on Accessible content, and the Accuracy of the captions meant that the student had clarity around the subject matter and the content was in no way misrepresented.

Both things impact the experience of the students and ensure fairness, something which I believe should come first in education, not only for the Deaf student but those with other learning requirements and others whose learning style aligns with captioned videos. Captioning also benefits those whose first language is not English, to ensure there is no misunderstanding.

Having supported this experience and engaged with the legislation, there are a few things I would do differently next time. The first is that I would encourage the use of Teams rather than Blackboard Collaborate, as the latter does not support live captioning. Live captioning would have added another layer of accessibility for the students in the session, as those who required captions would not have needed to wait until the end of the session to fully engage with the content.

The reason for choosing Blackboard Collaborate was due to staff familiarity with the tool and administrative benefits, and I had to consider the experience of the academic as well, whose injury meant their mobility was limited. Both the student and the academic had the right to feel their processes were supported by the technology available. However, for future situations I would prioritise the addition of live captioning. A workaround for this was to make use of Google Chrome’s live captioning feature; although this was not perfect, it offered an alternative for those who benefit from seeing the written word during a lecture.

The use of Teams would also allow more flexibility in the style of teaching as this session was not interactive and did not require students to use their microphones or chat. For more complicated situations, live captioning would open up the option for students with learning requirements to engage in real time so they could make use of the communication features.

It was good to know that if a colleague does need to pivot to online, recorded sessions using systems that are out of the norm, I can support them while engaging fully with the University Accessibility policy and also the WCAG legislation.

3b) Understanding and engaging with policy

Description

In May of 2024, a policy was introduced at College-level to improve the experience of assessment and feedback across the Schools at the University of Edinburgh. This policy took form of a document entitled Minimum Standards for Assessment Guidance and Feedback, and underlines requirements that each School must meet in order to address College-identified priorities. Assessment must be accompanied by clear information about the assessment process, descriptions, criteria and rubrics laid out obviously for students. It also required feedback to be timely i.e. within three weeks of submission date.

I am also currently a College and School representative for an institution-wide project entitled Learn Optimised for In-course Submission and Assessment (LOUISA project), which focuses on improving the standardised set-up for assessment across the University. It is necessary when proposing solutions in this project, that the Minimum Assessment policy is considered at every stage, so the suggestions made by the central team do not clash with those made at College-level. Involvement in this project put me at the intersection between pedagogy and technology, as expertise in both areas was imperative to avoid going against the policies set.

An example of this is that, during one of the User Groups that involved stakeholders from across the institution, there was conversation around how assessments should be structure and worded, ensuring clarity and brevity so that students avoid confusion. What I had to consider here was the new requirements set by College, including but not limited to the inclusion of a marking rubric or grade descriptors; information about processes, resits and timing; as well as opportunities to ask questions. As a representative from the College, I needed to make sure that this information was being taken into account when decisions were made about the standardisation.

 Evidence