This study compared the experiences of 10 participants who were blind and 10 participants who were sighted in working through an online learning task and explores the application of cognitive load theory. It considered the quality of the learning experience and the implications for practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnicleK. (2000). Usability testing with screen reading technology in a Windows environment. In ThomasJ., CUU ‘00: Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (pp. 102–109). Arlington, VA: ACM Press.
BrünkenR., PlassJ. L., & LeutnerD. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 115–132.
4.
CooperG. (1990). Cognitive load theory as an aid for instructional design. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 6, 108–113.
5.
CoyneK. P., & NielsenJ. (2001). How to conduct usability evaluations for accessibility: Methodology guidelines for testing websites and intranets with users who use assistive technology.Fremont, CA: Nielsen Norman Group.
6.
CravenJ., & BrophyP. (2003). Non-visual access to the digital library: The use of digital library interfaces by blind and visually impaired people.Manchester, England, Centre for Research in Library and Information Management, Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved from http://www.cerlim.ac.uk/projects/nova/nova_final_report.pdf
GerberE. (2002, March). Conducting usability testing with computer users who are blind or visually impaired. In Proceedings of the Center On Disabilities Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 2002. [Online.] Available: www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2002/proceedings/189.htm
9.
MayerR. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
10.
MayerR. G., & MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
11.
McAteerE., & ShawR. (1995). The design of multimedia learning programs.Sheffield, England: UCoSDA.
12.
MorenoR., & MayerR. G. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
13.
MorleyS., PetrieH., O'NeillA., & Mc-NallyP. (1999). Auditory navigation in hyperspace: Design and evaluation of a non-visual hypermedia system for blind users. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 18–26.
14.
NajjarL. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40, 311–323.
PaasF., RenkiA., & SwellerJ. (2003). Cognitive load theory: A Special Issue of Educational Psychologist: Educational Psychologist (38).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
PaasF., TuovinenJ. E., TabbersH., & Van GervenP. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.
20.
PhippsL., & KellyB. (2006). Holistic approaches to e-learning accessibility. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14, 69–78.
21.
SealeJ. K. (2006). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice.Oxford, England: Routledge.
22.
SloanD., StratfordJ., & GregorP. (2006). Research on learning technology using multimedia to enhance the accessibility of the learning environment for disabled students: Reflections on the Skills for Access project. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 14, 39–54.
23.
WallS. A., & BrewsterS. (2004). Providing external memory aids in haptic visualisations for blind computer users. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality, and Associated Technology, New College, Oxford, England (pp. 157–164). Retrieved from http://www.docs.gla.ac.uk/~steven/docs/Wall%20ICDVRAT%20Final.pdf
24.
Web Accessibility Initiative. (2007). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0: W3C working draft 11 December 2007. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20
