Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the experiences of students with visual impairment and blindness in higher education regarding the accessibility of video content and audio description. Using qualitative interviews with nine students, the research highlights both the strategies these students employ to navigate inaccessible videos, such as relying on peers or disclosing their disabilities and the challenges these workarounds entail. The study emphasises the need for proactive accessibility measures, like audio descriptions. The results underscore the importance of an inclusive learning environment, where accessible materials are integrated by default, allowing all students equitable participation without the need to disclose disabilities or rely on others for support.

Keywords

Accessibility audio description higher education inclusion visual impairment

Introduction

Different digital technologies change the way to teach and learn in (higher) education. Nowadays, videos are an indispensable learning and teaching tool (Acosta et al., 2020; Persike, 2020), as they are associated with different advantages for learning (Dinmore, 2019). Videos as an audio-visual learning material pose challenges and create barriers for students with visual impairment if accessibility is not considered. To make the visual information of a video accessible, audio descriptions need to be provided (Fryer, 2016; W3C, 2023). Accessibility features such as captions, audio descriptions, and alternative media formats are critical for ensuring equitable access, yet studies reveal a persistent gap in their provision (Acosta et al., 2020; Wilkens & Bühler, 2022). Recognising these accessibility needs is crucial to creating an inclusive learning environment for all students, including those with disabilities (Rodrigo & Tabuenca, 2020).

Thus, this study aims to explore the experiences of students with visual impairment regarding working with videos in higher education and their views on audio description as a tool to ensure accessibility. Through qualitative interviews with nine students with visual impairment or blindness, this research aims to deeper understand how they deal with videos in their studies and assess the potential of audio description. Based on the results of the interviews, using the topic video as the central point of discussion, this investigation sheds light on the pressing need for more inclusive practices, which not only benefit students with disabilities but also contribute to a more equitable academic environment.

State of the art

“Videos are an increasingly ubiquitous part of higher education” (Fyfield et al., 2019, p. 1). Videos hold great learning potential and offer various learning opportunities (Dinmore, 2019; Fyfield et al., 2019). Videos allow one to watch a situation (or other content) repeatedly and can encourage in-depth discussion or reflection. Especially in teacher education, teaching examples can be analysed and discussed without the immediate pressure to act (Buddeberg et al., 2018; Krammer & Hugener, 2014) and alternative courses of action can be (jointly) developed and discussed (Weber et al., 2018).

However, videos must be accessible for all students to use for learning tasks. If they are not accessible, new barriers to participation in (higher) education and learning arise, leading to learning disadvantages and risks of exclusion (Emmerdinger et al., 2018; Kumar & Owston, 2016; Thompson, 2015). The creation of accessible videos is a challenge. For example, Acosta et al. (2020) found that only 17% of the videos published by the evaluated universities have captions, and 0% complied with the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) requirement that videos need an audio description or alternative media. The difficulties higher education institutions seem to have in providing audio descriptions are also reflected in the findings of Wilkens and Bühler (2022). They found that higher education institutions provide much less information about audio description on their websites to lecturers and that it is often insufficient, even though audio description is an integral part of accessible videos (W3C, 2023).

For a long time, different studies have examined the benefits of audio description for people with visual impairment (Schmeidler & Kirchner, 2001; Zengin Temırbek uulu et al., 2023) and found that audio description is necessary to comprehend the content of the video. In the study by Zengin Temırbek uulu et al. (2023), a task where the participants should work with a video without audio description, was not completed by the participants with visual impairment due to the lack of comprehension and frustration. However, Liu et al. (2021) found that even though inaccessible videos are prevalent, especially with user-generated videos, where the resources and legislation differ from “traditional media (TV and movies)”, people with visual impairment “watched online videos regularly, finding videos related to their interests via search, recommendation, or external links, and consuming videos for entertainment, learning new things, and maintaining social connectedness” (Liu et al., 2021, p. 2). Nevertheless, accessibility is a key criterion for selecting a video, even though the selection process can be cumbersome (Liu et al., 2021). If these results are transferred to higher education and videos’ diverse use and potential are considered, the need to deal with accessible videos in higher education becomes apparent. This is especially true for students with visual impairment who need audio descriptions or other text alternatives for a video’s visual content to be able to participate in the lectures and fulfil given tasks.

However, inaccessible learning material is not the only problem students with disability face (Amin et al., 2021). Students with disabilities face barriers due to the “limited use of inclusive teaching strategies” (Bellacicco & Demo, 2019, p. 187), the need to disclose their disability so their needs are accommodated (Bellacicco & Demo, 2019), and the fear of stigmatisation when they disclose their disability (Amin et al., 2021; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). Although the goal to create equal access and, therefore, an inclusive learning environment across all levels of education is enshrined in various approaches such as the Concention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD), the United Nations’s sustainable development goals and different policies by higher education institutions (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, 2009; Koutsouris et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, the barriers students with disabilities face are diverse. To elaborate a deeper understanding of these barriers, it is crucial to listen to the voices of students with disabilities as experts in their learning processes to create an inclusive learning environment (Lourens & Swartz, 2016). Thus, this study examines the experience of students with visual impairments with the work with videos and audio description and their opinions on what additional benefits they can imagine in using audio description in higher education.

Methodology

Qualitative interviews were conducted to answer the research questions:

How do students with visual impairment or blindness experience videos in higher education?

(a) How do they work with videos in seminars?

(b) How are their needs addressed in higher education?

What is their opinion on audio description, including an example audio description?

A letter informing about the research topic and call for participation was sent out by the division ‘Disability and Studies’ at TU Dortmund University to all students with visual impairment with whom they are in contact. The interviews with the students who answered this letter and were willing to participate were conducted face-to-face and via Zoom, depending on the participants’ preferences. Before the interviews, the participants gave written informed consent, which was verbally confirmed at the start of the session before the recording began. To ensure privacy, the participants’ course of study, degree, and level of visual impairment are not described in detail. Six students with visual impairment and three (legally) students with blindness participated in the interviews. The students’ strategies to deal with visual information vary significantly; some use a screen reader, while others use magnifying tools and their residual eyesight. All were between their early and late 20s. Altogether, most students are enrolled in teacher education, with the majority studying special needs teacher education focusing on visual impairment. Other courses of study were journalism and educational science.

The interview comprises two main sections:

Questions regarding their experience and opinion regarding working with videos in higher education and audio description in particular.

A short presentation of a prepared video with an audio description and a discussion.

The presented video with a prepared audio description built the basis for further discussion. The video showed a short sequence of an English lesson where the teacher introduced a discussion circle to a group of students. The audio description was implemented with synthetic voice (Natural Reader), and the descriptions focused on the teacher’s actions.

All interviews lasted, on average, 44 min and were recorded and transcribed. In order to use the qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2015), a category system was developed:

Student information;

Working with videos;

Audio description;

Teaching in Higher education;

Feedback on the presented audio description;

Others.

All categories included a variety of sub-categories. For the analysis, the category system, including main- and sub-categories, was transferred into MaxQDA©. Inductive sub-categories were added during the first coding round, and other sub-categories were merged. The students’ statements were summarised after the coding process was finalised for all transcripts. Thus, similar statements and different perspectives could be derived from the interviews.

Results

The results are structured along the themes of the interviews: Experience working with videos, strategies to work with inaccessible learning material, the reaction of lecturers, characteristics of audio description, perception of audio description, and assessment of the presented audio description.

Experience working with videos

The students reported a variety of different video types, primarily so-called explanatory videos:

Lecture recordings (R2_7)¹;

Contributions from broadcasters (R2_7);

Videos in which the auditory content is primarily important and not the visual information (R3_5);

School documentaries (R4_7-9).

The extent of how much the students worked with videos in their studies varied. While some lectures used videos to visualise a theoretical aspect (R6_7; R1_7), others worked more actively with videos (R9_5; R8_11; R5_64; R6_9; R8_11,19). On one hand, students reported that experiments (R9_5) and diagnostic tests (R6_9; R7_13) with pupils or students for different impairments (e.g., a diagnostic test to assess a specific kind of visual impairment) were shown in videos and used for discussions in the lecture. On the other hand, video analyses of diagnostic videos (R8_11) or school lessons (R6_11; R5_64) were conducted. One student said she created video content in different seminars (R8_11,13).

However, most of the used videos were not accessible (R1_5; R2_11; R3_9; R4_11; R5_7; R6_13; R7_11; R8_20-21; R9_9).

“They were more like things for people with normal vision, I’d say”. (R1_5)

The students claim that for some scenarios, the auditive information in the video was sufficient (R1_23); thus, the visual information was not needed for the given task. Two students reported that they experienced the consideration of accessibility for the first time in their studies, as in one seminar, the videos are provided with an audio description upfront (R5_7; R6_13).

“In fact, this is the first time this semester that it was paid attention to it [accessibility]. Yes, sad, but true!”. (R6_13)

Strategies to work with inaccessible learning material

Due to the often inaccessible learning materials, especially videos, the students use different strategies to work with these videos. The students focus on the auditive content rather than the visual information (R2_55; R4_15; R7_15; R8_23) or use their residual eyesight and watch the video, preferably from a low distance on a mobile device (R4_74; R7_15; R8_112; R9_18-19). If possible, students reported that they watched the video for themselves upfront on their own devices (R4_7; R6_20). This is less stressful, and asking someone for help is unnecessary (R9_29).

“I wouldn’t necessarily have to ask others for help – I would say. I would be more independent in what I do”. (R9_29)

In addition, some students asked their fellow students for help (R1_11; R2_59). However, some interviewees stated they prefer to ask friends (R4_15; R6_20), considering it unpolite to ask unfamiliar students (R4_13). Although, as one student puts it, the descriptions of visual learning material provided by fellow students are ‘enough to survive’, as it takes practice to describe something sufficient. But, they claim it is usually sufficient to complete the task (R9_161-162). Furthermore, the students were assisted by the disability service at TU Dortmund University, which supports students with disabilities and provides accessible formats of learning materials (R5_21). Nevertheless, despite these different strategies, some do not use the video and try to work around it (R2_11; R9_10-11).

“I usually left them out because I didn’t want to ask the person sitting next to me because I think it’s rude to talk to someone in a lecture”. (R9_10-11)

It was also stated that working with video takes more time despite the benefits of flexibility and possible repetitions (R5_103).

Reaction of lecturers

In addition to these strategies, the students had to ask lecturers to accommodate their needs and provide the necessary means. Altogether, the interviewees reported mixed reactions from lecturers to needs and the provision of accessible learning material. Most of them stated that even though the learning materials were not accessible from the beginning, the lecturers tried to meet the needs of the students as soon as they disclosed their disability and their needs (R1_17; R7_30; R3_22-23) and were eager to enable participation in their lectures (R2_23). However, one student reported difficulties with the lack of knowledge by the lecturers regarding accessible learning materials and stated:

“But probably the better way would be to teach it to everyone. But I don’t always have the energy to teach everyone everything every day”. (R4_25)

This statement shows students’ difficulties when they feel they must explain basic accessibility requirements to the lecturers, which costs them ‘energy’ and time, which they need for other things, such as their studies.

Nevertheless, the students were also confronted with lecturers who did not meet their needs, which resulted in one case in which the student decided to leave the seminar altogether (R4_17). Others reported incidents when the lecturers were trying to meet their needs and enable participation but instead created an unpleasant situation for the students. For example, one lecturer did not provide a video upfront, and to ensure that the student with visual impairment could watch the video, she requested the ‘blind’ student to come up front to watch the video from the first row. The student followed this request because she did not dare speak up, even though the situation was uncomfortable (R4_11). Thus, lectures have unintentionally created a highly unpleasant situation for their students (R3_13; R4_11). This unpleasant situation contradicts the students’ wish for lecturers to be aware that the seminar consists of a heterogeneous student group. Awareness alone would change a lot so that certain inaccessible learning materials are no longer used or that needed accessibility elements such as audio descriptions or alternative texts are provided more often (R9_186).

Characteristics of audio description

Despite using videos in the lectures, only two students stated that they were provided with a video with an audio description in one seminar (R5_13; R6_13). Nevertheless, all students have ideas of what they would like to be considered in the audio description and how it should be designed, even though their ideas sometimes differ. For example, they disagreed about what needs to be described. One student stated that gestures and facial expressions should be described even in lecture recordings (R1_82). Others stated that only elements relevant to the plot should be described (R3_27; R4_31). However, they agreed that the context or task provided with the video must be considered in the design of the audio description (R3_50; R4_31; R5_37; R6_41).

“If I could wish for, it should be limited to the essentials, what is really important at that moment and in that context”. (R5_37)

Nevertheless, if too much is described in an audio description, the focus can quickly be lost. One student compared it to the impossibility of perceiving everything visually within images or videos. Thus, trying to describe everything in an audio description can be “overwhelming” in an audio description (R5_85).

Perception of audio description

Notably, the interviewed students do not often use audio descriptions in their private lives (R5_13, R6_31; R8_27; R_9 20-21). Instead, they rely on auditive information (R6_32-33; R7_19) or family members and friends to describe an action if needed (R2_23). One student stated that he did not use audio description initially because he was “afraid” that the audio description would “destroy” the movie’s atmosphere (R2_25). However, he now uses audio descriptions in movies or series, with much action and few dialogues (R2_25). Thus, one has to get used to audio description (R3_17).

These ambiguous feelings about audio descriptions reflect their opinion on whether to always provide videos in higher education with audio descriptions and whether audio descriptions can also benefit sighted students. There are some ideas where audio description can benefit sighted students, such as relief of eye strain (R1_63), enabling students to do something parallel, for example, housekeeping (R4_19), drawing attention to small movements or details (R1_65) or providing context or background information for the video (R2_47; R4_60; R5_75). But, despite these ideas, the disruptive nature of audio description for sighted viewers is considered by the students with visual impairment, as they might be annoyed (R4_60; R6_90; R8_88).

“But I often find that people who don’t have a specific need find it annoying and try to avoid it, because you can see it”. (R6_90)

The extent to which the participants consider the view of sighted students is especially interesting when looking at their answers regarding how they would feel if videos were always provided with an audio description. As two students put it:

“I think that would be really great. Because you’re not always forced into this situation where you’re the only person with a need and now have to request this extra thing somehow”. (R6_94)

“Yes, because I think it is about inclusion all the time, and that is exactly what it is because the audio description doesn’t interfere because it doesn’t judge; it just describes. So, the video would then be for everyone, and that’s what inclusion actually is. That should be the standard, not the other way around”. (R7_76)

However, to both of these arguments, the students also added that everyone could be “annoyed” by the audio description (R6_94; R7_76). The consideration of the view of sighted viewers is very present in the answers, as nearly all students stated some concern about their reaction. However, they also argue that if audio description is consistently used, the sighted students will get used to it. At the same time, they also propose a solution where audio descriptions can be turned on and off individually. So everyone who does not use the audio description will not be disturbed (R1_69; R5_81; R7_82).

Assessment of the audio description

This pattern of not trying to stand out and burden lecturers and fellow students also becomes apparent when looking at the feedback the students gave on the short video with audio description. Upfront, the students stated that the voice is particularly important for the audio description (R1_41; R4_33). When asked for feedback on the short video with audio description, nearly all students stated that the used synthetic voice was unpleasant (e.g., R1_49; R2_35; R4_66; R9_84). However, the students differentiate the context. In private life, they would not be satisfied and expect something high quality (R3_40). In higher education, it would be okay to work with an audio description with a synthetic voice, as the main goal is not entertainment but learning (R3_40), and it would already be an improvement if an audio description with a synthetic voice were available at all (R4_64). However, it is also stated that they would be okay with the synthetic voice, but if other students also have to work with it, they would prefer a natural and more pleasant voice (R4_48). Nevertheless, other students stated that they got used to the synthetic voice quickly and that it is also helpful that the voice does not show emotion (R7_46), as one does not have to care about accentuation and emphasis (R7_106).

Discussion

While students with visual impairments use various strategies to engage with inaccessible video content, they face various challenges. In the interviews, the students reported dealing with inaccessible learning materials because lecturers did not provide accessible formats upfront (R1_5; R2_11; R3_9; R4_11; R5_7; R6_13; R7_11; R8_20-21; R9_9). These students’ difficulties meet Fernandez’s (2019, p. 2) description, which states that “ableist dynamics and disabling ideologies still shape the spaces in which teaching and learning take place”.

One problem found in the interviews is the lecturers’ lack of knowledge, which even gives students the feeling that they must teach the lecturers how to make their lectures accessible (R5_25). This places the responsibility on the students instead of the lecturers. It can only be assumed if lecturers still do not expect students with accessibility needs in their lectures or if the working time is the “narrow bottleneck” (Bühler et al., 2020, p. 129). However, the impact inaccessible learning materials have on the success of studies cannot be neglected, as difficulties in using technologies and learning materials make studies more difficult and hinder their academic success (Kumar & Owston, 2016). In addition, it needs to be considered that studying is in itself already time-consuming, and a variety of different requirements need to be met by students, for example, preparation and follow-up of seminars, including presentations or other tasks, writing of term papers or exams, and so on. Putting on the additional task of ‘teaching’ lecturers how to make their learning materials and seminars accessible to those who need accessibility features is another barrier to successful studies.

As shown in the results, the students develop strategies to work with the inaccessible video content, such as asking fellow students or the lecturers for help (R1_11; R2_59; R4_15; R6_20). While asking for help may be sufficient in the moment, the literature provides insights that asking for help also has a downside: They must disclose their disability. But as Eccles et al. (2018) state, the disclosure process itself is associated with the fear of stigmatisation, and thus, students often decide not to disclose their disability. Forcing students to do so is an additional barrier to successful participation in higher education. However, even when students decide to disclose their disability and ask for accommodations, there is no guarantee that the accommodation will provide sufficient support (Fennelly-Atkinson, 2023). This can also be seen in the results when students state that not all lecturers provided them with the needed accessibility features (R4_17), and they had to find workarounds (R2_55; R4_15; R7_15; R8_23) or just simply did not use the provided videos at all (R2_11; R9_10-11). This is especially interesting because lecturers probably used the videos with a learning objective in mind. Thus, when students do not use the videos or rely only on one information channel (in this case, the auditive information), they may have difficulties reaching the learning objective.

On the contrary, if they ask fellow students for support, they enter into a relationship of dependency. Hierarchical structures can arise in which feelings of inferiority and inability can be evoked by the recipient, in this case, students with visual impairments (Laireiter & Lettner, 1993). In addition, feelings of owing the other person something can arise (Nestmann, 1988).

Another important finding is that the interviewed students with visual impairment try to put as little workload and burden as possible on others. In the interviews, they often reported that they were fine with the bare minimum (e.g., an unpleasant synthetic voice) as long as they were somehow considered (R3_40). In addition, they try to cause as minor inconvenience to others as possible. As for themselves, the unpleasant voice is okay to work with, but for the other students who do not need an audio description, a more natural voice would be better (R4_48). Especially when they fear that they can be singled out by other students when an accessibility measurement, such as an audio description, is used. This student behaviour can result in lecturers thinking there is no need to adapt their lectures and use accessible learning materials. However, this should not place the responsibility on the students but rather emphasise once again how important it is for higher education institutions to sensitise lecturers to the needs of all students.

In addition, for higher education institutions, the question should arise whether these sometimes difficult learning conditions correspond to their claim to provide equal learning opportunities for all students. In an inclusive learning environment with accessible learning material, the need to ask for help and disclose a disability would be minimised. The results and experiences of the students show, once again, that we are still far away from an inclusive teaching–learning space. Only two students stated they initially worked with videos with audio descriptions (R5_7; R6_13). Thus, there was no need to ask for an accommodation. These students referred to seminars conducted in the context of the research project Degree 4.0 (2024) – Digital reflexive teacher education 4.0: Video-based – accessible – personalised. This research project aimed to develop and evaluate an accessible digital video platform for teacher education (Degree 4.0, 2024; Delere et al., 2023). To do so, different subjects, together with the Department of Rehabilitation Technology and the division for ‘Disability and Studies’ at TU Dortmund University, worked together and developed not just an accessible digital video platform but also different types of audio descriptions for different videos (Wilkens et al., 2021). Thus, research projects that aim to improve higher education in an inclusive and accessible manner can show an impact. Furthermore, inclusive and accessible learning material can “improve the educational experience for all students” (Fennelly-Atkinson, 2023, p. 110).

The benefit of this qualitative study lies in gathering the experiences and opinions of a group of users with visual impairment. This study showed that making videos the subject of discussion can be used as a starting point to identify other barriers experienced in higher education. Based on the findings from the interview, it can be concluded that there is a definite need for better accessibility measures, particularly in providing audio descriptions, improving lecturer awareness, and thus ensuring a more inclusive learning environment. These needs emphasise the findings from the literature.

However, this study does have limitations. As it is difficult to find students with visual impairment willing to participate in an interview, the division ‘Disability and Studies’ at TU Dortmund University contacted students with visual impairment and asked if they would participate. Thus, the sample is from one university, and it is biased, as only students who are in contact with the division ‘Disability and Studies’ and were interested in the topic took part in the interviews. Nevertheless, it was possible to shed light on students’ experiences with visual impairment when working with videos in higher education and their opinions on audio description.

In the future, further investigations at other higher education institutions on a national and international level are needed. This should include not only the usage of videos but also, more holistically, the learning environment in total and, respectively, needed accessibility features. In addition, it would be interesting to assess the perspectives of lecturers working with videos on the need for accessibility measures and the opportunities they see or do not see when implementing audio descriptions. Building on this research, guidelines for lecturers or university staff, in general, to build an inclusive learning environment in higher education could be supplemented. In the context of the Degree-Projects at TU Dortmund University, different guidelines and information for the production of accessible videos were developed (Kurth et al., 2024; Lüttmann et al., 2023, 2024; Wilkens, Lüttmann, & Bender, 2023; Wilkens, Lüttmann, & Bühler, 2023). Both lecturers and librarians can use these guidelines, as well as everyone creating videos in higher education especially when these workflows are implemented in the work of Disability Services or the like. Especially when these workflows are implemented in the work of Disability Services or the like.

Furthermore, communicating the needs and experiences of lecturers and students with (visual) impairment can be used as another approach to raise awareness among university staff, including lecturers or staff in administration.

Conclusion

Although the main aim of the interviews was to shed light on the viewpoint of students with visual impairment on audio description, a bigger picture became obvious. The students with visual impairment experience many incidents where their needs are not considered, or they have to ask for adaptions and the awareness of fellow students and lecturers, so they develop other strategies to work with inaccessible learning materials such as videos. The variety of strategies these students employ to work around inaccessible videos, such as relying on auditory information, asking peers for assistance, or disclosing their disability to instructors, highlight the need for more inclusive teaching practices. These workarounds not only put an additional burden on students but also often lead to feelings of dependency, stigmatisation, and discomfort. Furthermore, these workarounds can pose a barrier to their academic success and, thus, violate the right to equal participation in education. Thus, there is a definite need to address the “ableist dynamics and disabling ideologies [which] still shape the spaces in which teaching and learning take place” (Fernandez, 2019, p. 2).

While some instructors provide accommodations, the lack of accessibility to learning materials remains a major barrier. The students’ willingness to accept suboptimal solutions, such as synthetic voices for audio descriptions, underscores their desire to minimise the burden on others. However, they also express concern about standing out and disrupting the learning environment for sighted students, pointing to the need for more thoughtful and universal design in education. Here, higher education institutions are obliged to create a learning environment with accessible learning materials, as it is enshrined in the UN-CRPD. This would include higher education institutions requiring lecturers to make their courses accessible. However, here, it is crucial that not only are the lecturers committed, but at the same time, the institution also provides the means to do so, including personal and financial resources. Only that way can the “bottleneck” working time (Bühler et al., 2020, p. 129) be addressed. In addition, it is essential that the awareness of the need for accessible learning materials rises among lecturers and all university staff.

In summary, including accessible materials, like audio descriptions, could reduce challenges in higher education and create a more equitable learning experience. Yet, as the results show, much work remains to create a truly inclusive learning environment, especially when working with videos. As the interviews showed, the students met lecturers who were willing to adapt their teaching and learning material and provide it up front, but difficulties with videos remained. Here, research projects, such as the Degree 4.0 project or other projects aiming at inclusive higher education, offer a pathway forward. The lectures designed in this project were the first ones where they experienced the provision of accessible videos from the beginning. However, broader systemic changes are necessary to ensure all students can fully participate in higher education without additional barriers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the students who participated in the interviews and shared their experiences and opinions. In addition, I would like to thank my colleague Finnja Lüttmann for preparing and conducting the interviews together.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany) under Grant 16DHB2130X and 16DHB2217. The responsibility for the content of this publication remains with the author.

Ethical approval and informed consent statement

Written informed consent was given by the participants.

ORCID iD

Leevke Wilkens

Notes

References

Acosta

Acosta-Vargas

Zambrano-Miranda

Lujan-Mora

(2020). Web accessibility evaluation of videos published on YouTube by worldwide top-ranking universities. IEEE Access, 8, 110994–111011. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002175

Amin

A. S.

Sarnon

Md. Akhir

Zakaria

S. M.

Badri

R. N. F. R. Z

. (2021). Main challenges of students with visual impairment at higher education institutions. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(1), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i1/9682

Bellacicco

Demo

(2019). Becoming a teacher with a disability: A systematic review. Form@re, 19(3), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.13128/FORM-7720

Buddeberg

Duve

Grimminger-Seidensticker

Heberle

Hornberg

Karber

Krabbe

Kranefeld

Radhoff

Tubach

Uhlendorff

(2018). Videobasierte Fallarbeit in inklusionsbezogenen Seminaren [Video-based case work in inclusion-related seminars]. In Hußmann

Welzel

(Eds.), DoProfiL–das Dortmunder Profil für inklusionsorientierte Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung [DoProfiL – the Dortmund profile for inclusion-oriented teacher training] (pp. 73–91). Waxmann.

Bühler

Burgstahler

S. E.

Havel

Kaspi-Tsahor

(2020). New practices: Promoting the role of ICT in the shared space of transition. In Seale

(Ed.), Improving accessible digital practices in higher education: Challenges and new practices for inclusion (1st ed., pp. 117–141). Palgrave Pivot.

Degree 4.0. (2024). Startseite [Homepage]. https://degree.tu-dortmund.de/

Delere

Langner

Unteregge

Wilkens

(2023). Degree- eine Plattform zur barrierefreien videobasierten Fallarbeit in der reflexiven Lehrkräftebildung [degree–a platform for accessible video-based casework in reflective teacher training]. In Hußmann

Welzel

(Eds.), DoProfiL 2.0: Das Dortmunder Profil für inklusionsorientierte Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung [DoProfiL 2.0: the Dortmund profile for inclusion-oriented teacher training] (pp. 169–183). Waxmann.

Dinmore

(2019). Beyond lecture capture: Creating digital video content for online learning–a case study. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(1), 7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213966.pdf

Eccles

Hutchings

Hunt

Heaslip

(2018). Risk and stigma: Students’ perceptions and disclosure of ‘disability’ in higher education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 20(4), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.20.4.191

10.

Emmerdinger

Gegenfurtner

Stern

(2018). Barrierearmut an der Uni: Inklusion sehbeeinträchtigter Studierender durch die Implementierung assistiver Technologien und Universal Design in Lern-Management-Systemen [Accessibility at university: Inclusion of visually impaired students through the implementation of assistive technologies and universal design in learning management systems]. Spuren: Sonderpädagogik in Bayern, 61(2), 40–43.

11.

Fennelly-Atkinson

(2023). Ableism versus inclusion: A systems view of accessibility practices in online higher education. In Hokanson

Exter

Schmidt

M. M.

Tawfik

A. A.

(Eds.), Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Toward inclusive learning design (pp. 99–114). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37697-9_8

12.

Fernandez

(2019). Making space in higher education: Disability, digital technology, and the inclusive prospect of digital collaborative making. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25, 1375–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610806

13.

Fryer

(2016). An introduction to audio description: A practical guide. Translation practices explained. Routledge.

14.

Fyfield

Henderson

Heinrich

Redmond

(2019). Videos in higher education: Making the most of a good thing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5930

15.

Griful-Freixenet

Struyven

Verstichele

Andries

(2017). Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the Universal Design for Learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695

16.

Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. (Ed.). (2009). “Eine Hochschule für Alle” Empfehlungen der 6. Mitgliederversammlung am 21.4.2009 zum Studium mit Behinderung/chronischer Krankheit [“A university for all” recommendations of the 6th general assembly on 21 April 2009 on studying with a disability/chronic illness]. www.hrk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk/02-Dokumente/02-01-Beschluesse/Entschliessung_HS_Alle.pdf

17.

Koutsouris

Stentiford

Norwich

(2022). A critical exploration of inclusion policies of elite UK universities. British Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 878–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3799

18.

Krammer

Hugener

(2014). Förderung der Analysekompetez angehender Lehrpersonen anhand von eigenen und fremden Unterrichtsvideos [Promoting the analytical skills of prospective teachers using their own and other people’s teaching videos]. Journal für LehrerInnenbildung, 14(1), 25–32.

19.

Kumar

K. L.

Owston

(2016). Evaluating e-learning accessibility by automated and student-centered methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9413-6

20.

Kurth

Lüttmann

Haage

(2024). Leitfaden zur Erstellung von Untertiteln [Guidelines to creating captions]. https://doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-24371

21.

Laireiter

A. R.

Lettner

(1993). Belastende Aspekte Sozialer Netzwerke und Sozialer Unterstützung. Ein Überblick über den Phänomenbereich und die Methodik [Stressful aspects of social networks and social support. An overview of the phenomena and methodology]. In Laireiter

A.-R.

(Ed.), Huber-Psychologie-Forschung. Soziales Netzwerk und soziale Unterstützung: Konzepte, Methoden und Befunde [Huber Psychology Research. Social network and social support: concepts, methods and findings] (1st ed., pp. 101–111). Huber.

22.

Liu

Carrington

Chen

Pavel

(2021). What makes videos accessible to blind and visually impaired people? In Kitamura

Quigley

Isbister

Igarashi

Bjørn

Drucker

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445233

23.

Lourens

Swartz

(2016). Experiences of visually impaired students in higher education: Bodily perspectives on inclusive education. Disability & Society, 31(2), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1158092

24.

Lüttmann

Wilkens

Bühler

(2023). Audiodeskription und Untertitelung in der Hochschullehre: Abbau von Barrieren orientiert am Dortmunder Arbeitsansatz [Audiodescription and captions in higher education]. In Bender

Bühner

Drolshagen

(Eds.), Teilhabe an Hochschulbildung: Grundsätze, Konzepte und Praxisbeispiele für die Beratung und Begleitung von Studierenden mit Behinderung [Participation in higher education: principles, concepts and practical examples for advising and supporting students with disabilities] (pp. 93–106). Waxmann.

25.

Lüttmann

Wilkens

Kurth

Haage

(2024). Leitfaden zur Erstellung von Audiodeskription im Hochschulkontext [Guidelines to creating audiodescription in higher education]. https://doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-24425

26.

Mayring

(2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis] (12th, rev. ed.). Beltz Pädagogik.

27.

Nestmann

(1988). Die alltäglichen Helfer: Theorien sozialer Unterstützung und eine Untersuchung alltäglicher Helfer aus vier Dienstleistungsberufen [The everyday helpers. Theories of social support and a study of everyday helpers from four service professions]. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110861891

28.

Persike

(2020). Videos in der Lehre: Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen [Videos in teaching: Effects and side effects]. In Niegemann

H. M.

Weinberger

(Eds.), Handbuch Bildungstechnologie: Konzeption und Einsatz digitaler Lernumgebungen [Handbook of educational technology: Design and use of digital learning environments] (pp. 271–301). Springer; Ciando. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54368-9_23

29.

Rodrigo

Tabuenca

(2020). Learning ecologies in online students with disabilities. Comunicar, 28(62), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.3916/C62-2020-05

30.

Schmeidler

Kirchner

(2001). Adding audio description: Does it make a difference? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 197–212.

31.

Thompson

(2015). Video for all: Accessibility of video content and universal design of a media player. In Burgstahler

S. E.

(Ed.), Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed., pp. 259–273). Harvard Education Press.

32.

W3C. (2023). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

33.

Weber

K. E.

Gold

Prilop

C. N.

Kleinknecht

(2018). Promoting pre-service teachers’ professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of a structured online- and video-based self-reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008

34.

Wilkens

Bühler

(2022, 26 June–1 July). Accessible videos in higher education–lost in translation?! In Antona

Stephanidis

(Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 13309. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. User and Context Diversity: 16th International Conference, UAHCI 2022 (Held as part of the 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022, Proceedings, Part II, Vol. 13309, pp. 157–171). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05039-8_11

35.

Wilkens

Heitplatz

V. N.

Bühler

(2021). Designing accessible videos for people with disabilities. In Antona

Stephanidis

(Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science. Universal access in human-computer interaction. Access to media, learning and assistive environments (pp. 328–344). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_24

36.

Wilkens

Lüttmann

Bender

Bühler

(2023). Angaben der Lehrenden für die Erstellung barrierefreier Videos [Lecturer information for the creation of accessible videos]. https://doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-23223

37.

Wilkens

Lüttmann

Bühler

(2023). Umsetzung und Einsatz von barrierefreien Videos in der Hochschullehre [Implementation and use of accessible videos in higher education]. In Voß-Nakkour

Rustemeier

Möhring

M. M.

Deitmer

Grimminger

(Eds.), Digitale Barrierefreiheit in der Bildung weiter denken: Innovative Impulse aus Praxis, Technik und Didaktik [Thinking ahead on digital accessibility in education: Innovative impulses from practice, technology and didactics] (pp. 250–258). Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg. https://doi.org/10.21248/gups.69162

38.

Zengin Temırbek uulu

Sağın-Şimşek

Ç.

Antonova-Ünlü

. (2023). The effect of audio description on film comprehension of individuals with visual impairment: A case study in Turkey. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(1), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196211020058

Using videos in higher education: Experiences of students with visual impairment

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

State of the art

Methodology

Results

Experience working with videos

Strategies to work with inaccessible learning material

Reaction of lecturers

Characteristics of audio description

Perception of audio description

Assessment of the audio description

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical approval and informed consent statement

ORCID iD

Notes

References