2007
DOI: 10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v14i05/45335
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distance Education Resources for the Blind

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The message from the federal government about technology accessibility is over a decade and a half old and has been communicated in statutes, regulations, and policy. Unfortunately, however, technology accessibility, as an innovation, has not yet fully diffused in K–12, as evidenced by (1) the plethora of inaccessible technologies present in K–12 classrooms (Asuncion et al, 2010; Bray et al, 2003; Fajardo-Flores et al, 2007; Fichten et al, 2009; Kamei-Hannan, 2008; Phipps & Kelly, 2013; Schaffhauser, 2013) and (2) the grave concerns expressed by disability rights organizations about inaccessible instructional technologies used in K–12 classrooms (National Federation of the Blind, 2015; Nightingale v. Seattle School District , 2014; Riccobono et al, 2015; Riccobono & Rosenblum, 2016).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The message from the federal government about technology accessibility is over a decade and a half old and has been communicated in statutes, regulations, and policy. Unfortunately, however, technology accessibility, as an innovation, has not yet fully diffused in K–12, as evidenced by (1) the plethora of inaccessible technologies present in K–12 classrooms (Asuncion et al, 2010; Bray et al, 2003; Fajardo-Flores et al, 2007; Fichten et al, 2009; Kamei-Hannan, 2008; Phipps & Kelly, 2013; Schaffhauser, 2013) and (2) the grave concerns expressed by disability rights organizations about inaccessible instructional technologies used in K–12 classrooms (National Federation of the Blind, 2015; Nightingale v. Seattle School District , 2014; Riccobono et al, 2015; Riccobono & Rosenblum, 2016).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Discussions of inaccessible instructional technologies in the literature have focused on Internet-based technologies, which are common in both e-learning and traditional face-to-face learning environments. Examples of inaccessible technologies that can be found in K–12 classrooms and are likely to pose barriers for students with disabilities include learning/content management systems (Fajardo-Flores et al, 2007), school websites (Bray, Flowers, & Gibson, 2003; Bray, Flowers, Smith, & Algozzine, 2003; Krach & Jelenic, 2009; Opitz, Savenye, & Rowland, 2003), computer-adapted testing (Kamei-Hannan, 2008), and other e-learning resources (Asuncion et al, 2010; Fichten et al, 2009; Phipps & Kelly, 2013). Studies examining the accessibility of K–12 websites found that 74.3% of 120 school district websites contained accessibility barriers (Bray, Flowers, & Gibson, 2003) and 57.4% of 244 elementary school websites contained accessibility barriers (Bray, Flowers, Smith, et al, 2003).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation