Concept of Digital Accessibility of e-Learning in the Context of Pedagogical Theories

Yekaterina A. Kosova; Olga V. Galustyan

doi:10.17323/vo-2025-21662

Yekaterina A. Kosova V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3263-9373
Olga V. Galustyan Southern Federal University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1062-547X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/vo-2025-21662

Keywords: digital accessibility, e-learning, learning theories, cognitivism, constructivism, behaviorism, connectivism, multimedia learning, cognitive load, information processing theory, WCAG 2.2

Abstract

The article discusses the issues of arguing the concept of digital accessibility in e-learning from a theoretical and practical perspective, considering the psychological and pedagogical theories that are applicable to learning with information and communication technologies. It also takes into account the existing requirements for organizing accessible digital content, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The analysis of cognitivism, behaviorism, constructivism, and connectivism allowed to identify and clarify the importance of digital accessibility for implementing all theoretical approaches in practice. It also helped to establish a mutual correspondence between these approaches and the key principles of WCAG 2.2, based on the factors that determine the effectiveness and accessibility of e-learning. It has been shown that the theoretical models developed by the school of cognitivism most accurately explain the essence of digital accessibility in e-learning as a fundamental basis that enables the ability to perceive, process, and store educational information in long-term memory. Errors in digital accessibility can cause disruptions in information processing, leading to problems in the functioning of the overall information processing system, from receiving signals from the environment to storing new knowledge in memory. The cognitive load theory, which states that effective learning occurs only with an appropriate level of cognitive demand on the learner's working memory, aligns with the concept of digital accessibility implying adaptability, flexibility, lapidarity, simplicity and clarity of presentation of digital content. Further prospects for exploring the concept of digital accessibility in e-learning involve a practical examination of its implementation in conjunction with various learning theories.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andrews R. (2011) Does e-Learning Require a New Theory of Learning? Some Initial Thoughts. Journal for Educational Research Online, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 104–121. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4684

Arasteh B., Pirahesh S., Zakeri A., Arasteh B. (2014) Highly Available and Dependable e-Learning Services Using Grid System. Procedia — Social and Behavioural Sciences, no 143, pp. 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.519

Atkinson R.C., Shiffrin R.M. (1968) Human Memory: A Proposed System and Its Control Processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 2, pp. 89–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3

Bowers J.S. (2016) The Practical and Principled Problems with Educational Neuroscience. Psychological Review, vol. 123, no 5, pp. 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025

Brown J., Permvattana R., Hollier S., McKee J. (2022) Online Learning & COVID-19: Exploring Digital Accessibility. Scholar Works of the California State University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/223467 (accessed 4.06.2025).

Caldwell B., Cooper M., Guarino Reid L., Vanderheiden G. (eds) (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (accessed 2.06.2025).

Campbell A., Adams C., Montgomery R.B., Cooper M., Kirkpatrick A. (eds) (2023) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ (accessed 2.06.2025).

Carter J., Markel M. (2001) Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities: An Introduction for Web Developers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 44, no 4, pp. 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.968105

Chandler P., Sweller J. (1991) Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, no 8, pp. 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

Clark R.C., Mayer R.E. (2016) E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086

Downes S. (2010) Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. Collective Intelligence and e-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (eds H.H. Yang, S.Chi-Y. Yuen), Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001

Dron J., Anderson T. (2016) The Future of E-learning. The Sage Handbook of E-Learning Research (eds C. Haythornthwaite, R. Andrews, J. Fransman, E.M. Meyers), Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 537–554. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716696

Engeström Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Feidakis M. (2016) A Review of Emotion-Aware Systems for e-Learning in Virtual Environments. Formative Assessment, Learning Data Analytics and Gamification (eds S. Caballé, R. Clarisó), London: Academic Press, pp. 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803637-2.00011-7

Gagne R.M. (1985) The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Goldie J.G.S. (2016) Connectivism: A Knowledge Learning Theory for the Digital Age? Medical Teacher, vol. 38, no 10, pp. 1064–1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661

Gough N. (2004) RhizomANTically Becoming‐Cyborg: Performing Posthuman Pedagogies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 36, no 3, pp. 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.00066.x

Guilbaud T.C., Martin F., Newton X. (2021) Faculty Perceptions on Accessibility in Online Learning: Knowledge, Practice and Professional Development. Online Learning, vol. 25, no 2, pp. 6–35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2233

Haynes A. (2019) Establishing Considerations for Universal Design for Learning and Accessibility in Online Courses. Handbook of Research on Challenges and Opportunities in Launching a Technology-Driven International University (ed. M. Khosrow-Pour), Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 69–90. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6255-9.ch005

Hickey-Moody A. (2009) Little War Machines: Posthuman Pedagogy and Its Media. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, vol. 3, no 3, pp. 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1353/jlc.0.0024

Ismail I. (2024) Exploring Modern Educational Theories: A Literature Review of Student Learning in the Digital Age. International Journal Multidisciplinary Science, vol. 3, no 3, pp. 83–94. https://doi.org/10.56127/ijml.v3i3.1646

Ismailov M., Chiu T.K.F. (2022) Catering to Inclusion and Diversity with Universal Design for Learning in Asynchronous Online Education: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, Article no 819884. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819884

Jackson A.K. (2023) Closing the Digital Divide: Understanding Organizational Approaches to Digital Accessibility in Higher Education (PhD Thesis), Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota.

Janelli M. (2018) E-Learning in Theory, Practice, and Research. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, no 4, pp. 81–98 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2018-4-81-98

Kahiigi E.K., Ekenberg L., Hansson H., Danielson F.T., Danielson M. (2008) Exploring the e-Learning State of Art. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, vol. 6, no 2, pp. 149–160.

Kaufmann H.R., Kurth A., Shukla S., Tirrel H., Schäffner L. (2022) Inclusive Online Collaborative Learning Environments in Vocational Education. Business Advancement through Technology. Vol. I: Palgrave Studies in Cross-Disciplinary Business Research (eds A. Thrassou, D. Vrontis, L. Efthymiou, Y. Weber, S.M.R. Shams, E. Tsoukatos), Cham: Springer International, pp. 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07769-2_12

Kibuku R.N., Ochieng D.O., Wausi A.N. (2021) Developing an e-Learning Theory for Interaction and Collaboration Using Grounded Theory: A Methodological Approach. The Qualitative Report, vol. 26, no 9, pp. 2836–2854. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4739

Kirkpatrick A., O’Connor J., Campbell A., Cooper M. (eds) (2018) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Available at: https://www. w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/ (accessed 2.06.2025).

Koohang A., Riley L., Smith T., Schreurs J. (2009) E-Learning and Constructivism: from Theory to Application. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Learning and Learning Objects, vol. 5, pp. 91–109. https://doi.org/10.28945/3321

Koreshnikova Y.N., Sorokin P.S. (2024) From Behaviorism to Neoconstructivism: A Review of Educational Theories for the Development of Independence in the Conditions of Neo-Structuration. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, no 4, pp. 126–150 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/vo-2024-17084

Kosova Y.A. (2020) Web Accessibility in e-Learning. Simferopol: ARIAL (In Russian).

Kosova Y.A., Redkokosh K.I. (2022) Methodology for the Formation of Digital Accessibility Competences: Development and Trial on a Russian Sample. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 488–509 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-3-488-509

Kumar V., Sharma D. (2021) E-Learning Theories, Components, and Cloud Computing-Based Learning Platforms. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), vol. 16, no 3, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.20210501.oa1

Levicky-Townley C., Garabedian S.M., Zhang J., Weatherford E. (2021) Exploring the Impact of Universal Design for Learning Supports in an Online Higher Education Course. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, vol. 10, no 1. https://doi.org/10.51869/101/clt

Lowenthal P.R., Humphrey M., Conley Q., Dunlap J.C., Greear K., Lowenthal A., Giacumo L.A. (2020) Creating Accessible and Inclusive Online Learning: Moving beyond Compliance and Broadening the Discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 21, no 2, pp. 1–21.

Manly C. (2022) Utilization and Effect of Multiple Content Modalities in Online Higher Education: Shifting Trajectories toward Success through Universal Design for Learning (PhD Thesis). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ dissertations_2/2408. https://doi.org/10.7275/27252773 (accessed 8.06.2025).

Mayer R.E., Moreno R. (2002) Aids to Computer-Based Multimedia Learning. Learning and Instruction, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4

Mayes T., de Freitas S. (2004) Review of e-Learning Theories, Frameworks and Models. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/outcomes.aspx (accessed 4.06.2025).

Meyer A., Ross D.H. (1998) Learning to Read in the Computer Age. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Mödritscher F. (2006) E-Learning Theories in Practice: A Comparison of Three Methods. Journal of Universal Science and Technology of Learning, vol. 28, no 1, pp. 3–18.

Najab A., Amrani O. (2022) Digital Accessibility and Distance Higher Education in the Context of COVID-19: Lessons from the Experience of FSJES-Souissi and Future Perspectives. Policies and Procedures for the Implementation of Safe and Healthy Educational Environments: Post-COVID-19 Perspectives (ed. M. Haoucha), Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 88–105. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9297-7.ch006

Obidat A.H. (2022) Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Literature on the Accessibility of an Integrated e-Learning Model for Students with Disabilities. Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 14, no 3, Article no 374. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12064

Pange A., Pange J. (2011) Is E-Learning Based on Learning Theories? A Literature Review. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 5, no 8, pp. 932–936.

Persson H., Åhman H., Yngling A.A., Gulliksen, J. (2015) Universal Design, Inclusive Design, Accessible Design, Design for All: Different Concepts – One Goal? On the Concept of Accessibility – Historical, Methodological and Philosophical Aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 4, May, pp. 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z

Ross D., Meyer A. (2006) A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Seale J. (2007) Accessibility and Activity Theory: An Exploration of the Factors that Mediate the Practice of Developing Accessible e-Learning in Higher Education. Proceedings of the EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (Vienna, Austria, 2023, 10–14 July), pp. 4601–4608. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/26044/

Seale J. (2004) The Development of Accessibility Practices in e-Learning: An Exploration of Communities of Practice. Research in Learning Technology, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776042000211539

Seale J., Cooper M. (2010) E-Learning and Accessibility: An Exploration of the Potential Role of Generic Pedagogical Tools. Computers & Education, no 54, pp. 1107–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.017

Seeman-Horwitz L., Montgomery R.B., Lee S., Ran R. (eds) (2021) Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/ (accessed 2.06.2025).

Shunk D.H. (2012) Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Siemens G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 2, no 1, pp. 1–8. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Skulmowski A., Xu K.M. (2022) Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: A New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 34, June, pp. 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7

Slootman M., Korthals Altes T., Domagała-Zyśk E., Nielandt B. (2023) E-Inclusion: Towards Inclusive Digital Learning. Proceedings of the Erasmus Scientific Days 2022, pp. 103–116. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-036-7_10

Sweller J., van Merrienboer J.J., Paas F.G. (1998) Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no 3, pp. 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

UNESCO (2019) UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Version 3. Moscow: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (In Russian). Available at: https://iite.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ICT-CFT-Version-3-Russian-1.pdf (accessed 4.06.2025).

Van Merriënboer J.J.G., Ayres P. (2005) Research on Cognitive Load Theory and Its Design Implications for e-Learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, vol. 53, no 3, pp. 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504793

Van Mierlo C.M., Jarodzka H., Kirschner F., Kirschner P.A. (2012) Cognitive Load Theory in e-Learning. Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior (ed. Z. Yan), Hershey PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 1178–1211. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0315-8.ch097

Vygotsky L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard, MA: Harvard University.

Wenger E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932

Yuwono J., Anwar M., Sari E.K., Rejeki D.S. (2022) Innovation in Online Learning and Accessibility for University Students with Disabilities. Al-Ishlah Journal Pendidikan, vol. 14, no 2, pp. 1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i2.1122

Major Indexing