To explore the effectiveness and awareness of digital accessibility tools and software offered by the university, I designed a survey-based research approach. This method was chosen to gather direct input from students about their experiences, perceptions, and suggestions regarding accessibility tools at UAL. So that I can gather all the valuable information to identify gaps, draft some ideas to improve the awareness of the existing accessibility tool and explore potential solutions to improve its accessibility and usability.
Online Survey
I conducted a quantitative online survey targeting UAL students and staff currently studying or working at the university. The survey comprised 19 questions, as detailed in the UAL Accessibility Software and Tools Survey | PgCert 2024. Its primary objective was to gather insights into participants’ knowledge and awareness of the assistive technology tools offered by UAL and evaluate how they acquired this knowledge.
I chose Microsoft Forms as the survey platform due to its recommendation by UAL, its compatibility with various devices, and its real-time response analysis capabilities. Additionally, I aimed to collect a significant number of responses, as a larger dataset enables more robust conclusions, aligning with the recommendations of Allen et al. (2008). To further enhance the response rate, I kept the survey concise and excluded irrelevant information, adhering to the guidelines suggested by Panacek (2008).
Participants were randomly selected on campus and invited to complete the survey, which took approximately 5–8 minutes. Participation posed no anticipated risks, and students were free to skip any questions they felt uncomfortable answering.
The survey was designed with a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the issues. The key objectives of the survey were to:
- Assess students’ awareness of the digital accessibility tools and software available at UAL.
- Understand how students learn about these tools and the effectiveness of the communication and information provided by the university.
- Evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the accessibility tools they have used.
- Identify challenges students face when trying to find or access information about these tools.
- Gather suggestions on how to improve awareness and accessibility of the tools.
The survey included questions such as:
- Are you aware of the accessibility tools and software offered by UAL?
- How did you learn about these tools?
- How would you rate the communication and information provided by UAL regarding these tools?
- Have you used any of the accessibility tools? If so, how effective were they in supporting your needs?
- What challenges have you faced in finding or accessing information about these tools?
- What suggestions do you have for improving awareness and access to digital accessibility tools?
By focusing on these areas, the survey aimed to gather actionable insights to inform the development of a centralised hub or other resources to enhance accessibility tool awareness and usage at UAL. The data collected will be analysed to identify gaps, trends, and opportunities for improvement, ensuring that future interventions are well-aligned with students’ needs.
Data Collection Process
Initial Survey Distribution
In the first month of the study, I distributed a survey form to gather feedback from students and staff. However, the initial response rate fell short of expectations, with fewer than 20 participants completing the form. This low response rate really make me think to change in strategy to achieve the target sample size of at least 80 participants, which was necessary for more accurate results and a better understanding of the participants’ needs and challenges.
Enhanced Distribution Methods
To increase participation, I implemented the following strategies:
QR Code Implementation: I created a QR code for the survey form, enabling students and staff to access and complete the questionnaire promptly via their mobile devices.
Strategic Placement: The QR codes were strategically placed in common areas across different floors, primarily in the Heart Space, Open Space and popular student gathering spots for relaxation and discussion.
Faculty Member Engagement: I approached lecturers and tutors, requesting their assistance in promoting survey participation among their students.
Geographical Focus and Limitations
The primary focus of distribution was the East Bank building, where I work, which make it much easier for placement and monitoring the QR codes. However, to broaden the reach, I collaborated with my peer group to extend the distribution to other campuses, including CSM, LCCV, and Chelsea. I really hope this revised approach is expected to achieve the target sample size, providing more comprehensive data for analysis and presentation in the research findings
References:
Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). Quantitative research in communication. Sage Publications.
Attewell, P., & Rule, J. B. (1991). Survey and other methodologies applied to IT impact research: Experiences from a comparative study of business computing. Paper presented at The Information Systems Research Challenge: Survey Research Methods.
Cohen, Louis & Manion, Lawrence & Morrison, Keith. (2013). Research Methods in Education. 10.4324/9780203720967.
McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). Doing Survey Research | A Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/surveys/
Panacek, E. A. (2008). Survey-based research: general principles. Air Medical Journal, 27(1), 14-16. https://www.airmedicaljournal.com/article/S1067-991X(07)00278-7/fulltext
Schwarz, N. (1999). Cognitive research into survey measurement: Its influence on survey methodology and cognitive theory. In M. G. Sirken, D. J. Herrmann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. M. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and Survey Research . New York: John Wiley and Sons.