In this task, the students evaluate the accessibility of existing digital content. You can use a tool like WAVE (Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool) to assess the accessibility of a website or digital document. Students will identify accessibility issues and suggest improvements. At the end of the session, the students will present their findings and recommendations, learning how to critically evaluate and improve digital accessibility.
| Title | JYU30: Evaluating Accessibility |
| Length | 45 minutes |
| Main idea/description | In this task, the students evaluate the accessibility of existing digital content. You can use a tool like WAVE (Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool) to assess the accessibility of a website or digital document. Students will identify accessibility issues and suggest improvements. At the end of the session, the students will present their findings and recommendations, learning how to critically evaluate and improve digital accessibility. |
| Target group | 12-15 years old |
| Curriculum/learning subjects | Computer science; First language; Social studies |
| Competencies | Students will learn about accessibility of digital content and the web accessibility evaluation tool (WAVE) |
| Teachers’ wellness competences | TC5: Emotional leadership/ e-mediacy |
| Learning Scenario Framework | |
| Pedagogical method | PI6. Encouraging engagement (Engage students in self-directed and dedicated learning) |
| Software/materials | The main digital tool used in this activity is WAVE (Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool) https://wave.webaim.org/ and any website or document. Other accessibility evaluation tools can also be used in place of WAVE.Online delivery: This activity can also be delivered online, for example through video conferencing such as Zoom. The worksheets can be provided to students online (e.g., through Google Docs), and WAVE is accessible online as well. The activity can be carried out as an individual activity. The students can share their experiences in small groups, for example in break-out rooms. The final discussion can also be organized together as a class.The students should be encouraged to examine the depth of information provided by WAVE to grasp the different layers of accessibility in digital content creation. They should also try out various websites to see if the analysis changes. The teacher should also be able to support the students in the use of the accessibility evaluation tool. |
| Evaluation tools | The reflective questions in the discussion worksheet can be used to support the evaluation of this activity |
| Learning Scenario Implementation | |
| Learning activities (description, duration, worksheets) | Introduction and tutorial to WAVE (15 minutes)Activity: Discuss the importance of evaluating digital content for accessibility and demonstrate how to use WAVE to assess the accessibility of a website or digital documentMaterials: Presentation slides or a short video on web accessibility; tutorial video or live demonstration of WAVEEvaluation and analysis (20 minutes)o Activity: Students use WAVE to evaluate the accessibility of a chosen website or digital document. They identify accessibility issues and suggest improvements.Materials: Devices, access to WAVE; Evaluation worksheet (provided below)Sharing and Discussion (10 minutes)Activity: Students present their findings and recommendations to the class.Materials: Discussion worksheet (provided below).Worksheet 1: EvaluationEvaluate the accessibility of a website or digital document. Name of website(s) /document: _____________________________________ Accessibility issues identified: _____________________________________ Suggested improvements: _____________________________________ Other interesting things you noticed: ______________________________________ Worksheet 2: DiscussionReflect on the activity What accessibility issues did you identify? What improvements did you suggest? How can these improvements enhance the accessibility of the content? Did different websites have similar issues or not? Why do you think that is? What kind of websites were the most accessible? Why? What did you learn about evaluating and improving digital accessibility? |