Methodology for the Formation of Digital Accessibility Competences: Development and Trial on a Russian Sample

Cover Page

Cite item


Digital accessibility of e-learning provides an opportunity to fully participate in the educational process for all students, including persons with disabilities. Each specialist involved in the development of e-learning content and resources should be competent in digital accessibility and universal design. The authors propose a methodological approach to the development of digital accessibility competencies and present the results of testing this approach in practice. In 2021, on the basis of one of the Russian universities, a methodology for the formation of digital accessibility competences was developed and tested, including a system of competences, tools for testing formed competences, a curriculum and an appropriate online course. In addition, a study sample was formed (177 undergraduate and graduate students), a training course was conducted, and training outcomes were analyzed. It is for the first time that a methodological approach to the formation of digital accessibility competences has been proposed in the Russian Federation. The training outcomes confirmed the efficiency of the proposed approach: 96% of the students successfully completed the training, of which more than 67% achieved intermediate and advanced levels of the competences. A significant positive correlation was found between the successfully completed current tasks and the results of the final tests of self-assessment and formal assessment. It was shown that the training efficiency did not depend on how (voluntarily or compulsorily) the students were enrolled in the course, whether there were pedagogical disciplines in their curricula and what was the level of their university education. The relationship found between the results of final self-assessment and the results of formal assessment can be interpreted as consistency between satisfaction with the training and its success. The developed methodological tools, including the online course, can be used for the professional training of teachers, the formation of professional competences of IT specialists as well as the improvement of the overall digital literacy of specialists involved in the development of digital content.

About the authors

Yekaterina A. Kosova

V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3263-9373

Ph.D. in Education, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Applied Mathematics, Physics and Technology Institute

4 Prospekt Vernadskog, Simferopol, 295007, Russian Federation

Kirill I. Redkokosh

St. Petersburg State University

ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3535-7336

Master’s Degree Student in the field of study 01.04.02 “Applied Mathematics and Informatics,” majoring in “Mathematical Modeling, Programming and Artificial Intelligence”

7-9 Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation


  1. Al-Mouh, N., Al-Khalifa, A., & Al-Khalifa, H. (2014). A first look into MOOCs accessibility: The case of Coursera. In K. Miesenberger, D. Fels, D. Archambault, P. Peňáz & W. Zagler (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 8547, pp. 145-152). Springer, Cham
  2. Andrade, H.L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4.
  3. Baird, J., Andrich, D., & Hopfenbeck, T. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317-350.
  4. Bohnsack, M., & Puhl, S. (2014). Accessibility of MOOCs. In K. Miesenberger, D. Fels, D. Archambault, P. Peňáz & W. Zagler (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 8547, pp. 141-144). Springer, Cham
  5. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Introduction: Assessment for the longer term. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking Assessment for Higher Education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 3-13). London: Routledge.
  6. Carretero Gomez, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  7. Clifford, I., Kluzer, S., Troia, S., Jakobsone, M., & Zandbergs, U. (2020). DigCompSat: A self-reflection tool for the European digital competence framework for citizens. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.,JRC123226
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum
  9. Ferati, M., Mripa, N., & Bunjaku, R. (2016). Accessibility of MOOCs for blind people in developing non-English speaking countries. In G. Di Bucchianico & Kercher P. (Eds.), Advances in Design for Inclusion. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (vol. 500, pp. 519-528). Springer, Cham.
  10. Gay, G., Djafarova, N., & Zefi, L. (2017). Teaching accessibility to the masses. W4A '17: Proceedings of the 14th International Web for All Conference (article 15).
  11. Gilligan, J. (2020). Competencies for educators in delivering digital accessibility in higher education. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Practice. HCII 2020 Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 12189, pp. 184-199). Springer, Cham.
  12. Halamish, V., & Bjork, R. (2011). When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 801-812.
  13. Kosova, Y.А. (2020). Motivation and readiness of teachers to use distance educational technologies in teaching students with disabilities. Informatics and Education, (9), 43-52. (In Russ.)
  14. Kosova, Y.A. (2021). Analysis of massive open online courses on web accessibility. Informatics and Education, (1), 38-46. (In Russ.)
  15. Kosova, Y., & Redkokosh, K. (2022). Creating digital accessibility competencies in university students: Dataset of learning outcomes. Mendeley Data, Version 1.
  16. Lazar, J. (2022). Managing digital accessibility at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Universal Access Information Society, 21(2), 749-765.
  17. McCann, S., & Peacock, R. (2021). Accessibility is not a feature: An analysis of common accessibility errors on academic library websites. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 33(4), 273-284.
  18. Meleo-Erwin, Z., Kollia, B., Fera, J., Jahren, A., & Basch, C. (2020). Online support information for students with disabilities in colleges and universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability and Health Journal, 4(1), 101013.
  19. Mullin, C., Gould, R., & Parker Harris, S. (2021). ADA research brief: Digital access for students in higher education and the ADA (pp. 1-12). Chicago, IL: ADA National Network Knowledge Translation Center. Retrieved July 12, 2022, from
  20. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
  21. Rajšp, A., Kous, K., Kuhar, S., Šumak, B., & Sorgo, A. (2019). Preliminary review of jobs, skills and competencies for implementation to digital accessibility. Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (CECIIS): Proceedings 30th International Scientific Conference (рр. 93-99). Varaždin. Retrieved July 12, 2022, from
  22. Ramírez-Vega, A., Iniesto, F., & Rodrigo, C. (2017). Raising awareness of the accessibility challenges in mathematics MOOCs. TEEM 2017 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (article 92). New York: ACM.
  23. Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2019). Implementing accessibility in Massive Open Online Courses’ platforms for teaching, learning and collaborating at large scale. eDemocracy & eGovernment. Stages of a Democratic Knowledge Society (pp. 151-160). Springer, Cham
  24. Thawabieh, A.M. (2017). A comparison between students' self-assessment and teachers' assessment. Journal Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 14.
  25. Umek, L., Aristovnik, A., Tomaževič, N., & Keržič, D. (2015). Analysis of selected aspects of students' performance and satisfaction in a Moodle-based e-learning system environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11, 1495-1505.
  26. Ventista, O. (2018). Self-assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 165-175.
  27. Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez, S., & Van Den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
  28. Yilmaz, F.N. (2017). Reliability of scores obtained from self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments on teaching materials prepared by teacher candidates. Education Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 395-409.

Copyright (c) 2022 Kosova Y.A., Redkokosh K.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies