So, I generally advocate for evidence-based practices. And, I realized, I do this with some prejudice. Which isn’t my intent! So, I was reflecting on what affects such decisions, and I realized that perhaps I need a qualification. When I state my prescriptions then, I might have to add “for ‘normals'”.
First, I have to be careful. What do I mean by ‘normal’? I personally believe we’re all on continua on many factors. We may not cross the line to actively qualify as obsessive-compulsive, or attention-deficit, or sensorily-limited. Yet we’re all somewhere on these dimensions. Some of us cross some or more of those lines (if we’re ever even measured; they didn’t have some of these tests when I was growing up). So, for me, ‘normal’ are folks who don’t cross those lines, or cope well enough. Another way to say it is ‘neurotypical’ (thanks, Declan).
What prompted this, amongst other things, is a colleague who insisted that learning styles did matter. In her case, she couldn’t learn unless it was audio, at least at first. Now, the science doesn’t support learning styles. However, if you’re visually-challenged (e.g. legally blind), you really can’t be a visual learner. I had another colleague who insisted she didn’t dream in images, but instead in audio. I do think there are biases to particular media that can be less or more extreme. Of course, I do think you probably can’t learn to ride a bicycle without some kinesthetic elements, just as learning music pretty much requires audio.
Now, Todd Rose, in his book The End of Average, makes the case that no one is average. That is, we all vary. He tells a lovely story about how an airplane cockpit carefully designed to be the exact average actually fit no one! So, making statements about the average may be problematic. While we’ve had it in classrooms, now we also have the ability to work beyond a ‘one-size fits all’ response online. We can adapt based upon the learner.
Still, we need to have a baseline. The more we know about the audience, the better a job we can do. (What they did with cockpits is make them adjustable. Then, some people still won’t fit, at least not without extra accommodation) That said, we will need to design for the ‘normal’ audience. We should, of course, also do what we can to make the content accessible to all (that covers a wide swath by the way). And, while I assume it’s understood, let me be explicit here that I am talking “for ‘normals'”. We should ensure, however, that we’re accommodating everyone possible.
Dave Gray says
I had an interesting discussion with a teacher the other day. She was concerned because every online class was required to be accessible, which meant that she could not add certain visual aids because they were not accessible to the visually impaired. I think this is related to your point… that is, it makes sense to be as accessible as possible, but not to the degree that everybody is equally disadvantaged.
Jon Snyder says
Accessible for disability does not mean removing functionality for everyone. It means allowing those with accessibility issues to be full participants. The solution to your teacher’s scenario should be finding ways to include vision impaired learners (such as providing an audio description) rather than excluding everyone.
Chad Lowry says
If that cockpit was able to accommodate Kareen Abdul-Jabbar, then it should be able to fit pretty much anyone.
Jane Bozarth says
Preferences are not styles. Google the academic lit on whether blind students are “auditory learners”.
Clark says
Thanks for the feedback, clearly I was sloppy in my language. No, I don’t think disabilities are the same as preferences, and sorry it could be construed that way. I was essentially mixing my metaphors mistakenly. Stephen Downes also rightly corrected me about the end: https://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=76125 I don’t mean design for the average person, I mean design for your audience, in alignment with learning science prescriptions, and as much accessibility as possible (ideally: full). That includes making it personalized and adaptive as much as possible as well. As I was discussing with Sarah Mercier in the LDA You Oughta Know series, it really means baking it into your processes. Appreciate the corrections!