Accessible Course Review Framework

Online course reviews needed a more consistent way to identify accessibility barriers, document findings, communicate responsibilities, and guide faculty toward practical next steps. Without a common review structure, the process could become inconsistent, overly dependent on individual interpretation, or unclear about who was responsible for correcting a problem.

The goal was not simply to identify problems. It was to create a review process that faculty, instructional designers, and institutional leaders could understand and use consistently.

The framework was developed within a higher education environment where accessibility, course quality, faculty ownership, academic timelines, and limited staffing all had to be considered at the same time.

Course materials could include faculty-created documents, LMS content, multimedia, inherited files, and publisher-provided resources. Each type of material raised different questions about responsibility, authority, remediation, and follow-up.

The review process therefore needed to be practical enough for day-to-day use while also supporting institutional documentation and long-term course quality.

The framework had to work within real institutional conditions rather than assume unlimited time, staffing, authority, or technical knowledge.

• Limited instructional design staffing
• Faculty ownership of academic content
• Inherited and publisher-provided materials
• Fixed academic timelines
• Varying levels of faculty accessibility knowledge
• The need to separate instructional design support from content ownership
• The need for clear escalation and follow-up pathways
• The need to preserve review documentation over time

I approached the project as both a review-design problem and a communication problem. A useful framework needed clear criteria, consistent terminology, practical guidance, and a way to distinguish among findings that required faculty action, instructional design support, publisher follow-up, or institutional escalation.

I focused on creating a process that could be applied repeatedly across courses while still allowing professional judgment where context mattered.

1. 1

   Identify

   Review course materials, navigation, media, documents, assessments, and learner support for accessibility and quality concerns.

2. 2

   Classify

   Document the issue clearly and distinguish the type, severity, ownership, and likely next step.

3. 3

   Communicate

   Use faculty-facing language that explains the concern, why it matters, and what action is appropriate.

4. 4

   Follow Through

   Track remediation, clarification, escalation, and completion so findings do not disappear after the initial review.

• Course-review framework
• Review report template
• Accessibility criteria
• Issue-classification structure
• Faculty communication language
• Remediation guidance
• Documentation and tracking process
• Follow-up and escalation pathway

A central principle of the framework is that identifying an accessibility problem does not automatically transfer ownership of the content or responsibility for remediation to the instructional designer.

The framework created a more consistent and documented review process that can be reused across courses while clarifying findings, responsibilities, and next steps.

Its current value is practical rather than promotional: it helps reduce ambiguity, supports more consistent communication, preserves review history, and provides a clearer path from identification to action.

The framework is designed to evolve as accessibility standards, institutional processes, staffing, and course-development practices change.

Accessibility review is not only a technical task. It is also a governance, communication, ownership, and change-management task.

The strongest review process is not the one with the longest checklist. It is the one that helps people understand what the problem is, why it matters, who can act, and what happens next.

I also learned that documentation matters as much as detection. Without a reliable record of findings, decisions, and follow-up, the same concerns can reappear without institutional memory or accountability.

• Digital Accessibility
• Course Quality
• Faculty Development
• Course Governance
• Workflow Design
• Higher Education Leadership