Accessible Assessment Creation
summary
Claims that well‑written MCQs can be valid, fair and accessible with concrete rules: map learning objectives to item counts (example: 20% of course → 2 of 10 questions), use Bloom levels to match cognitive demand, prefer 3–4 answer choices (science says that’s the sweet spot), avoid none/all of the above and negative phrasing, detect “sore thumbs” and enemies, prefer buttons and audio alternatives, avoid drag‑and‑drop/flashcards in e‑learning and offer quantitative mapping and flexible timing.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (24)
- 0:00Accessible assessment intro
- 1:26Why accessible assessments matter
- 2:53Assessment design basics
- 4:20Bloom's taxonomy for questions
- 6:06Aligning with objectives
- 7:10Fair question parts
- 9:02Principles for good questions
- 10:27Optimal answer choices
- 11:55Avoiding sore thumbs
- 12:16Removing question enemies
- 17:57Multiple choice types
- 24:35List and negative phrasing
- 28:47True/false problems
- 30:33Clear wording guidelines
- 32:45Avoiding 'none of above'
- 34:52Accessible instructions tips
- 37:26Non-accessible types to avoid
- 39:11Q&A on design
- 40:17Feedback timing & features
- 43:13Adult learner resources
- 44:59Timed exams & practice
- 46:08Corporate alternative assessments
- 47:32Gamification & interactions
- 48:58Closing remarks
related talks
53mAccessible eLearning and More through Universal Design
38mDesigning for people with cognitive impairments
36mSustainable Accessibility Learning
51mWhat Is The Future of Accessibility?
39mUX & Cognitive Accessibility
48mAchieving Optimal Accessibility in Storyline and Other eLearning Environments
17mA case study: Accessible Design for Learning Management Systems
01h 00mAccessible UX: Design for the rest of us