AIL 608 – Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology Design and Implementation

Looking back on my experience in this course, I can honestly say that I enjoyed every aspect of it, but the accessibility audit task stood out as one of the most meaningful. Before this course, I had never conducted an accessibility audit of a website, nor had I used automated accessibility tools. Getting the chance to evaluate the accessibility standard level of a site for the first time, especially using automated tools ( e.g Skynet technologies) as I had just learned, was eye-opening. It felt like acquiring a new lens through which to understand digital content. I am happy this experience will become part of my long-term practice as an instructional technologist, and I see myself using these tools regularly in my research and instructional design work.

Interestingly, I did not feel the need for much additional help throughout the modules because of my prior experience working with different technological tools. The flow of the course felt intuitive, and the tasks built on one another in a way that made learning feel natural and manageable. However, one thing continues to puzzle me. After using the accessibility checker to evaluate the IGI Global publishing website, I was shocked by how low the accessibility rating was. Because the site is widely used in academic spaces, I assumed it would already be optimized for accessibility compliance. Seeing such a low rating and recognizing how cluttered the site layout is made me reflect on how common accessibility oversights still are, even in reputable educational platforms.

What surprised me most was realizing just how trusted websites fail to meet accessibility standards when assessed with automated tools. I had always assumed most educational or professional sites would meet basic compliance requirements, but this course showed me that accessibility gaps are far more widespread than I imagined. Among the new things I learned, using tools that automatically scan websites for accessibility compliance was perhaps the most valuable. Beyond that, learning about specific accessibility barriers and strategies to address them broadened my understanding of what inclusive digital design really entails. I actually didn’t find any part of the course particularly difficult, if anything, I found myself more curious as I progressed. However, whenever a task felt tricky, I turned to the internet for clarification and often gained additional insight from comments posted by my coursemates in the discussion boards. Their perspectives helped me think about accessibility from angles I might not have considered on my own.

One assignment that made me think most critically was the creation of my accessibility portfolio. It pushed me to compare tools, evaluate their limitations, and reflect on how they integrate into instructional design practices. I also realized that I might have learned even more if some of the tools I wanted to explore were fully free rather than subscription-based. For future students, I would recommend maximizing the course readings/resource, exploring external resources, learning from classmates’ comments, and asking questions whenever assignment instructions feel unclear.

Finally, I would say my best work in the course was the accessibility audit presentation task. It allowed me to apply everything I had learned and demonstrate my understanding in a practical, technology-supported format. Completing this course taught me how to effectively use online automated accessibility tools and, more importantly, why accessibility matters in every stage of instructional design.