Designing for Cognitive Accessibility – A Plain Language and Content Structure Intervention
As I develop a fully online Graphic Design course at UAL, I am proposing an intervention focused on improving the cognitive accessibility of course content. This project aims to make written and visual material more inclusive by embedding principles of plain language, clarity, and structured design from the outset.
In my experience teaching at both BA and MA levels, I have seen how complex language, academic jargon, and inconsistent formatting can present barriers to many students—particularly those who are neurodivergent, have learning differences, or speak English as an additional language. I believe that accessible content benefits all learners and is fundamental to inclusive practice.
My intervention will involve creating a plain-language framework to guide how I write and structure course materials. This will include strategies for simplifying language, using clear and consistent formatting, incorporating visual aids, and providing glossaries for technical terms. I will pilot this framework by rewriting one week’s worth of course content, redesigning it with accessibility in mind.
To evaluate the impact, I will gather feedback from students and/or academic support specialists through a short survey or reflective discussion. I will use this feedback to refine the approach and develop a practical toolkit or checklist that can be applied across the course as it evolves.
This project is grounded in the principles of Universal Design for Learning, which advocates for flexible approaches to teaching that accommodate diverse learner needs from the outset (CAST, 2018). By proactively addressing cognitive accessibility, I aim to create a more equitable learning environment where all students can engage meaningfully with the material, regardless of their background or learning profile.
Ultimately, I hope this intervention will set a standard for inclusive content design within online teaching and contribute to a broader culture of accessibility in higher education.
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Available at: http://udlguidelines.cast.org (Accessed: 25 May 2025).
6 replies on “IP – Intervention proposal: Formative Assessment”
“complex language, academic jargon, and inconsistent formatting” – As a relative new member of staff this has been very difficult for me to grasp. Whether its the academic constructs of language especially in marking to my own failings in formatting a document for fellow staff members to read, as I am inexperienced in the way it is expected , Your intervention is something I feel would be fantastic ” creating a plain-language framework to guide ” – and also I think to take into account that honestly whilst LCC / UAL are trying to create a diverse community – for someone like me who comes from a very different background to be able to speak / write in a way that both I am comfortable with but also that my colleagues understand my failings in this structure.
Thanks for sharing your own experience Kal, I really appreciate your honesty. I share similar feelings and appreciate similar hurdles as a teachers and deeply sympathise with students. I feel it is often overlooked that us tutors might also struggle with jargon and other inaccessible elements when it comes to creating lessons and putting things on Moodle, especially as most of our practices are more led visually than verbally. As someone who has English as a second language myself I was a complete novice to the academic language and would have benefited – in the same way as student would – from a simpler use of language as well as presentation myself to communicate things more directly.
This intervention is thoughtful, appropriate and super practical — digital accessibility is urgently needed, especially within the contexts you mentioned in your intervention presentation. The focus on plain language, clear formatting, and inclusive structure directly addresses the frustrations many of us experience, in particular with mandatory platforms such as Moodle’s limitations. If possible, I’d also think about screen readers and adaptability for various disabilities and if they are really working. There are some infrastructural aspects that I wonder if could be possible to change eg. the way that if you click on a resource on moodle it won’t allow the user to go back so they may completely lose their navigation.
Though some aspects are not possible to change and its never perfect, I’ve seen successful examples of Moodle redesign on BA UX Design at LCC (under Keir Williams’s leadership) and BAGMD (Ian Carr)—both worth connecting with if you havn’t done so already (though I think they may both be on summer leave by now). Your idea of involving students through a participatory, inclusive design approach would be ideal. Even if it’s a small group, framing it as “deep data” (qualitative) can make a strong case for its impact. One suggestion here would be to balance your test group with both “extreme” and more typical users to help ensure wider you have a good spectrum of possible users. And consider gathering quick audit data on how many course leaders rely on external platforms like Padlet or Notion—this could reinforce the case for broader systemic change. Amy Henry from LCC’s MA GMD built an archive of Alumni work and chose to build it on notion, I think as it was more user friendly and accessible for students. She is lovely and could be worth talking to. She completed the project as her ARP last academic year so I’m sure she would be forthcoming with helping other PGCerters. As well as examples/analysis of what’s not working now, it would be great to include some case study redesign examples in your final intervention write up to help the audience understand what kinds of changes are needed in practical terms.
I’m really looking forward to seeing it develop 🙂 Thanks for putting together such a practical and helpful intervention proposal.
Thank you so much, Umi, for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. Your points around accessibility—especially regarding screen reader compatibility and navigational issues within Moodle—are very well taken, and I will look more closely into how these infrastructural limitations can be addressed or worked around. I’ll also explore how Moodle can better accommodate disabled and neurodiverse students more broadly, possibly through enhanced formatting or integration with other tools.
I really appreciate the recommendations to connect with Ian Carr, Keir Williams, and Amy Henry—I’ll definitely reach out, as their experiences sound highly relevant. Amy’s use of Notion for her alumni archive is particularly interesting, and I’d like to examine the affordances and limitations of platforms like Notion, Padlet, and Miro in comparison to Moodle.
Your suggestion to frame the student input as “deep data” is helpful—I will be thinking carefully about how to design the Action Research Project to ensure both diversity in participation and meaningful qualitative insights. I also plan to gather some audit-style data on platform usage across courses, which, as you suggest, could help make the case for more systemic digital change.
Finally, I agree that including concrete case studies and redesign examples will be crucial to communicate the intervention’s potential. Thanks again for your supportive and generative comments—they’ve given me lots to build on.
Hi Antonia,
Improving the cognitive accessibility of online course content is so crucial—especially as UDL and inclusive design become more central to how we think about learning at UAL. Your plan is clear, grounded, and already feels implementable. I had a few suggestions that might support you as you refine and develop your approach:
1. Include Student Co-Design Early On You might consider involving a few students (or student reps) in reviewing your first redrafted content week before your full pilot. This could surface issues around tone, assumptions, or formatting early and give students agency in shaping their learning environment. It might also provide qualitative insights beyond the survey.
2. Link Plain Language with Assessment Clarity Simplifying content is brilliant, but assessment language often remains a barrier. You could explore whether elements of your plain-language framework might help demystify briefs, grading criteria, or unit descriptors—areas that neurodivergent and EAL students often struggle with. This could make your intervention even more impactful.
Have a look at Have a look at Crystal Mark
https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
3. Consider Reusability through a Mini Toolkit I love that you mentioned developing a practical checklist. You might trial creating a short “Cognitive Accessibility Style Guide” that tutors or guest lecturers could use to format their own contributions. This could help embed your intervention more widely and give it a longer-term legacy within the course.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops, it feels like your project could easily scale across other online units at UAL. Happy to chat more if you’d like to swap insights around accessible design or feedback language.
Thanks so much for your feedback, Adrian – really appreciated. I completely agree that improving accessibility feels increasingly urgent as our teaching environments shift further online.
I’ll definitely explore co-design strategies that bring student voices in from the outset—not just as feedback, but as integral part of shaping the intervention itself. I will also familiarise myself more with current best practices around plain English, particularly how it might be applied to more academic language around assessment and grading criteria. That feels like an area which could have positive impact on inclusivity.
And yes, I really love the idea of developing the checklist into a shareable mini toolkit—something lightweight but practical that could help others contribute accessibly to the course. Thanks again for the Crystal Mark link too—super useful.