Accessibility and Open Educational Resources report

Report from the "Accessibility and OERs [Open Educational Resources]"
survey

Introduction
This report focuses on results of the "Accessibility and OERs [Open Educational Resources]"
survey which was conducted by Anna Gruszczynska on behalf of SCORE (Support Centre for
Open Resources in Education at Open University) as part of a project exploring issues of
accessibility in the context of Open Educational Resources (OERs), where OERs are teaching
and learning materials available freely online at point of access for everyone to use, re-use,
share and repurpose. In the context of the research project, accessibility refers to the ability
of web-based resources to be viewed, navigated and read by everyone, including learners
with additional needs, which may be due to auditory, visual, mobility, and/or cognitive
impairments. The survey sought perspectives of educators who are involved with using,
creating and sharing educational content online, regardless of their familiarity with OER
initiatives.

The survey was web-based and designed using the surveymonkey.com platform, with some
questions re-used from the ORIOLE (Open Resources: Influence on Learners and Educators)
survey with kind permission of Chris Pegler. First draft of the survey was re-designed
following feedback from Tim Seal at SCORE and comments from pilot respondents. The
survey was released at the beginning of April 2012, with information distributed via the
following mailing lists: SCORE fellows, OER-discuss (UK-based mailing list for teaching and
research practitioners interested in the topic of Open Educational Resources); ITTE (The
Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education). Information about the survey
was also sent out via Twitter and to relevant contacts within professional associations such
as JISCTechDis and Higher Education Academy. Overall, between 1 April and 10 May 2012
when it was closed, the survey attracted 94 respondents. All data obtained through the
survey were anonymised and used for research purposes only, with the final report from
this survey and subsequent report from the SCORE project which will be informed by this
survey hosted on a dedicated project wiki oeraccessibility.pbworks.com.

The rationale for undertaking the survey stemmed from preliminary work undertaken by the
author of the survey, where artefacts emerging in the context of UK Open Educational
Resources (UKOER) phase 1 and 2 programme1were searched and analysed for references

1
For more information about the UKOER programme, see www.jisc.ac.uk/oer.

Anna Gruszczynska, 2012. Licensed underCreative Commons Attribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
1

to accessibility2. The results of this scoping exercise indicated that accessibility was either
not explicitly addressed within project documents or was treated as an afterthought, with
project managers reporting that they lacked adequate resources to produce fully accessible
OERs. Therefore, the aim of this survey was to build on the work already undertaken and
gain a better understanding of issues involved in accessibility and Open Educational
resources. The following sections will focus on feedback from respondents and on the basis
of these answers, the author will provide recommendations for addressing accessibility
issues and identify areas where further work might be needed.

Background information (questions 1-6)
To start with, respondents were provided with background information about the survey
(question 1) and then asked to agree to take part in the survey (question 2) and informed
that all data will be anonymised and used for research purposes. The first part of the survey
was concerned with background information about the respondents, such as their location,
key roles with regard to employment as well as discipline.

Question 3: Location of respondents
In terms of their location, as Table 1 below indicates, most respondents were based in the
UK, with a minority located in Europe and rest of the world. This is related to the fact that
the survey was distributed primarily via UK-based networks given that the author was
primarily interested in surveying the opinions of practitioners based within the UK.

Table 1. Location of survey respondents

In which part of the world do you usually work?

UK 89.36% 84

Europe 8.51% 8

Rest of the world 2.13% 2

Total 94

2
For a full text of the scoping survey, see Gruszczynska, A (2011). Accessibility issues in the context ofUK Open
Educational Resources programme. Available from http://www.slideshare.net/akgruszczynska/accessibility-
issues-in-the-context-of-ukoer-programme [Last accessed 10 May 2012].

2

Question 4: Sector in which respondents are based
The next question focused on the sector within which the respondents were based, given
that the issues related to OERs and accessibility (such as attitudes of practitioners, needs of
learners, access to specialist support etc.) will vary across different types of institutions. As
Table 2 indicates, the majority of respondents are located within the Higher Education
sector, followed by Further Education. This is representative of the fact that most of OER-
related work in the UK so far has taken place within HE/FE context, although some of the
projects funded within the UKOER phase 3 of the programme are engaged with
constituencies outside of this sector, such as schools.3 A small minority of survey
participants are located outside of the HE/FE sector, in areas such as
adult/community/voluntary services, work-based learning and schools or specialist colleges.

Table 2. Sector in which respondents are based

Which sector(s) do you work in?

Higher Education 89.36% 84

Further Education 14.89% 14

Adult/Community/ Voluntary 5.32% 5

Work Based Learning 4.26% 4

Schools 7.45% 7

Other 4.26% 4

The answers add up to more than 100% as respondents could choose more than
one answer, given that some are located across different sectors.

Question 5: Current roles of survey respondents
The next question enquired about the current roles of respondents in terms of their
employment, with the answers indicating that the majority of respondents are involved with
teaching, either directly or in support roles as for instance learning technologists, see Table

3
See for instance "Digital Futures in Teacher Education" project being undertaken at Sheffield Hallam
University, www.deftoer3.wordpress.com and Open Resource Bank for Interactive Teaching (ORBIT)
undertaken at Cambridge University, http://orbit.educ.cam.ac.uk).

3

3 below. Less than half of respondents have indicated that one of their roles involves
research and a minority indicated that they are involved in staff development or provision of
library services. The responses in the "other" section mentioned further roles such as
management, consultancy and advocacy for learners with disabilities. Accordingly, the
results of the survey reflect accessibility-related issues and concerns as experienced by a
wide variety of education professionals and are strongly informed by perspectives of
practitioners who on a day-to-day basis provide support to the learners.

Table 3. Current roles of survey respondents

Please identify your current role(s) and select any that apply.

Teaching 61.7% 58

Research 41.49% 39

Learning technology support 30.85% 29

Staff development 28.72% 27

Library staff 21.28% 20

Other 12.76% 12

one answer, given that some perform a number of different roles.

Question 6: Discipline background of respondents
This question was included given that preliminary research undertaken in preparation for
this survey indicated that there are a number of accessibility issues which are discipline-
specific; for instance the use of formulae and special symbols in maths-based resources can
present challenges for learners with visual impairments; diagrams used in biosciences;
similarly, learners with visual impairments could be challenges by images included in arts-
based resources if these lack appropriate alternative descriptions. The answers provided in
Table 4 add up to more 100%, given that some respondents indicated that they are located
across two or more different discipline areas. The majority of respondents are located in
science-based subjects, such as maths, health or biosciences. Half of respondents describe
their disciplinary background as education-related, with a minority located in arts and social
sciences. At the same time, a significant minority of respondents identified themselves as

4

located in the "other" category, and indicated that their work spans across a number of
different disciplines. This is a relevant finding in terms of provision of OER-related
accessibility resources, as it indicates that any resources that are created will need to meet
the needs of both practitioners within specific disciplines as well as professionals such as
librarians or learning technologists whose remit is often cross-disciplinary.

Table 4. Discipline background of respondents

Which discipline areas are you located in?

Arts, Languages and History 18.57%

Mathematics, Computing and Engineering 28.57%

Sciences and Environmental Sciences 12.86%

Health and Medicine 14.29%

Social Sciences 8.57%

Education 50%

Business and Management 12.86%

Other 42.87%

one answer, given that some are located within more than one discipline area.

Involvement with OER initiatives (questions 7-10)
Question 7: Previous involvement with OER projects
The next set of questions aimed to establish the extent of respondents' involvement with
OER-related initiatives. Accordingly, in question 7, respondents were asked whether within
the past three years they worked on a project where there was a requirement by funders to
create, share or use Open Educational Resources. Respondents who provided an affirmative
response to this question (over half of survey respondents overall; 53%) then proceeded to
answer a follow-up question 8 where they were asked to provide the name of the project.

5

Question 8: Names of OER projects
The projects that the respondents have been involved with span a variety of mostly UK-
based and European-wide initiatives:

UK Open Educational Resources programme projects (all phases between 2009-2012)
NDLR Ireland's National Digital Learning Repository
ICoper (Interoperable Content forPerformance in a Competency-driven Society)
OERtest (Testing the Feasibility of OER-Course Certification)
OpenScout (Open Educational Resources for Business and Management Education)
OPAL (Open Educational Quality (OPAL) Initiative
VOA3R (Virtual Open Access Agriculture & Aquaculture Repository )
OrganicEdunet (Learning material on organic agriculture in Europe)
The respondents also mentioned initiatives which took place in developing countries, such
as TESSA - Teacher Education in Sub Saharan Africa.

Question 9: Embedding accessibility within OER initiatives
The following question focused on the extent to which accessibility was embedded within
individual elements of the project, such as project documents (project plan and report) and
workpackages (resource creation and evaluation). As can be seen from chart 1 below, about
three quarters of respondents indicate that for each of the above elements accessibility was
indeed a consideration. Interestingly, this perception is not confirmed by an earlier scoping
survey of documents and resources produced in the context of the UKOER programme
undertaken by the author of the survey; where an analysis of artefacts created in the
context of the programme indicated that accessibility was rarely mentioned or incorporated
within the project workflow. It has to be noted that this survey includes respondents who
have been working on OER projects outside of the UKOER programme and so it would be
interesting to examine the potential difference in approaches towards accessibility between
UK-based and EU-funded projects. Furthermore, a number of survey respondents indicated
that they would be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview and so the author will
undertake further research to establish what is understood by embedding accessibility
within an OER project.

6

Chart 1. Embedding of accessibility within OER projects

Embedding of accessibility within individual
elements of the OER projects
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00% Yes
40.00% No
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
project plan resource creation project evaluation project report

At the same time, a minority of respondents offered comments which shed light on ways in
which accessibility concerns were being addressed:

Assumed rather than embedded may be more accurate.
The more honest answer is "sort of", for the most part.
Not explicitly

Therefore, it would be worthwhile to explore not only the understandings of respondents of
what constitutes "embedding accessibility" in their context, but also to make sure that OER
project holders are encouraged to explicitly address accessibility within project documents,
for instance by including an accessibility-related section for project reporting templates.

Question 10: Embedding accessibility within OER initiatives
In the next question, respondents were prompted to provide further information on any
accessibility-related challenges and issues which they encountered in the context of OER
initiatives they were involved with.

To start with, the responses pointed to technology-related challenges, such as the lack of
skills to repurpose resources in a way which renders them accessible or limitations of
software used to create open teaching materials. A number of responses identified low
availability of resources as an issue of concern:
7

Lack of tech support for faculty to make online content accessible
Accessibility issues can be very differently prioritised in resource challenged
environments such as sub Saharan Africa eg low bandwidth, older software, high
printing costs and lack of facilities such as screen readers (or awareness of the need
to consider these issues in resource design).
The items are audio recordings, for which only a few (about 20 out of 160) have
transcripts that were made at the time of recording (the 60s & 70s) - there are no
resources available to make transcripts for the remaining tapes

The responses above touch upon the complexity of issues involved in creating accessible
OERs, where lack of adequate resources can refer to inadequate provision in terms of
technical support available within the institution; lack of financial support to address
particular aspects of accessibility (such as providing transcripts for a resource) or overall
shortage of resource due to a challenging environment. On top of that, lack of resources is
often complicated by lack of awareness which can create additional obstacles for OER
creators wishing to enhance accessibility of resources they are releasing. For instance, as the
following response indicates, it is not enough to ensure that the resource is accessible since
the accessibility features of the platform onto which it is deposited can be just as important:

Our requests for a more accessible interface to the repository delayed the project
significantly as despite having produced many repositories it appeared that the
developers had not considered accessibility in any depth. Our original plans to include
an audio-recorded commentary with each resource deposited were not taken up by the
resource providers.

This comment emphasises a key issue related to OERs and accessibility, that is, past the
point of deposit, the resource creator is no longer in control of the environment in which
the material is hosted and if the repository lacks adequate accessibility features, then by
default so will the resource. Therefore, it is crucial to address accessibility issues across the
wide range of OER-related stakeholders and not focus solely on resource creators.

Experiences with resource use creation (questions 11-13)
The next set of questions was aimed at establishing whether the respondents were directly
involved in selecting, designing and sharing resources in the context of their employment.

8

Question 11: Experiences of using web-based resources
Chart 2

Do you select, adapt or use web-based learning resources
in the context of your main employment?
100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

Yes
50.00%
No
40.00% N/A

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
For students For colleagues For others

9

Question 12: Experiences of resource creation
Chart 3

Do you design or create web-based learning resources
in the context of your main employment?
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
Yes
50.00%
No
40.00%
Not applicable
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
For students For colleagues For others

As evidenced by the charts 2 and 3 above, the, the majority of respondents are indeed
involved with both selecting and designing content for the purposes of their employment;
mostly for the benefit of their students and in some cases colleagues and other beneficiaries.
This indicates that any accessibility-related guidance should primarily focus on addressing
accessibility-related needs of learners.

Question 13: Experiences of releasing content openly
The next question enquired whether the respondents have released any resources they
create as OERs, with close to half (43.64% respondents) giving an affirmative answer to that
question. This result reflects the fact that about half of respondents have been involved
with OER relates projects, and would be considerably lower across the general population of
education practitioners. At the same time, given the focus of the survey, the high level of
involvement in OER creation indicates that the results of the survey reflect the concerns of
practitioners who are on a day-to-day basis involved in creating, choosing and openly
sharing content.

10

Relevance of accessibility features of teaching resources (questions
14-16)
The next set of questions focused on accessibility features of teaching materials which
respondents identified as most important when searching for and creating web-based
resources.

Question 14: Importance of accessibility features when searching for
resources
Chart 4

Importance of accesibility features when
searching for resources
easily available alternative file formats 3.86
ability to customise settings 3.76
transcript for any audio/video elements of the resource 3.59
information about in-built accessibility considerations 3.58
alternative description for any images used 3.48
compatibility with screen-reader devices 3.34
compatibility with screen magnification software 3.19
compatibility with voice recognition software 3.02
keyboard-only navigation 2.78

Values are on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is least important and 5 is very important

As the above chart indicates, when it comes to searching for resources and the factors
influencing the choice of a resource for teaching and learning purposes, respondents
identified the most important accessibility features as the provision of alternative file
formats and the customisability of the resource (i.e. giving the user an opportunity to adapt
the resource to their own needs by changing font size, file format, background colour etc.).
The presence of transcript was identified as similarly relevant, alongside information about
any in-built accessibility features. Interestingly, compatibility with assistive devices such as
screen magnification or voice recognition software was perceived as being of lesser
importance. This might be related to the fact that overall, these could be perceived as
specialist-solutions not immediately relevant to the everyday context of most practitioners
except in exceptional circumstances. At the same time, the answers to this question point to
the need to ensure that the basis accessibility features - alternative formats, ability to
11

customise settings etc. are embedded within the process of designing OERs and that
transcripts should be routinely provided, where possible.

Question 15: Importance of accessibility features when designing resources
The next question elicited responses on accessibility features which respondents identified
as key when designing their own resources.

Chart 5

Importance of accessibility features when
designing resources
transcript for any audio/video elements of the
3.83
resource
ability to customise settings (such as font
3.76
type, size and colour; background colours etc.)

easily available alternative file formats 3.74

alternative description for any images used 3.64
information for the user about any in-built
3.62
accessibility considerations

compatibility with screen-reader devices 3.34

compatibility with screen magnification software 3.18

compatibility with voice recognition software 3.04

keyboard-only navigation 2.78

Values are on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is least important and 5 very important

The results (see Chart 5 above) seem to overlap with responses provided to the previous
question, and so one of the most important accessibility features of a resource seems to be
providing a transcript and ensuring that a resource is customisable in terms of alternative
file formats as well as the ability to change settings and adapt the resource to the needs of
its users. Once again, compatibility with assistive software and devices seems to be
accorded a lower priority.

12

Question 16: Factors influencing choice of resource to meet accessibility
needs of learners
Question 16 focused on factors which would influence the decision of respondents to
choose a web-based resource in a situation where they had to accommodate particular
accessibility needs of their learners.

Chart 6

Factors influencing choice of resource to
meet accessibility needs of learners
Clear description of the resource which indicates
4.14
relevant accessibility features

Recommendation from colleague 4.09

Recommendation by a professional body dealing
3.94
with accessibility such as JISCTechDis

Recommendation from an accessibility specialist 3.94

Reputation of the creator of the resource 3.83

Values are on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is least important and 5 is very important

While most factors scored quite highly as can be gleaned from Chart 6 above; interestingly,
it is clear description of the resource which was identified as the most important factor. This
is an indication that creators of OERs should be encouraged to adequately describe their
teaching materials in a way which alerts any future (re)users to accessibility features of
these resources and also that perhaps these features should also be signalled through the
use of metadata for the resource. It is also worth noting that personal recommendations,
whether coming from a colleague, accessibility specialist or a representative of a relevant
professional body were identified as quite important.

Q17: Tools and strategies helpful in creating accessible resources
The aim of question 17 was to encourage questionnaire participants to focus on tools and
strategies which would help them to enhance accessibility features of a resource they were
creating in a situation where they would have to address any additional needs of their
learners.
13

Chart 7

Tools and strategies helpful in creating accessible
resources
Support from your institution to cover any additional
4.07
costs (transcription, training etc.)

Guidance from a professional body dealing with
4.01
accessibility such as JISCTechDis

Guidance from an accessibility specialist 4

Guidance from a colleague experienced in OER
3.85
creation

Support from a learning technologist 3.7

Case studies of issues involved in creating accessible
3.56
OERs

Values are on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is least helpful and 5 is most helpful

As can be seen from chart 7 above, the strategies which scored most highly involved
institutional support, followed by guidance from accessibility specialists. Therefore, these
results indicate that accessibility should be firmly embedded within any institutional policies
which focus on OERs and that adequate resources should be provided to ensure that
resources released openly are fully accessible to learners.

The respondents also had an option to elaborate on their answers by filling in the "other"
field, with these responses offering rich material helpful for gaining a more in-depth
understanding of OER-related accessibility issues. To start with, the feedback offered by
respondents indicates that accessibility issues in the context of OERs should not be
discussed in isolation from existing academic and teaching practices, as evidenced by the
following quote:

I wonder if you need to explore extent to which individuals have been presented with
the need to ensure accessibility in their own teaching. I work on the basis that digital
formats are suitable for screen readers etc. and if I am conscious of students in my
teaching groups that require access I will make modification. However given the
pressures that teachers are under my main disposition towards accessibility is that this a
14

function of intelligent software agents or specialist support. Therefore if I am making my
materials available for others I would value a set of criteria that the materials have to
meet ... But I wonder if this will inhibit my readiness to freely offer this for reuse.

Thus the quote points to general attitudes towards accessibility, where creators of teaching
materials address accessibility issues only when learners present specific additional learning
needs and so retrofit their resources to meet the needs of these learners rather than
embed accessibility into the process of resource creation at the outset. Furthermore, that
comment indicates that more often than not, digital resources are presumed to be
accessible by virtue of embedded accessibility features of technology used to create them.
While it is true that most software packages used to create teaching resources (including
really popular ones such as the Office suite) come equipped with a number of embedded
accessibility features, at the same time, the awareness of users and the uptake of these
features remain quite low. For instance, few users take full advantage of such features
provided by the Office suite when creating presentations and documents even though
simple steps such as using "true styles" in Microsoft Word or providing alternative
description for images used in PowerPoint presentations can greatly enhance accessibility
of a resource. Furthermore, there is a need to address the tacit assumption that by virtue of
being web-based and openly available, a resource is by default accessible, as can be seen in
the following comment:

I've just realized I have never really considered accessibility in OERs I am repurposing -
just assumed they would be OK as they are from a reputable source.

At the same time, as has been argued earlier in this report, the responsibility for ensuring
the accessibility of OERs should not be seen solely as that of resource creators, given the
complexity of the issue which is addressed in the following quotes:

I would like to author resources to be more compliant for accessibility purposes, but I
have not support from my institute. 'Learning technologists' appear to specialise in using
the institutional VLE - which is a behemoth - Blackboard.

I think that being given time to develop skills in developing accessible resources is
important. As often staff are not provided with this before they are asked to create a
resource.

These comments emphasise the relevance of institutional context in which teaching
resources are produced and the impact that provision of resources or lack thereof has on
the capacity of teaching practitioners to fully engage with principles of accessibility when
15

releasing their materials more openly. Other comments identified further issues related to
academic practices which can have an impact on OER-related accessibility concerns:

I think issues in people's lack of engagement with creating OERs is more to do with
meeting copyright standards than accessibility concerns. Sharing informally is a
successful culture that is effective and sharers simply don't see the point of the extra
tasks.

There is still quite a lot of concern about educational institutions being willing to share
resources openly - I think we have a long way to go in terms of both OER widespread
acceptance and accessibility as built-in features.

The above quotes indicate accessibility issues should not be discussed in isolation from
more general academic attitudes which are not always conducive towards open sharing of
teaching resources. At the same time, it would be useful to draw on parallels with
approaches that have successfully been employed to encourage awareness of copyright
issues which begin to challenge the widespread academic practice of ignoring copyright and
relying on the false reassurance that it is irrelevant as long as a resource is used for
educational purposes.

Finally, some comments have begun to describe what could be a more nuanced approach
towards addressing the complex issues involved in OER-related accessibility issues:

we should all be producing multiple formats where possible, although we can never
aspire to make all educational resources totally accessible to all as students have
different skills and abilities and some resources just do not translate well and need a
different approach. Being pragmatic and appreciating when the use of additional
technologies or extra human support is required will always be part of the equation.
Hopefully students can help by being willing to work around issues and academics and
those supporting them can develop a better understanding of the barriers that exist at
times.

This approach acknowledges that addressing only one part of the accessibility equation,
whether it is technology, provision of resources or attitudes of academics will not be as
effective as viewing accessibility in a more holistic way, where learners and resource
creators collaborate to ensure that the teaching materials best meet relevant accessibility
criteria. At the same time, the approach calls for pragmatism and a recognition that it is
impossible to produce a universally accessible resource, hence attention should be paid to
providing resources in formats which are easily customisable and adaptable to the needs of
16

learners. In this context, the advantage of OERs lies in the fact that they are licensed in a
way which allows for easy re-use and customisation without being encumbered by
copyright restrictions.

Conclusions and recommendations
This report focused on the results of "Accessibility and OERs" survey which was undertaken
as part of an investigation into factors which act as barriers and enablers regarding the
creation and re-use of accessible teaching resources which are openly shared online under
Creative Commons licenses. The survey provided an overview of attitudes and approaches
of education professionals towards accessibility issues in the context of Open Educational
Resources, with the key issues and recommendations offered below:

The responsibility for the provision of accessible OERs should not solely reside with
resource creators. While it is vital to increase awareness of teaching professionals of
OER-related accessibility issues, at the same time, there is a need to provide
adequate support in terms of technical resources, relevant institutional policies as
well as guidance from learning technologists and accessibility specialists as and when
needed.
There are a number of relatively simple strategies that could greatly enhance the
accessibility of OERs, such as using of accessibility features embedded within
software packages or addressing accessibility considerations within resource
description and so resource creators should be encouraged to take advantage of
these simple "fixes"
The key accessibility features identified as most important by survey respondents
include the provision of transcript for any audio/video material and ensuring that the
resource is an easily customisable format
There is a need to provide OER-related accessibility resources which address
discipline specific issues alongside more generic resources which address the needs
of teaching professionals who work in cross-disciplinary contexts
There is a need to address accessibility features of platforms where OERs are
deposited, and education repositories should be designed with accessibility in mind
Accessibility issues are complex and should not be discussed in isolation from other
OER-related issues such as copyright or academic practices related to sharing
resources
Finally, accessibility issues should be explicitly addressed within OER projects, such
as UKOER programme; ideally, project managers should be encouraged to address
accessibility issues within project documents and workpackages

17

Acknowledgements
The researcher would like to thank SCORE (Support Centre for Open Resources in Education)
for their support and in particular Tim Seal. I would also like to express thanks to Chris
Pegler for permission to reuse some of the questions used in ORIOLE survey (see
http://orioleproject.blogspot.co.uk/).

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Please cite this work as: Gruszczynska, A
(2012). Report from the "Accessibility and OERs [Open Educational Resources]" survey.
Available from: http://bit.ly/oeraccessibility

18

Accessibility and Open Educational Resources report

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Último

Último (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Accessibility and Open Educational Resources report