Print Lesson Plan Demo
Make Every Row Stand on Its Own With Accessible Tables in Microsoft Word
-
Personal portfolio project, based on prior accessibility trainings I have delivered for work.
-
Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, PDF
-
Building and fixing accessible tables in Microsoft Word
-
60-minute live workshop, in person or online
-
14 hours
-
Individual Project
-
Instructional designer and workshop facilitator
-
The initial pilot of this training was successful but I did find that in future iterations I would more carefully check the numbers on charts that they match participants handouts, and facilitator script. This lesson would also benefit from a follow-up session to go over tables with more complexities. As learning tables in Word with accessibility is not common, having multiple versions of table formats in a follow up lesson would give the instruction more opportunities for adoption.
This training would also run best with two facilitators when delivered virtually as was difficult to keep up with chat, share screen and follow instructional notes.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this session, participants will be able to:
Decide whether information belongs in a table or a list. (Bloom’s Level: Evaluate)
Spot at least two problems that make a table hard to use, such as blank cells or grouped labels. (Bloom’s Level: Analyze)
Rewrite a table so every row makes sense on its own. (Bloom’s Level: Apply)
Build a new table in Word with a header row and a clear caption. (Bloom’s Level: Apply)
Design Process
Start with the real problem. I listed the table problems that come up most in assisting of document reviews (blank cells, grouped labels, stacked values, missing captions) and what each error sounds like to someone using a text reading device.
Write the finish line first. The outcome is simple: participants leave having fixed at least one real table, not just passive listening to the messaging.
Decide what shows it worked. Every objective has something that I can see: a table sorted, a problem spotted, a row rewritten, a table built.
Build the practice, then trim the teaching. I wrote three exercises that get harder (quick fix, stacked values, grouped rows). Then I kept only the teaching those exercises need: one test, one decision, one caption habit, and one set of build steps.
Sequence the hour. I mapped out the 60 minutes to Gagné’s events of instruction and checked that the minutes add up, with including pacing points to check to not go over time.
Design the print pieces. I built the lesson plan and handout with color contrast, spacing, type, and visual spacing in mind to ensure readability by a large audience of potential users.
Review and fix. I checked contrast, timing, and the numbers in each example, during which I found a knowledge-check table whose numbers did not add up and match the slide and was able to correct before delivery.
References:
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
W3C. (2018). Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1: Info and relationships. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/info-and-relationships
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
-
Staff who build tables in Word for syllabi, reports, handouts, and other documents. They are beginner to intermediate Word users. They do not need any accessibility background to take this workshop.
-
They make tables often, and most build them the way journals and style guides taught them.
They are busy. They want to fix real documents, not sit through theory.
Some worry that an accessible table will look wrong, or that a journal will not accept it.
Many have never used a screen reader, so the problem can feel invisible.
They learn best by doing, so the session is built around a table they can fix.
-
Tables are one of the easiest places for a document to become hard to use. A table that looks clear on the page can fall apart for someone using a screen reader, which reads the page aloud, often one row or cell at a time.
I chose this topic because the tables that cause the most trouble are usually the ones people were taught to build: group labels sitting above blank cells, numbers stacked in parentheses, headers stretched across columns. None of that is wrong in print. It only breaks when the layout is doing work that the structure should be doing.
I wanted to give people one test they can remember when I am not in the room: if a row doesn’t make sense by itself, the table isn’t accessible.
-
A 60-minute workshop delivered live virtually. One third of the time (20 of the 60 minutes) is pair practice, no one has to share their own document. Participants will use Word the way they already have access to. Everyone leaves with one fixed table and a participant workbook to refer to after training.
Design Method Chosen
Backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) in planning the start with the result, then evidence, then build the lesson.
Gangē’s nine events of instruction (Gangē’s, 1985) to sequence the hour.
Bloom’s taxonomy, revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) to write objectives with clear action verbs.
Solutions Developed
Final delivery includes a lesson plan, participant handout, slide deck with practice tables to fix.
Evaluation Steps
Level 1 (Reaction) I looked at asking participants if it was useful and well paced with a two-question exit comment in the lesson.
Level 2 (Learning) looking at if participants can do it by watching pairs through exercises 1-3 showing each person leaving with a fixed table.
Level 3 (Behavior) I looked at if they can use it afterwards with a follow-up message two weeks later asking whether the table they named got fixed.
Level 4 (Results) Finding if the documents do get better with fewer table warnings using Word’s Accessibility Checker in documents people share.