Weekly Reflection: Accessibility

In the context of online learning, “Accessibility” is no longer just about technical conveniences or assistive features for students with disabilities. Accessibility is a structural condition that determines whether a learner can actually participate and whether they have a voice.

Reviewing this week’s materials, I came to a clearer understanding that accessibility is driven not just by technical or cognitive factors, but significantly by psychological and power dynamics. This connects directly to my Assignment 1 (A1) inquiry topic—the argument that online silence is not a result of individual personality, but a product created by surveillance, evaluation, and platform structures.

1. Accessibility is the Sum of “Possibilities for Participation,” Not Just Technical Conditions

Traditionally, accessibility has been treated primarily as a technical issue. For example:

• Availability of captions
• Screen Reader compatibility
• Color contrast and font size
• Mobile optimization

While these elements are undoubtedly important, the larger factor determining accessibility in online learning is the psychological and cultural structure. No matter how good the technical accessibility is, if a learner is afraid to speak, participation does not occur.

In other words, the question of accessibility should shift from “Is it technically accessible?” to “Is it safe to participate in this space?”

2. Online Learning Structurally Lowers ‘Psychological Accessibility’

Psychological Accessibility refers to a state where learners can speak freely without fear of disadvantage or evaluation anxiety. However, the default structure of online classes rarely meets this condition.

• Forced Cameras (Asymmetrical Gaze): I am visible, but others are often invisible or unresponsive. This reinforces the feeling of “being watched” and causes hesitation in speaking.
• Recording Systems (Permanence of Speech): In an environment where speech is recorded, it is difficult to offer experimental opinions or ask incomplete questions. This pressures learners with the idea that “mistakes will remain permanently.”
• Datafication of Participation (LMS Logs): When attendance, chat logs, and camera status are accumulated as data, participation transforms from a learning act into a “managed act.”
• Burden of Language & Culture: International students or speakers of minoritized languages face greater risks. Webcams and microphones expose differences in accent, pronunciation, and expression, which leads to evaluation anxiety.

All these factors weaken psychological accessibility, and as a result, silence becomes a highly rational survival strategy.

3. Online Silence is a Natural Result of ‘Low-Accessibility Classes’

While this week’s materials discussed accessibility in terms of technical, cognitive, and psychological aspects, I view the structures of surveillance, power, and technology (analyzed in my A1) as the key determinants of accessibility.

Online silence occurs within systems of:

• Fear of exposure to the camera
• Anxiety about recorded speech
• Pressure from the instructor’s one-way gaze
• Structures where reading others’ reactions is impossible
• Systems connecting speech to evaluation

This is not a learner’s “lack of will to participate,” but a structural silence that arises because the range of behaviors permitted by the learning system is extremely narrow. A class with low accessibility naturally produces silence, which leads to the collapse of the community.

4. Personal Experience: Lack of Accessibility Enforces Silence

In Zoom classes, turning on the camera and speaking has always been burdensome for me. The issue was not simply shyness, but the anxiety that “if I say something wrong, it might be recorded somewhere.”

Furthermore, because I could not check the expressions or atmosphere of other students at all, the risk of speaking felt much greater. Ultimately, I chose silence over speech.

This was not a matter of choice, but a behavior demanded by the structure. In an environment with low accessibility, silence is paradoxically the most rational and safe strategy.

5. To Restore Accessibility, We Must Shift from Tech-Centric to Relation-Centric Design

Theories suggest various ways to improve accessibility, but for online learning to realistically restore it, the following conditions are needed:

• Non-public, non-recorded spaces that guarantee psychological safety.
• Separation of speech from evaluation.
• Relaxation of mandatory camera policies.
• Channels for anonymous participation.
• Opportunities for informal interaction.
• Structures that consider international students and non-native speakers.

This is not merely about improving convenience; it is about redesigning the structures of power, surveillance, and evaluation. Only when accessibility is restored can students escape silence and truly participate.

Conclusion: Accessibility is the Core Frame for Understanding Silence

Through this reflection, I reaffirmed that accessibility is not just a technical convenience but an essential concept for explaining online silence.

Even if technical connectivity is high, if psychological accessibility collapses, the learner cannot speak.

Online silence is not a student’s personal problem, but a structural product created by a system lacking accessibility.

Therefore, when discussing accessibility in online education, we must move beyond technology-centered design and consider a structural reconstruction centered on relationships, trust, and autonomy. Only when accessibility is secured can online learning truly recover the learner’s voice.