"I Can't Keep Up": Accessibility Barriers in Video-Based Learning for Individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning

Video-based learning (VBL) has become a dominant method for learning practical skills, yet accessibility guidelines provide limited guidance for users with cognitive differences. In particular, challenges that individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) encounter in video-based learning remain largely underexplored, despite VBL’s potential to support their learning through features like self-paced viewing and visual demonstration. To address this gap, we conducted a series of studies with BIF individuals and caretakers to comprehensively understand their VBL challenges. Our analysis revealed challenges stemming from misalignment between user cognitive characteristics and video elements (e.g., overwhelmed by pacing and density, difficulty inferring omitted content), and experiential factors intensifying challenges (e.g., low self-efficacy). While participants employed coping strategies such as repetitive viewing to address these challenges, these strategies could not overcome fundamental gaps with video. We further discuss the design implications on both content and UI-level features for BIF and broader groups with cognitive diversities.

💡 Research Summary

The paper “I Can’t Keep Up” investigates the accessibility challenges that individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) face when using video‑based learning (VBL), a modality that has become central for teaching practical, everyday skills. Although VBL offers inherent affordances such as self‑paced viewing, multimodal demonstration, and repeatability, existing accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG) largely ignore cognitive differences, leaving BIF learners under‑served. BIF is defined by IQ scores of 70‑85 and is characterized by working‑memory constraints, limited abstract reasoning, reduced spatial perception, and low self‑efficacy. Despite representing roughly 13.6 % of the population, this group falls between special‑education eligibility and mainstream instruction, resulting in systemic exclusion.

The authors pose three research questions: (1) how do video elements interact with BIF cognitive traits to affect learning; (2) what experiential factors amplify these effects; and (3) what coping strategies do BIF users employ, and how effective are they? To answer these, they first conducted semi‑structured interviews with social workers and parents to contextualize VBL use in daily life (e.g., emergency response training). Findings highlighted that BIF individuals often cannot articulate comprehension difficulties due to limited metacognitive awareness.

Building on this, a multi‑method study recruited BIF participants to watch an instructional video on operating an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) while their comprehension was assessed via quizzes and think‑aloud protocols. The video was a typical mainstream instructional clip, featuring rapid pacing, dense multimodal information, and omitted procedural steps. Analysis revealed four major cognitive barriers: (a) Pacing and density overload – the simultaneous visual‑auditory stream exceeds working‑memory capacity; (b) Spatial‑perception deficits – difficulty mapping on‑screen graphics to 3‑D actions; (c) Verbal comprehension challenges – technical terminology is abstract and inaccessible; and (d) Inferential reasoning gaps – users cannot infer omitted content or connect dialogue cues to procedural steps.

These barriers were magnified by experiential factors such as chronic low self‑efficacy and negative feedback loops stemming from repeated failures in real‑world tasks. Participants reported feeling discouraged, which further reduced attentional resources.

In terms of coping, participants primarily relied on repetitive viewing. While this provided psychological comfort, it did not resolve the underlying cognitive overload; each re‑watch reproduced the same barriers. Participants were quick to seek technical assistance (e.g., fixing playback issues) but remained silent about content‑related confusion, often to avoid stigma.

From these insights, the authors derive concrete design implications for both video content and user‑interface (UI) layers:

1. Adjustable pacing and chunking – allow users to slow down playback, insert automatic pauses, and segment videos into bite‑sized steps.
2. Cognitive load reduction – simplify visual layouts, use clear icons, and provide concise textual summaries for each step.
3. Flexible multimodal support – make captions, picture symbols, and keyword highlights optional and user‑controllable, recognizing that dual‑channel presentation can be both helpful and overwhelming.
4. Simplified accessibility controls – expose key features (speed, captions, visual aids) in a one‑tap menu to avoid multi‑step configuration that taxes working memory.
5. Meta‑cognitive scaffolding – embed progress indicators, self‑efficacy prompts, and immediate feedback on task completion to boost confidence.
6. Personalized assistive overlays – allow caregivers or users to pre‑configure supportive overlays (e.g., step‑by‑step arrows) that can be toggled on demand without stigmatizing labels.

The paper argues that these recommendations benefit not only BIF learners but also a broader spectrum of cognitively diverse users (e.g., ADHD, mild intellectual disability). It calls for future work to prototype these interventions within mainstream video platforms, conduct longitudinal efficacy studies, and extend accessibility guidelines to explicitly address cognitive load management.