Designing Intersectional Online Education - Critical Teaching and Learning Practices-Routledge (2022)

Designing Intersectional
Online Education
Designing Intersectional Online Education provides expansive yet accessible

examples and discussion about the intentional creation of online teaching
and learning experiences that critically center identity, social systems, and
other important ideas in design and pedagogy. Instructors are increas-
ingly tasked with designing their own online courses, curricula, and activ-
ities but lack information to support their attention to the ever-shifting,
overlapping contexts and constructs that inform students’ positions
within knowledge and schooling. This book infuses today’s technology-
enhanced education environments with practices derived from critical
race theory, culturally responsive pedagogy, disability studies, feminist/
womanist studies, queer theory, and other essential foundations for
humanized and socially just education. Faculty, scholars, technologists,
and other experts across higher education, K-12, and teacher training ofer
fresh, robust insights into how actively engaging with intersectionality
can inspire designs for online teaching and learning that are inclusive,
intergenerational, anti-oppressive, and emancipatory.
Xeturah M. Woodley is the Associate Vice President for Instruction at

Guilford Technical Community College, USA.
Mary F. Rice is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Language,

Literacy, & Sociocultural Studies at the University of New Mexico, USA.
Designing Intersectional
Online Education
Critical Teaching and Learning Practices
EDITED BY
XETURAH M. WOODLEY AND MARY F. RICE
Cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
The right of Xeturah M. Woodley and Mary F. Rice to be identifed as the authors of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form
or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Woodley, Xeturah M., editor. | Rice, Mary, 1980– editor.
Title: Designing intersectional online education: critical teaching and
learning practices / edited by Xeturah M. Woodley and Mary F. Rice.
Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifers: LCCN 2021044829 (print) | LCCN 2021044830 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367434564 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367439019 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003006350 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Web-based instruction—Design. | Web-based
instruction—Social aspects. | Critical pedagogy. | Culturally relevant
pedagogy. | Interdisciplinary approach in education.
Classifcation: LCC LB1044.87 .D4795 2022 (print) |
LCC LB1044.87 (ebook) | DDC 371.33/44678—dc23/eng/20211007
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021044829
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021044830
ISBN: 9780367434564 (hbk)
ISBN: 9780367439019 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003006350 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350
Typeset in Dante and Avenir
by codeMantra
Contents
About the Editors viii
About the Contributors ix
Introduction: Designing Online Learning as Intersectional,

Entangled Commitments 1
M ARY F. R I C E
X E T UR AH M . WO O DLEY
1 Critical Pedagogy & Culturally Responsive Pedagogy:

An Introduction 10
Y V O N N E E L AS HM AWI
E L I S S A W E S T FRA Z IER
2 Designing for Cultural Responsiveness in P20 Online

Learning Environments 27
E L I S S A W E S T FRA Z IER
Y V O N N E E L AS HM AWI
3 Interest Convergence: A CRT Interrogation of the

Intersection of Higher Education & Online Learning
during a Pandemic 43
R AMO N A M AI L E CU TRI
N O UF AL S UWA IDA
X E T UR AH M . WO O DLEY
vi Contents
4 We Are One, But We Are Many: Using Disabilities Studies

to Inform Intersectional Education Online 63
S H E L L E Y K I N ASH
M AD E L AI N E - M A RIE J U DD
5 Womanist and Feminist Pedagogy: Infusing the Wisdom

of Women into Online Education 79
S H AMI K A K L AS S EN
6 Multiplying the Possibilities of Knowledge: Queering

Online Teaching and Learning 100
TAB I T H A PAR RY CO LLINS
L I N D A E . O L D HA M
7 Using Freirean and Rogerian Theory to Create Anti-Racist

and Peace-Based Intersectional Online Learning
Communities 118
J E N N I F E R L . M A R TIN
D E N I S E K . B O CKM IER- S O M M ERS
C H R I S T O P H E R L. HA RRIS
M AR T I N D . M A R TS CH
8 Telecollaboration and Critical Cultural Connections 136

PAT R I C I A S . MCCLU RE
L AUR E N C I F UENTES
9 Queering Online Pedagogies in Gender & Sexuality Studies 160

M . C AT H E R I N E J O NET
L AUR A AN H W ILLIA M S
10 Tensions in Adapting a Mandatory Indigenous Education

Course to an Online Environment 177
E L I S A L AC E R D A- VA NDENBO RN
J E N N I F E R MAR K IDES
T E R E S A AN N E F O WLER
AUB R E Y J E AN HA NS O N
J E N N I F E R MACDO NA LD
Y V O N N E P O I T RA S PRATT
PAT R I C I A D AN YLU K
Contents vii
11 An Autoethnographic Rhapsody of Learning to Teach

Diverse Students Online 197
M AR K S T E V E N S
12 Teaching Writing Informed by Systemic Functional

Linguistics: Bringing Professional Development Up to
Scale through Online Courses 220
M AR Í A E S T E L A B RIS K
T R AC Y H O D G S O N- DRYS DA LE
E L I Z AB E T H MA CDO NA LD
Index 247
About the Editors
Xeturah M. Woodley, Lecturer—University of New Mexico &

Associate Vice President of Instruction—Guilford Technical
Community College
Dr. Xeturah M. Woodley is an Associate Vice President of instruc-
tion at Guilford Technical Community College (GTCC) in Jamestown,
North Carolina. Prior to joining the administration at GTCC, she was an
Associate Professor in Learning Design and Technology at New Mexico
State University and a lecturer in Africana Studies at The University of
New Mexico. Dr. Woodley is a Black Womanist scholar with a background
in community organizing and educational activism. Her community
work focuses on meeting the educational needs of those most vulnerable
in our society. Dr. Woodley is the recipient of numerous awards for her
work within the community and on campuses.
Mary F. Rice, Assistant Professor —University of New Mexico

Mary F. Rice is an Assistant Professor of Literacy at the University of New
Mexico. She earned a Ph.D. in curriculum and teaching from the University
of Kansas. Mary is an Online Learning Consortium Emerging Scholar (2018)
and has been a Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute fellow since
2016. Mary’s publication experience has been extensive. She is the man-
aging editor for Online Learning journal. She also co-edited a special issue of
Distance Education focused on criticality and diversity in open, fexible, dis-
tance learning environments (2020). In 2015, Mary edited the book, Exploring
Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online (Emerald Press).
About the Contributors
Nouf Alsuwaida, Assistant Professor—University of Ha’il

Dr. Nouf Alsuwaida conducts research in the feld of Educational
Learning Technologies in the feld of Art and Design, curriculum &
instruction, e-learning, and educational design models, as well as distance
training programs and the development of technological skills in Art and
Design, Her research interests are in women’s education issues, Saudi
women’s traditional in fashion design, teaching and learning in Art and
Design, social media in the curriculum, and technology theories in peda-
gogy. She has published fve research papers in the feld of educational
technology in Art.
Denise K. Bockmier-Sommers, Associate Professor—The University

of Illinois at Springfeld
Denise K. Bockmier-Sommers is an Associate Professor at the
University of Illinois Springfeld, where she is Chair of the Human
Services Department and teaches the online Social Services
Administration concentration. Dr. Bockmier-Sommers has accrued
over 25 years of rehabilitation counseling and evaluation, manage-
ment, and supervisory experience in the human services arena. She
obtained her bachelor’s degree in Human Growth and Development
from the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, her master’s
degree in Rehabilitation at East Carolina University in Greenville,
North Carolina, and her Doctor of Education in Counseling from the
x About the Contributors
University of Missouri in St. Louis. Her research focuses on the use

of service learning in online classes, the development of multicultural
competencies in Human Services training, and the use of empathy,
genuineness, and high regard to enhance engagement and success in
online teaching and learning.
Yvonne El Ashmawi, Clinical Assistant Professor—Loyola University

Chicago
Before becoming a clinical assistant professor, Dr. Yvonne El Ashmawi
was a secondary English instructor for more than a decade. She has also
served as a teacher educator in several contexts both at home and abroad.
Her research focuses on learning from marginalized communities about
their experiences in public schools, how they enact their own agency, and
how schools can become spaces of support for all students. Her content
area focus is middle and secondary English education from a social justice
framework; she also teaches courses in learning theory and culturally sus-
tainable pedagogy. She is currently Program Chair of Graduate Programs
Teaching, Learning, & Leading with Schools & Communities at Loyola
University Chicago.
María Estela Brisk, Emeritus Professor of Education—Boston

College
María Estela Brisk’s research and teaching interests include writing
instruction, genre pedagogy, bilingual education, bilingual language and
literacy acquisition, and preparation of mainstream teachers to work with
bilingual learners. She is the author of numerous articles and seven books:
Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling; Literacy and
Bilingualism: A Handbook for All Teachers; Situational Context of Education:
A Window into the World of Bilingual Learners; Language Development and
Education: Children with Varying Language Experiences (with P. Menyuk);
Language, Culture, and Community in Teacher Education; Engaging Students in
Academic Literacies: Genre-Based Pedagogy for K-5 Classrooms; and Language
in Writing Instruction: Enhancing Literacy in Grades 3–8. Professor Brisk is a
native of Argentina.
Lauren Cifuentes, College Professor—New Mexico State University
Lauren Cifuentes is a College Professor in the Educational Design and
Learning Technologies program at NMSU where she teaches Critical
Digital Literacy, Technology, and Pedagogy; Foundations of Learning
About the Contributors xi
Design; and Design and Development Research to graduate students

who are primarily early PreK-16 teachers. Her expertise lies in distance
learning, cognition, and learning design. Prior to her position at NMSU,
she directed distance learning initiatives at Texas A&M University-
Corpus Christi and taught for 23 years at Texas A&M University,
College Station. She has conducted countless workshops on technology
applications for K-12 teachers in schools and universities and has over
100 publications primarily focused on distance learning. Her book, A
Guide to Administering Distance Learning, should be in print in the Spring
of 2021.
Tabitha Parry Collins, Adjunct Professor—New Mexico State University

Tabitha Parry Collins is currently a Professor of Education at New
Mexico State University (NMSU) in Las Cruces, NM, where they work
primarily with pre-service teachers both as a course instructor and
feld supervisor. They earned their Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction
focusing on language, literacy, and culture as well as a minor in gender
and sexuality studies from NMSU. Their work draws from several discip-
lines, including education, gender and sexuality studies, and sociology.
Their work has a strong focus on intersectionality and their scholarship
focuses on teacher preparation, queer studies and social justice issues in
education, and adolescent and children’s literacy.
Ramona Maile Cutri, Associate Professor—Brigham Young University

Ramona Maile Cutri is an Associate Professor at Brigham Young
University’s Teacher Education Department. Cutri’s research attends
to the complexities of technology integration in higher education. Her
work contributes a criticality to research on eLearning and highlights the
tensions between the culture of academia and the potential and demands
of online teaching. Additionally, Cutri explores how technology can
facilitate the pedagogical and dispositional goals of critical multicultural
teacher education. She has produced important work that documents
the emotional work involved in multicultural education teacher educa-
tion and managing afective polarization in ways that lead to changes in
students’ thinking and development as teachers.
Patricia Danyluk, Senior Instructor—University of Calgary

Dr. Danyluk is the former Director of Field Experience for the
Community Based Bachelor of Education at Werklund. She grew up in
xii About the Contributors
northern Manitoba where she spent many years working with remote
First Nations and Métis communities. She has published on teacher edu-
cation, critical service-learning, and reconciliatory studies.
Teresa Anne Fowler, Assistant Professor—Concordia University of

Edmonton
Teresa Anne Fowler is an Assistant Professor at Concordia University
of Edmonton in the faculty of education. Her research focuses on crit-
ical white masculinities and the implications of masculinity on men’s
mental health as well as anti-colonial pedagogic approaches to teacher
education and is a member of Concordia’s research cluster: Scholars
Countering Intersectional Racism and Oppression. She has recently
published a co-edited book, Duoethnographic encounters: Opening
spaces for difcult dialogues in times of uncertainty as well as published
articles in the Sociology of Sport, Taboo: The Journal of Culture and
Education, The Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies,
The Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, and also works with school
districts to move towards decentering whiteness.
Elissa West Frazier, Doctoral Candidate—Loyola University Chicago

Elissa West Frazier is an Ed.D. candidate at Loyola University Chicago
researching culturally responsive technology integration in K12 schools with
a specialization in organizational evaluation. She has extensive experience in
instructional design, culturally responsive teaching, curriculum development,
and urban education. She currently uses qualitative and mixed methods to
evaluate equity-focused school improvement initiatives, programs, and pol-
icies nationally at the Education Development Center (EDC), Chicago.
Aubrey Jean Hanson, Associate Professor—University of Calgary

Dr. Aubrey Jean Hanson is a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta
and an Associate Professor in Education at the University of Calgary. Her
ancestry extends to Red River Métis, German, Icelandic, Cree, French,
and Scottish roots. Aubrey’s research spans Indigenous literary studies,
curriculum studies, and Indigenous education, looking in particular at
how Indigenous literary arts can precipitate relationships between non-
Indigenous learners and Indigenous resurgence. Aubrey has previously
About the Contributors xiii
published scholarship in Canadian Literature, Studies in American Indian

Literatures, English Studies in Canada, The McGill Journal of Education, The
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, The Oxford Research Encyclopedia
of Education, and The Walrus. Her book Literatures, Communities, and
Learning: Conversations with Indigenous Writers was published with Wilfrid
Laurier University Press in spring 2020.
Christopher L. Harris, Doctoral Student, University of Toledo
Christopher L. Harris, M.Ed. (christopher.harris4@rockets.utoledo.
edu) is a Ph.D. student at the University of Toledo, working toward
his doctorate in Educational Psychology with a minor in Educational
Theory and Social Foundations. Christopher earned his Bachelor of Arts
in Political Science from Kent State University in 2015, and his Master
of Education in Educational Leadership from the University of Mount
Union in 2018. In 2018, he served as a researcher through the Judith
Herb Endowed Grant, where he worked on a project entitled Teacher
education for culturally responsive pedagogies within content areas. At
the University of Toledo, Christopher designed and teaches an under-
graduate course, Child Behavior and Development, as well as developing
content for another undergraduate course, Lifespan Development. His
research interests include culturally responsive teaching, peace education
pedagogy, self and identity development of minority students, and edu-
cational equity.
Tracy Hodgson-Drysdale, Adjunct Research Professor—Carleton

University
Tracy Hodgson-Drysdale’s teaching and research focus on teaching lit-
eracy and language across content areas in elementary schools, culturally
responsive teaching, multilingualism, systemic functional linguistics, and
critical discourse analysis. She has published articles in journals including
Linguistics and Education and the Journal of Education, and she has a forth-
coming article in Language and Education. Over the past 25 years, she has
taught in various capacities, including as an elementary generalist in the
provinces of Quebec and Alberta, as a reading specialist in Massachusetts,
and a professor in both Canada and the United States. She teaches a variety
of traditional, blended, and online courses on many topics relating to edu-
cation, teacher training, and multilingualism.
xiv About the Contributors
M. Catherine Jonet, Associate Professor—New Mexico State

University
M. Catherine Jonet is an Associate Professor of Gender & Sexuality
Studies at New Mexico State University. Her work focuses on how litera-
ture, flm, and other creative forms are knowledge projects deeply imbued
with aesthetic and social meanings. She theorizes that these meanings are
mutually constitutive and, for this reason, play a specifc role in shaping and
sustaining public cultures for marginalized groups, especially LGBTQ+
people and communities. In 2015, along with Dr. Laura Anh Williams,
she co-founded Feminist Border Arts, a university-based humanities and
arts project that employs research-creation to produce and circulate new
knowledge through practice-based creative strategies. These include the
curation of a transnational short flm festival as well as the production
of original digital cinema and other visual culture projects. Her research
has been published by venues such as The Journal of Popular Culture and
the Modern Language Association journal Profession. Dr. Jonet is a frst-
generation high school and college graduate in her family.
Madelaine-Marie Judd, Service Improvement Manager—University

of Queensland
Madelaine-Marie Judd is the Service Improvement Manager, Careers
at The University of Queensland. She is currently completing her Ph.D.
through Western Sydney University and her research topic is cultural com-
petency, in the context of graduate attributes. Her research is grounded
in understanding cultural intersectionality. Madelaine-Marie is an award-
winning leader of Students as Partners approaches to higher education,
and as such is passionate about student voice and student leadership. She
is research active, having been a primary researcher in multiple national
projects on student experience, graduate employability, and learning and
teaching.
Shelley Kinash, Director for Advancement of Learning and Teaching—

University of Southern Queensland
Professor Shelley Kinash is the Director, Advancement of Learning
and Teaching at the University of Southern Queensland. She has been a
teaching academic for 27 years, frst in Faculties of Education in Canada and
Australia, and then leading central learning and teaching units. Shelley’s
home discipline is community rehabilitation and disability studies. Her
About the Contributors xv
Ph.D. is in education technology and her dissertation research was about

blind online learners. Her scholarship seamlessly integrates research and
education practice. Her h-index is 19 and she has over 1,500 citations. She
is passionate about student experience, diversity, personalization, success,
and voice.
Shamika Klassen, Doctoral Student—University of Colorado at Boulder

Shamika Klassen is a person who is passionate about people and tech-
nology! After graduating from Stanford University with a degree in African
and African American studies in 2011, she served a year with AmeriCorps
in NYC. She went on to study technology and ethics by developing
technowomanism at Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York.
There, she also created and developed the concept of a Tech Chaplain. She
received her Master of Divinity from Union in 2017. She currently attends
CU Boulder as a doctoral student in their Information Science Department
and is studying technology, ethics, and social justice issues.
Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn, Assistant Professor—University of Calgary

Dr. Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn is a critical and interdisciplinary theoret-
ical psychologist and Assistant Professor in Counselling Psychology in the
Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary. Originally
from Curitiba, Brazil, her research focuses on philosophical and theor-
etical ideas about the self, how these are interpreted and translated into
institutional practices and the social implications associated with them
for individuals, families, communities, and societies. Her work critiques
individualistic approaches in favor of more communal psychological
perspectives in learning, teaching, and research, particularly for edu-
cation and child welfare. This ontological work is closely related with
relational and situated epistemologies, community-led, based, and par-
ticipatory methodologies, and communal axiological principles in the
social sciences. Elisa works alongside Indigenous communities in Western
Canada and Northern Brazil.
Elizabeth MacDonald, Instructional Coach—Boston College

Elizabeth MacDonald is a seasoned educator and instructional coach
within the Boston Public Schools and has served as an adjunct instructor
in Boston College’s Lynch School of Education for close to 20 years.
Her interests include urban education, reading and writing instruction,
xvi About the Contributors
dual-language schools, and the preparation of pre-service teachers. She

has worked with María Estela Brisk on writing instruction as a teacher,
coach, and colleague. Their work together has included the study of
and implementation of the theory Systemic Functional Linguistics in
the classroom. Additionally, as co-author of the frst and second edition
of The Mindful Teacher, she is committed to supporting and retaining
urban educators. Liz currently teaches online courses at Boston College
and serves as a writing coach in the Boston Public Schools.
Jennifer Markides, Postdoctoral Fellow—University of Calgary

Jennifer Markides, Ph.D. is a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta
and an Eyes High Postdoctoral Fellow in the Werklund School of
Education at the University of Calgary. Her research focuses on the
holistic well-being of youth and Indigenous education, towards rec-
onciliatory action and systemic change. With a commitment to
community-engaged partnerships, she prioritizes ethical relationship-
building that holds respect, trust, and reciprocity at heart. Her research
is responsive to the needs, interests, and wisdom shared by the commu-
nities. Dr. Markides is also the series editor of the Community Wisdom
series with DIO Press, featuring Indigenous scholarship.
Jennifer L. Martin, Assistant Professor—University of Illinois at

Springfeld
Jennifer L. Martin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher
Education at the University of Illinois at Springfeld. She is the editor
of Racial Battle Fatigue: Insights from the Front Lines of Social Justice
Advocacy (Recipient of the 2016 AERA Division B’s Outstanding Book
Recognition Award), and co-author of Teaching for Educational Equity:
Case Studies for Professional Development and Principal Preparation, Volumes
1 and 2 (Roman & Littlefeld). She is the 2019 recipient of the Paula Silver
Case Award for Volume Year 2018, UCEA Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership (Volume 21): for “The Bathroom Case: Creating a Supportive
School Environment for Transgender and Gender Non-conforming
Students” (with Dr. Jane Beese).
Martin D. Martsch, Associate Professor—University of Illinois at

Springfeld
Dr. Martsch has been a faculty member in the Department of Social
Work at UIS since 1998. He currently serves as the BSW Program Director
About the Contributors xvii
and teaches a variety of courses including research methods, working

with groups and families, and Introduction to Social Work. He received
his Ph.D. in Social Welfare from the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
his MSW from Florida State University, and his B.A. in Social Work from
Boise State University. His research interests are in the areas of troubled
youth, small group interventions, and program evaluation.
Patricia S. McClure, Adjunct Instructor—New Mexico State University

Dr. Patricia S. McClure works with secondary education preservice
teachers as an adjunct instructor at NMSU. As a former public-school
social studies teacher, Patricia uses her experience to guide under-
graduate and graduate preservice teachers’ understanding of the crit-
ical need to develop antiracist, multicultural pedagogy and content in
their classrooms. She regularly uses her right to peaceful protest and civil
disobedience to protest deportation of immigrants, separation of immi-
grant families, corporate environmental degradations to tribal lands, and
supports all Black Lives Matter and Asian American activism that bring
awareness to the daily human rights violations against BIPOC Americans.
Patricia also has worked as a resource director and executive director for
domestic violence and substance abuse nonproft organizations. Her
current writing projects include how educators identify and disrupt the
silent schooling of whiteness in education.
Jennifer MacDonald, Ph.D. Candidate—University of Calgary

Jennifer MacDonald is a Ph.D. candidate in Curriculum and Learning
in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary.
Emerging from experiences as an outdoor environmental educator, and
taking students on extended wilderness journeys, her research focuses on
ecological sensibilities, meaning-making, and ethical relationships. As a
non-Indigenous scholar, she works to understand and enact pedagogies
to support the interconnected projects of Indigenous-settler and human-
earth reconciliation.
Linda E. Oldham, ELA Content Specialist—Deming Public Schools

Linda E. Oldham is currently the English Language Arts Content
Specialist for Deming Public Schools in Deming, NM, where they coach
elementary and secondary teachers in the teaching of literacy and litera-
ture. They earned a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction with a focus on
language, literacy, and culture from New Mexico State University. Their
xviii About the Contributors
academic interests center on race, power, and identity in young adult lit-
erature, the teaching of multicultural literature, and teacher preparation.
Yvonne Poitras Pratt, Associate Professor—University of Calgary

Dr. Yvonne Poitras Pratt (Métis) is an Associate Professor at the
Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, in Alberta,
Canada. Her ancestral roots trace back to the historic Red River settle-
ment and more recently to Fishing Lake Métis Settlement in northeastern
Alberta. Yvonne worked with members of the Fishing Lake community
to create a series of 19 intergenerational digital stories and this work
is detailed in the 2020 Routledge publication of Digital Storytelling in
Indigenous Education: A Decolonizing Journey for a Metis Community. Yvonne
has published in the realm of social justice, media studies, Métis studies,
reconciliatory pedagogy, service-learning, and the integration of arts in
education. She earned a Werklund Teaching Excellence Award in 2016, a
Students Union Teaching Excellence Award in 2017, the Confederation
of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) Distinguished Academic Early
Career Award in 2018, and the Alan Blizzard Award for Collaborative
Teaching in 2021.
Mark Stevens, History Teacher—Fairfax County Public Schools

Mark Stevens has worked in public schools for 27 years as a History
classroom teacher in a high needs secondary school, where the needs are
indeed multiple. He holds an M.Ed. in Education, a M.A. in History, and
a Ph.D. in Learning Technology Design Research. He is thankful for the
chance to combine those two worlds (teaching and research) to attempt
to make a diference for students about whom people often talk about
helping, but sometimes fall short in their efort. One of his instructional
approaches is to let the peoples involved in history, who have often been
marginalized, tell their own stories in their own words, using multimodal
(text, audio, video) presentations. This sometimes allows students to see
themselves and make connections to those who did not give up.
Laura Anh Williams, Associate Professor—New Mexico State University

Laura Anh Williams is an Associate Professor and director of Gender
and Sexuality Studies at New Mexico State University. Her research brings
together feminist and queer theories, food studies, visual cultures, and
critical refugee studies. Her current book project, Unsettling Appetites,
About the Contributors xix
explores abjection, disgust, and agency in Asian American literature and

visual culture. She is also the creator, editor, sometime illustrator, and
maker of zines (non-commercial, self-made, small circulation art books),
including Social Justice Zine and Mostly New Mexico News Haiku. Her
academic writing has appeared or is forthcoming from MLA Profession,
Feminist Studies, Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, as well as
edited collections published by Cambridge University Press and Hong
Kong University Press.
Introduction:
Designing Online
Learning as
Intersectional,
Entangled Commitments
Mary F. Rice and Xeturah M. Woodley
Mary visited a grade 4 class in the United States that was being taught
remotely in the fall of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The children
were learning about languages and associating them with diferent coun-
tries. Teacher: What language do they speak in Japan? Children: Japanese!
Eventually, the teacher asked the children what language was spoken
in the United States. The children’s one-language answers shifted. They
ofered English, but also Spanish. One student asked who among them
could speak the most languages. Before they could say more, the teacher
interrupted in a strained but cheery tone. “Yes, we speak English in the
United States.” The children corrected her. “We speak Spanish,” one
said. “And I speak Tewa (an indigenous language),” another ofered. The
teacher relented. “Okay, some people speak languages other than English
in the United States.” A student again corrected her. “Teacher, WE speak
those other languages.” A classmate ofered to fnd a map on the internet
to show languages in the United States. Another child ofered to fnd her
mother in their home and ask her to come and speak Spanish over the
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-1
2 Mary F. Rice and Xeturah M. Woodley
video conference to the children and her teacher. Ostensibly, this ofer
was made to prove that speakers of other languages live in the United
States and even in their community. The teacher did not comment on
these ofers but instead moved on to another country. “What language
do they speak in Germany?” she said. “German!” the children responded.
In this experience, readers may have noted multiple opportunities to
discuss languages and culture. Yes, the United States does have people
who speak a variety of languages and a variety of Englishes. However,
Japan also has cultural and language diversity that has long been denied
(Honna & Saruhashi, 2017). In this grade 4 class, the learners may not have
understood this about Japan, but they knew their own situation in their
own homes and their own neighborhood. They knew there were lots of
languages, and they had a positive opinion of this diversity. Moreover, the
children did their best to bring attention to their various language identities.
As a response, the teacher enacted a practice based on direct instruction
where teachers are supposed to ignore answers that they think are wrong
and concentrate on telling the student the information that has been
deemed to be correct (Tobias & Dufy, 2009). The teacher may not have
been exposed to discourse that challenges direct instruction for its often
racist outcomes (e.g., Delpit, 1988). The teacher may also not have had
the opportunity to be exposed to language ideologies that allow for mul-
tiple languages and even multiple forms of languages, along with ideas
like code-mixing, code-switching, and translanguaging (Canagarajah,
2011; Deroo & Ponzio, 2019). With 18 years of experience teaching in
this community, the teacher could have had the chance to realize that this
was the case, but for whatever reason, that refection did not come across
in her lesson. The children, in their much shorter lives, had made these
connections. Rather than dissonance, they seemed quite fne with it, even
proud. Their use of ‘we’ to emphasize group identities and resist a single
language’s discourse was sophisticated (Guerra et al., 2021).
The children were also trying to use the circumstance they were in
with remote learning to build community and share with their teacher.
Because of a remote teaching situation, the child who was able to invite
her mother in real time to enter the conference and speak for them is one
example. Another is the child who realized that being on the Internet
right at that moment would allow them to collect information about
languages. Unfortunately, none of these afordances of being online were
taken up by the teacher. Instead, she returned to asking about countries
where she felt she could get the answer she wanted.
Designing Online Learning 3
Several days later, as the class was learning about Africa, a child asked
why some people were Black, and the teacher responded that it was
because they had more melatonin [sic] in their skin. Again, the answer was
simplifed, not factual, and she missed opportunities to have meaningful
discussions about seeing color as well as seeing color for what it might
bring to a classroom. Again, there are online resources that students could
have accessed that would have supported a rich discussion, but none were
used. Instead, the direct instruction strategy of ignoring what is not on your
agenda was used to instantiate a color-blind ideology where skin color is
chemical, even biological, rather than arising from the complex interplay
of visual characteristics with socialization. Under such conditions, Black
children’s racial and educational identities hang in the balance (Garcia-
Reid, 2008; Leonardo, 2007; Lewis Ellison et al., 2020).
Although these experiences come from K-12 teaching, higher educa-
tion has also struggled to leverage the afordances of working online to
strengthen and value the learners’ multiple identities, goals, and interests.
Lee (2017) raised critical questions about online learning and issues of access.
Specifcally, Lee noted that increasing access for all students was a com-
plex and multidimensional problem. In that same vein, Salvo et al. (2019)
documented the challenges African American males face in online learning
in higher education settings. This also highlighted obstacles with access to
courses and assessments. While online learning might be considered a new
or newer way to deliver courses, there is no reason to believe that issues of
inequity and injustice will not follow the teaching and learning online from
the in-person context (Lanye et al., 2013; Xu & Jaggars, 2014).
To support teachers and learners in fulflling a promise of online
learning becoming a vital learning opportunity, those who engage in it
must confront historical issues that have limited access and achievement
alongside issues that might be unique to online environments. For
example, students with disabilities have faced a myriad of challenges
in qualifying for higher education, believing they can be successful,
receiving accommodations, and advocating for the support they need
(Burgstahler, 2015). As more students with disabilities enroll in online
courses, new issues arise in the form of increased needs for home-based
Internet access, accessible instructional materials, learning management
systems that are designed with users with a variety of disabilities in mind,
and more (Reyes et al., 2021). Many students struggle with accessing
online courses—both in getting online and in learning the content with
the resources available. The challenge in light of these understandings is
to support students cognitively, afectively, emotionally, socially, and even

physically while maintaining interactions with peers and teachers that will
help students succeed in the courses (Chen & Swan, 2021; Gleason, 2021).
Distance learning, including online learning, ofers important opportun-
ities to students, but even within learning frames that are supported by
technologies, narratives need to shift about what these types of learning
are, who they are for, and what constitutes access (Naidu, 2019).
This book is called Designing Critical Intersectional Online Teaching and
Learning. By design, we intend to convey a sense of intentionality in how
online learning is presented. Such pedagogical intent, as Van Manen (1991)
termed it, asks those who design learning to be concerned not just with
the subject matter, not just with the teacher, and not even just with the
learners. Instead, the design comes through an understanding of subject
matter, teacher, and learner in a context. Students’ sense of the strength of
the learning community is supported by the design of the course, rather
than by chance (Çaskurlu et al., 2021; Shea et al., 2006). In learning that is
heavily supported by technologies, the technologies might not ft neatly
into a category but instead might straddle several simultaneously, including
teacher and subject matter, but even learner (Rice, 2021). These elements
are brought together through an activity (Schwab, 1978). The activity is not
merely an assignment that teachers scan and post in a learning management
system, and then students do and turn in. Activities constitute the totality
of the experience of learning (Dewey, 1938). Strong, activities then, are not
designed to lead to inert knowledge (“Isn’t it great to know that; aren’t we
so smart; let’s go home now!”), but to lead to decision—where actions can
be taken (“What does this learning experience obligate me to do?”). Actions
are what have the power to change the subject matter, destabilizing what we
know as the truth (e.g., they speak Japanese in Japan). Teachers and learners
who can then listen to the shifting knowledge around them and take actions
that change the context, including the technologies that we used to learn.
After all, these technologies are not color-blind, language-blind, ability-
blind, and blind to colonial settler history, either (Daniels, 2015).
Critical design in this frame need not be troublesome. On the contrary,
it can be very liberating, but it can only do its work consciously. Although
refection has been the dominant metaphor in education to bring ideas
to consciousness, Barad (2007), Deleuze (2004), and Bergson et al. (2004)
have warned that refection that has the intention of the reproduction
will not help people understand their circumstances. Instead, Barad
(2007) proposed difraction as a more helpful optical metaphor. Instead
of reproducing “this is what I see,” individuals closely examine the mul-

tiple overlapping forces that operate on experiences that matter. There
was a small attempt at difraction regarding the teacher in the frst part
of this introduction. Instead of criticizing the teacher for not honoring
the languages, we started to think about what forces might be preventing
her from seeing what we saw when we heard those children assert a force
in the learning space that “some people may speak other languages,”
but most importantly, “WE speak them. And so do the people we love.”
The teacher may have felt a force that required her to teach ideas in their
fnal form so that the students could pick a narrow answer on a test.
The teacher may not have had the opportunity to realize that traditional
assessments have been sites of oppression (Grant, 2004). Critical design
suggests that when students are not responding how we want them to,
we must fnd out why. Moreover, we have to be willing to fnd out that
the reason why is because we have failed to acknowledge structures that
are built to ensure our learners will be unsuccessful, that they do not have
access to something they need, or that those who are planning the cur-
riculum have not taken into account their perspective ( Jones & Jenkins,
2008; Kovach, 2009).
Critical intersectional design is not about punishment; it is about
renewal. While it is important to use difractive skills to identify what we
can do to make our classrooms places of action, we also must have the
courage to allow both teachers and learners to become. After all, Freire
(1970) did not call it “humanized” pedagogy as if it was in its fnal form.
Instead, he called it “humanization,” meaning that all who engage in it
are becoming more attuned to the humanity of others. The notion of
becoming is also part of New Materialist thinking (Barad, 2007, Bergeson,
2004; Deleuze, 2004) and indigenous knowledge ( Jones & Jenkins, 2008;
Kovach, 2009). In these frames, individuals are supported in imagining
communities that they want to join as well as understand their roles in the
communities in which they are currently part (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007).
With critical intersectional design in place, we are positioned to
question the relationship between teaching and learning in a mean-
ingful way. In typical behavioral design, the assumption is that teaching
causes learning. In such a dynamic, teacher-centering is the only pathway
to success. Switching the direction to learning causes teaching might be a
good frst step (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005). This is a direction
that online learning could beneft from not to institute mastery learning
(which again, is focused on a problematic narrow, orientation to learning
as being in its fnal form) but because if learning causes teaching, students
and teachers are better positioned to design student-centered project-based
work foregrounded in what the learners bring to educational settings and
what they want to gain by participating. However, a critical intersectional
perspective on teaching and learning would work to eliminate any force
of rivalry between teacher and learner. Instead of considering that classes
must be teacher-centered, student-centered, or even learner-centered,
educative experiences are spaces for intergenerational ways of knowing
and being where who is teaching, who is learning, and what is taught are
in constant fux (Vossoghi et al., 2020; Woodley et al., 2017).
The chapters in this book represent the work of scholars, teachers,
learners, technologies, subject matter, and contexts in fux yet are on a
path of humanization. The frst fve chapters explore important ideas
such as culturally responsive pedagogies, critical pedagogies, feminist/
womanist pedagogies, disability studies, and queer pedagogies. These
frames are explained for their roots in learning in traditional settings and
then their application to online learning. The second six chapters are
focused on the practical aspects of learning online when elements of crit-
ical intersectionality are taken into account. These chapters come from
higher education, including teacher education as well as the K-12 context.
We invite readers to consider these chapters not as the fnal word on
delineating intersections but instead as a set of examples with many prac-
tical suggestions for open, democratic encounters with online education
(Rice et al., 2020). We would hope all of those children in that grade 4 class
from the beginning of this chapter come to higher education at some point.
When they do, what types of opportunities to learn with digital technolo-
gies will there be? What ideologies will assert force on what they learn?
Will they be able to make a curriculum, or will it be presented in its fnal
form? There are many more perspectives on critical intersectional design.
We look forward to continuing the conversation among ourselves and
with readers as we also strive to continue in our becoming, in our human-
ization, and in our ever-expanding communities.
References
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Duke University Press.

Bergson, H., Paul, N. M., & Palmer, W. S. (2004). Matter and memory. Courier
Corporation.
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning

practices and students with disabilities. Social Inclusion, 3(6), 69–79.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for
research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 1–28.
Çaskurlu, S., Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., & Kozan, K. (2021). The qualitative evi-
dence behind the factors impacting online learning experiences as informed
by the community of inquiry framework: A thematic synthesis. Computers &
Education, 165, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104111.
Chen, C. C., & Swan, K. (2020). Using innovative and scientifcally-based debate
to build e-learning community. Online Learning, 24(3), 67–80. https://doi.org/
10.24059/olj.v24i3.2345.
Daniels, J. (2015). “My brain database doesn’t see skin color”: Color-blind racism
in the technology industry and in theorizing the web. American Behavioral
Scientist, 59(11), 1377–1393.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299.
Deleuze, G. (2004). Desert islands and other texts, 1953–1974. MIT Press.
Deroo, M. R., & Ponzio, C. (2019). Confronting ideologies: A discourse analysis
of in-service teachers’ translanguaging stance through an ecological lens.
Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 214–231.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Touchstone.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of
quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.
Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum.
Garcia-Reid, P. (2008). Understanding the efect of structural violence on the edu-
cational identities of Hispanic adolescents: A call for social justice. Children &
Schools, 30(4), 235–241.
Gleason, B. (2021). Expanding interaction in online courses: Integrating critical
humanizing pedagogy for learner success. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 69(1), 51–54.
Grant, C. A. (2004). Oppression, privilege, and high-stakes testing. Multicultural
Perspectives, 6(1), 3–11.
Guerra, R., Waldzus, S., Lopes, D., Popa-Roch, M., Lloret, B., & Gaertner, S.
L. (2021). Little “we’s”: How common identities improve behavior difer-
ently for ethnic majority and minority children. Group processes & Intergroup
Relations, 24(3), 488–510.
Honna, N., & Saruhashi, J. (2019). Language education policy in Japan. In A.
Kirkpatrick, & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of lan-
guage education policy in Asia (pp. 97–110). Routledge.
Jones, A., & Jenkins, K. (2008). Rethinking collaboration: Working the Indigenous-
colonizer hyphen. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & Smith, L. (Eds.), Handbook of
critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 459–470). Sage.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and
contexts. University of Toronto Press.
Layne, M., Boston, W. E., & Ice, P. (2013). A longitudinal study of online learners:
Shoppers, swirlers, stoppers, and succeeders as a function of demographic
characteristics. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(2), 1–12.
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer162/layne_boston_ice162.
html.
Lee, K. (2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A histor-
ical review. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 15–23.
Leonardo, Z. (2007). The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educa-
tional construction of whiteness. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 261–278.
Lewis Ellison, T., Robinson, B., & Qiu, T. (2020). Examining African American
girls’ literate intersectional identities through journal entries and discussions
about STEM. Written Communication, 37(1), 3–40.
Naidu,S.(2019)Thechangingnarrativesof open,fexibleandonlinelearning,Distance
Education, 40(2), 149–152, https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1612981.
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English
language teaching. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (eds.), International handbook
of English language teaching (pp. 669–680). Springer.
Reyes, J. I., Meneses, J., & Melián, E. (2021). A systematic review of aca-
demic interventions for students with disabilities in online higher edu-
cation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1911525.
Rice, M. (2021). Reconceptualizing teacher professional learning about tech-
nology integration as intra-active entanglements. Professional Development in
Education, 47(3), 524–537. https://doi.org//10.1080/19415257.2021.1891953.
Rice, M., Lowenthal, P., & Woodley, X. (2020). Distance education across critical
theoretical landscapes: Touchstones for quality research and teaching. Distance
Education, 41(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1790091.
Salvo, S. G., Shelton, K., & Welch, B. (2019). African American males learning
online: Promoting academic achievement in higher education. Online
Learning, 23(1), 22–36.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and stu-
dent sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college
courses. The Internet and higher education, 9(3), 175–190.
Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays
(I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof, Eds.). The University of Chicago Press.
Tobias, S., & Dufy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?
Routledge.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtful-
ness. SUNY Press.
Vossoghi, S., Davis, N., Jackson, A., Echevarria, R., Muñoz, A., & Escudé, M. (2021).
Beyond the binary of adult versus child-centered learning: Pedagogies of joint
activity in the context of meaning making. Cognition and Instruction, 39(1).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07370008.2020.1860052.
Woodley, X. M., Mucundanyi, G., & Lockard, M. (2017). Designing counter-
narratives: Constructing culturally responsive curriculum online. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 7(1), 43–56.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face
courses: Diferences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal
of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0028.
Critical Pedagogy & 1
Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy: An
Introduction
Yvonne El Ashmawi and Elissa West Frazier
Part I: An Overview of Critical Pedagogy
Defnitions and Origins of Critical Pedagogy
In this section, we provide a definition, brief history, and summary of

the key theoretical frameworks of critical pedagogy; then, we close
with an overview of critical pedagogy in classroom practice. The term
critical pedagogy was first used by Henry Giroux who defined it as a
pedagogy “designed to provide students the knowledge with which
to examine how society has functioned to shape and constrain their
aspirations and goals and prevent them from even dreaming about
a life outside the one they presently know” (Giroux 1988, as cited in
Darder, 2016, p. xix). Specifically, Darder (2016) defined critical peda-
gogy as rooted in critical theory, an approach where teachers see their
role:
as emancipatory and their primary purpose as a commitment to

creating the conditions for students to learn skills, knowledge, and
modes of inquiry that will allow them to examine critically the role
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-2
Critical Pedagogy 11
that society has played in their self-formation and the formation of

their community histories.
(p. xix)
Darder, Baltodano and Torres (2017) traced the origins of critical peda-
gogy back to several sources. They credited The Frankfurt School which
“sought to challenge the narrowness of traditional forms of rationality
that defned the concept of meaning and knowledge in the Western
World” (p. 7). They also highlighted Antonio Gramsci, who coined the
term hegemony to explain how those who have power control society not
by force, but rather by ideology, and Foucault, whose writings on know-
ledge, power, and resistance inform critical pedagogy. The group also
attributed the development of critical pedagogy to progressive educators
such as John Dewey, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Carter Woodson and more
recently Brazilian educator Paolo Freire, who approached education as
a liberatory process intended to bring about radical social changes to
redress injustices in society.
Theoretical Frameworks of Critical Pedagogy
In this section, we explore the core theoretical frameworks of critical

pedagogy. Core concepts of critical pedagogy include dialectical thinking,
interrogating knowledge and meaning making, exploring ideology and
hegemony, and working toward the conscientization of the student. At
the heart of critical pedagogy is a commitment to “a culture of schooling
that supports the empowerment of culturally marginalized and eco-
nomically disenfranchised students” (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2017,
p. 10). The conscientization of students (and teachers) is meant to stimu-
late action to transform structural oppressions.
Dialectical Thinking
Critical pedagogues must engage in dialectical thinking. Darder, Baltodano

and Torres (2017) explained that critical pedagogy “embraces a dialectical
view of knowledge” (p. 11). This view sees the individual and society as
inextricably linked “recognizing that the individual is a social actor who
both creates and is created by the social universe of which he/she is a
12 Yvonne El Ashmawi and Elissa West Frazier
part” (McLaren, 2017, p. 56). Analyzing the world in this way allows one
to problematize circumstances and events, to ask probing questions about
who, how, and why, and to see tensions and contradictions. Dialectical
thinking is an approach to problem-posing wherein teachers and students
can explore layers and nuance of social problems recognizing how people
and situations can be wrought with contradictions both in intention and
in action.
Ideology and Hegemony
Critical pedagogy recognizes structural power imbalances in society

wherein there is a dominant group that has amassed the most power and
privilege in society. One way the dominant group maintains its power
is through controlling ideology. McLaren (2017) defned ideology as “a
way of viewing the world, a complex set of ideas, various types of social
practices, rituals, and representations that we tend to accept as natural and
as common sense” (p. 64). These ideologies take root not just among the
dominant group, but throughout society through a process of social con-
trol known as hegemony. This social control is not by force, but by infusing
ideologies that support, defend, and normalize the continued power of
the dominant group throughout all layers of the community through
systems such as schooling. Through hegemony, oppressive ideologies are
internalized by everyone, including those who are harmed by them.
Knowledge
Another theoretical framework of critical pedagogy is interrogating the

nature of knowledge. Critical pedagogy draws on Habermas’s distinction
between technical knowledge, practical knowledge, and emancipatory
knowledge (McLaren, 2017). Technical knowledge is what is measurable
and quantifable while practical knowledge is meant to give us insight
into how things work in our daily lives. What critical pedagogy seeks
to develop is emancipatory knowledge, or generating knowledge that
transcends both the technical and the practical to help us understand
how “social relationships are distorted and manipulated by relations of
power and privilege” (p. 59). Emancipatory knowledge is born of dialect-
ical thinking, for without this ability to critique, and to uncover tensions
and contradictions, it would be impossible to move toward emancipation.

Additionally, critical pedagogy also emphasizes interrogating knowledge
to understand whose knowledge matters and why. Apple (2004) explained
that school is a site of confict about “the kind of knowledge that is and
should be taught, about whose knowledge is “ofcial” and about who
has the right to decide both what is to be taught and how teaching and
learning are to be evaluated” (Preface section, para. 2). Decisions about
what content should be included in the curriculum and from whose per-
spective it should be shared requires critical and ongoing attention as it
reveals whose ideologies are being reproduced through schooling.
Conscientization
Dialectical thinking, recognizing hegemony, and interrogating knowledge

point us toward the key goal of critical pedagogy: the conscientization
of students. Teachers are meant to facilitate students’ explorations of the
causes of and potential solutions to structural inequities by helping them
to see not only the material and historical context of inequities, but also
the ideologies that inform them. Empowered by an awareness of structural
inequities, students come to see that injustice is both created by people and
can therefore be transformed by people (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2017)
and that they can develop their agency to improve social conditions for all.
Critical Pedagogy in Practice
Understanding the core theoretical frameworks that inform critical

pedagogy, we look at understanding critical pedagogy in practice. It is
important to name that critical pedagogy is not prescriptive (Freire, 2000;
Darder, 2016; Giroux, 2017). In fact, critical pedagogues emphatically
express that liberatory pedagogy “cannot exist as a recipe for classroom
practice. Rather, it is meant to provide an educational foundation to guide
and support teachers’ critical engagement with those institutional forces
that determine the reality of classroom life” (Darder, 2016, p. 103). This
means that there is no prescription for “doing” critical pedagogy, but
rather a focus on the considerations teachers bring to their interactions
with students. Thus, although this section is titled critical pedagogy in
practice, what we ofer here is an overview of the key values, beliefs, ways
of being, and practices that are meant to inform curricular and peda-
gogical decisions teachers make given the particulars of their teaching
context. These include praxis and political clarity, moving beyond despair
and enacting critical hope, interrogating power and authority, humanizing
pedagogies, and curricular choices. Put together, these considerations are
intended to serve the goal of promoting the conscientization of students.
Praxis and Political Clarity
Critical pedagogy calls on teachers to engage in praxis, or the explicit

connection of living into the theories that inform one’s pedagogy through
their daily classroom practice (Darder, 2016). The interplay of theory
and practice is important as Darder noted, “cut of from practice, theory
becomes simple verbalism. Separated from theory, practice is nothing but
blind activism” (p. 88). Praxis emphasizes continued connection to the rich
theories that inform critical pedagogy, and to view one’s teaching prac-
tice as ever-evolving. Part of this ongoing self-refection is what Bartolomé
(2004) called political and ideological clarity. Political clarity “refers to the
ongoing process by which individuals achieve ever-deepening conscious-
ness of the sociopolitical and economic realities that shape their lives”
(p. 98). Teachers must continue developing their sociopolitical conscious-
ness, remaining informed of the ways structural oppression impacts the
lives of their students. Ideological clarity is engaging in self-refection to
interrogate one’s own set of ideologies, how they were formed, and how
they are/are not aligned with the ideologies of those in power. Ongoing
self-refection is necessary if teachers are to be educators for transformation.
Moving beyond Despair and Engaging in Critical Hope
Another consideration for teachers is how to move beyond despair and

engage in critical hope. Darder (2016) encouraged teachers to move beyond
despair. Although despair can be a natural reaction to overwhelming sys-
temic oppression and the impact it has on students and their teaching
context, Darder encouraged teachers to connect with allies in the struggle
and to use creativity to incorporate conscientization into their teaching
practice even, or perhaps especially, when the school setting seeks to stife
teachers’ abilities to apply their teaching expertise. Duncan-Andrade (2009)
called for teachers to enact three types of critical hope that are meant to
be engaged holistically: material, Socratic, and audacious. Material hope
is about providing the physical materials necessary for students to engage
in learning content and conscientization including such things as high-
quality teaching and connecting students to supportive resources and
networks. Socratic hope means that teachers and students examine their
“lives and actions within an unjust society to share the sensibility that pain
may pave the path to justice” (p. 187). Audacious hope is to stand in soli-
darity with marginalized communities and to defy hegemonic forces at
work in and out of school. Putting these aspects of critical hope together,
we see it is not a mindset, but a set of actions that grow hope through
acting in solidarity with marginalized students.
Interrogating Power and Authority
Another consideration of critical pedagogy is attention to systems of

power and authority. This begins with the teacher recognizing social
inequities in society and positioning themselves as public intellectuals and
as agents of social change. Further, they must also recognize that teaching
is a political act as schools are “places that represent forms of knowledge,
language practices, social relations, and values that are particular selections
and exclusions from wider culture” (Giroux, 2017, p. 631). In addition to
interrogating systems of power in society, teachers must also interrogate
the power dynamics embedded in the relationship between teacher and
students. Darder (2016) explained that teachers cannot erase the power dif-
ferential, but they can “engage with the question of authority in a liberatory
fashion” (p. 109). Teachers do this by understanding how power shapes the
relationship between teacher and student and working to ensure their class-
room is one that facilitates students’ learning, agency, and conscientization.
Humanizing Pedagogies
Critical pedagogy calls on teachers to engage in humanizing pedagogy.

This is taken from Freire’s belief that the oppressed “must fnd through
their struggle the way to life-afrming humanization” (Freire, 2000,
p. 68). In other words, seeking liberation and being an agent of social
change is a way of living into becoming more fully human. He called
for a humanizing pedagogy that is dialectical in nature, the teacher
always engaging in dialogue with the students and together interrogating

systems of oppression so that they can be dismantled. Bartolomé (1994)
builds on this to call for a humanizing pedagogy that “values the students’
background knowledge, culture and life experiences, and creates learning
contexts where power is shared by students and teachers” (p. 190). If
students are to break free from oppression, teachers must create learning
contexts that are both humane and humanizing.
Curricular Choices
Implementing critical pedagogy involves both dismantling the hidden

curriculum of schools (Giroux, 1988) and using critically multicultural
materials (Darder, 2016). Also, Giroux (1988) explained that the hidden
curriculum is “those messages that are conveyed to students silently
through the selection of specifc forms of knowledge, the use of spe-
cifc classroom relations, and the defning characteristics of the school
organizational structure” (Problematic section, para. 1). The hidden
curriculum is not just about who and what are included, but also who
and what is excluded. Therefore, enacting critical pedagogy in the class-
room means that teachers must be mindful of the ways class materials
reify oppression and seek to include materials that are critically multi-
cultural. Darder (2016) explained that simply providing multicultural
materials that represent students’ background is not enough. Often
multicultural materials reveal only surface levels of culture such as food,
celebrations, and customs, or “promote Eurocentric interpretations of
cultural groups—depictions that function to dissolve cultural diferences
and reinforce mainstream expectations of assimilation” (p. 117). Instead,
the curriculum should ofer multicultural materials that explicitly interro-
gate power, privilege, and oppression.
Conscientization
Together the considerations discussed above are meant to facilitate “an

unwavering commitment to the empowerment of the powerless and the
transformation of existing social inequities and injustices” (Darder, 2016,
p. 81). The intended outcome of enacting critical pedagogy is that both
teachers and students engage in the process of conscientization together.
Engaging in praxis, holding on to critical hope, interrogating power and

authority, engaging in humanizing pedagogies, and making informed
curricular decisions that both dismantle the hidden curriculum and infuse
critically multicultural content throughout the curriculum are key con-
siderations meant to support teachers in making informed instructional
decisions that promote conscientization. In part two, we provide an over-
view of another pedagogical approach that seeks to facilitate the develop-
ment of students’ conscientization: culturally responsive pedagogy.
Part II: An Overview of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
In the previous section, we explored critical pedagogy’s defnition, epis-

temological roots, key theoretical frameworks, and a set of key con-
siderations teachers should take with them into the classroom. Here,
we turn our attention to culturally relavant pedagogy and culturally
responsive pedagogy. Both concepts were developed in response to
inequities in education experienced specifcally by students of color. In
the following sections, we discuss history, defnitions, and practices, in
terms of both core teacher beliefs and what teachers do in the class-
room to enact it.
History and Defnition of Culturally

Responsive Pedagogy
Although it was used in a handful of small studies prior, the term cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy gained traction when it was used by Gloria Ladson-
Billings in 1995 in her seminal article, “Towards a Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy.” Ladson-Billings explains that she was troubled by the dearth
of research about how schools can support African American students to
be successful. What research there was took a defcit view of students and
families, except for a handful of studies that examined how culture could
be brought into schools as an asset. From these studies, Ladson-Billings
believed the next step to a sound theory of pedagogy should be one “that
not only addresses student achievement, but also helps students to accept
and afrm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives
that challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate”
(p. 467) She coined this Pedagogy Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP).
CRP has its epistemological and axiological roots in both Critical Race
Theory (CRT) and Critical Pedagogy. We discussed the core concepts
of Critical Pedagogy in the previous section, so here we concentrate on
how key tenets of CRT inform the epistemological and axiological foun-
dation of culturally relevant pedagogy. First, recognizing that racism is
endemic to society is a core principle of culturally relevant pedagogy.
Therefore, sound pedagogy should not only center race but interrogate
notions of race and the realities of racism. Second, culturally relevant
pedagogy acknowledges inequities based on race in schooling. Ladson-
Billings emphasized that students of color experience alienation, hos-
tility, and inequity in schools and asked how teachers can remediate this.
Culturally relevant pedagogy centers on the experiences of students from
marginalized communities and requires that students learn to interrogate
structural inequities in the world around them.
Informed by critical pedagogy and its attention to dialectical thinking
and the interrogation of asymmetrical power relations in society, and
CRT’s attention to race-based inequities in society, Ladson-Billings (1995a)
defned culturally relevant pedagogy as having three main objectives:
(a) Students must experience academic success; (b) students must

develop and/or maintain cultural competence; and (c) students
must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge
the status quo of the current social order.
(p. 160)
Ladson-Billings (1995b) found that although classroom practice may look

very diferent from teacher to teacher, teachers who engage in culturally
relevant pedagogy shared a set of beliefs about students and their poten-
tial for academic achievement as well as understandings about structural
barriers to success. In the next section, we provide an overview of these
beliefs and look at culturally relevant pedagogy in classroom practice.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Practice
In this section, we fesh out the key components of culturally responsive

pedagogy in practice by looking at teacher beliefs necessary to engage
in culturally responsive pedagogy. We then provide an overview of cul-
turally responsive pedagogy in the classroom, closing the section with
an ideological shift from culturally responsive pedagogy, to culturally

sustaining pedagogy.
Teacher Values and Beliefs
Efective implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy begins with

teachers’ beliefs, values, and understandings of student’s lives, their
work as teachers, and conceptions of knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 1995a,
1995b; Hammond, 2015; Gay, 2018; Howard, 2019). While CRP theorists
name an extensive set of beliefs teachers must hold in order to begin the
work of culturally responsive teaching, in this section we highlight three:
a belief that all students can succeed as evidenced by practice of caring;
critical understandings of culture, race, and structural inequities; and the
need for ongoing learning and critical self-refection.
Believing All Students Can Succeed and Engaging

in a Practice of Care
Ladson-Billings (1995a, 1995b) identifed the belief that all students

can succeed as foundational to teaching children of color. This arose
in response to widely held defcit views of students and families from
marginalized communities. Defcit views hold that because of students’
embodied social identities or home lives and communities, students are
simply incapable of being successful in school (Ladson-Billings, 1995b;
Gay, 2018). Teachers must believe in students’ abilities if they are to
support students in seeing themselves as capable. Teachers bolster
students’ sense of personal efcacy by tending to student morale, demon-
strating care, ofering support, and celebrating personal and whole class
achievements (Gay, 2018). Teachers must also recognize that empower-
ment also includes “cultural, social, civic, and moral dimensions” (p. 40)
of students’ lives. Teachers must attend to developing the whole person
through an active practice of care. Gay (2018) distinguished the dife-
rence between caring about and caring for, stating that “while caring about
conveys feelings of concern for one’s state of being, caring for is active
engagement in doing something to positively afect it” (p. 58). Caring
relationships embedded with patience and afrmation will lead to higher
academic achievement. Thus, teachers enact care by both having warm
relationships with students and tending to their academic needs.
Understanding Culture
In addition to the belief that all students can succeed and classroom prac-
tice of care, teachers must also have a deep understanding of culture.
Howard (2019) defned culture as “a complex constellation of values,
mores, norms, customs, ways of being, ways of knowing, and traditions
that provides a general design for living, is passed from generation to gen-
eration, and serves as a pattern for interpreting reality” (p. 51). Teachers
must acknowledge that students bring with them an understanding of
the world that may or may not be the same as the culture promoted and
enacted in school, that these understandings are inherently valuable, and
can (and should) be utilized in class to promote student achievement.
Understanding Structural Inequities and Race
If teachers are to be efective at raising students’ sociopolitical consciousness,

they must have a strong understanding of the ways race impacts students’
experiences of schooling and the ways in which schools reify broader struc-
tural inequities for students of color (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Howard, 2019).
Teachers must develop an understanding of structural inequities that “give
unearned privilege to some while others experience unearned disadvan-
tage because of race, gender, class, or language” (Hammond, 2015, p. 18).
They do this by educating themselves about sociopolitical issues within
the school such as school policy and students’ experiences of bias, but also
about issues that extend beyond schools such as healthcare, unemploy-
ment, and fair housing (Ladson-Billings, 2006). CRP highlights race and
racism as a key factor in structural inequities (Howard, 2019) that impact
every facet of students’ lives. If teachers are to remedy race-based inequi-
ties, they must study their impact on students’ lives in and out of school.
Critical Self-Refection
In this section, we have highlighted several key beliefs and understandings

teachers must hold to efectively engage in the work of culturally respon-
sive teaching. Developing and sustaining these understandings upon
entering the feld requires ongoing critical self-refection (Ladson-Billings,
1995a, 2006; Hammond, 2015; Gay, 2018). Howard (2019) explained that if
teachers are to engage in culturally relevant teaching they must be willing

to engage in “honest self-assessment, critique, and evaluation of one’s
own thoughts, behaviors, cultural patterns, methods of expression, and
cultural knowledge and ways of being” (p. 113). In addition to interro-
gating their biases, they must refect on their own positionality, or where
they stand in relation to others based on their embodied social identities
(Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). Critical refection remains a challenging com-
ponent of CRP because there is little external accountability for being
refective and because it is difcult to acknowledge one’s own biases.
Part III: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in the Classroom
In the previous section, we reviewed beliefs and understandings teachers

must cultivate to efectively engage in culturally responsive pedagogy in
order to highlight the importance of teacher mindset on enacting cultur-
ally responsive practices; essentially, there is no efective practice without
teacher willingness. In the next few sections, we explore what culturally
relevant pedagogy/culturally responsive pedagogy looks like in the class-
room by looking at how teachers create caring relationships and com-
munities of learning, how teachers promote academic achievement, how
teachers can promote the conscientization of their students, and how
teachers can make informed choices about curriculum and pedagogy.
We close the discussion with a brief discussion of a key conceptual shift,
moving to culturally sustaining pedagogy.
Creating Positive Relationships and a Community

of Learners
A vital component of the practice is establishing positive relationships

between students and the teacher and creating a classroom community
of learners. To establish positive relationships teachers should engage
in more equitable power dynamics between teacher and student, treat
the student as a vital source of knowledge to learn from, and demon-
strate care through respectful, afrming, and validating interactions
(Ladson-Billings 1995a, 1995b; Gay, 2018). Teachers should also cultivate
trust and positive regard by demonstrating authentic respect, care, and
interest in students by asking questions about students’ interests outside
of school, ofering meaningful praise and afrmation, and holding high

expectations for academic achievement that is supported by teaching with
the appropriate scafolds. Additionally, teachers should work to create a
warm community of learners through how they engage students, how
they encourage students to engage with each other, and how the class
and classroom are organized. Teachers can provide opportunities for col-
laborative and cooperative learning such as pair and small group work
organized strategically to foster students’ reliance on each other (McGee
Banks & Banks, 1995). They can also create class routines and rituals
(Hammond, 2015; Gay, 2018) that help students know what to expect and
promote a sense of community.
Promoting Academic Achievement
Establishing rapport with students and creating a community of learners

are meant to promote academic achievement. Ladson-Billings (2006)
was very clear in explaining that academic achievement is not about
standardized testing outcomes, but rather what students really know and
can do. She also argues that culturally responsive teachers see knowledge
and skill development as a long-term project and so while grade-level
skills matter, it also matters that students learn how to learn. A key aspect
of learning to learn and meaning-making is learning to not only consume
knowledge but also construct it (McGee Banks & Banks, 1995; Gay, 2018).
Opportunities to construct knowledge give students real-life experience
researching and being critical of new information. It also gives students
opportunities to synthesize what they know and apply it to solve real-
world problems.
Developing Cultural Competence and Conscientization
Having addressed academic rigor, we turn our attention to the other two
major goals of culturally relevant pedagogy/culturally responsive peda-
gogy: developing cultural competence and developing sociopolitical con-
sciousness. Ladson-Billings (2006) defned cultural competence as
helping students to recognize and honor their own cultural beliefs

and practices while acquiring access to the wider culture, where
they are likely to have a chance of improving their socioeconomic

status and making informed decisions about the lives they wished
to lead.
(p. 36)
She defned sociopolitical consciousness as students’ ability “to use the

various skills they learn to better understand and critique their social pos-
ition and context” (p. 37). Students must learn about the wider world
and how to locate themselves in it if they are to cultivate agency to dis-
rupt the social inequities that impact their lives. Cultural competence
benefts students of all backgrounds as learning about the lives and
cultures of diverse communities can dispel stereotypes and highlight the
accomplishments of people from marginalized groups. Sociopolitical
consciousness is an extension of cultural competence in that it moves
the student from merely knowing about other cultures and society to
teaching them how to interrogate structural inequities (Ladson-Billings,
1995a, 2006; McGee Banks & Banks, 1995; Gay, 2018). Students’ academic
achievement, namely skill development and problem-solving skills, are
meant to support them in developing sociopolitical consciousness to
become social change agents.
Using Culturally Relevant Materials across the Curriculum
Developing academic knowledge and skills that support students’ ability

to navigate society and be agents of social change requires teachers
to make wise curriculum choices. Numerous studies over the last sev-
eral decades have found that while many of the blatant stereotypes and
racist statements have been eliminated from textbooks, the inclusion of
diverse communities is still inadequate. It is inadequate in terms of not
only who is still missing but what is still missing. While textbooks may
include the achievements of diverse communities, they still largely fail
to interrogate confict and structural oppression (Gay, 2018). There is a
kind of critical bypassing where the messiness of structural oppression
is avoided in favor of narratives that portray injustice as something that
happened in the past rather than continuing into the present. Because of
this, the use of CR materials is critical in countering dominant narratives
that underrepresented, misrepresent, or exclude historically marginalized
communities. Tapping into the cultures and backgrounds of students
and their communities also demonstrates that all cultures are inherently
valuable, not only worthy of appreciation but valid as sources and pro-
ducers of knowledge. As much as representation matters, however, it is
important that CR materials are also critical so that they facilitate the
students’ development of sociopolitical consciousness.
Evolving Conceptions of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
We close this section with a look at what Ladson-Billings (2014) lovingly

called CRP 2.0, or the remix. Ladson-Billings emphasizes that theories
must evolve over time, not because they are wrong, but because they must
continue to address evolving needs. This remix signifed an ideological
shift is moving from culturally relevant to culturally sustaining pedagogy.
Paris (2012) coined the term culturally sustaining pedagogy to emphasize
a shift from seeking to be relevant or responsive to culture, to seeking to
sustain the cultures of students from marginalized communities. Alim
and Paris (2017) both challenged and built upon the work of culturally
relevant pedagogies in three ways. First, they argued that schools should
not just be relevant, but should seek to actively sustain students’ cultures.
Second, they argued that culture is often viewed as monolithic and static.
Instead, teachers should recognize more contemporary notions of cul-
ture highlighting that there are deep diferences within cultures and that
youth may enact culture diferently than their families. Third, they argued
that CRP must move beyond critical refection of structural inequities to
also critiquing ideologies and social practices within these marginalized
communities. This ideological shift is meant to fne-tune and amplify the
teacher beliefs and practices discussed here rather than erasing them.
Conclusion
Both Critical Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy/Culturally

Sustaining Pedagogy have made great contributions to conceptualizing
schooling as a liberatory endeavor. Here, we have barely scratched the sur-
face of both. We hope, however, that as you read the chapters in the next
section, you are taking with you a foundational understanding of the
ways the core theoretical frameworks of critical pedagogy and culturally
relevant pedagogy, together with their key considerations and elements
of classroom practice, can be enacted in online learning spaces.
References
Alim, H. S. & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why
does it matter? In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies:
teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1–25). Teachers College.
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge.
Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods Fetish: Toward a humanizing peda-
gogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173–195.
Bartolomé, L. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing pro-
spective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly 31(1), 97–122.
Darder, A. (2016). Culture and power in the classroom: Educational foundations for the
schooling of bicultural students (20th Anniversary Edition). Routledge.
Darder, A., Torres, R. D., & Baltodano, M. (2017). Critical pedagogy: An intro-
duction. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, & M. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical peda-
gogy reader (3rd ed., pp. 1–24). Taylor & Francis.
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing
roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181–194.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury
Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.).
Teachers College Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning.
Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (2017). The war against teachers as public intellectuals. In A. Darder,
R. D. Torres, & M. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed.,
pp. 625–636). Taylor & Francis.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Corwin.
Howard, T. (2019). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement
gap in America’s classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice: Culturally Relevant Teaching, 34(3),
159–165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). “Yes,” but how do we do it? Practicing culturally rele-
vant pedagogy. In C. W. Lewis & J. Landsman (Eds.), White Teachers / Diverse
Classrooms: A Guide to Building Inclusive Schools, Promoting High Expectations,
and Eliminating Racism (1st ed., pp. 29–41). Stylus Publishing.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix.

Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
McGee Banks, C. A., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential com-
ponent of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152–158.
McLaren, P. (2017). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A.
Darder, R. D. Torres, & M. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd
ed., pp. 56–78). Taylor & Francis.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, ter-
minology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key
concepts in social justice education. Teachers College Press.
Designing for Cultural 2
Responsiveness in
P20 Online Learning
Environments
Elissa West Frazier and Yvonne El Ashmawi
Part I: The Need for New Approaches
Culturally responsive teaching recognizes and embraces holistic

understandings of students’ diversity and their needs. Recent studies have
provided guidance for practices and competencies for engaging learners
and efectively teaching online (Martin, Budhrani, Kumar, & Ritzhaupt,
2019); however, they have not explicitly linked these practices to diver-
sity, equity, and inclusion through a culturally responsive lens. Culture
and learning are interconnected, and both teachers and students bring
their lived experiences, their values, their communication norms, and
their beliefs as cultural assets to learning spaces. Seemingly neutral
practices, although culturally grounded, have the potential to invite some
and exclude others, and cultural mismatches can create barriers between
students and instructors.
As Ascough (2002) noted, “new contexts demand new approaches”
(p. 20) and the expansion of online learning afords instructors the
opportunity to create a social context where students’ world views are
welcomed and integrated (Smith & Ayers, 2006). With that in mind,
we outline three considerations through an interdisciplinary lens for
instructors implementing or wishing to implement culturally responsive
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-3
28 Elissa West Frazier and Yvonne El Ashmawi
teaching practices in their planning, instructional design, and assessment

stages. Borrowing from Instructional Design (ID) literature, Online and
distance education literature, and K12 literature on culturally responsive
practices, we ofer design-based considerations and further develop their
applicability with empirical studies to illustrate the possibilities for more
inclusive, more responsive online learning environments for increasingly
diverse students.
Culturally Responsive Considerations in Design

and Case Studies
Consideration 1: Consider How the Role(s) and

Responsibilities of an Online Instructor Have Changed to
That of an Instructional Designer and Facilitator
Online, remote, or distance learning requires the instructor to adopt

a multifaceted and systematic approach as is commonly employed in
the feld of instructional design (Zheng & Smaldino, 2003). The role of
online instructors is that of a facilitator, instructional designer, technolo-
gist, evaluator, and context expert (Williams, 2003). However, we bring
into focus for this section the signifcance of efective instructional design
within the role of an instructor. A designer of instruction must consider
the student as a target audience with unique cultural demographics for
whom the design is tailored to and designed for (Lee, 2003; Young, 2008).
Well-designed instruction takes characteristics of the learner and the
learners’ needs at a high priority (Ukpokodu, 2008). The instructor is not
designing for homogeneous learners that mirror their cultural DNA; the
instructor is designing a learning environment that best serves students
as defned by their needs. Students are active stakeholders bringing their
lived experiences and community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) into these
learning spaces cohabitating, not just existing. By developing a better
understanding of students as cultural beings and increasing awareness of
cultural ways of knowing, instructors may be less likely to misinterpret
students’ actions in negative ways. Interactional norms, conceptions of
time, the role of humor, perceived gendered roles, and even what is most
relevant to students’ lives are all culturally grounded and impact classroom
interactions. Designers must not assume that the learners are like them.
Designing for Cultural Responsiveness 29
In Hofstede’s (1991) work, he submits that “culture is the collective

programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one
human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system
of collectively held values” (p. 5). Culturally grounded experiences
and values are thus intertwined and shape perceptions of experiences,
infuence learning styles, and approaches for learners as the primary
audience (McLoughlin, 1999). Incorporating cultural values into the
instructional design allows for “potential to develop culturally relevant
learning experiences while maintaining a performance-based orienta-
tion” (Igoche & Branch, 2009, p. 6). Culturally responsive practices do
not diminish the quality of instruction; they co-exist, enhance instruc-
tion while respecting diferences among community members—both
students and the instructor (Igoche & Branch, 2002).
ADDIE
ADDIE is an acronym to describe a commonly used, systematic approach

to design instruction in hierarchical yet iterative phases (Analysis, Design,
Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) (Molenda, 2015;
Peterson, 2003). Borrowing from the feld of instructional design, we
introduce the ADDIE model and use design principles to make relevant
the argument for cultural considerations and cultural responsiveness
in post-secondary online teaching environments. It is not a prescriptive
model, but it is used as an analytical tool to discuss a comprehensive
process.
Analysis Stage
In the Analysis stage, the instructor assesses what the learner, as the target
audience knows and needs to know (Peterson, 2003). Using a culturally
responsive approach, Igoche and Branch (2002) expand this concept
beyond a needs assessment of prerequisite knowledge and content-
acquisition toward including “learning characteristics, motivation,
technology afordance, and learning goals” (p. 6). Young (2008) further
supports this by suggesting instructors inquire as to students’ perceptions,
values, and beliefs as meaningful data which can inform instruction. Lee’s
(2003) Culturally Responsive Design Model requires the instructor to
consider, among other things, the sequence of tasks, habits of mind, prior
knowledge, course relevance to community-based problems, and even
assumptions about activities and course structures in the instructional
design process. These approaches require a shift in thinking. They are
a departure from more widely used get to know you activities and loosely
structured community-building exercises in favor of explicitly incorpor-
ating these components through a culturally responsive, goal-orientated
approach. In the Analysis stage, an instructor could design a few short
surveys as culturally grounded needs assessments and provide resources,
multiple modes of communication structures, or ask follow-up clarifying
questions in response to what is discovered. Identifying what the learner
knows and needs to know and tying this process to learner characteristics
and learning goals are central to this frst stage.
Design Stage
In the Design stage, the instructor identifes learning objectives and

determines the best methods to use toward meeting them. Instructional
strategies and learning activities are outlined in this part of the instruc-
tional plan as well and should take into consideration discoveries found in
the prior Analysis stage (Peterson, 2003). This second level of planning,
from a culturally responsive lens, provides an opportunity to “scrutinize
content in terms of knowledge that may inherently possess cultural
bias” (Igoche & Branch, 2002). Investigating learner characteristics helps
instructors’ awareness of cultural mismatches between student and
instructor and can serve to mitigate perceptions of efective engage-
ment strategies (Ascough, 2002). For example, Heitner and Jennings’
(2016) study found that “Cultural diferences between faculty and their
students can create important challenges that afect the quality and ef-
cacy of online teaching and learning” (p. 54). The Design stage should be
a process where instructional plans are created and informed by learner
characteristics as a function of cultural inclusiveness. If there is content
that is biased, and the instructor chooses to move forward with its use,
he/she/they might consider designing an accompanying rationale for use
with multiple perspectives represented. And after the “Implementation
stage” of ADDIE, when the content has been used, the instructor could
check the pulse of the students’ reactions, wonderings, and lessons
learned.
Development Stage
In the Development stage, the instructor drafts a product or products,

evaluates which resources are a best ft, and makes iterative changes.
These products might serve as independent or connected web pages with
content, media, or links for students to interact with. Or they might serve
as activities for students to collaborate or expound upon. In this stage,
instructors as designers must consider things like intended time allotment
for each activity, navigational functionality between resources, and even
the level of guidance given to students for how they should interact with
dense or technical content. Igoche and Branch (2009) suggest taking a
cultural inventory to assess how ones’ “individual cultural perspective”
might have an intended or unintended impact as the very activity that was
designed with positive intent and might “misrepresent cultural values
held by stakeholders” (Igoche & Branch, 2009, p. 7). To mitigate these
types of challenges, Peterson (2003) suggests piloting products, which if
done with diverse cultural demographics, might provide valuable cross-
cultural qualitative data. This piloting process is another opportunity
to anticipate and mitigate biases or preferences hidden in interactional
components of the design.
Implementation Stage
In the implementation stage, the course is being launched. All the planning
from the frst two stages are realized and course cultural artifacts will begin
to be generated. Within this stage, the instructor takes on the role of a
facilitator. From a culturally responsive perspective, the instructor must
anticipate questions, yet provide a space for students to share concerns and
collaborate to fnd solutions. While the instructors have designed activities
and uses of technology tools, they may need to model ways to build com-
munity through both discussion boards and asynchronous discussions
in varying degrees. One way to do this is by encouraging peer-to-peer
facilitated discussion (Correia & Baran, 2010). In a facilitative role, the
instructor enters the dialogue strategically, to address misunderstandings,
to model ways to ask questions or show appreciation, or to redirect the
discussion as needed. By building students’ capacity to engage in mean-
ingful, authentic exchanges, as problems arise students can more readily
support each other, rather than feel isolated. The facilitative role, from a
CRP perspective, also provides an opportunity for the instructor to be a co-

learner and a community builder recognizing the diversity in experiences
and uplifting voices that may be silenced unintentionally (Ascough, 2002).
Adapting a culturally responsive course design is a substantial frst step;
however, being conscious of implementation gaps as they arise supports
the needs of students when they may need it most. Formative assessment
while the course is actively in session to gage students’ individual and
group needs can further add to a supportive classroom community.
Evaluation Stage
In the evaluation stage, the instructor determines the criteria and

measures for success and the tools that will be used (Igoche & Branch,
2009). Both the product(s) and the process are evaluated, and evaluation
typically happens in two phases, before implementation and after imple-
mentation to determine where improvements can be made. According
to Igoche and Branch (2009), course evaluations “can be subjected to
the judgement of all stakeholders in terms of cultural sensitivity” (p. 7).
Responding to and redressing culturally biased actions per student feed-
back is one outcome of the evaluation stage. However, prior to that,
being refexive and going back to the measures of success you have set
for yourself as an instructor is a signifcant step in the evaluation stage.
Identifying what you have done and how you have responded without
assessing the impact of those choices [bad or good] is to acknowledge
the intention without the reality of efectiveness. For a practical example,
an instructor may design an engagement survey at the onset of the class
and a post-survey at the end. The survey questions would explicitly link
to class measures for success outlined in the syllabus. References to the
diferent forms of engagement might include blog and forum posts as
written dialogue, as well as frst-hand observational notes of large and
small group verbal discussions. A culturally responsive instructor could
review all those data and consider whether the evaluation instruments
are inefectively designed or if the determinations from the data within
those instruments have an inherent bias. There is no culturally respon-
sive surface-level checklist that can be replicated across all online classes.
As one approach to increasing cultural responsiveness in online learning,
instructors can purposefully use the phases of ADDIE to pause, refect,
and make intentional changes in designing more efective instruction to
better meet the needs of diverse student demographics who enter virtual
spaces at diferent readiness levels.
Consideration 2: Consider Students’ Various Entry Points

of Technology Readiness and the Instructor’s Role as Both
Content and Context Expert
Instructors should consider the various entry points of students and their
technological readiness as both a content expert and a context expert
(Martin, Budhrani, Kumar, & Ritzhaupt, 2019). Students may enter
online spaces having access to technology but little experience with LMS
systems or familiarity with the skills needed to engage in learning with
this medium which is quite diferent than casual or social engagement
with technology. Variance in technology profciencies and infrastructure
diferences exist across socioeconomic, gender, age, racial and ethnic
factors (Gilbert, 2010). Online coursework also requires a diferent level
of autonomous learning that may not have been present in schools where
“teacher-centered” instead of “student-centered” forms of learning were
commonplace (Lin, Zhang, & Zheng, 2017).
From a culturally responsive approach, an instructor can incorporate
an informal student self-assessment of the technological skills they will
need to thrive within the online space. And given those data, students
can be directed to relevant resources. Having a guidebook of com-
monly asked questions, setting aside time for a quick review video for
one anticipated area of confusion, or connecting students with contact
information for campus tech experts can be embedded into the onset of
orienting students to the course structure. Another option is creating a
communication tree or an online forum where students who are more
experienced can share tips or “lessons learned” from prior challenges they
have overcome. Many universities are requiring students to take online
courses without the option of face-to-face or blended sections, which can
create an unavoidable and challenging situation for students who have had
little to no experience in navigating online spaces successfully. Culturally
responsive practices are grounded in a social justice paradigm and move
instructors to recognize inequitable practices that advantage some and
disadvantage others. As the content and context expert, instructors can
create a resource reservoir, open lines of communication to cultivate a
more inclusive learning environment.
Considerations 3: Consider the Act of “Bridge-Building” as

an Essential for Cultivating an Inclusive Learning Community
From a CRP standpoint, bridge-building involves the act of becoming

more knowledgeable about your students’ learning styles and cultural
forms of engagement and then blending them into the online structure
(Lee, 2003; Smith & Ayers, 2006; Wang, 2007). Cochrane and Maposa’s
study (2018) serve as an example of the benefts of indigenous students’
engagement when the instructor used their preferred learning styles and
“cultural ways of knowing.” Cochrane and Maposa (2018) found that
instructors were more successful when they adopted a more individual
approach were more fexible with time, developed personal relationships,
and provided resources to help students contextualize their learning.
When there was less distance between home culture and school culture
as well as learning tools to match learner’s needs, students were more
successful (Cochrane & Maposa, 2018).
Online learning environments that are inclusive support learners
socially, cognitively, and emotionally, which involves creating a space where
all students feel valued. It should not be assumed that an online class is by
default a learning community. An instructor must create the conditions
that demonstrate inclusivity in actions by recognizing imbalances in
power dynamics due to ones’ cultural diferences (Hofstede, 2001). One-
way instructors might do this is to ask questions such as, whose voice is
privileged over others, and what ways I can value diferent perspectives?
How might my students’ teacher and learner expectations be diferent
from my own? Student-teacher power dynamics in one culture may be
dramatically diferent considering home country, family, and commu-
nity norms. For example, although students may be highly profcient in
English, they may not understand colloquial language within written or
verbal exchanges in class. And, in learning more about students’ cultural
norms, instructors must be conscious not to essentialize, allowing for
cultural variability and individual needs (Collis, 1999). Bridge-building
involves fnding signifcant diferences in the expectations and/or abilities
of learners and then bridging those gaps. From an instructional design
perspective, bridge-building involves fnding signifcant diferences in the
expectations and/or abilities of learners and then bridging those gaps.
The following three case studies serve as examples to demonstrate the
need for cultural bridge-making ofering insights as to how instructors can
provide a more inclusive and culturally responsive learning environment.
Three Case Study Examples, Online Learning, and Cultural

Considerations
In this section, we explore the considerations above in classroom prac-

tice by exploring three case studies. Wang’s (2007) study examined
online learning settings, interpersonal communication norms, and cul-
tural diferences. More specifcally, this study describes students’ cul-
tural orientations and how they impact perceptions of online classroom
instruction, motivation, and power distance (Hofstede, 2001; Selinger,
2004). “PDI refers to how people respond to other individuals who hold
positions that are superior or inferior to their own” (Wang, 2007, p. 295).
Students whose cultural foundations establish them at lower positions
and instructors at higher power positions act accordingly. Hence, cultural
foundations infuence power distance, learner presence, and engage-
ment (Wang, 2007). Survey data were drawn from participants spanning
three countries, the United States, South Korea, and China. One hundred
and thirty-eight respondents completed the pre-survey, and 74 of those
completed the post-survey. Participants were asked about preferences
and modalities for communication, motivation and engagement, and
perceptions of assignments and instructors. Findings determined that
culture impacted preferred learning styles and levels of engagement
(Wang, 2007). In one such example, Chinese and Korean students pre-
ferred to respond via asynchronous discussion boards over verbal syn-
chronous conversations to allow more thoughtful and well-composed
written responses. This distinction in learning styles aligns with Asian
cultural interpersonal communication styles and values to “think more,
talk less, and think it through before speaking” (Wang, 2007, p. 303).
In other fndings, Korean students perceived online instruction to be
“impolite” and “impersonal” (Wang, 2007). Another cultural diference
that emerged was preference and comfort with group work, which was
evident in participants from US universities (Wang, 2007).
Plotts’ (2018) case study explored cultural norms of Latino/a college
students and their perceptions of social presence in online classes. Social
presence was defned as “a psychological construct associated with
authenticity, caring, communication and socialization,” specifcally within
online environments (Plotts, 2018, p. 31). Seven Latino/a students were
interviewed to gain a better understanding of their experiences in the pro-
cess of acculturation, and more specifcally, how their cultural foundations
impacted their social presence and interpersonal communication (Plotts,
2018). Plotts’ (2018) describes several barriers within online learning

environments, some of which were lack of time to acclimate to online
structures and diferences between their own writing and communica-
tion levels compared to other students. Cultural mismatches between
students and instructors further negatively strained communication, even
causing anxiety and depression in some cases (Plotts, 2018). Face-to-face
interactions were perceived to foster a more trusting environment from
a cultural standpoint, and six out of seven participants reported a desire
for more physical time with their instructor. Both communication and
mental health were negatively infuenced due to the “violation of cultural
norms” (Plotts, 2018). These aggregated factors presented signifcant
challenges for participants’ success in online classes. Findings from this
study demonstrated the need for more culturally competent instructors
to support the needs of Latino/a students.
Sadykova and Meskill’s (2019) in-depth case study examined a
Chinese graduate student’s experiences and challenges with unfamiliar
forms of discourse within online classrooms and across academic social-
ization. Both the medium and cross-cultural diferences created a need
for the instructor to provide accommodations to create a more positive
learning experience. Students’ cultural experiences in school were sig-
nifcantly diferent from their online class environments. Additionally,
researchers posited that students experienced “a double challenge nego-
tiating a new academic culture in tandem with communication in a
unique and often unstable medium” (Sadykova & Meskill, 2019, p. 6).
Cathy, the Chinese international student [case study participant] was
infuenced by Confucianism and family roots which were quite diferent
from her white Anglo-Saxon, Protestant instructor. Findings from the
study revealed that the teacher’s sociocultural ideas and teaching phil-
osophy supported Cathy’s outward class-facing interactions, and her
individual needs. For example, when the instructor observed that Cathy
struggled with online conversations, she provided targeted specifc
feedback and suggestions “to improve the quality” of her discussion
posts (Sadykova & Meskill, 2019, p. 10). She also modifed her online
materials to ensure that they were free from idioms or cultural insider
language that may have created barriers for understanding. Further
inclusive eforts were demonstrated by asking meaningful questions of
all students consistently and even providing other ELL students add-
itional resources and readings to help them better acclimate to class
structures (Sadykova & Meskill, 2019).
These three studies, grounded in US and non-US experiences, all

bring to bear the signifcance of cultural considerations in teaching and
learning. Understanding culture is understanding, “the very presence of
who we are, what we know, and how we learn” (Sharif & Gisbert, 2015,
p. 145). In planning, in designing assessments, and within the overarching
instructional design, instructors can and should purpose to create
learning spaces that are inclusive and equity-centered, in essence, cultur-
ally responsive.
Critical Pedagogy and Online Learning
In the previous section, we explored ways culturally responsive teaching

can be enacted in online instruction by noting three considerations and
three case studies to serve as examples. Here, we turn our attention
to critical pedagogy. Critical Pedagogy is a teaching philosophy that
prepares students to embrace social justice, challenge oppressive systems,
and dismantle social inequities impacting historically marginalized
people (Darder, Torres, & Baltodano, 2017). Teachers who embrace crit-
ical pedagogy intentionally engage in practices that transform learning
environments into places of activism and empowerment (Boler, 2004).
In these spaces, all voices and all experiences are humanized (McLauren,
2000). And, through a critical lens, teachers ask, not only who has a voice,
but how that voice is cultivated within a democratic classroom (Boler,
2004). According to Paulo Freire, the principle of dialogue, “is one of
the most signifcant aspects of critical pedagogy” (Darder, Torres, &
Baltodano, 2017). It is through dialogue that students interrogate their
social realities including the adoption of dominant norms and taken-for-
granted knowledge that has been passed down, even absorbed without
question. Within critical educational spaces, students recognize the con-
struction of policies, practices, and systems impacting minority commu-
nities that have often gone unquestioned (Boyd, 2016). However, both
dominant and marginalized groups must be engaged in the process of
dialogue. More specifcally, according to Freire (1970), “It is absolutely
essential that the oppressed participate in the revolutionary process with
an increasingly critical awareness of their role as Subjects of the trans-
formation” (p. 127). Dialogue is central to conscious-raising, and what
Freire termed “conscientizacao,” or conscientization (Darder, Torres, &
Baltodano, 2017).
Conscientization is defned as the process by which students, as

empowered subjects, achieve a deepening awareness of the social
realities that shape their lives and discover their own capacities to
create them. This constitutes a recurrent, regenerating process
of human interaction that is utilized for constant clarifcation of
refections and actions that arise in the classroom.
(Darder, Torres, & Baltodano, 2017, p. 14)
Caruthers and Friend (2014) posit that online classrooms have the poten-
tial to serve as a type of third space where dialogue and exploring cul-
tural experiences abound to reduce power imbalances between privileged
voices and underrepresented voices. The enactment of critical peda-
gogical approaches can disrupt dominant scripts denoting who speaks
and who does not (Limburg & Clark, 2006). According to Apple (1971),
a school is a place where “students learn systems of power and con-
formity, and how their behavior warrants rewards or punishments from
the teacher as their frst boss” (p. 27). Students, as actors, maintain the
distribution of power in societies through acquiescence. And because
the hidden curriculum operates within and reinforces what Apple (1971)
calls a network of “tacit assumptions,” it is difcult to challenge them.
Classrooms, whether online or in person, can become places where the
visible becomes invisible through their silence as a functional and navi-
gational choice within established social structures (Boler, 2004). Critical
pedagogy, when enacted, can reframe behavioristic conditioning where
culturally diverse students are rewarded when they assimilate to inter-
actional white, middle-class norms (Caruthers & Friend, 2014). One
example of this is when students fail to share their ideas, thoughts, and
perspectives because the class discourse structure does not “privilege
their interactional norms” (Limburg & Clark, 2006, p. 53). An instructor
embedding critical pedagogy can not only create a more inclusive environ-
ment, but he/she/they can pull the curtain back to make students aware
of systems of privilege. When classrooms are not safe cultural spaces,
an instructor seeking to develop deep interpersonal relationships with all
students may not have created the essential conditions for this to happen.
One signifcant challenge to adopting critical pedagogy in online spaces
is the ways in which critical pedagogy emphasizes “relationship building”
(Limburg & Clark, 2006). Boyd (2016) posited that the history of online
classes is rooted in a culture of delivery; it is test-based, competency-driven,
and socially disconnected. This model transforms learning management
systems (LMS) and the technology-enhanced environment to a vehicle

delimiting both the structure of relationships and “redefning individual
identities” (Gomez, 2009). This technology culture does not align with
community-based and collective community ways of being which are
common non-Euro-centric communities (Hammond, 2014). Online
classes, by design, are technological structures and create access to bodies
of information functioning as grab, task-based environments, reinforcing
the underlying, “values, beliefs, and truths of those systems” (Boler, 2004,
p. 171). Instructors are therefore tasked with “rehumanizing” technology
and technological spaces and rejecting the “commodifcation” of online
learning (McLauren, 2000 as cited in Schneider & Smith, 2014).
Critical pedagogy can be embedded in students’ learning in a variety of
ways, through content sequence, the design of activities and interactions,
as well as the way discussions are facilitated/co-facilitated (Duncan,
2005). However, critical pedagogy does not come without challenges
and risks. An instructor must not assume that because he/she/they per-
sonally take a critical stance, students are prepared for a transformative
experience. As students learn from and with critical instructors, they
become more aware of the hidden and unwritten ways of navigating
spaces and their own roles in reinforcing social hierarchies (Kincheloe,
McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011). This causes discomfort to some while sim-
ultaneously empowering others. When instructors operate outside of
established rules and roles, “students will resist and get angry” pushing
back (Kincheloe, McLauren, & Steinberg, 2011, p. 167). Furthermore,
students and instructors may enter classrooms drawing from strikingly
diferent lived experiences. In Duncan’s (2005) study, he found that because
his students viewed the world as “fundamentally fair,” they struggled to
recognize inequitable systems. Because of that realization, he took great
care to unpack the unofcial, and ofcial knowledge(s) that infuenced
student perceptions and interactions (Duncan, 2005). The artifacts and
evidence of critical pedagogy lay not in exposure to content or the com-
pletion of an assignment, but rather, how class experiences transform
students’ thinking.
Closing
We opened this chapter with three considerations that can facilitate

enacting culturally responsive pedagogy in online spaces: the role of the
teacher, the various technology entry points and the teacher’s role as
content and context expert, and fnally, how bridge-building contributes
to creating inclusive spaces. From there, we turned our attention from
culturally responsive online learning towards highlighting the possibil-
ities and challenges when enacting a critical pedagogical stance within
these learning environments. More specifcally, we focused on the ways
in which dialogue and student’s voice, as key components of critical peda-
gogy, must be intentionally cultivated due to hidden, often exclusionary
practices embedded in classroom social systems. We write this chapter as
one multifaceted lens when approaching the work of creating inclusive,
empowering, and responsive online learning environments. And, having
said that, we recognize small and wide gaps in the literature and see the
implementation of both culturally responsive and critical pedagogies in
online learning as ever-evolving.
References
Apple, M. W. (1971). The hidden curriculum and the nature of confict.

Interchange, 2(4), 27–40.
Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting peda-
gogy before technology. Teaching Theology & Religion, 5(1), 17–29.
Boler, M. (2004). All speech is not free: The ethics of “afrmative action peda-
gogy.” Counterpoints, 240, 3–13.
Boyd, D. (2016). What would Paulo Freire think of blackboard: Critical peda-
gogy in an age of online learning. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
7(1), 165–183.
Caruthers, L., & Friend, J. (2014). Critical pedagogy in online environments as
thirdspace: A narrative analysis of voices of candidates in educational pre-
paratory programs. Educational Studies, 50(1), 8–35.
Cochrane, J. E., & Maposa, S. (2018). How to ensure academic success of
indigenous students who ‘learn where they live’. International Journal of E-
Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation
à distance, 33(2), 1–23.
Collis, B. (1999). Designing for diferences: Cultural issues in the design of
WWW-based course-support sites. British Journal of Educational Technology,
30(3), 201–217.
Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous
discussions for online learning. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias-ISSN 1646-
933X, 3(1), 59–67.
Darder, A., Torres, R. D., & Baltodano, M. (2017). Critical pedagogy: An intro-
duction. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, & M. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical peda-
gogy reader (3rd ed., pp. 1–24). Taylor & Francis.
Duncan, G. A. (2005). Race and change in education: Toward a semiotics of cur-
riculum. Counterpoints, 131, 211–229.
Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational
Review, 40(3), 452–477.
Gilbert, M. (2010). Theorizing digital and urban inequalities: Critical geographies
of ‘race’, gender and technological capital. Information, Communication &
Society, 13(7), 1000–1018.
Gomez, M. V. (2009). Emanuel Levinas & Paul Freire: The ethics of responsi-
bility for the face-to-face interaction in the virtual world. International Journal
of Instruction, 2(1), 27–58.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Corwin.
Heitner, K. L., & Jennings, M. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching knowledge
and practices of online faculty. Online Learning, 20(4), 54–78.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw Hill
Book Company.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in
theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1),
11–17.
Igoche, D. A., & Branch, R. M. (2009). Incorporating cultural values into the
ADDIE approach to instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(6), 4–8.
Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S. (2011). Critical pedagogy and quali-
tative research: Moving to the bricolage. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 163–178). Sage
Publications.
Lee, C. D. (2003). Toward a framework for culturally responsive design in multi-
media computer environments: Cultural modeling as a case. Mind, Culture
and Activity, 10(1), 42–61.
Limburg, F., & Clark, C. (2006). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Teaching
Multicultural education online. Multicultural Education, 13(3), 49.
Lin, C.-H., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and
motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling ana-
lysis. Computers & Education, 113, 75–85.
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning fac-
ulty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1),
184–205.
McLauren, Peter. 2000. Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of possibility. In S. S. Steiner, H.

Mark Krank, R. E. Bahruth, & P. McLaren (Eds.), Freirean pedagogy, praxis, and
possibilities: Projects for the new millennium (pp. 1–22). Falmer Press.
McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use; developing an on-
line community of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3),
231–243.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive AD-DIE model. Performance
Improvement, 42(5), 34–36.
Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227–241.
Plotts, C. (2018). Latino/a cultural perspectives of social presence: A case study.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 29–36.
Sadykova, G., & Meskill, C. (2019). Interculturality in online learning: Instructor
and student accommodations. Online Learning, 23(1), 5–21.
Sharif, A., & Gisbert, M. (2015). The impact of culture on instructional design
and quality. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 143–156.
Schneider, S. B., & Smith, D. (2014). Constructing and reconstructing a critical
discourse and pedagogy of techno-knowledge. Educational Studies, 50(1), 3–7.
Selinger, M. (2004). Cultural and pedagogical implications of a global e-learning
programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 223–239.
Smith, D. R., & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online
learning: Implications for the globalized community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(5–6), 401–415.
Ukpokodu, O. N. (2008). Teachers’ refections on pedagogies that enhance
learning in an online course on teaching for equity and social justice. Journal
of Interactive Online Learning, 7(3), 227–255.
Wang, M. (2007). Designing online courses that efectively engage learners from
diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2),
294–311.
Williams, P. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs
in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1),
45–57.
Young, P. A. (2008). Integrating culture in the design of ICTs. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(1), 6–17.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Zheng, L., & Smaldino, S. (2003). Key instructional design elements for distance
education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(2), 153–166.
Interest Convergence: 3
A CRT Interrogation of
the Intersection
of Higher Education &
Online Learning during
a Pandemic
Ramona Maile Cutri, Nouf Alsuwaida and
Xeturah M. Woodley
Introduction
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the impetus of transitioning to online

courses in higher education was not quality instruction but rather an
efort to keep up with administrative pressures related to the student
demand for online learning (DiRienzo & Lilly, 2014). During and after
the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting public health drove the rapid expan-
sion of online teaching and learning (Arum & Stevens, 2020; Gülbahar &
Adnan, 2020; Hechinger & Lorin, 2020; McMurtrie, 2020). Unfortunately,
in this rush, little priority has been given to making online learning more
equitable and using technology to improve the structural inequalities that
riddle brick and mortar learning.
Criticality in online learning must be addressed and is, indeed,
the agenda of this whole book. This chapter grounds such eforts in
the feld of Critical Race Theory (CRT). We are situated in higher
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-4
44 Ramona Maile Cutri et al.
education conditions historically, and defning CRT set the stage. We

then use the CRT principle of interest convergence as a tool to explore
productive relationships between the fragile state of higher education
and the potential of online learning to bolster and transform higher
education.
Educators in higher education must learn to design and implement
online learning environments that expose and challenge the intersecting
ways that online learning can position marginalized students to be dis-
proportionately oppressed (Conaway & Bethune, 2015; Rice et al., 2020).
Accordingly, as authors, we present practical suggestions for using the
afordances of online learning to foster the learning outcomes of social
justice and CRT. We argue that CRT can inform online curriculum design
and serve as a methodology for studying equity issues in online teaching.
Higher Education and Diversity
A historical perspective on higher education’s social, political, and cul-

tural contexts illuminates our challenges when designing equitable online
classrooms. Learning in the American education system is grounded in a
Eurocentric perspective to indoctrinate, supporting systems of oppression
and marginalization (hooks & West, 1991; Lorde, 1984; Pinar, 1995). By
naming the European experience “as ‘universal’ or normative, all else by
default becomes marginal” ( James & Farmer, 1993, p. 120). This view-
point argues for the reifcation of knowledge and argues that curriculum
can be contextualized in a historical perspective separate from the pol-
itical context in which it occurs. While this approach has been historic-
ally viewed as most valued within the academy, its failure to examine the
underpinnings of power critically and systematic oppression has led to
the necessity to fnd alternative curriculum approaches.
In addition to these epistemological restrictions of American higher
education, recruiting and retaining diverse students through graduation
is problematic. Recruiting and retaining diverse students to higher edu-
cation institutions is an ongoing struggle in the United States. and inter-
nationally (Darby, 2020). The barriers to this undertaking lie not primarily
in the preparation and quality of diverse students. Instead, the structural
and systemic impediments to the recruitment, retention, and success
of diverse students are frmly lodged in institutions of higher education
themselves (Chang, 2002).
Interest Convergence 45
Hurtado et al. (2012) reminded us that additional layers of complexity

are at play:
In times when our institutions are not advancing social equity, our
own students become critics invested in the transformation of our
institutions to meet the needs of a changing society. That is, indi-
viduals within institutions of higher education are shaped by the
broader social contexts and also have social agency to afect change.
(Hurtado et al., 2012, p. 41)
In speaking of efecting change in higher education, Chang (2002)

distinguished that “a discourse of transformation, unlike a discourse of
preservation, creates an even greater possibility for student learning and
for meaningful and sustained democratic change” (p. 126). However, a dis-
course of transformation inevitably takes place in the existing culture of
academia. The cultural norms of academia, such as the types of behaviors
and practices typically rewarded in higher education, are often in sharp
contrast to that which most fosters the strengths of diverse students and
that which attends to their needs (Chang et al., 2003; Denson & Chang,
2009).
There continues to be a struggle between the historically racist,
classist, and sexist curriculum of higher education and those who would
fght for a more culturally relevant curriculum (Woodley, 2018). Various
pockets of resistance that challenge these notions of supremacy have
risen, including the development of theoretical frameworks such as fem-
inist pedagogies (Belenky et al., 1986), critical pedagogies (Beyer & Apple,
1998; Delgado, 1995; hooks, 1994), and multicultural education ( Jay, 2003;
Ladson-Billings, 1996). These divergent worldviews have provided an
opportunity for voices to be heard historically silenced by the Eurocentric
curriculum. CRT was also developed as a counter-narrative to the dom-
inant Eurocentric perspective that lies at the heart of higher education.
Critical Race Theory
CRT originates from the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement. Started
by Bell and Freedman in the 1970s (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995; Taylor, 1998), CLS focused on issues of power and
privilege related to the oppression of marginalized groups in the United
States. Unfortunately, for many academics, the narrow focus of CLS failed
to address educational and social inequities caused by bigotry, classism,
and other forms of systemic racism that Black Indigenous People of
Color (BIPOC) faced in society.
CRT was forwarded as the theoretical foundation upon which scholars,
primarily BIPOC scholars, expanded the discussion beyond the legal arena
and educational spaces. Like Crenshaw et al. (1995), critical race theorists
saw CRT as the opportunity to frame research and scholarship beyond
legal mandates and focus on an intersectional analysis of gendered, racial,
and class perspectives. CLS was used to examine law and society (Lynn,
1999), and CRT was used to explore law, education, and society. Thus,
CRT serves as a powerful platform to challenge existing notions of priv-
ilege and power within higher education.
Although some might see CRT as an arm of liberalism, CRT scholars
argue that liberalism is, in fact, hypocritical and counter to the tenets that
defne CRT. As an example of liberalisms’ failure, due to a focus on incre-
mental rather than systemic change, Crenshaw (1988) argued that the
liberal perspective gazes upon the civil right crusade as no more than a
“long, slow but always upward pull” (p. 1334) rather than recognizing the
legal limits that stife social change. Instead of admonishing and actively
working to eliminate the limits, with urgency, liberalism is satisfed with
celebrating the incremental and minor relief that may come from minor
shifts in the condition of the oppressed. On the other hand, CRT acknow-
ledges the shifts as minor and continues to fght for major systemic changes
that have signifcant positive impacts on the lives of the oppressed.
Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), in their article, Toward a Critical Race
Theory of Education, used a critical race lens to examine the educational
system in the United States while providing recommendations for change
that they saw as necessary to rectify inequities in the system. Their sem-
inal work was the foundation for many academics using CRT as a theor-
etical lens for examining racism and the hegemony of white supremacy
in education and the larger society. Over the past few decades, scholars
like Apple and Buras (2006), Gillborn, (2006), Gillborn & Ladson-Billings
(2020), and Patton (2016) advocated for the use of CRT in the evaluation
and examination of educational inequities that plague higher education
in the United States.
Solorzano and Yosso (2001) highlight how the racism inherent in
actions and policies intersects with “other forms of subordination
including sexism and classism” (p. 3). Attention to such intersectionality is
crucial because ‘race’ in CRT does not consider race in a vacuum. Rather,
the race is regarded as a signifer that codes for the intersection of various
factors used to oppress.
Patton (2016) characterizes the academy as a “bastion of racism and
White supremacy” based on three propositions:
Proposition 1: The establishment of U.S. higher education is deeply

rooted in racism/White supremacy, the vestiges of which remain
palatable.
Proposition 2: The functioning of U.S. higher education is intri-
cately linked to imperialistic and capitalistic eforts that fuel the
intersections of race, property, and oppression.
Proposition 3: U.S. higher education institutions serve as venues
through which formal knowledge production rooted in racism/
White supremacy is generated.
(p. 317)
In addition to these troubling cultural and social patterns in higher educa-

tion, a new question about the status quo of higher education is rising: Is the
current model of place-based higher education fscally solvent and market-
able as a service that meets the needs and desires of its targeted consumer?
Higher Education Financial and Cultural Vulnerability
Higher education upper and middle administrators are aware that higher
education as we have known it is not as fnancially or logistically viable as
it once was (Crawford, 2010; Friga, 2020, as cited in Cutri & Mena, 2020).
Budget cuts and decreasing population of college-age students have
created enrollment and fnancial pressures (Moore, 2020). The COVID-
19 pandemic has only brought the viability of the traditional structure of
higher education into further question.
Recent assessments of the fnancial and cultural viability of institutions
of higher education do not bode well. Higher education’s current struc-
ture, culture, and reward systems, both for students and faculty members,
are “antiquated and in danger of becoming obsolete even if pandemic
conditions subside and in-person classes can resume worldwide” (Cutri,
2021). Obviously, the causes of the strain on higher education’s viability
are complex and intersecting. Still, there is agreement that these issues
have only intensifed due to the dramatic pivot to emergency remote
teaching (EMT) caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Moore, 2020).
Higher education administrators could beneft from applying the CRT

analytic lens to the challenges currently threatening the marketability of
place-based higher education (lower enrollments, skyrocketing tuition
rates, etc.). Below is a brief CRT analysis of common policies, practices,
procedures, and institutionalized systems in higher education during the
early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Policy example of intersecting forms of oppression: Required access

to devices, stable internet connection, and safe places to work to
participate in emergency remote instruction.
Practice example of intersecting forms of oppression: Firm due
dates with expectations that students and faculty, once relocated of-
campus, would be able to attend to their work as they did while
classes were held on campus.
Procedures example of intersecting forms of oppression: Mandatory
cameras on during synchronous class time procedures to demon-
strate attentive and engaged learning and participation.
Institutionalized Systems Claims example of intersecting forms of
oppression: (1) higher education institutions exclusively own and
house knowledge; (2) only individuals with specifc qualifcations
(masters or doctorates) can distribute knowledge; (3) knowledge
is not free, but only accessible for a fee (tuition); (4) faculty and
administrators determine how much distributed knowledge is
worth (credits toward degrees); and (5) higher education institutions
and administrators are the record keepers of what an individual has
learned (degree-granting).
This CRT analysis of higher education’s ERT early in the COVID-19

pandemic demonstrates some of the cultural and fnancial structures of
higher education that potential students, and even some faculty, are no
longer fnding appealing or necessary.
Interest Convergence: Higher Education Vulnerability and

Online Learning
Given this current state of higher education, we may be at a moment

of what Bell (1980) called “interest convergence” as he theorized CRT
(p. 523). The CRT construct of “interest convergence” asserts that

attention to diversity issues is promoted only when it serves the dominant
white population (Bell, 1980; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Perhaps, the
concurrence of the present fragile state of the higher education system
and the afordances of online learning for marginalized students could
spark equitable changes in higher education. In other words, higher edu-
cation might be responding to concerns about race and access because
the populations they cater to traditionally are not enrolling anymore.
To capitalize on this potential moment of interest convergence in
online higher education, it is important to appreciate its complexities.
Migueliz Valcarlos et al. (2020) reminded us that “The claim that univer-
sities are both locations of neoliberal and Western oppression and eman-
cipation certainly holds true for distance education and its educational
technologies” (p. 346). This duality is further compounded by Cutri and
Mena’s (2020) assertion that “Essentially, online teaching in academia in
the digital age, compounded by an era of a pandemic, can be seen as a
productive activity of a monetary economy” (p. 362). Thus, the interests
of higher education administrators and faculty in online learning may
initially be aimed at the fnancial viability of institutions of higher edu-
cation. However, greater attention to the equity issues involved in online
learning and an appreciation for the afordances of online learning for
marginalized populations could create a moment of interest convergence.
Perhaps, listening to experiences of marginalized students and others
who have concluded that traditional higher education does not serve their
needs could provide administrators with insights. In particular, BIPOC,
under-resourced, and other marginalized students have lived experiences
that could inform policy, structural, and cultural change in online higher
education to make it both more appealing to and sustainable for more
people.
The remainder of this chapter is organized around three assumptions
that undergird higher education and online learning. First, we assert that
to deepen a CRT analysis of online higher education, all stakeholders in
higher education must critically examine privileged assumptions preva-
lent in online higher education. These assumptions include, but are not
necessarily limited to, expecting that (a) all students and professors have
equitable access to the necessities of online learning and teaching; (b) all
students and professors are positioned to experience online learning
and teaching in similar ways, and (c) the traditional reward systems for
students and professors equitable apply to online learning and teaching.
Second, as we use the three privileged assumptions to guide our CRT ana-
lysis of online higher education, we will focus on how various forms of
marginalization intersect and impact students’ and faculty’s experiences
learning and teaching online.
Our CRT analysis (a) confronts the limiting fallacies that riddle these
assumptions; (b) succinctly provides practical implementation suggestions
for faculty and administrators; and (c) establishes interest convergence
between the higher education need for fnancial viability and online
learning in a way that could transform both to be more equitable. In this
manner, we hope to highlight how interest convergence around online
higher education could beneft all stakeholders.
Privileged Assumption #1
Assuming that all professors and students have equitable access to the
necessities of online learning and teaching dangerously positions all to
fail—the necessities of online learning and teaching range from attitu-
dinal orientations to hardware needs. Research on faculty necessities of
online learning identify interpersonal, institutional, training/technology,
and cost/beneft factors (Fisher, 2020; Lloyd et al., 2012) as well as afective
factors such as willingness to try new things, demonstrate professional
vulnerability, and allow students to engage in authentic dialogues online
(Cutri & Mena, 2020; Woodley, 2018). Research on student necessities of
online learning has investigated the attitudes and experiences of various
marginalized groups of learners toward online learning (Kumi-Yeboah
et al., 2017; Lucero, 2017; Okwumabua, 2011; Uzuner, 2009) as well as
equitable access to technology (Axtell & Asino, 2020; Basham et al., 2015;
Benson, 2004). The concept of “online readiness” describes the state of
having access to the necessities of online learning and teaching (Dray
et al., 2011, p. 30). However, traditionally online readiness does not sys-
tematically attend to equity issues. Focusing on readiness may be a cover
for determining whether students have adopted this false universal white
European set of beliefs and values.
Additionally, the concept of online readiness is riddled with norma-
tive middle-class assumptions. When students do poorly on readiness
assessments, they might not be admitted to the program ( James &
Farmer, 1993). Another outcome is remediation designed to give the
students this so-called universal capital. Neither outcome is responsive
to students. Instead of determining if students are ready, universities

could be gathering information about whether they are prepared to serve
students from diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds.
Faculty’s lack of support for teaching online (Gülbahar & Adnan,
2020; He et al., 2014; Kyei-Blankson et al., 2019; Mohr & Shelton, 2017),
combined with the need for emergency remote teaching (ERT), has
resulted in less-than-optimal online course development and teaching
(Hodges et al., 2020). According to Andrade (2015), “online learning has
much potential to provide access to diverse populations of learners,”
(p. 8) but instructors must design a pedagogy that helps all learners to
succeed. First, however, faculty must be educated regarding how chronic
social, economic, gendered, and racial biases that persist in the traditional
classrooms are now being delivered online (Cutri et al., 2020; Woodley
et al., 2017) (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Practical Tip, Example, and CRT Analysis

Practical Tip Example CRT Analysis of Example
Class Climate An LGBTQ student Recognition of
Survey regarding returns home during the Heteronormativity
equitable access pandemic to a family Acknowledgment of
to technology and that is either unaware relationship between
safe place to learn of their sexuality or mental health and
(Morgan, 2020; unaccepting of it. That learning
Scheuerman et al., student lacks a safe
2018) place to learn where
they can holistically
apply themselves to
their studies
Faculty Readiness for A working-class faculty Recognition of Middle-
Online Teaching member begins working Class Normativity
Survey (Cutri from home during Acknowledgment of
et al., 2020) the pandemic. That traditional gender
professor does not roles
have and cannot aford
internet access at home.
They also do not have a
quiet place to teach and
work due to children in
the home.
Interest Convergence: Online Redesign & Marginalized

Communities
The Design Justice Network (2017) explains:
We need to ask a series of questions about how the design of digital

technologies currently works, and about how we want it to work.
We need to raise questions of…values (what values do we encode
and reproduce in the objects and systems that we design?).
(p. 15)
Using CRT analysis helps us to recognize and acknowledge the dominant

cultural norms guiding online learning policies, practices, procedures,
and institutionalized systems in higher education. Such analysis can
highlight the characteristics of higher education online that might not
meet the needs of or take advantage of the strengths of people from
non-dominant backgrounds. The design of future policies, practices,
procedures, and institutionalized systems should attend to these issues as
points of interest convergence. Administrators seeking to make univer-
sities more marketable to a wider audience and marginalized communi-
ties seeking to partake of higher education and transform it to be more
equitable could both be served.
Assuming that all students and professors are positioned to experience

online learning and teaching in similar ways overlooks the daily realities
of all involved. Gillborn and Ladson-Billings (2010) explained, “in CRT
the more important, hidden, and pervasive form of White supremacy
lies in the operation of forces that saturate the everyday mundane actions
and policies that shape the world in the interests of White people” (p. 39).
Therefore, the daily mundane actions and policies of online learning
development and teaching must be made explicit and then critically
analyzed to see who they best serve and who they do not serve.
Gillborn and Ladson-Billings (2010) additionally stated:
CRT places a special importance on the experiential knowledge of

people of color. There is not an assumption that minoritized groups
have a singular or “true” reading of reality, rather there is recogni-

tion that, by experiencing racial domination, such groups perceive
the system diferently and are often uniquely placed to understand
its workings.
(p. 41)
In addition to focusing on intersectionality, it is crucial to highlight

the perspectives traditionally marginalized by higher education
to illuminate how the system and its workings could be improved
(Table 3.2).

Practical Tip Example CRT Analysis of
Example
Use students as Many students are skilled at Recognition that
knowledge social media and other online learners are sources
creators resources. They can fnd or of knowledge
(Blaschke, create content related to Acknowledgment
2014; Cutri or demonstrate theoretical that the learning
et al., 2020) concepts and other class relationship does
materials not have to only
go from faculty to
students
Problem-based Faculty are often out of touch Disrupts the myth that
learning with students’ lived realities. only faculty should
(Blaschke, As a result, there is often determine what
2012) a signifcant disconnect students learn
between the curriculum of the Educates learners
academy and its application to to identify and
the problems and possibilities contribute to
facing marginalized students. localized and
Problem-based learning with systemic problems
a heutagogical approach can facing their
promote learner-generated community
content and learner self-
directedness in research,
information discovery, and
in determining their learning
path
Interest Convergence: Higher Education Confronting Power

Differentials
Khalil and Kier (2017) explain that research methodologies and peda-
gogy informed by CRT challenge the traditional hierarchy of academia if
they build “knowledge through the process of iterative design; as know-
ledge is gained about the community and school context, it is used to
adapt and revise strategies to achieve usable data for all stakeholders
in a highly-contextualized setting” (p. 56). However, they are quick to
clarify that researchers and other stakeholders in academia must frst
“characterize and confront the power diferentials among stakeholders,
including researchers, policymakers, educators, parents, learners, and
their corresponding interests” (Khalil & Kier, 2017, p. 58). Higher educa-
tion faculty and administrators’ willingness to engage in such work could
motivate them to make higher education more marketable to larger
groups and incorporate technology.
Little to no attention has been given to the cultural mismatch between

the demands of developing and teaching an online class and taking
an online course and the traditional reward systems of academia for
professors and students (Cutri & Mena, 2020). For example, faculty
are traditionally rewarded with tenure, and students are traditionally
rewarded with grades. Ignoring the fact that the traditional culture of
higher education and its reward systems do not perfectly map onto
teaching and learning online will not lessen the consequence of this
assumption.
Milner (2008) asserts that “Critical race theorists are concerned with
disrupting, exposing, challenging, and changing racist policies that work
to subordinate and disenfranchise certain groups of people and that
attempt to maintain the status quo” (p. 333). Researchers studying self-
determined learning and distributive technology have similar agendas
that represent opportunities for interest conversion.
Sharples and Domingue (2016) described “the disruptive potential of
the blockchain for education and its value in support of self-determined
learning” (p. 490). Their language and intention convey similar goals and
means as CRT and critical pedagogy. They go on to defne blockchain as
the blockchain itself [is] a distributed record of digital events. The

blockchain is a long chain of linked data items stored on every par-
ticipating computer, where the next item can only be added by con-
sensus of a majority of those participating.
(p. 490)
Bellini et al. (2020) stated
Reputation is a global perception of an entity’s behavior based on

the trust that other entities have established. The goal of a trust and
reputation management system is then to guarantee that actions
taken by entities in a system refect their reputation values, and
to prevent these values from being manipulated by unauthorized
entities.
(p. 21128)
Clearly, these types of reward and reputation distribution difer signif-

cantly from the traditional culture of academia.
Interest Convergence: Creating Online Environments That

Are “Win-Win”
Milner (2008) explained:
Inherent in the interest-convergence principle are matters of loss

and gain; typically, someone or some group, often the dominant
group, has to negotiate and give up something in order for interests
to converge or align (Bell, 1980; Donner, 2005)…The point is that
people in power are sometimes, in theory, supportive of policies and
practices that do not oppress and discriminate against others as long
as they—those in power—do not have to alter their own ways and
systems, statuses, and privileges of experiencing life.
(pp. 333–334)
However, from the Practical Tip, Example, and CRT Analysis provided
in Table 3.3, it is clear that interest convergence in these cases could be a
win-win for all stakeholders.

Practical Tip Example CRT Analysis of Example
Revise tenure- A pre-tenure faculty Recognition that the
review process member with no tenure review process
to reward previous online teaching traditionally prioritizes
online course experience devotes time research and publication
development and energy to learning could disincentivize
and how to develop a quality faculty from striving for
implementation online course versus quality online course
(Cutri & Mena, just transferring their in- development
2020) person class lectures to Acknowledgment that the
video. These eforts take learning relationship
time away from their does not have to only go
writing and publishing from faculty to students
Revise grading and Initially, a student is forced Recognition that grading
deadline policies to take online classes and policy deadlines for
to refect because of the COVID- in-person classes do not
online learning 19 pandemic, and then translate perfectly to
demands and the online course format online courses
afordances continues for over a Acknowledges that
year. Unfortunately, this deadline and grading
format does not suit policies provide little
the learning needs or autonomy to learners
strengths of the student, and reserve power and
and their grades sufer decision-making for the
professor
Conclusions
This chapter has established the fragile state of higher education in the
late- to post-COVID-19 pandemic era. We have used CRT analysis to
describe how recognizing the interest convergence between the need for
fnancial stability and the push for online education can create abundant
opportunities for equity approaches to online education. This condition
of interest convergence could contribute to what Costanza-Chock (2020)
describes as an opportunity “to examine and transform design values,
practices, narratives, sites, and pedagogies so that they don’t continue to
reinforce interlocking systems of structural inequality” (p. 19).
Attention to equity issues involved in online teaching and learning

will take a cultural and power shift in traditional academia. Milner (2008)
reminded us of the complicated realities involved in such shifts:
The sacrifice necessary for real social change to take place is some-
times too painful or inconceivable; it may be difficult for those in
our country to take serious strides toward racial, social, and eco-
nomic justice because it means that, in some cases, some group
has to give up something of interest to it, such as its privileges
and its ways of life. The problem is that many worry about how
change can threaten their position, status, and privilege (Bell,
1980) and, consequently, the status of their children and future
generations.
(p. 334)
The willingness to make such shifts may only come about in an effort
to transform academia into a more marketable and viable option of
learning in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era. Utilizing a CRT analysis
has the potential to capitalize on the perspectives and strengths of people
traditionally marginalized in academia and create a version of higher
education that equitably benefits them and higher education faculty and
administrators.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2013). Online

teaching preparation is widespread (AACTE). Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.
org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=145.
Andrade, M. S. (2015). Teaching online: A theory-based approach to student
success. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 1–9.
Apple, M. W., & Buras, K. L. (Eds.). (2006). The subaltern speak: Curriculum, power,
and educational struggles. Routledge.
Arum, R., & Stevens, M. L. 2020. What is a college education in the time of cor-
onavirus? The New York Times, March 18. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/
03/18/opinion/college-education-coronavirus.html [Google Scholar].
Axtell, S., & Asino, T. I. (2020). Emerging information technology issues in
higher education. In L. N. Makewa & B. M. Ngussa (Eds.), IT issues in higher
education: Emerging research and opportunities (pp. 1–16). IGI Global.
Basham, J. D., Stahl, W., Ortiz, K. R., Rice, M. F., & Smith, S. J. (2015). Equity
matters: Digital and online learning for students with disabilities. The Center on
Online Learning and Students with Disabilities.
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of education and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books Publishing.
Bellini, E., Iraqi, Y., & Damiani, E. (2020). Blockchain-based distributed trust and
reputation management systems: A survey. IEEE Access, 8, 21127–21151.
Benson, A. D. (2004). Distance education: Ready and willing to serve the under-
served? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 51.
Beyer, L. E., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.). (1998). The curriculum: Problems, politics, and
possibilities. SUNY Press.
Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical
practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.
v13i1.1076.
Blaschke, L. M. (2014). Using social media to engage and develop the online
learner in self-determined learning. Research in Learning Technology, 22.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21635.
Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real edu-
cational discourse on diversity? The Review of Higher Education, 25(2),
125–140.
Chang, M. J., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (2003). Compelling interest:
Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford
University Press.
Conaway, W., & Bethune, S. (2015). Implicit bias and frst name stereotypes: What
are the implications for online instruction? Online Learning, 19(3), 162–178.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the
worlds we need. The MIT Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legit-
imation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331–1387.
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, L., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1995). Critical race theory:
The key writings that formed the movement. New Press.
Cutri, R. M. (2021, March 22). [Review of the book Leading the elearning trans-
formation of higher education: Leadership strategies for the next generation, by
G.E. Miller & K.S. Ives]. Teachers College Record, https://www.tcrecord.
org/Content.asp?ContentId=23639.
Cutri, R. M., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readi-
ness for online teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361–380.
Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis
teaching: transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541.
Cutri, R. M., Whiting, E. F., & Bybee, E. R. (2020). Knowledge production and
power in an online critical multicultural teacher education course. Educational
Studies, 56(1), 54–65.
Darby, F. (2020). Belonging on campus: An exploratory study of the continuities, the
contradictions and the consequences for black and minority ethnic students in higher
education (Doctoral dissertation, National University of Ireland, Maynooth).
Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York
University Press.
Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of
diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American
Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353.
Design Justice Network. (2017). Design Justice Issue 3 Design Justice in Action.
https:// static1.squarespace.com/ static/ 5d5d34e927fded000105ccc4/ t/
5db4becfc494f4106d5a5b4a/1572126421218/DJ_2017_Issue3_SM.pdf.
Donnor, J. K. (2005). Towards an interest-convergence in the education of
African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 45–67.
DiRienzo, C., & Lilly, G. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: Does delivery method
matter for undergraduate business school learning? Business Education &
Accreditation, 6(1), 1–11.
Dray, B. J., Lowenthal, P. R., Miszkiewicz, M. J., Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Marczynski,
K. (2011). Developing an instrument to assess student readiness for online
learning: A validation study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29–47.
Fisher, J. L. (2020). Faculty perceived barriers of online education at a Midwestern
University in Ohio (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo).
Gillborn, D. (2006). Critical race theory and education: Racism and antiracism
in educational theory and praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 27(1), 11–32.
Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2010). Education and critical race theory. In
M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international hand-
book of the sociology of education (pp. 37–47). Routledge.
Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2020). Critical race theory. Sage Publications
Limited.
Gülbahar, Y., & Adnan, M. 2020. “Faculty professional development in creating
signifcant teaching and learning experiences online.” In L. Kyei-Blankson,
E. Ntuli, & J. Blankson, Handbook of research on creating meaningful experiences
in online courses (pp. 37–58). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-

0115-3.ch004. [Crossref], [Google Scholar].
He, W., Xu, G., & Kruck, S. E. (2014). Online IS education for the 21st century.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(2), 101–105. https://aisel.aisnet.
org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&con text=jise.
Hechinger, J., & Lorin, J. (2020, March 19). Coronavirus forces $600 billion higher
education industry online. Bloomberg Businessweek. https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2020- 03- 19/colleges- are- going-online-because-of-the-
coronavirus.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The diference
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review,
27, 1–12.
hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.
Routledge.
hooks, B., & West, C. (1991). Breaking bread: Insurgent black intellectual life. South
End Press.
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L.
(2012). A model for diverse learning environments. In J. C. Smart, & M. B.
Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–122).
Springer.
James, J., & Farmer, R. (Eds.). (1993). Spirit, space and survival: African American
women in (white) academe. Routledge.
Jay, M. (2003). Critical race theory, multicultural education, and the hidden
curriculum of hegemony. Multicultural Perspectives: An Ofcial Journal of the
National Association for Multicultural Education, 5(4), 3–9.
Khalil, D., & Kier, M. (2017). Critical race design: An emerging methodological
approach to anti-racist design and implementation research. International
Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET), 8(2), 54–71
Kumi-Yeboah, A., Dogbey, J., & Yuan, G. (2017). Online collaborative learning
activities: The perspectives of minority graduate students. Online Learning
Journal, 21(4), 5–28.
Kyei-Blankson, L., Ntuli, E., & Blankson, J. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of research
on creating meaningful experiences in online courses. IGI Global. https://doi.
org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0115-3.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1996). “Your blues ain’t like mine”: Keeping issues of race
and racism on the multicultural agenda. Theory into practice, 35(4), 248-255.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of educa-
tion. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.

Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of
online education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1–12.
Lucero, L. (2017). Safe spaces in online places: Social media and LGBTQ youth.
Multicultural Education Review, 9(2), 117–128.
Lynn, M. (1999). Toward a critical race pedagogy: A research note. Urban
Education, 33, 606–626.
McMurtrie, B. (2020). The coronavirus has pushed courses online. Professors
are trying hard to keep up. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 20.
https://www-chronicle-com.erl.lib.byu.edu/article/The-Coronavirus-Has-
Pushed/248299 [Google Scholar].
Migueliz Valcarlos, M., Wolgemuth, J. R., Haraf, S., & Fisk, N. (2020). Anti-
oppressive pedagogies in online learning: A critical review. Distance Education,
41(3), 345–360.
Milner IV, H. R. (2008). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic
tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of teacher education,
59(4), 332–346.
Mohr, S. C., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty
professional development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–
140. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273.
Moore, M. G. (2020). Leading the elearning transformation of higher education:
Leadership strategies for the next generation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a
pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and
Ideas, 93(3), 135–141.
Okwumabua, T. M., Walker, K. M., Hu, X., & Watson, A. (2011). An explor-
ation of African American students’ attitudes toward online learning. Urban
Education, 46(2), 241–250.
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race
theory of higher education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.
Pinar, W. F. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of histor-
ical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.
Rice, M., Lowenthal, P., & Woodley, X. (2020). Distance education across crit-
ical theoretical landscapes: Touchstones for quality research and teaching.
Distance Education, 41(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.
1790091.
Scheuerman, M. K., Branham, S. M., & Hamidi, F. (2018). Safe spaces and safe
places: Unpacking technology-mediated experiences of safety and harm with
transgender people. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction,
2(CSCW), 1–27.
Sharples, M., & Domingue, J. (2016, September). The blockchain and kudos:
A distributed system for the educational record, reputation, and reward. In
European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 490–496). Springer.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and defcit
discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural
Education, 9(1), 2–8.
Taylor, E. (1998). A primer on critical race theory. Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, 19(19), 122–124.
Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of culture in distance learning: A research review.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.690.
Woodley, X. M. (2018). Authentic dialogue in online classrooms. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 22(4), 38–43. http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/-
5898-how-to.pdf.
Woodley, X. M., Mucundanyi, G., & Lockard, M. (2017). Designing counter-narratives:
Constructing a culturally responsive curriculum online. International Journal
of Pedagogy and Course Design, 7(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.
2017010104.
We Are One, But We Are 4
Many: Using Disabilities
Studies to Inform
Intersectional Education
Online
Shelley Kinash and Madelaine-Marie Judd
Introduction to the Disabilities Studies
The title of this chapter—We are one, but we are many—is taken from the
Australian song, “I Am Australian” written in 1987 by Bruce Woodley
and Dobe Newton. This poetic line encapsulates the primary tenets of
Disability Studies (DS) theory and underpins this chapter. In the context
of online learning, and refected in the title, the three levels of DS theor-
etical propositions are as follows:
a. Individual—I am one person with many diferent attributes. Aligned with

the construct of inter-subjectivity, notably, people are multi-faceted
and although each individual has a core self, the salience and magni-
tude of particular features and attributes vary alongside sociopolitical
contexts (Amin, 2002; Grillo, 2003). Extending this to DS, disability is
but one, and not the sole, facet of a person’s overall identity (Barton &
Armstrong, 2001). Instead, individuals have multiple, overlapping iden-
tities (Goethals et al., 2015). In these circumstances, online learners
can choose whether to share their disability identifcations or not. For
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-5
64 Shelley Kinash and Madelaine-Marie Judd
example, in Kinash’s (2006) research, a blind student decided not to

tell her online peers that she was blind and noted that it was refreshing
to be known for her scholarly contributions, rather than as the blind
woman.
b. Cohort—We are one group of students, but we are diverse. Each learner,
whether or not that student has a disabling condition, has unique
experiences, and educational wants and needs, making up a group of
diverse people (Kinash et al., 2019). In other words, there is not one
student experience, but instead, many student experiences ( Jorre de St
Jorre et al., 2018). A salient example of this tenet, within the context
of online learning, is the assumption that frst-year university students
are mostly 18-year-olds, freshly graduating from high school ( Jorre de
St Jorre et al., 2018). Increasingly, this is not the case, with numerous
students being mature-aged learners with dependents, jobs, and/or
disabling conditions. These diverse students may require diferent
types of support for their success, especially within an online environ-
ment (Kahu et al., 2015). It is incumbent on educators to observe the
characteristics of each unique group of students and to tailor teaching
approaches accordingly.
c. Culture—I may self-identify within a particular bounded group, but I also
identify with other intersecting memberships. Identifying oneself with a cul-
tural group does not preclude afliation, norms, beliefs, and practices
within other groups (Brubaker, 2002; Grillo, 2003; Watkins & Noble,
2019). The core self is in fux, afected by the various groups within
which the individual identifes. For example, an online learner might
consider her intersecting cultures as Asian, woman, and learning
disabled. At times, people with disabling conditions use person-frst
paradigmatic language, to communicate that disability is only one
descriptor of who they are, and other times in other contexts, there is
power in naming and claiming the bounded culture of disability-frst
(Shapiro, 1993). A useful approach for teachers is to use names rather
than labels, where possible, listen for the cultural nuances which are
expressed in students’ self-descriptive language, and to mirror the type
of cultural-identity language students themselves use.
The focus of this chapter is on online learners who have disabling

conditions, and where their schools and post-secondary institutions are
succeeding, versus where they need to strive for more and better stu-
dent experiences, inclusion, outcomes, and impact (including graduate
We Are One, But We Are Many 65
employment). There are three aligned theories, which need to be refected

upon to inform university practice. In the chapter section below titled,
Applications or potential applications in online learning, each of these the-
ories is described and applied to the context of online learning.
History of the Disabilities Studies
Prior to presenting the origins and reviewing the history of DS, it is

important to establish the conceptual/scholarly boundaries. Establishing
a timeline and a universal defnition for DS is difcult and disputable.
Recognizing the challenge of defning DS, Albrecht, Seelman, and
Bury (2001) wrote, “Disability studies is an emergent feld with intellec-
tual roots in the social sciences, humanities and rehabilitation sciences”
(p. 2). Their Handbook of Disability Studies is a heavy hard-cover volume
of 852 pages. As aligned with this handbook, the defnition of DS that
will position this chapter is the scholarship of a human construct and
experience, called disability, which is deeply embedded within the daily
practices of people and social institutions. Two particular features of the
handbook are notable and shed further light on DS as a bounded schol-
arly theory. First, a high proportion of the chapter authors identify as
disabled. The cultural implications of this observation are that people
are acknowledged as experts of their own experiences and that personal
voice, self-advocacy, and social power need to be acknowledged and
supported (nothing about us without us). Specifcally applied to online
learning, it is important to recognize and restore student power imbal-
ance and to listen to students, as they describe and evaluate their own
situated educational experiences ( Jorre de St Jorre et al., 2018, 2019;
Kahu et al., 2020). This is particularly important, where there is evidence
of stigma and silencing, such as for students with disabling conditions
(Barnes & Mercer, 2001; Gofman, 1963). The second telling observa-
tion about the handbook is that the modal publication dates of the end-
chapter references are the late 90s. Examples of seminal texts which were
published in this time period are Marks’ Disability: Controversial debates and
psychosocial perspectives published in 1999. In 1996, the Canadian Roeher
Institute published Disability, Community and Society. Charlton published
Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment in 1998.
Exploring the history of DS through analysis of published texts indicates
a theoretic surge of DS in the latter 90s and early 2000s.
In depicting the historical origins of DS, it is important to diferentiate

between the history of disability and the history of DS. Books such as
Barasch’s (2001) Blindness: The history of a mental image in western thought,
trace disability representations, conceptions, debates, and tragedies to
antiquity, prevalent in the Bible and in art, prior to written language.
Barasch asked himself the written question of “Does the understanding
of blindness have a history?” (p. 3). His self-response forms the theoretical
basis of this book chapter. While Barasch confned his scholarly inquiry
to blindness, the scope of his refections applies to the broader category
of disability. For the purposes of this chapter, with its focus on the inclu-
sion of students with disabling conditions in online learning, [disability]
has been substituted for all instances of word blindness.
[W]hile [disability] as such remains unchanged, our understanding

of [disability], our views concerning its meaning,’ are matters of
culture. So is the attitude toward the [disabled] that is largely a result
of what people believed that [disability] meant.
(p. 3)
Applied specifcally to online learning, this means that some students are
going to experience some barriers or challenges to accessing, learning,
and/or demonstrating their learning (Kinash & Knight, 2014; Kinash et al.,
2004, 2019). Their student experiences and success are dependent upon
their own, and their educators’ beliefs and attitudes about disability, and
the design of the online learning environment (informed by these beliefs).
The signifcance of DS is that scholars (most notably, those with rich,
situated understandings, often being either disabled themselves or imme-
diate family members of disabled people) took to rigorously considering
what it means to be disabled, to give and/or claim voice for these propos-
itions and, in turn, challenging the status quo of how people with disab-
ling conditions are treated in society (Shapiro, 1993; Wolfensberger, 1972).
Applications of Disabilities Studies in Research in

Traditional Learning
Here, we consider two types of applications: frst, the application of

DS to include children and adults with disabling conditions in regular
education (versus special education classrooms and institutions) and
second, the application of DS to improving the quality of educa-

tion for all students—beyond those with disabling conditions. These
applications require a context in United States and Australian (given
the geographic context of the chapter author’s) federal policies as well
as a discussion about the interpretation and implementation of existing
disability legislation that afects students at both the K-12 and higher
education levels.
Access to places and spaces of education (including online) should
not be determined on the basis of systematized discrimination (Kinash,
2006). Children must be able to attend school in their local neighborhoods
(Barnes & Mercer, 2001). Adults must be able to choose universities based
on the degrees ofered by those institutions (Kinash, 2006). The matter
has evolved from integration (adding into) to inclusion (part of). Ahmed
(2012) powerfully draws a distinction between integration and inclusion,
and enrollment and belonging, when describing what it felt like, for her,
to be called-out/excluded.
…it was an experience of not being white, of being made into a

stranger, the one who is recognized as “out of place,” the one who
does not belong, whose proximity is registered as crime or threat.
As memory, it was of becoming a stranger in a place I called home.
(p. 2)
Ahmed’s poignant words remind readers that the experience of feeling

alone, diferent, judged and excluded are painful possibilities in the group
context of education. The afordances and fexibility of online learning
mean the opening-up of enrolment and access ( Jorre de St Jorre et al.,
2018; Kinash et al., 2019). However, taking care of inclusion and belonging
are particularly important in a context where students (due to disabling
conditions and/or other contributing factors) can get lost and forgotten
behind the screens, unless care is taken in design and by educators (Kahu
et al., 2015, 2020).
Accessibility is not optional in education, in that the law requires it.
Under the Australian Government, the Disability Standards for Education
(2005) requires that students with disabling conditions can access and
participate in education on the same basis as other students. The onus
of responsibility is on the educational institutions to provide admission,
participation, and use of facilities and services. The Higher Education
Standards Framework (HESF) requires that education creates equivalent
opportunities for academic success (Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency, 2015). Institutions are required to monitor participa-
tion and success of identifed groups and to make improvements and
support accordingly.
In the United States, three major federal laws in the United States pre-
vent discrimination against people with disabling conditions, including
in educational contexts. These laws were enacted before online learning
was widespread, but they have been applied to online learning across
school and university contexts (McAlvage & Rice, 2018). The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) requires public schools to
provide services to students to help them derive educational benefts
from the opportunity to attend school with their peers to the greatest
extent possible. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act explicitly prohibits
disability discrimination, including barriers to learning (United States,
Department of Education, 2020). Section 508 of that same act requires
that government information on the internet be accessible as well.
Finally, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimin-
ation on the basis of disabilities among societal systems and structures,
including schools and universities (United States, Department of Justice,
n.d.). Highly relevant to online learning, the ADA includes Standards for
Accessible Design. These standards apply in school settings as well as in
higher education. The goal is for all online learners to access and use
materials in an equitable way.
This section of the chapter addresses application to traditional learning.
The application goes two-ways. The preceding paragraphs were about
inclusion of students with disabling conditions in regular education. The
paragraphs to follow, reverse the equation, to show how designing online
learning to include students with disabling conditions, applies to and
benefts “traditional” learners.
Kinash (2006) researched the experiences of blind online learners,
wherein each of her research participants were the sole blind student in
their online university classes. The frst question she asked her research
participants was, “What is it like to be a blind online learner?” The scope
of all of their responses was about online learning design and student
experience and not about blindness. The overall research fnding was that
the design of the online learning experience mattered for all students;
there were few instances where the blind students required something
over and above that of sighted students. Kinash ofered specifc design
recommendations. These suggestions continue to align with more
contemporary online learning design research (Crichton & Kinash, 2013;

Burgstahler, 2015; Keller, 2011; Kinash et al., 2019). The recommendations
focused on designing for accessibility, promoting social interaction and
human connections, prioritizing simplicity without essentializing, and
set a positive tone while keeping strong boundaries. Several suggestions
that applied specifcally to students with disabilities were to (a) under-
stand challenges that students with disabilities face in typical classrooms
that were not designed with access in mind, (b) develop policies and
procedures to deal with special problems, and (c) work to understand and
use adaptive technologies.
Applications of Disabilities Studies for Online Learning
At the (a) Individual level, the grounding theory is multifaceted self-concept. At the
(b) Cohort level, the grounding theory is universal design for learning. At the
(c) Culture level, the grounding theory is cultural intersectionality.
The theory of multi-faceted self-concept means that individuals have
complex conceptions of self (Amin, 2002; Grillo, 2003). Some facets of
identity matter more to individuals than do others, and this can change in
time and place contexts (Brubaker, 2002; Watkins & Noble, 2019). These
conceptions of self are informed by observations of their own behavior
and the outcomes (self-attribution), their self-judgment against the
achievements of others (social comparison) and what they believe others
think of them, with some individuals’ judgments mattering more than
others’ (refected appraisals). As a result, people develop various levels of
self-efcacy, in relation to specifc tasks, and are related to facets of iden-
tity (Kahu & Nelson, 2018). Self-efcacy means the personal belief that
one can or cannot achieve a task, which has a high correlation to success
in that task (Kahu & Nelson, 2018).
This theory has high application to online learning design and particu-
larly to supporting the success of students with disabling conditions. It
is important to consider whether some of the students will be learning
online for the frst time (e.g., school migration to online learning or
frst-year university courses). Within these courses, it is recommended
schools and universities design-in synchronous sessions whereby the edu-
cator walks the students through the features and components of the
Learning Management System (LMS), explaining fundamentals such as
where students fnd their course materials and how they submit their
assignments (Keller, 2011; Kinash et al., 2019). While this is important for
all new online learners, this is vital for students with disabling conditions,
for whom there is a higher probability that they lack confdence as
learners, likely having experienced barriers in the past (The Roeher
Institute, 1996).
The theory of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) comes from the
parent feld of architecture, in that UDL is an adaptation/application of
Universal Design (UD). The classic example of UD is a fexible countertop,
which can easily be lowered for people using wheelchairs and heightened
for tall people (Kinash et al., 2019). A defnition of UDL is proactive, fex-
ible design of learning, teaching, and the overall student experience, so
that the intentional design to include learners with barriers also improves
the learning experience of other students. Just as the fexible countertop
example is the classic of UD, well-designed online learning is the classic
example of UDL. Online learning which is designed to minimize barriers
for students with disabling conditions, will improve the learning experi-
ence of many other learners (Kinash & Paszuk, 2007; Rose & Meyer,
2002; Rose et al., 2005). For example, including a glossary of discipline-
based terminology will not only increase comprehension for students
with learning disabilities, but will also support learners from non-English
speaking backgrounds. Providing lectures as a series of streamed podcast
episodes makes the content accessible for learners with vision diferences
while captions and transcripts can support learners with hearing or lan-
guage processing diferences. In addition to meeting legal requirements
for serving all students, some students may choose one modality over
another because it fts better with their learning preferences or lifestyle
(e.g., listening to lectures while commuting to and from work).
There are three main UDL propositions, which guide the design of
online learning and help ensure that Section 508 guidelines are met
(Burgstahler, 2015; Rose & Meyer, 2006). The frst is multiple means of
representation. This means that the educator intentionally provides the
same content in diferent formats so that learners can choose the mode
which works best, in their present circumstances. This also allows students
to engage with content repeatedly, through multimedia, engaging
diferent senses and thus reinforcing learning (Mayer, 2001). For example,
a key curricular concept can be provided as a screencast lecture, pro-
viding the key points as text on slides, supplemented with the lecturer’s
narrative description and examples. The accompanying full transcript
can be provided (allowing students the option to read on-screen, listen
through screen-reading software, and/or downloading a printed version).

The same concept can also be demonstrated through a feld-based applied
video. Worksheets and interactive exercises can sit alongside for practice
application.
The second UDL proposition is multiple means of engagement. Kahu
et al. (2020) defned student engagement as “a student’s behavioral,
emotional and cognitive connection to their learning” (p. 658). These
authors’ research demonstrated that the extent to which students feel
engaged, and the implications on their study behaviors, is interactively
infuenced by both students and educational institutions. UDL research
has demonstrated that engagement, which is richly connected to success,
can be improved through active acknowledgement and design consid-
erations for the varied contextual motivations of students (Burgstahler,
2015). One of the factors to consider, in the context of student engage-
ment, is an explicit connection to a future goal, such as employability.
Jorre de St Jorre et al.’s (2019) research with 138 science students from
four Australian universities, demonstrated that students were focused
on immediate employment upon graduation. Their research indicated
that for students to be engaged with learning, career relevance needed to
be enmeshed at multiple points throughout the curriculum and applied
through student learning activities. This was especially important for
students with disabling conditions, who tended to experience heightened
employment challenges.
The third UDL proposition is multiple means of expression. Whereas
multiple means of representation is about what the teacher gives to the
educator, multiple means of expression is what students deliver back
to their teachers. Except that, according to praxis, the exchange should
extend beyond teachers and students, so that students are publishing and
thereby sharing their work online. For university students, this is a self-
agency strategy to enhance their employability. Educators who apply mul-
tiple means of expression explicitly articulate the learning expectations
and desired learning outcomes of the assignment and then allow students
to choose the mode and format (Burgstahler, 2015). Students can choose
whether, for example, to write an essay or report or produce a video or
website. Research shows that this approach increases student motivation
and reduces academic integrity breaches (Burgstahler).
While UDL has improved university practice and research has
confrmed its efcacy, the theory is not above critique. Since UDL does
not tell instructors what to teach, what texts to use, or even how to
choose these materials, it cannot be used as a critical framework (Xie &

Rice, 2020). Instead, instructors should consider UDL principles along-
side their critical goals for promoting intersectional learning. Moreover,
the fundamental assumption of the three propositions (multiple means
of representation, expression, engagement) are that planned redundancy
in university practice will address student needs to such an extent that
very little other support is needed. For example, through applying mul-
tiple means of representation (e.g. the same curriculum presented in text,
audio and video demonstration formats), the educator attempts to ensure
that all students can access the content. However, this is not always the
case. Tailoring-in-bulk sometimes fails to meet the complex needs of spe-
cifc learners. What is designed as a solution for one group of students
can create new barriers for others. Ironically, this critique can be lodged
at the standard metaphor of online UDL: the curb-cut. The curb-cut, or
portion of the sidewalk which rests fush with the street, was initially
designed for wheelchair users, but is more frequently used by shoppers
with carts, cyclists, and parents pushing strollers. Within the specifc con-
text of disability, while curb-cuts provide accessibility to wheelchair users,
they can be a hazard for people using canes. The curb needs to be there
for the cane-user to detect and therefore step accordingly. Curb-cuts are
therefore supposed to be the signifer of universal solutions, but it is not
all-encompassing. It is important for educators to not assume their design
solutions are working, but to instead, carefully observe and respond to
the needs of diverse learners.
The theory of cultural intersectionality is a critical response to
narrowly-defned notions of culture. These narrow defnitions of culture
reduce the term and concept to solely be a signifer of race and/or eth-
nicity (Watkins & Noble, 2019). Cultural intersectionality theory defnes
culture as—self-perceived and self-accepted afliation with bounded
social groups, with membership infuencing the self-identity, values, cus-
toms and behaviors of the individual. People can, and usually do, have
afliations with more than one culture, and these memberships overlap,
intersect and create nuanced blends of personal-cultural outcomes
(Harris & Patton, 2019). Specifc application to the context of this chapter,
adults who have self-identifed themselves (or parents who have identifed
their children), within their educational institutions, as having a disabling
condition, may or may not afliate themselves within a disability culture
(Barton & Armstrong, 2001; Shapiro, 1993). This is a complex phenom-
enon and necessitates problematizing: the extent to which people are
afected by conscious and/or subconscious afliations, the waxing and

waning of these infuences over a lifespan and in diferent contextual
circumstances, and with certain disability organizations (some of which
have more bounded cultures than others).
One of the common goals, across universities, is that through the
overall higher education experience of learning and scholarship, students
develop capabilities and habits of mind, which they would not have
achieved without these experiences (Arvanitakis & Hornsby, 2016). In
Australia, these non-discipline-specifc personal value-additions are called
graduate attributes (GAs). One of the most common GAs, across univer-
sities, is called cultural competency (Goerke & Kickett, 2013). This term
means that over time, and through the higher education experience,
students develop their ability to acknowledge and appreciate others’
cultural afliations and to treat others (with cultural afliations which
difer from one’s own) with humility and respect (Arvanitakis & Hornsby,
2016). There has been limited critical inquiry into the notion of cultural
competency in universities, particularly from the standpoint of cultural
intersectionality theory. This is evident in that some Australian univer-
sities, for example, operationally defne cultural competency only in rela-
tion to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and dismiss other
forms of culture (Goerke & Kickett, 2013).
Specifc application of cultural intersectionality to online learning
reveals that students’ intersecting cultural afliations can, and usually
do, afect their transition into online learning (in school and university
contexts), their competency as self-directed learners, their retention,
and ultimately their success (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Keller, 2011). For
example, in cases of students who have been previously educated through
Confucian modes/discourse, they may struggle to assimilate to western-
type educational paradigms that privilege refection, application of know-
ledge, and group work (Chen & Kavanagh, 2014). This can be particularly
challenging online, where these cultural demands are less transparent.
Studies from the Australian context illustrate this (Bullen & Flavell,
2017; Kippen et al., 2006; Trimmer, 2018). This work revealed culturally
situated reasons for low student retention rates among students who
were identifed as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. The students
in these studies who withdrew from university study said that they did
so for a combination of three main reasons. First, some of the students
felt that they were being accused of collusion and risked formal academic
integrity investigations. They interpreted this framing as dissonant, given
that it was part of their cultural norms to collaboratively work together,

rather work independently, in what felt like competition. Second, even
though the campus was physically situated where they could go on-
campus, there were numerous online courses, and a number of the
students did not want to learn through this mode, as it did not “feel like”
what they defned as the university experience. Third, the interviewed
students did not feel that the university had researched and developed
curriculum which would lead to viable employment in the communities
where they wanted to reside upon graduation. The importance of these
studies underscores the need to be open and responsive to the culturally
contextual wants and needs of students.
Conclusion
Education has the power to change lives for students with disabling
conditions. However, as compared to the general population, people
with disabling conditions, overall, have far less years of schooling, are
much less likely to have graduated year 12, are very unlikely to have
enrolled in higher education, and even less likely to have graduated
(Australian Government, Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019). They
are far more likely to live in poverty and require social assistance (The
Roeher Institute, 1996). People with physical or cognitive impairments
are far more likely to be lonely and to develop mental health conditions
(Australian Government, Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019).
A Disability Studies lens on the design and teaching of students,
through online education, guides praxis, to improve the learning experi-
ence and outcomes, not only for students with disabling conditions but for
all learners. The contemporary online learning and teaching environment,
with its digital afordances, provides opportunities, and possibilities such
that having an impairment need no longer be disabling. The accessible and
inclusive design of online learning has the capacity to lift stigma. Supports
for learning, online, are dependent upon design of the overall environ-
ment and the actions and approaches of educators. In summary, there are
seven key recommendations for the design and delivery of online learning.
1. Follow the lead of students who identify as having disabling conditions

and use names and similar terminology, that the students themselves
fnd appropriate.
2. Acknowledge the expertise that students can contribute to enriching

the learning experience. Open up dialogue and seek feedback on what
is working well, and what elements could be improved upon. Start
these conversations from day one of class and foster a learning envir-
onment in which all participants (including yourself, the educator) are
mutual learners.
3. Provide the same or overlapping content/curriculum in multiple
formats. Choose two to three of chunked lecture recordings, written
documents (transcripts), podcast episodes, video demonstrations and
digital worksheets for manipulation.
4. Ensure that navigation and instructions for the course, and for all
assessment items, are clear and concise. Remember that in online
exams, you are testing whether students have achieved mastery of the
relevant disciplinary knowledge, skills, and attributes, not whether
they are able to navigate through convoluted instructions.
5. Be clear about the expectations and learning outcomes of assessment
items. Provide opportunities for students to ask questions and seek
feedback, to ensure that they are on the right track.
6. Be explicit about how the learning activities and assessment items
connect to students’ future employability.
7. Foster student engagement, communication, and interaction between
you and your students, and student to student.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke
University Press.
Albrecht, G.L., Seelman, K.D., & Bury, M. (2001). Introduction: The formation
of disability studies (pp. 1–10). In G.L. Albrecht, K.D. Seelman, & M. Bury
(Eds.). Handbook of disability studies. Sage.
Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity.
Environment and Planning, 34, 959–980.
Arvanitakis, J., & Hornsby, D.J. (2016). Universities, the citizen scholar and the future
of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment.
(2005). The Disability Standards for Education. Retrieved from https://www.
education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005.
Australian Government, Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019, 3 September).
People with disability in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.
au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in- australia/education-and-
skills/educational-attainment/highest-level-of-education.
Barasch, M. (2001). Blindness: The history of a mental image in western thought.
Routledge.
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2001). Disability culture: Assimilation or inclusion
(pp. 515–534). In G.L. Albrecht, K.D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.). Handbook of
disability studies. Sage.
Barton, L., & Armstrong, F. (2001). Disability, education, and inclusion: Cross-
cultural issues and dilemmas (pp. 693–710). In G.L. Albrecht, K.D. Seelman, &
M. Bury (Eds.). Handbook of disability studies. Sage.
Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. European Journal of Sociology, 43(-
2), 163–189. doi:10.1017/S0003975602001066.
Bullen, J., & Flavell, H. (2017). Measuring the ‘gift’: Epistemological and
ontological diferences between the academy and Indigenous Australia.
Higher Education Research and Development, 36(3), 583–596. doi:10.108
0/07294360.2017.1290588.
Burgstahler, S.E. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to prac-
tice (2nd ed.). Harvard Education.
Charlton, J.I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empower-
ment. University of California Press.
Chen, S., & Kavanagh, L. (2014). Peer assessment barriers faced by international
students engaging in project-based courses. 25th Annual Conference of the
Australasian Association for Engineering Education: Engineering the Knowledge
Economy: Collaboration, Engagement & Employability, 473–483. Wellington,
New Zealand, 8–10 December 2014. Palmerston North, New Zealand:
Massey University.
Crichton, S., & Kinash, S. (2013). Enabling learning for disabled students
(pp. 216–230). In M.G. Moore (Ed.). The handbook of distance education (3rd
ed.). Routledge.
Goerke, V., & Kickett, M. (2013). Working towards the assurance of graduate
attributes for Indigenous cultural competency: The case for alignment
between policy, professional development and curriculum processes. The
International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(1), 61–81.
Goethals, T., De Schauwer, E., & Van Hove, G. (2015). Weaving intersectionality
into disability studies research: Inclusion, refexivity and anti-essentialism.
DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1–2), 75–94.
Gofman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice
Hall.
Grillo, R.D. (2003). Cultural essentialism and cultural anxiety. Anthropological
Theory, 3, 157–173. doi:10.1177/1463499603003002002.
Harris, J.C., & Patton, L.D. (2019). Un/doing intersectionality through higher
education research. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(3), 347–372. doi:10.108
0/00221546.2018.1536936.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jorre de St Jorre, T., Elliott, J., Johnson, E.D., & Bisset, S. (2019). Science students’
conceptions of factors that will diferentiate them in the graduate employ-
ment market. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 10(1),
27–41. doi:10.21153/jtlge2019vol10no1art795.
Jorre de St Jorre, T., Oliver, B., & Chamberlain, J. (2018). Digital disruption meets
the academic timetable: Start learning anytime. ASCILITE 2018: Proceedings
of the 35th International Conference on Open Oceans: Learning without Borders –
Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary
Education, ASCILITE, Tugun, QLD,159–165. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/
eserv/DU:30115580/destjorre-digitaldisruptionmeets-2018.pdf
Kahu, E.R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational inter-
face: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education
Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197.
Kahu, E.R., Picton, C., & Nelson, K. (2020). Pathways to engagement: A longi-
tudinal study of the frst-year student experience in the educational interface.
Higher Education, 79, 657–673. doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00429-w.
Kahu, E.R., Stephens, C., Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2015). Linking academic
emotions and student engagement: Mature-aged distance students’ tran-
sition to university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(4), 481–497.
doi:10.1080/0309877X.2014.895305.
Keller, K. (2011). Seeing people with disabilities as a culture in the e-learning envir-
onment (pp. 338–347). In A. Edmundson (Ed.). Cases on globalized and culturally
appropriate e-learning: Challenges and solutions. Information Science Reference.
Kinash, S. (2006). Seeing beyond blindness. Information Age.
Kinash, S., Birt, J., & Judd, M. M. (2019). Is technology enabling or disabling for
diverse learners studying online (pp. 295–310). In M.G. Moore & W.H. Diehl
(Eds.). The handbook of distance education (4th ed.). Routledge.
Kinash, S., Crichton, S., & Kim-Rupnow, W.S. (2004). A review of 2000-2003 lit-
erature at the intersection of online learning and disability: Electronic curb-
cuts. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 5–19.
Kinash, S., & Knight, D. (2014). Disability in a digital world: Online pedagogy
for enabling learning (pp. 149–160). In F. Patel (Ed.). Online learning: An educa-
tional development perspective. Nova.
Kinash, S., & Paszuk, A. (2007). Accessible education for blind learners from kinder-
garten through post-secondary (AEBL). R. Ferguson (Series Ed.). Information
Age.
Kippen, S., Ward, B., & Warren, L. (2006). Enhancing indigenous participation
in higher education health courses in rural Victoria. The Australian Journal of
Indigenous Education, 35, 1–10. doi:10.1017/S1326011100004117.
Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives.
Routledge.
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge.
McAlvage, K., & Rice, M. (2018). Access and accessibility in online learning:
Issues in higher education and K-12 contexts. OLC Outlook: An Environmental
Scan of the Digital Learning Landscape. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593920.
Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Harvard Education.
Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D.H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom:
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Harvard Education.
Shapiro, J.P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights
movement. Three Rivers.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2015). Higher
Education Standards Framework. Retrieved from https://www.teqsa.gov.
au/higher-education-standards-framework-2015.
The Roeher Institute (1996). Disability, community and society: Exploring the links.
The Roeher Institute.
Trimmer, K., Ward, R., &, Wondunna-Foley, L. (2018). Retention of indigenous
pre-service teachers enrolled in an Australian regional university. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 76, 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.006.
United States, Department of Education. (2020, 10 January). Protecting Students
with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/ofces/list/
ocr/504faq.html.
United States, Department of Justice. (n.d.). Introduction to the ADA. Retrieved
from https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm
Watkins, M., & Noble, G. (2019). Lazy multiculturalism: Cultural essentialism
and the persistence of the multicultural day in Australian schools. Ethnography
and Education. doi:10.1080/17457823.2019.1581821.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human
services. National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2020). Professional and social investment in uni-
versal design for learning in higher education: Insights from a faculty
development programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–15.
doi:10.1080/0309877X.2020.1827372.
Womanist and Feminist 5
Pedagogy: Infusing the
Wisdom of Women into
Online Education
Shamika Klassen
History of the Theories
Womanism and feminism both began out of a desire for equity and better
treatment in society for people other than those who are male-identifed.
Over time, the ideologies shifted and created new and deeper spaces for
women. As women began to argue for the right to education as early as the
1670s, other rights were soon demanded from voting rights to equal pay
and more (Freedman, 2007). Thus, feminism became a vehicle for women
to garner equal footing in a society that favored men. In this chapter, we
aim to outline a brief history of key feminisms and womanisms including
modern feminism, cyborg-feminism, Cyberfeminism, technofeminism,
Black feminism, womanism, and technowomanism.
Modern Feminism
First-wave modern feminism began in 1848 with the Seneca Falls

Convention in New York state. The unifying goals of this movement
were women’s sufrage and abolition (Davidson, 2017). The people of the
frst wave, like all waves, were many and in the initial wave key players
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-6
80 Shamika Klassen
included Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,

Frederick Douglas, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Simone de Beauvoir (see
Figure 5.1).
In the mid-1960s, the focus of feminism shifted toward Feminist schol-
arship, various legal reforms, and grassroots organizing which together
changed how society understood the “roles, rights, and status” of women
(Lefevre, 2017). Issues arose, however, as Black Feminists and Feminists
of color felt that the movement was not a safe space to bring their full
selves to and be recognized and valued. Integral fgures during this period
include freelance journalist Gloria Steinem, author Betty Freidan, and
Black Feminists such as author and civil rights lawyer Florynce Kennedy,
Cellestine Ware, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Patricia Robinson.
The third wave, which began in the mid-1990s, emphasized empower-
ment and making space for more voices. It was during the crest of this
wave that the Internet broke into the mainstream and became fertile
ground for deeper exploration of feminism and technology writ large.
Rebecca Walker, the writer, activist, and daughter of Alice Walker,
introduced the term Third Wave in her 1992 Ms. magazine article entitled
“Becoming the Third Wave.” Other third-wave Feminists included fellow
Generation X-ers Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, authors of
Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future (2000).
The fourth wave of feminism emerged rooted in the digital space
and is characterized by engagement with social media and call-out cul-
ture. People like Anita Sarkeesian embodied the latest mission of fem-
inism equipped with the tools of communicative technology. She utilized
YouTube video essays as a platform for addressing misogyny and other
similar shortcomings found in video games.
With each wave, time, culture, society, and more shifted the focus
and agenda of feminism. Building and growing upon the thoughts and
actions of the people before them, each wave evolved to meet the needs
and injustices against women at that time. There were also movements
alongside and concurrent within feminism that were divergent enough
to warrant their own distinctions. In the next section, we will focus on
various feminisms infuenced by technology.
Cyborg-, Cyber-, and Technofeminism
Cyborg-feminism was created by professor and scholar Donna Haraway

in 1985 as an exploration of women’s antinuclear activism during
Womanist and Feminist Pedagogy 81
HISTORY OF FEMINISMS TIMELINE
FEMINISM
A Look Back
1ST WAVE FEMINISM

1848
Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott,

2ND WAVE FEMINISM Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick
1960s Douglas, Mary Wollstonecraft, and
Simone de Beauvoir
Audre Larde, Angela Davis, bell hooks
Suffrage and abolition were the focus.
Shift to feminist scholarship, various
legal reforms, and grassroots
organizing to shift the understanding
of women’s rights, role, and status.
CYBORG-FEMINISM
1985
Donna Hallaway
3RD WAVE FEMINISM
Created as an exploration of women’s mid 1990s
anti-nuclear activism during the early
1980s. key players
CYBER-FEMINISM Empowerment and making space for

1994 more voices.
Sodie Plant
Cyberfeminism is a collection of
theories involving women,
empowerment, knowledge, power
structures, and technology.
4TH WAVE FEMINISM

Late 1990s
Anita Sarkeesian
Engagement with the digital space TECHNOFEMINISM

such as the internet and social media
as well as the development of the call
2004
out culture.
Judy Wajcman
Technofeminism is “a feminist
perspective into social science
debates about technology”
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING ONLINE: A

CRITICAL ORIENTATION TO THEORY, DESIGN, AND PRACTICE IN THE
EDUCATIONAL FIELD
Figure 5.1 History of Feminism Timeline.

82 Shamika Klassen
the early 1980s. Inspired by this as well as the advent of the Internet,
Cyberfeminism is “ the work of Feminists interested in theorizing, cri-
tiquing, and exploiting the Internet, cyberspace, and new-media tech-
nologies in general” and though understood as a pluralism of theories
was coined as a term in 1994 by British philosopher Sadie Plant (Consalvo,
2003, p. 109).
The scholarship around Cyberfeminism includes theories
that women are naturally suited to using the internet, as both share
important commonalities; women can best empower themselves
by becoming fuent in online communication and acquiring techno-
logical expertise; and women would do best to study how power
and knowledge are constructed in technological systems, and how
and where feminists can disrupt and change these practices for the
betterment of all members of society.
(Consalvo, 2003, p. 110)
The key players included academics Cynthia Cockburn who researched

and photographed gender, labor, and peace-making, Susan Luckman
who is an interdisciplinary cultural studies scholar, and researcher and
producer of multimedia art Anna Munster (“Cynthia Cockburn,” 2014).
Similar to second-wave feminism, Cyberfeminism is critiqued as being
focused on the middle class, often white women who insist “all girls need
modems” but do not take into consideration the reality of the digital
divide for many around the world.
Emerging parallel to fourth-wave feminism is an ofshoot of feminism
known as technofeminism. Judy Wacjman frst wrote about feminism
and technology in her 1991 seminal text Feminism Confronts Technology.
Thirteen years later, she followed up with the book Technofeminism. It is
within this collection of essays that Wacjman outlines technofeminism
as “a feminist perspective into social science debates about technology”
and engages with “information, communication, and biomedicine”
throughout the course of the text (Wajcman, 2004, vi). Wacjman’s crit-
ical analysis and framework provided Feminist thought with a perspective
cogently aligned and relevant to emerging conversations and concerns
around technology.
With the rich history of feminism and its related concepts, there is
a throughline of criticism that the voices centered and experiences
overlooked fall along racialized color lines. White women and their
concerns overshadow those of Black women and other women of color.

In the next sections, we turn our attention to Black women-centric
movements and their histories.
Black Feminism
From the time of slavery, Black women like Sojourner Truth and Harriet
Tubman spoke out about the contradiction of societal norms in the
United States that result in injustices for themselves and others. From
its inception, however, modern feminism was centered around the
voices, experiences, and needs of white women. Non-white women who
attempted to participate in the Feminist movement found themselves
marginalized due to racism. During second-wave feminism and the civil
rights movement, the intersectional needs of Black women and women
of color were increasingly being devalued in both spaces. Black women
were denied leadership roles and equal voice on the two fronts, so a more
inclusive and centering mobilization was born in Black feminism.
Writers, activists, and scholars rose up to contribute to and craft Black
Feminist thought such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, bell hooks, Angela Davis,
Patricia Hill Collins, and more. The central focus of which is viewing
Black women’s lives, struggles, perspectives, and liberation as valid and
crucial for everyone to acknowledge and learn. Recognizing the valuable
and unique perspective of Black women on society and its shortcomings,
Black feminism fueled the development of many groups and organizations
led by Black women and women of color while motivated by a myriad of
causes such as LGBTQIA liberation, Black nationalism, sexual violence,
media representation, and so forth.
Womanism
Writer Alice Walker frst introduced the world to the concept of a

Womanist in 1979 during her remarks in a short story entitled, “Coming
Apart.” In 1983 within the preface to her publication In Search of our
Mother’s Garden: Womanist Prose, Walker defned the term Womanist.
Over the course of four parts, the vision of a Womanist was shaped.
The defnition begins by establishing a Womanist as “a black feminist or
feminist of color” and it ends by stating that “womanist is to feminist as
84 Shamika Klassen
purple is to lavender” (Walker, 1983, p. xii). The two midsections of the

defnition cover who and what a Womanist loves as well as confrms that
a Womanist is “[c]ommitted to survival and wholeness of entire people,
male and female” and “[n]ot a separatist, except for health” (Walker, 1983,
p. xii). It is from this defnition that scholars began to craft Womanist the-
ology, ethics, and thought.
Similar to feminism, womanism has experienced distinct epochs
(see Figure 5.2). Womanist theologian Monica Coleman walks readers
through each wave of womanism in her text Ain’t I a Womanist, Too. The
frst wave of womanism was an application of the term Womanist in reli-
gious thought and the key players include Delores Williams (Sisters in the
Wilderness), Katie Cannon (Black Womanist Ethics), and Jacquelyn Grant
(Perspectives on Womanist Theology). The second wave of womanism saw
a “development of its respective disciplines and its establishment of nor-
mative womanist discourse” and “delve[d] deeper into theological refec-
tion based on Black women’s experiences” while key players include
Kelly Brown Douglas (Sexuality and the Black Church). Just as the second
wave of feminism saw an increase in criticisms, so did the second wave
of womanism. The second wave of womanism is also described as
“largely Christian, heteronormative, and detached from local and global
political movements” (Coleman, 2013, pp. 14–16). Coleman describes
the third wave of womanism as “challenges the identity politics of the
second wave” and “it is more of an ideology politic than an identity
politic” (Coleman, 2013, pp. 17–19). She further expounds on the third
wave of womanism by highlighting that this particular manifestation of
womanism:
1. Engages the religious lives of women of African Descent;

2. Maintains a goal of justice, survival, freedom, liberation, and/or
quality of life;
3. Understands itself to both draw upon and also depart from a tradition
of womanist religious scholarship; and
4. Engages work and thinkers both inside and outside of black religious
scholarship.
(Coleman, 2013, p. 19)
By opening up the ideology of womanism outside of Black Feminists and

Feminists of color, Coleman introduced the possibility that wholeness
through Womanist critique is available to all.
HISTORY OF FEMINISMS TIMELINE
WOMANISM
A Look Back
1st Wave of Womanism

1980s
Alice Walker, Delores Williams, Kotie

2nd Wave of Womanism Canon, Jacquelyn Grant
1990s
The first wave of womanism saw an
Kelly Brown Douglas application of the term womanist in
religious thought
The second wave of womanism
yielded the development of womanist
disciplines and discourses.
2nd Wave Womanist

Critiques
3rd Wave Womanism
2000s
Despite its growth, critiques emerged
Monica Coleman around womanism about the narrow
scope of scholarship which excluded
Described as more of an “ideology the global diaspora and focused on
politic than an identity politic”, 3rd Christian perspectives.
wave womanism draws and departs
from womanist scholarship and
engages with scholarship outside
of the black religion discipline.
Technowomanism Defined
Technowomanism in Praxis 2015
2020
Shamika Goddard
Xeturah Woodley
Using the wisdon of black women
Dr. Woodley helped further craft the
alongside womanist thought,
concept of technowomanism by
technowomanism was initially
constructing it as ““an interdisciplinary
defined as applying the womanist
womanist theoretical approch to
ethic to social justice issues
analyzing, understanding, and
occurring in and around
explaning the intersectional nature of
technology and the digital space.
the human experience within and
outside of the digital space as well
as in and around technology”.”
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING ONLINE: A

CRITICAL ORIENTATION TO THEORY, DESIGN, AND PRACTICE IN THE
EDUCATIONAL FIELD
86 Shamika Klassen
Technowomanism
Just as feminism was afected greatly by the advent of the Internet as

well as other consumer technologies, womanism experienced similar
treatment. I developed technowomanism initially while studying at Union
Theological Seminary in the city of New York and later collaborated with
Dr. Xeturah Woodley of New Mexico State University. As the story goes,
in 2013 while taking Systematic Theology 103, an introductory course
taught by the late Dr. James Cone, the father of Black liberation the-
ology, I learned about liberalism, neoliberalism, feminism, womanism,
mujerista theology, Asian, African, Native-American, and Eco-liberation
theologies. As we learned about key thinkers in each genre, we were told
by Dr. Cone that we each had our own liberation theology and to fnd
and explore it.
It was out of that charge that I frst wrote about and introduced
technowomanism in the thesis for my Master of Divinity. Instead of
just writing a paper, I did a paper and a project—a series of YouTube
videos that accompanied the paper. In addition to technowomanism,
I wrote about two case studies (the Black Lives Matter movement and
Gamergate) as well as another original and nascent concept called the
Uncanny Valley of Humanity which explains how marginalized people
are at times subjugated and relegated to an “uncanny valley” when
they exhibit characteristics of a straight, white, cis-gendered, hetero-
sexual man causing discomfort for those who identify diferently than
the marginalized person (Goddard, 2015). I went on to make three more
YouTube videos specifcally about womanism and technowomanism.
The defnition of technowomanism has evolved from, “the application
of the womanist ethic as a framework for analyzing social justice issues
that occur in and around the digital space and consumer technologies”
to “an interdisciplinary womanist theoretical approach to analyzing,
understanding, and explaining the intersectional nature of the human
experience within and outside of the digital space as well as in and around
technology” (Goddard & Woodley, 2019, p. 659). Equipped with this more
robust defnition, technowomanism is poised to be a framework through
which scholars and activists can engage with our connected world using
the wisdom of womanism.
Now that we briefy introduced the histories and contributions of
the assorted feminisms and womanisms, we can move toward how
these perspectives impact and infuence education. First, we explore
the traditional learning environment and feminisms before expanding

to contemporary online and remote learning and how feminisms and
womanisms may inform deeper and more meaningful educational
experiences.
Applications in Research in Traditional Learning
Historic Look at Gynocentric Course Design
Gynocentric course design is steeped in Feminist pedagogy. Carolyn

Shrewsbury’s 1993 article entitled, “What is Feminist Pedagogy” is dis-
tilled into a defnition of Feminist pedagogy as “a collection of classroom
practices, relational approaches, and educational strategies informed by
feminist theories” (Paludi, 2014). Feminist pedagogy was forged in the
halls of higher education as women’s studies burgeoned. During the
second wave of feminism, several actions sparked the development of
women’s studies. The Second Sex written frst in French in 1949 and then
published in English in 1953 by the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir
is considered “one of the frst academic books to address the gender
obstacles of women in similar professions as men” (Zhou, 2017). Feminist
activists began demanding higher institutions of women’s studies courses
and departments during the 1960s. In 1969, Cornell University taught
its frst accredited women’s studies course in the United States, and in
1970, then San Diego State College now San Diego State University
“established the frst women’s studies program after a year of student
organizing, social advocacy, and petitioning” (Zhou, 2017). During the
rest of the 1970s, extra-collegiate entities were established to further
support women’s studies programs.
The Feminist Studies journal started in 1972 as “the frst scholarly
journal in the feld of women’s studies” and the National Women’s
Studies Association began in 1977 “to advocate for new theories and
concerns brought by the Feminist movement as well as by an increase in
scholarly interest in research about women and gender” (Zhou, 2017). It
was not until 1990 that the next big achievement in women’s studies was
accomplished. Emory University has the honor of founding the frst PhD
program in women’s studies (Zhou, 2017). Since then, great strides have
been made in women’s studies doctoral programs in the United States as
well as with regard to the number of peer-reviewed academic journals
88 Shamika Klassen
around the world. By 2016, there were 20 institutions that had established
women’s studies doctoral programs in the United States and across the
globe 41 peer-reviewed academic journals (Zhou, 2017). Garnering such
strides, feminism’s overall trajectory in education has been impactful
for countless educators and learners. With a grasp of the historical and
big picture moments, we can now focus on how feminism particularly
infuences learning environments frst for ofine classrooms and then for
hybrid and online settings.
Feminist and Womanist Ways of Teaching in Traditional

Classrooms
When it comes to Feminist ways of teaching in traditional classrooms,

there have been a few ways leading Feminist educators have recommended
achieving this aim. Journal author Barbara Allen (1984) wrote in Feminist
Teacher several articles that shed light on incorporating feminism into
classrooms beyond dropping the topic as-is into a syllabus. In the inaug-
ural edition of Feminist Teacher, Barbara Allen introduces her series on
incorporating Feminist thought into college classroom curriculums. She
describes the difculty some teachers may have fguring out how to incorp-
orate Feminist thought into a curriculum that seems set or in disciplines
that do not appear at frst blush to lend themselves to Feminist pedagogy
such as statistics or a language class. Allen ofered the optimistic view that
for some students, their “… information levels are raised simply because
they have been shown that women humanists, philosophers, theorists
and scientists exist” and all of the various tactics she presents ultimately
“… contributes to a student’s education and also helps to expand the
recognized list of experts who have shaped our intellectual, cultural and
scientifc history” (Allen, 1984, p. 29). Allen ofers two main strategies
which include “…to use the analysis of such topics as the situation of
women, the status of women and the political participation of women as
examples for explaining the concepts covered in the course” and
[i]n other instances you may be able to give the example of a

woman analyzing a situation and giving a diferent account for the
phenomena she observes than the men of her time, or to present a
feminist writer’s view of a specifc facet of your discipline.
(Allen, 1984, p. 29)
By fnding ways to implement these changes in various college classrooms,

millions of students will be exposed to Feminist thought in a way that will
broaden their intellectual horizons.
Rebecca S. Richards (2011), a Feminist teacher who fgured out how
to incorporate Cyberfeminism into her digital/technological classroom
which we will return to shortly speaks clearly as well about the tenets of
Feminist pedagogy. Richards provides real-world examples of Feminist
pedagogy in the classroom. She writes, “I ask for personal ‘check-ins’ with
my students, encourage non-dyadic conversation patterns, and take time
to acknowledge bodies in the classroom before engaging our topic for the
day” (Richards, 2011, p. 5). In addition to these examples, Richards teases
out the concepts within Feminist pedagogy such as ethics of care, bell
hooks’ thoughts on Feminist pedagogy, and service-learning and its pitfalls.
Richards points out that “Ethics of care, usually attributed to Carol
Gilligan’s 1982 work on gender and psychological development, is one of
the most cited praxes in relation to feminist teaching” and goes on to defne
a Feminist teacher employing ethics of care as “[seeing] the classroom as a
nexus of human relationships that cannot be manifestly managed through
law and logic but rather through empathy and compassion” (Richards,
2011, p. 8). However, there are critiques of Gilligan’s ethics of care. Namely,
that by implementing such a construct in the classroom, there is a risk of
“reafrm[ing] gendered roles and call[ing] into question what it means to
care (Ropers-Huilman)” and “reinforc[ing] the mind/body split that many
feminists complicate” (Richards, 2011, p. 8). Here is where bell hooks’ thoughts
come into play as she has a way to pivot from ethics of care beautifully.
Richards explained that
bell hooks shifts from the language of an ‘ethics of care’ to that of eros
or the erotic in the classroom. She makes this shift because the latter
acknowledges that teachers and students are bodies interacting in an
educational setting, and that this shift back to the body ‘betray[s] the
legacy of repression and denial that has been handed down to use
by our professorial elders, who have been usually white and male’.
(Richards, 2011, p. 8)
Richards goes on to explain:
By calling out eros, which is too often limited by its association

to sexual power, hooks makes visible that a critical, feminist
90 Shamika Klassen
pedagogy requires a love that is understood through embodiment—

understanding and acknowledging that teachers and students alike
have and are responsible for their material bodies interacting in the
course.
(Richards, 2011, pp. 8–9)
More of bell hooks’ insights into bringing Feminist pedagogy into the
classroom can be found in her 1994 seminole work Teaching to Transgress.
In this book, she weaves Feminist and critical pedagogies together to
form a “[p]rogressive, holistic education, ‘engaged pedagogy’” while also
critiquing feminism for instance pointing out how some Feminist spaces
do not recognize the Feminist voices of Black women or women of color
(hooks, 1994, p. 15). The perspective of bell hooks specifcally and Black
feminism more generally clearly provides novel and necessary insights for
approaching learning for both educator and learner.
Lastly, Richards outlines the third element of Feminist pedagogy:
“… attending to community-based exigencies through collaboration.
This can come in the form of a community-based curriculum, service
learning, or feminist participatory research, which is also known as par-
ticipatory action research (PAR)” (Richards, 2011, p. 9). Richards fur-
ther explains, “Service learning asks students to ‘test the merits of what
they learn in the … classroom against their experiences as volunteers at
local sites’” (Richards, 2011, p. 9). Likewise, PAR can be understood as a
form of service-learning that seeks to bring together “researchers and
oppressed people to join in solidarity to take collective action” (Richards,
2011, p. 9). While PAR can be a powerful resource for educators to use in
their learning environments, it is not without critique.
Students are asked in these forms of Feminist pedagogy praxis “to
engage in and complicate power dynamics that emerge in collaboration
and practical application” (Richards, 2011, p. 9). For some students, this
could mean that their work in the community afrms their notions that
those community members need their help and can envision themselves
as liberal saviors. Avoiding these kinds of misalignments can be achieved
by incorporating activist research. In so doing, knowledge is created “with
[emphasis in original] community members by combining ‘ethnographic
techniques with notions of reciprocity and dialogue to ensure reciprocal
and mutually benefcial relations’” (Richards, 2011, p. 9). While the cri-
tique is valid, there is still a rich tapestry to draw from for Feminist-inspired
education. There are also Womanist ways of learning which can inform
educators and learners alike.
In the previously mentioned book, Ain’t I a Womanist, Too: Embodying
Womanism, Arisika Razak writes a chapter entitled “Notes toward a
Holistic and Liberating Pedagogy.” Razak crafts a Womanist pedagogy
that is characterized in fve parts:
1) it acknowledges body, mind, heart, and spirit as human

dimensions of being that must be brought into the classroom;
2) it privileges the development of a liberatory consciousness;
3) it takes an oppositional stance against racist, sexist, and homo-
phobic oppression in theory and practice; 4) it encourages human
review of our place within a sacred earthly world; 5) it is based on
acceptance and tolerance for all members of the human family; and
6) it underscores our need for rest and replenishment—a concep-
tual combination that, for me, was initially presented by Walker’s
womanist defnition.
(Coleman, p. 221)
Razak outlines various theories, ideologies, and insights along with

womanism that inform her pedagogy and her chapter is rich with infor-
mation any educator looking to raise the consciousness of their class-
room would appreciate.
Another resource for Womanist pedagogy is Professor of
Anthropology Cheryl Rodriquez’s entry in Womanist Theory and
Research in 1996 entitled, “Anthropology and Womanist Theory:
Claiming the Discourse on Gender, Race, and Culture.” For non-white
anthropologists, Rodriguez notes that incorporating Feminist and
Womanist epistemologies allows for the embrace of knowledge pro-
duction and representation as well as an opportunity to use anthropo-
logical research to advance vulnerable communities. Rodriguez leans
on Patricia Hill Collins’ work defining womanism as a basis for how to
fold womanism into the classroom. According to Collins, Womanist
thought is informed by awareness, activism, intellectualism, struggle,
and self-definition (Rodriguez, 1996, p. 4). Just as feminism and
Cyberfeminism have informed classrooms on and offline, womanism
and technowomanism have their own gifts to offer educators and
learners as well.
92 Shamika Klassen
Applications or Potential Applications for Learning Online
Apply Theories to Online Classrooms
As Feminist pedagogy rose from activists in the streets to classrooms, the

onset of the Internet once again pivoted the concept as learning was led
online. Here, we can return to Richards who wrote extensively on how
and why Feminist pedagogy needed to be augmented in order to leap to
the computer screen. In her own words, Richards assesses the moment
thusly:
The confuence of proliferating classroom-based technologies and

increases in DE [distance education] course oferings means that in
the second decade of the twenty-frst century, feminist pedagogy
cannot be assumed to be an embodied, f2f [face-to-face] practice
reminiscent of the consciousness-raising practices of second wave,
U.S. liberal feminism.
(Richards, 2011, p. 6)
She pointed out that, “…feminist teaching usually involves practices that
are attentive to embodiment, relationships, community, and collabor-
ation. However, these principles get displaced—not replaced—with new
media technologies” (Richards, 2011, p. 9). Richards describes a class-
room in which “bodies are transformed into changeable avatars…or
[our] textual presence comes to represent the totality of our classroom
presence” through technology which challenges the Feminist teacher to
“maintain a focus on making power dynamics transparent without trad-
itional notions of embodiment, relations, and collaboration” (Richards,
2011, p. 9). Her answer to the challenge is Cyberfeminism.
As we mentioned earlier, Cyberfeminism comprises more than
just one single movement or agenda. It is pluralism. Richards employs
Cyberfeminism as an axel across which Feminist pedagogy can turn and
move forward as Cyberfeminist pedagogy. For her, any feminist teachers
who intend to use Web 2.0 technologies within their teaching tools
would do well to adopt Cyberfeminist pedagogy. According to Richards,
Cyberfeminist pedagogy
…would attend to the ways in which digital technologies both sub-

vert and re-inscribe gender, race, and other corporeal hierarchies
in virtual space; it would be attentive to the productive and ironic

play of cyberfeminist activism and theory. But cyberfeminist peda-
gogy would also commit to the tenets of feminist pedagogy such
as ethics of care, community-based curriculum, collaboration, and
embodied praxis.
(Richards, 2011, pp. 6–7)
Clearly Richards sees the merits of traditional Feminist pedagogy and

wants to hold fast to many of its tenets; however, there are so many
tactics and skills that she engages with on top of them that fall squarely
into Cyberfeminist pedagogy.
One example anchors the Cyberfeminist pedagogy experience in new
media technology which, “allows [her] students and [her] to co-construct
our shared space and to deconstruct power fows and dynamics” (Richards,
2011, p. 14). On the one hand, teachers and students use the digital space
to create online identities, and on the other, each uses the same tech-
nologies to play with and deconstruct their creations. The play and irony
with which online virtual identities are constructed and deconstructed
are key to usurping hierarchies that exist ofine—a goal of Cyberfeminist
pedagogy. That same play can be exacted on any and all course tech-
nologies whether to fnd workarounds or to solve problems. Ultimately,
Richards believes that “…cyberfeminist pedagogy should engage in three
major praxes: deliberate engagement and construction of virtual iden-
tities, a recursive refective process of online identities and participation,
and a playful and ironic relationship to classroom-based technologies”
(Richards, 2011, p. 18). Equipped with these approaches, any Feminist
educator could transition to an online classroom with confdence. And
yet, there are even more ways to design online courses with Feminist
pedagogy!
Gender studies professor Betsy Eudey also outlines many of these best
practices for online classrooms. To start, Eudey expresses a practice that
many Feminist educators also endorses in their work: using a construct-
ivist pedagogy. According to Eudey, such a pedagogy will “de-center the
authority of the instructor as transmitter of knowledge, promote student-
centered teaching approaches, encourage student-to-student interaction,
connect learning to lived experiences, and ‘emphasize students’ abilities
to solve real-life, practical problems” as well as “…alleviate a sense of
disconnection and isolation from classmates and instructors, recognize
the self-directed aspects of online learning, and create opportunities for
94 Shamika Klassen
students to test out their knowledge and understanding as a way to self-

check progress” (Eudey, 2012, p. 235). This approach reaps many benefts
for online learners and helps the educator shift into a more facilitator role
rather than an expert.
Another best practice from Eudey’s perspective involves how
educators engage with the technology itself. Eudey relies on Nancy
Chick and Holly Hassel’s work when she ascertains educators, “use
technologies to support pedagogical aims rather than allowing the
technologies to shape pedagogy” (Eudey, 2012, p. 248). It is important
to not allow the various gadgets and digital tools to lead the forma-
tion and construction of an online or hybrid course. In addition to
how to orient oneself with technology writ large, there is also a con-
sideration for working within the Internet itself. Here, Eudey lifts
Sharon Collingwood’s thoughts. Collingwood insists, “the feminist
classroom must prepare students for the rough-and-tumble nature of
Internet discourse” by “building social media literacy into the cur-
riculum, helping students to understand the ways in which online
communication and access is [sic] structured, coded, monitored,
supported, and/or responded to” (Eudey, 2012, p. 242). With these
goals in mind, we can now consider a specific example of Feminist
pedagogy manifesting in the online classroom: civic engagement and
service-learning.
We have already covered how service-learning upholds the aims of
Feminist pedagogy by helping students take the knowledge they have
learned and compare it to experiences outside of the classroom as well
as ofering students and activists in the community the opportunity
to organize and enact change together. When creating opportunities
for community learning in an online class, Feminist educators would
do well to keep a few items in mind. First, Eudey also has thoughts
around Cyberfeminism in the Feminist classroom to augment Richards’
points which relate to the social justice aims of service-learning. She
states “‘cyberfeminism’ should be reserved for those forms of activism
that not only utilize the Internet, but also include critical refection
of the ways in which sexism and other oppressions are components of
the online experience” (Eudey, 2012, p. 241). What this translates into
is the incorporation of Cyberfeminism into service-learning makes
the most sense when it is combined with engagement and wrestling
with any elements of oppression that are present within a person’s
experiences online.
While students will be using the Internet likely for some or all of their
civic engagement, educators will also need to help problematize the
Internet within that context. Eudey says it thusly:
The social justice aims of feminist pedagogies, women’s and

gender studies programs, and civic engagement can all be achieved
in online courses if projects are carefully designed to incorporate
knowledge/skill development, application, and refection, and to
capitalize upon and problematize the Internet as a site for activism
and communication.
(Eudey, 2012, p. 248)
Combined with the previous insight, Feminist educators are called to have
their learners use and critique the Internet as well as confront the digital
manifestations of oppressions that accompany online experiences. While
such advice is helpful, more concrete examples may also give educators a
leg up in their eforts to incorporate Feminist pedagogy into their online
classrooms. While Eudey’s article provides several complete examples of
how to create online civic engagement projects, here are a few ideas to
get educators started:
Examples of wholly online service projects include creating or digit-

izing materials and submitting these electronically to an agency;
posting materials to a website, wiki, blog, or social networking
page to support or promote agency activities or interests; creating
or expanding an online presence for an agency; interacting online
or by phone with agency clients, donors, or volunteers; working
with organizational databases; engaging in research and outreach
activities; and translating current agency materials into additional
languages.
(Eudey, 2012, p. 240)
Between utilizing Cyberfeminism and constructivist pedagogy,

engaging with and problematizing the Internet (and all technologies
brought into the online classroom), and crafting online civic engage-
ment projects, the sky is the limit for online classrooms to be steeped
in Feminist pedagogy. There is also a great opportunity for applying a
Technowomanist pedagogy to learning environments. Though a nas-
cent concept, the tenets of being interdisciplinary, intersectional, and
96 Shamika Klassen
engaging with technology (including the digital space) lend them-

selves well to being incorporated as part of an educational approach
for online learners.
Examples of Best Practices for Course Design That Engage

Women as Online Learners
When crafting a course with the intentionality of incorporating Feminist

pedagogy for online learners, women-identifed learners, in particular,
there are a number of best practices to lean on as a guide. Scholar Virginia
L. Byrne provides pertinent insights for engaging women as online
learners in her publication entitled, “Contemporary Online Course Design
Recommendations to Support Women’s Cognitive Development.” The
frst best practice, however, comes from Rebecca S. Richards and actu-
ally applies to all online learners. She states, “…students of all gendered
performances need to be encouraged to claim their uses of technolo-
gies if they are to challenge the sexist hierarchies of the material world”
(Richards, 2011, p. 18). While we will be focusing on women as online
learners, it is still important to note that dismantling gender inequity in
the classroom, on and ofine, will take addressing all students.
Before diving into more best practices, it is important to note why a
focus on women is important when designing an online course. Byrne
helps paint the picture that ofine issues with hierarchies and gender
inequity follow learners and educators into the digital classroom. Byrne
said “Gender power common in traditional learning environments is pre-
sent in online higher education classes, hindering women from experi-
encing the benefts of an equitable learning environment” (Byrne,
2018, p. 1). And even though online women learners on average earn
higher grades than their male counterparts, being silenced and critiqued
“hinder[s] women’s opportunities for learning” and dampers the process
of developing one’s voice which is a crucial element to higher educa-
tion results (Byrne, 2018, p. 1). All this being said, it is also important
not to approach addressing these issues from a defcit mentality that
sees male students as the standard and non-male-identifed students as
needing additional support or resources. Byrne instead advocates for “an
anti-defcit, Gender Mainstreaming approach in which the online course
design integrates inclusive practices across the learning environment
for all learners to enjoy” which results in a “women-friendly” learning
environment that does not see non-male students as needing additional

support (Byrne, 2018, p. 2). Researchers have studied diferences in online
learning between male- and female-identifed learners with mixed and
inconsistent results (Chyung, 2007). However, regardless of the identities
present in the learning environment, each one is unique and requires a
tailored approach for the learners involved and the content to be covered.
Byrne’s publication highlights two best practices in particular for
engaging women online learners which fall into the anti-defcit approach.
The frst practice is, “[a]ssessments are connected to learning objectives
and provide learners with feedback that is personalized, encouraging, and
recognizes what they know” (Byrne, 2018, p. 3). Byrne expresses that this
practice is rooted in Belenky et al.’s Women’s Way of Knowing (1986) which
lifted insights from over 100 interviews with women to discover the
importance of voice and co-creation in knowledge production within a
learning environment. This seminal work also infuenced Byrne’s second-
best practice: “[i]nstructors respect and connect class-related knowledge
to knowledge from frsthand experience, prior classes, and out-of-class
activities” (Byrne, 2018, p. 3). By acknowledging and folding in non-class-
related knowledge from students, educators can validate the knowledge
that their students carry, especially non-male-identifed students.
Conclusion
Feminisms and womanisms have had rich and full histories which we
only briefy touched upon in this chapter. Each has experienced waves
and epochs which shifted the focus and key players of feminism and
womanism. When these ideologies were applied to pedagogy beginning
in the 1960s through women’s studies courses and programs, their reach
broadened. Then, when those pedagogies engaged with the online and
digital classroom, a diferent manifestation and approach of Feminist and
Womanist ideas came into being. Best practices for online learners were
also explored to highlight the need for anti-defcit gender mainstream
and women/non-gender conforming friendly environments. One of the
main best practices in this regard involved recognizing experiences out-
side of classroom knowledge as valid knowledge from students as well as
shifting as an educator from expert to facilitator.
There is so much information available now about online learning and
separately Feminist pedagogy. The resources used in this chapter are by
98 Shamika Klassen
no means exhaustive of the nexus between online learning and Feminist

pedagogy. However, further research can be conducted on Womanist and
Technowomanist pedagogy in classrooms. Another recommendation for
further research involves opening our language around gender to include
other identities and learning about their needs in the classroom. As more
people are recognizing gender as the spectrum it is, those students will
need support and Feminist/Womanist pedagogies and their factions are
well equipped to take on the task of uncovering those needs and cele-
brating them. In addition to diving deeper into the histories of feminisms
and womanisms, reading the full text of the resources cited here would
help to keep the conversation going and encourage those educators to
even better understand how to design their learning environments for all
learners.
References
Allen, B. (1984). By design: Feminist ideas in the college classroom. Feminist

Teacher, 1(1), 29–31. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.colorado.idm.
oclc.org/stable/25684357?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_
contents.
Byrne, V. L. (2018). Contemporary online course design recommendations
to support women’s cognitive development. In Proceedings of the Fifth
Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (L@S ’18). Article 30, 1–4. doi:
10.1145/3231644.3231688.
Coleman, M. A. (2013). Introduction. In M. A. Coleman (Ed.), Ain’t I a womanist,
too?: Third wave womanist religious thought (pp. xiii–xvi). Fortress Press.
Consalvo, M. (2003). Cyberfeminism. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of new media
(pp. 108–110). SAGE Publications. https://study.sagepub.com/sites/default/
fles/Ch17_Cyberfeminism.pdf.
Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Age and gender diferences in online behavior, self-efcacy,
and academic performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 213–
222. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/106649/.
“Cynthia Cockburn.” (2014). The British Library. Retrieved from www.
bl.uk/people/cynthia-cockburn.
Davidson, R. (2017). First-wave feminism. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclo-
pedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4). SAGE Publications. doi:
10.4135/9781483381411.
Eudey, B. (2012). Civic Engagement, cyberfeminism, and online learning: Activism

and service learning in women’s and gender studies courses. Feminist Teacher,
22(3), 233–250. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.colorado.idm.oclc.
org/stable/10.5406/femteacher.22.3.0233#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Freedman, E. (2007). No turning back: The history of feminism and the future of
women. Ballantine Books.
Goddard, S. (2015). Techno-womanism: A moral imperative for social justice, faith,
and the digital space (Master’s Thesis). Union theological seminary in the
city of New York. Retrieved from https://academiccommons.columbia.
edu/doi/10.7916/D8RB73HX.
Goddard, S. & Woodley, X. (2019). Technowomanism: Foundations for social
justice in and through the technosphere. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,
657–664. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207712/.
hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.
Routledge.
Lefevre, S. T. P. (2017). Second wave feminism. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclo-
pedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4). SAGE Publications. doi:
10.4135/9781483381411.n558.
Paludi, M. A. (2014). Feminist pedagogy. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical
psychology. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7.
Richards, R. S. (2011). ‘I could have told you that wouldn’t work’: Cyberfeminist peda-
gogy in action. Feminist Teacher, 22(1), 5–22. doi: 10.5406/femteacher.22.1.0005.
Rodriguez, C. (1996). Anthropology and womanist theory: Claiming the dis-
course on gender, race, and culture. Womanist Theory and Research, 2(1), 3–11.
Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Polity Press.
Walker, A. (1983). In search of our mothers’ gardens: Womanist prose. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Zhou, Y., King, R., & Nadal, K. L. (2017). Women’s studies. In K. L. Nadal, S. L.
Mazzula, & D. P. Rivera (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender.
SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781483384269.n627.
Multiplying the 6
Possibilities of
Knowledge: Queering
Online Teaching and
Learning
Tabitha Parry Collins and Linda E. Oldham
Introduction to “Queer” and “Queering” as Terms
The term queer frst appeared in the English language around 1513
and was used to refer to something that was abnormal, peculiar, or odd
(Perlman, 2019). In the late 1890s, the Oxford English Dictionary noted
the use of queer (n.) to mean “homosexual” and by 1914, “queer” (adj.)
was commonly used to refer to someone identifed as or believed to be
homosexual (Perlman, 2019). Until the late 1980s, queer was used pejora-
tively and primarily by individuals outside the queer community or by
gay men to assert the diference between straight-passing, masculine
gay men, and those who were more overtly queer (Sycamore, 2008).
However, with the beginning of the gay rights movement at the height of
the AIDS epidemic (late 1980s/early 1990s), more LGBTQIA+ (lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus)
folks began using queer as an umbrella term for their community and
as a means to reclaim queer and express pride in their identities (Queer
Nation, 1990). By the early 2000s, defnitions of queer had again shifted to
refer to non-normative sexual orientations and gender identities, that is,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-7
Multiplying the Possibilities of Knowledge 101
those seen as outside normalized binary categories such as male/female,

heterosexual/homosexual; for example, those identifed as nonbinary,
gender fuid, transgender, pansexual, or asexual (Sycamore, 2008).
While the term queer has been defned in diferent ways since its
inception, queer theorists agree on two primary defnitions (Butler, 1990;
Jagose, 1996; Sedgwick, 1990; Shlasko, 2005). First, queer can be used as
an adjective to describe an individual. As described above, queer was pri-
marily used as a pejorative until queer activists began to reclaim the term
as an identity because it is provocative and radical (Queer Nation, 1990).
By the 2000s, queer had become a more common way of describing
people whose identities were non-normative, specifcally with regards
to sexual and gender identity (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Jagose, 1996,
Sycamore, 2008). This frst defnition is intended to incorporate a spec-
trum of identities and, for many, serves as a catchall for the LGBTQIA+
community (Mayo, 2014). Because the word queer (adjective) has been
used as a slur for non-heterosexual identifying people, many who identify
as queer do so as a political statement and as a way to reclaim the word
( Jagose, 1996; Marinucci, 2016).
The second defnition used by queer theorists addresses queer as a
verb, to queer something or to make it diferent ( Jagose, 1996; Reimers,
2010; Shlasko, 2005). Queering also includes acting in a way that disrupts,
challenges, and rejects society’s understanding of what is considered
normal (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Reimers, 2010; Shlasko, 2005). As a
strategy, queering can be used by educators, researchers, and any other
number of people as a means to complicate the practices, spaces, and
discourses in society that are viewed as normal and often left unques-
tioned (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Butler, 1990; Reimers, 2010). This can
be done in a number of ways, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
While queer as an identity is signifcant in queer theory, in this chapter we
focus on the second understanding of queer as we discuss queering online
teaching and learning, with attention to practices, spaces, and discourses.
History of Queer Theory
Queer theory emerged from lesbian and gay studies, homosexuality

studies, and women’s studies as a way of deconstructing the hegemonic
binaries that have long been relied upon within the aforementioned
felds (Marinucci, 2016). This is accomplishable because queer theory
“ofers a way of thinking about lesbian and gay sexualities beyond the
102 Tabitha Parry Collins and Linda E. Oldham
narrow rubrics of either deviance or preference” ( Jagose, 2009, p. 157).

This entails understanding the dominant discourses within society as
well as the ways that individuals’ identities are socially constructed and
maintained through hegemony, dominance, and power. Queer theory
provides a means of understanding individual experiences in ways that
attend to the various cultural and historical contexts that impact identity.
While queer theory necessitates attention on the identities of both the
creators and the consumers of queer texts, specifcally sexual orientation,
and gender identity, it also includes queer readings of non-queer texts.
Queer theory is viewed as an outgrowth of LGB and feminist studies
and politics, dating back to the early 1990s (while gay and lesbian lib-
eration movements started in the 1950s and advanced LGB studies/
theories); gay/lesbian studies focused its inquiries into natural and
unnatural behavior with respect to homosexual behavior; queer theory
expands its focus to any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into
normative/deviant categories ( Jagose, 1996; Marinucci, 2016; Shlasko,
2005). This theory draws on ideas from social constructivism, which is a
concept that proposes that social interactions create our realities and help
us to make meaning in our world (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Queer theory
assumes that the cultural context in which we live conveys meaning, and
therefore, our constructed world is a product of continuously making
claims, labeling, and constructing meaning (Butler, 1990; Creswell & Poth,
2018; Jagose, 1996). Finally, queer theory also allows space to understand
and incorporate any other intersectional identities of the participants,
including race, gender, and class.
Queer Theorists
There are numerous theorists associated with queer theory, but in this
section, we introduce you to three who inform this work and we briefy
discuss the theoretical ideologies that inform this chapter. Later in this
chapter, we propose a slight shift from queer theory to queer pedagogy,
which is defned and explored.
First, Annamarie Jagose’s (1996) text Queer Theory: An Introduction
helps to create a foundation for this chapter. Jagose (1996) discussed queer
theory as queer, feminist, and critical in nature, allowing for numerous
interpretations dependent on positionality and intersectionality, as
understood by Crenshaw (1991). This work introduced queer theory and
argued that the major challenge faced by queer theory is rooted in cre-
ating new ways of thinking about those notions which society considers
to be essential and fxed, such as sexuality and gender. Jagose (1996) also
afrmed queer as a fexible and shifting theory saying, “Queer has little to
gain from establishing itself as a monolithic descriptive category” ( Jagose,
1996, p. 126). Queer refuses to be put in a fxed category, but instead shifts
to fll the liminal spaces between binaries.
Judith Butler’s (1990) Gender Trouble is often seen as a foundational
text for understanding queer theory. Butler’s work focuses on demon-
strating that gender is performative, rather than an essential category,
and is performed through the repeating of normalized roles for men and
women in a given society. “Doing gender,” according to Butler (1990),
requires an understanding of the cultural norms and practices that are
seen as acceptable for men and women and embodying those norms.
Through repeated reinforcement, the socially constructed, binary cat-
egories of male and female are normalized and maintained within a given
society. Societies accepted ideas of what is normal remain so because
society reinforces and perpetuates them.
To solidify her arguments, Butler (1990) posited that almost anything
we, as humans, do is acceptable as long as society embraces it at the
time. That is, socially constructed ideas of gender, for instance, shift
within time and space; therefore, that which was socially acceptable for
one group at one point in history may not be at a diferent point. To
underscore this point, Butler (1990) used the example of a photograph
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt which shows him as a child wearing
a dress as was appropriate in that time period because it aligned with
society’s ideas of how boys should be dressed. In the current time, most
people view this as odd or even inappropriate since the constructed
rules of masculinity and femininity have changed over time and it is no
longer generally socially acceptable to dress a male child in a gown of
any sort.
Another important queer theorist we draw on is Eve Kosofosky
Sedgwick (1993) who defnes queer as “an open mesh of possibilities, gaps,
overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning
when the constituent elements of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or
can’t be made) to signify monolithically” (p. 8). Queer is diferent and
strange, but it is also full of possibility. Sedgwick (1990) also asserts that
queering (when used as a verb) lends itself to complicating diference,
which is a pedagogical necessity. Queer, as a pedagogical practice, works
to dismantle hierarchies of knowledge and the structures that keep

them in place (Sedgwick, 1993). In this way, queering is an act of love
and can be reparative, attentive to diference, political, hopeful, and ener-
getic (Sedgwick, 1990). Educators engaging with queer theory and the
queering of texts should do so as an act of care toward learners, particu-
larly those who concern themselves with meeting the needs of diverse
learners.
The Aims of Queer Theory
Queer theory, according to Marinucci (2016), aims to “recognize[s] that

meaning is conveyed not by defnitions of individual terms but by the con-
textual relations between and among various terms” (p. 44). Therefore,
queer theory has several aims which include: disrupting and dismantling
socially accepted normative identity categories, resisting heterosexist and
cissexist privilege, and drawing attention to the intersectionality of iden-
tities (Butler, 2004; Creswell & Poth, 2018; de Oliveira, 2014; Jagose, 1996;
2009; Lorber, 1994; Marinucci, 2016; Sedgwick, 1990).
Queer theory is often understood as a tool to increase inclusion within
society (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Marinucci, 2016; Plummer, 2011); how-
ever, it also foregrounds
the need to acknowledge that, while categories may be useful, per-

haps even necessary, for understanding oneself and relating with
others, no particular category or set of categories is itself neces-
sary, and even the most deeply entrenched categories are subject to
revision.
(Marinucci, 2016, p. 48)
Thus, queer theory invites a paradigm shift that is borne out of crisis,
which, according to Marinucci (2016) occurs “when the current para-
digm ceases to accommodate the world it helped to create” (p. 38). Queer
theorists advocate for paradigm shifts toward language that is inclusive
of varied identities and their intersections. In the case of queer theory,
a prime example is the ever-changing set of categories or labels that are
understood to comprise queer identities. Queer studies, which is used
now as a reclamation of a formerly pejorative word, was previously
known as LGB studies.
When the existing set of categories was no longer able to accommo-

date the expansion of identities, the feld shifted to using LGBT, LGBTQ,
LGBTQIAP+ (to cover those not included), and so on as a means of
including all identities which are viewed as alternatives to the heterosexual
norm (Marinucci, 2016). However, this paradigm is no longer sufcient for
queer theorists because it often implies binaristic and hierarchical ways of
thinking about gender, sex, and sexuality. Identity categories expanded
and shifted as acceptance of non-normative identities increased, and for
many, these categories are not a good ft any longer (Gold, 2018). The New
York Times, in honor of World Pride Day 2018, asked readers to share how
they identifed and the most commonly appearing terms, totaling almost
20, were published in Gold’s (2018) piece and included genderqueer, non-
binary, graysexual, and demisexual —terms that are not included in any
of the above acronyms. This quickly expanding list allows people to more
clearly express their identity and resists binaristic constructions that can
create tension.
Furthermore, queer theories focus on deconstructing identity cat-
egories and locating/dislocating the subject within these categories, which
are fuid, not fxed (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Marinucci, 2016). Queering (or
to queer) is often viewed as the deconstruction of the norms/normative
conceptions of gender binaries, but this defnition goes beyond gender
to include dominant and subordinate positionalities in society (Reimers,
2010). Thus, queer theorists are invested in working to “challenge and
undercut identity as singular, fxed, or normal” (Creswell & Poth, 2018,
p. 31), which necessitates the deconstruction of binary thinking in regard
to gender and sexuality. What’s more, Sedgwick (1990) noted that while
gender and sexuality are connected to one another and while they are
often misconstrued in society, they are not the same.
As a theoretical framework, queer theory exists as “an indeterminate
and shifting set of possibilities” (Shlasko, 2005, p. 123) rather than as a dis-
tinct theoretical model, thus existing in a marginal third space, and in line
with its foundational values. However, there are three tenants that are
applied loosely by those working with queer theory. First, queer theory
focuses on the social construction of reality, particularly the binary ways
of viewing the world by separating people into categories such as male
and female, straight and queer, cisgender and transgender, student and
teacher (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Lorber, 1994; Marinucci, 2016; Plummer,
2011; Reimers, 2010; Shlasko, 2005). Queer theory also privileges the
historically located and contextualized power structures that privilege
specifc groups over others (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Jagose, 1996, 2009;
Lather, 1991). Within this second tenant, theorists also attend to hege-
monic, cultural ideas about what is “normal,” which serves to create
an oppressive and unequal society based on group membership (Butler,
2004; Marinucci, 2016; Sedgwick, 1990). Finally, queer theory addresses
the possibility of change in the form of emancipation from these socially
constructed categories and seeks to spark transformation within society
at large (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Lather, 1991; Plummer, 2011).
Critiques of Queer Theory
A commonly cited critique of queer theory is the concern with who

is privileged within it. Scholars such as Kumashiro (2002) and Lovaas,
Elia, and Yep (2006) note a lack of intersectionality, especially regarding
race, within queer theory. Intersectionality is a term that was coined to
address the way that social identities, specifcally race and gender, overlap
in meaningful ways (Crenshaw, 1991). Kumashiro (2002) and other con-
temporary scholars working with queer theory often utilize a combin-
ation of theories as a means of addressing the need for intersectionality
and attention to people of color (Marinucci, 2016; Nemi Neto, 2018;
Reimers, 2010; Shlasko, 2005). While our focus in this chapter is not on
intersectionality, some of the recommendations for dealing with queer-
related microaggressions as they play out in online environments are also
applicable for situations that occur at the intersections of identities.
Additionally, queer politics, as they exist, tend to replicate society and
focus on empowering white men (Duggan, 2002; Kumashiro, 2002; Nemi
Neto, 2018; Smith, 2013). Even within marginalized groups, those with
more social privilege are the focus, much like the wider society which
means that a gay man who is white has more social power than a gay man
of color. Kumashiro (2002) notes that “The politics surrounding queer
identities and movements may be working to trouble the normalcy of
certain social markers like gender and sexual orientation, but are sim-
ultaneously reinforcing the marginalization of other markers like race”
(p. 366). That is, while queer theorists work to afrm non-normative
gender identities and sexual orientations, they often privilege whiteness,
thus reinforcing their dominance and power in society. Nemi Neto (2018)
noted that heteronormativity, which views heterosexuality and compli-
ance with normative gender roles as ideal, infuences the gay movement
by setting up social goals, like marriage, as the objective of every relation-

ship, leaving no room for more radical progress toward equality.
Queering Pedagogy
Like queer theory, queer pedagogy also resists a stable defnition

(Shlasko, 2005). Luhmann (1998) suggests that educators and educational
researchers are already working within queer frameworks, especially
when engaging with progressive pedagogies because they push against
the boundaries of traditional teaching and learning. Shlasko (2005) notes
that queer theories impact on discourse about gender and sexualities is
not unlike the impact of progressive pedagogies on mainstream educa-
tion: to critically examine what is “normal” and the existence of dominant
power relationships within society and to complicate binary categories,
such as that of student and teacher. Reimers (2010) suggests “emergenist
pedagogies” (p. 28) as a type of queer progressive pedagogy that stresses
the emergence of knowledge within the classroom environment, rather
than a predetermined curriculum dictating what students must learn and
know. Allowing learner’s choice in the content they learn and encour-
aging autonomy within the classroom is just one way to queer pedagogy.
According to Shlasko (2005), the goal of queer pedagogy should be to
“constantly multiply the possibilities of knowledge” (p. 128). Educators
queer their pedagogy or enact a queer pedagogy through constant
questioning of that which is deemed normal within an educational con-
text. Nemi Neto (2018) says that queer pedagogy
seeks to contribute to practices of education, analyzing the fu-

idity and the mobility of society and afrming that educational
institutions should not attach themselves to one set model, since
these ideals end up alienating, even excluding, certain individuals.
(p. 591)
Those who are alienated often belong to marginalized groups and are indi-
viduals who have experienced discrimination and exclusion throughout
their lives due to diferences.
Queer pedagogues push against the constructed, binary categories
and challenge themselves and the students with whom they interact to
do the same. While scholars and educators come to queer pedagogy for
various reasons, often personal and political reasons, queer is not just for
the LGBTQIA+ community. In fact, enacting a queer pedagogy is benef-
cial for any educators who will engage with marginalized groups.
Queer pedagogy is met with critiques regarding a lack of intersectio-
nality, much like queer theory (Smith, 2013). Without attention to intersec-
tional identities, normalcy is not challenged, it is privileged; thus, inclusion
within these systems becomes desirable and the measure for acceptance
in society (Duggan, 2002). The end result of this deradicalization is that
whiteness becomes the norm and those who are part of the dominant
group are included in mainstream society, further marginalizing people
of color and reinforcing the desire for white respectability (Shlasko, 2005;
Smith, 2013). If queer is to be a deconstructive practice, as Sedgwick
(1993) proposes, then queer theorists, scholars, pedagogues, and activists
must be aware of and radically engage with intersectionality.
Applying Queer Pedagogy to Traditional Teaching

and Learning
Traditional teaching and learning environments allow for queering peda-

gogy in a number of ways. First, Shlasko (2005) discusses complicity in
terms of education, noting that educators are complicit in the educa-
tion system because the educational system both afects and is afected
by educators working within the system, including the construction of
knowledge. Therefore, Shlasko (2005) ofers a focus on questions, rather
than answers, as a means of applying queer pedagogy in the classroom
environment. Queer pedagogy does not pose the “right” knowledge as
the answer or solution (Nemi Neto, 2018; Shlasko, 2005), rather it “pose[s]
knowledge as an interminable question” (Luhmann, 1998, p. 9).
Queer pedagogues, including Shlasko (2005), focus on the knowledge/
ignorance and teacher/students’ binaries as both impact power relations
within the learning environment (Luhmann, 1998). Queer pedagogy,
among other progressive pedagogies, “is critical of mainstream educa-
tion as a site for the reproduction of unequal power relations” (Luhmann,
1998, p. 1), therefore queering one’s pedagogy necessitates engaging
with the messy process of unlearning as well as teaching and learning.
Unlearning and questioning socially accepted binaries, such as teacher-
student, allows for a reframing as co-learners and co-creators of know-
ledge within classrooms and between teacher and student(s).
By “problematizing the very school structure, the normalization of

teaching per se, and of the fxed and exclusionary content that is presented”
(Nemi Neto, 2018, p. 591), queer pedagogy can help educators to think
diferently about teaching and learning. This can be done by making
space in the curriculum for voices that are often silenced (Nemi Neto,
2018), for counterstorytelling (Wagaman, Obejero, & Gregory, 2018) and
creating a space for diference. Britzman (1995) notes that queer peda-
gogy does not advocate for the diference to be normalized; instead, it
proposes that diference should be recognized and validated despite the
pressure to conform.
Within the classroom environment, queer pedagogy can be used to
encourage/instruct learners to practice reading texts queerly. Reading
queerly necessitates seeking out queer/potentially queer meanings in
texts rather than those that support normalcy. This can be accomplished
in the classroom by encouraging learners to question the text and their
own understanding of the texts, to constantly question both in terms
of what is socially accepted as “normal” (Luhmann, 1998; Nemi Neto,
2018; Shlasko, 2005). Representations of queer-identifed people in class-
room materials work as excellent conversation starters (Nemi Neto, 2018)
and can be incorporated in all content areas because queer people are
mathematicians, scientists, writers, explorers, and artists, among others.
Queer Pedagogy in Online Teaching and Learning
This section focuses on applications and potential applications of

queering online teaching and learning and is organized into three cat-
egories: practices, spaces, and discourses. First, we focus on teaching
practices which include potential teaching strategies. Then, we discuss
queering online educational spaces, and fnally, we shift our focus to
queering discourses.
Queering Practices, Spaces, and Discourses
In queering online teaching and learning, educators commit to questioning

the teaching practices that are normal or unquestioned (Barnett &
Johnson, 2015; Butler, 1990; Reimers, 2010). As in traditional teaching and
learning, educators who queer their online teaching practices disrupt the
power dynamic between educator and student. This disruption privileges

the knowledge students bring with them into the online classroom
setting, thereby disrupting the internalized defcit thinking that some
educators possess. Additionally, these educators constantly interrogate
their own understandings of knowledge and of what online teaching and
learning is and can be.
The convenience of online courses is that they can be taken asyn-
chronously. As a result, online educators must intentionally consider the
pedagogical practices they employ to engage students, as they cannot
rely on traditional face-to-face practices. Online teaching and learning
values the learner’s independence to incidentally learn new informa-
tion (Keengwe & Kidd, 2010) so educators’ content and course must be
designed with this in mind.
Online educational spaces have the potential to be less interactive than
their face-to-face counterparts. This is, in part, due to the absence of
shared physical space. However, course design also contributes to a lack
of student engagement. Students reported being disengaged in online
learning when instructors designed courses with assignments, discussions,
and activities that were too straightforward, lacked practical application
and did not engage them in the process of deep thinking about the course
content (Buelow, Barry, & Rich, 2018).
Educators who teach in online environments can queer their online
spaces through the privileging of experiential knowledge and providing
space for learners to engage with and learn from each other. In these
spaces, instructors provide students opportunities to utilize their funds of
knowledge (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2006). Instructors design learning
experiences that extend beyond the online learning environment, and
students are encouraged to incorporate lived experiences into their
academic learning as a way to increase engagement and deepen their
understanding of the content (Buelow, Barry, & Rich, 2018).
Consider the existing course curriculum and incorporate texts about
and from the perspective of queer people, but go a step further and
encourage learners to read all texts queerly (Shlasko, 2005). Including
readings that explicitly highlight queer identities or are authored by queer-
identifed folks is an excellent starting point, but only allow for a shallow
understanding of queer/queering. Instead, encourage self-refective,
queer reading throughout the class and model this by asking learners to
question their engagement with the text and consider how it could have
a diferent meaning for someone else. In this way, learners begin to think
queerly and critically about the readings, themselves, and those they are
in community with.
Inquiry is a queering pedagogy that requires learners to engage with
and interrogate their previous understandings and their new learnings.
An example queering a traditional educational practice for the online
environment is in the questioning of how educators use a simple graphic
organizer like the KWL chart (Ogle, 1986). This three-column graphic
organizer with the headings “What I Know,” “What I Want to Know,” and
“What I Learned” is a reading strategy used in K12 education designed to
activate a students’ prior knowledge, set a purpose for reading, and record
new learnings after reading nonfction text. In online teaching and
learning, educators can use collaborative whiteboards to record informa-
tion in ways that privilege the collective knowledge of the group over
the knowledge of the individual. Typically, as a before, during, and after
reading strategy, the usefulness of the KWL chart ends after students have
fnished reading. This suggests that the learning or the curiosity about
a topic ends at the conclusion of the reading. A number of adaptations
attempt to remedy this through the addition of columns that maintain
the overall structure of the activity, but do not necessarily encourage the
continuous engagement that allows students to visualize how their curi-
osities become new knowledge that then breeds new curiosities.
Reimagining this chart without the fnal column allows for digital
movement of information from the inquiry column to the knowledge
column, providing for a more dynamic learning experience where
questioning and curiosity are at the center of the learning.
Within K12 education, a challenge faced by online educators is
recording instructional minutes or instructional days. Because asyn-
chronous interactions are more abundant in online courses, K12 edu-
cational institutions must interrogate what they consider best practices.
Does time logged into the learning management system count toward
instructional minutes or days or will teachers shift to a grading system
that privileges mastery of the content or skill? To queer online teaching
and learning practices is also to queer the assessment practices educators
and educational institutions use to determine a learner’s mastery of the
content.
If an aim of queer theory is to increase inclusion, online educators
must employ practices that include and allow access to a variety of
learners. Much like how Glazier (2016) suggests that educators can build
relationships with their students through the use of video and audio,
educators can facilitate the queering of online discussions, which typic-

ally take place in text-heavy discussion boards, through the incorporation
of audio and video into those traditional discussion spaces, providing an
opportunity for learners in diferent categories to contribute to and access
the collective knowledge of the group in a variety of ways.
A queered online educational space is akin to what Gee (2014) referred
to as afnity spaces. In an afnity space, a space where people with a
common interest go to engage with that interest, the organization of the
space is as important as the people who inhabit the space. To extrapolate
from a game-based learning environment to a non-game-based learning
environment, the ways in which the educator constructs and guides
learners to co-construct the space afect the culture of the virtual class-
room, the educator-learner relationship, and the learner-learner relation-
ship. The intentionality involved in building classroom community in such
a way that it becomes an afnity space, where learners are committed to
the learning of a particular subject matter, and trust is cultivated in such a
way that the disruption of binary thought, heteronormativity, and homo-
phobia is as much an aspect of the learning as the content presented.
Gee (2014) notes that afnity spaces are difcult to establish and main-
tain, though the development of these spaces may look diferent within
the constraints of an educational institution than they do in open online
spaces.
Queering discourse in online teaching and learning environments may
also ask educators to trouble how they can expand discourse between
learners to not only include synchronous video meetings and asyn-
chronous message boards to include the realistic ways in which learners
communicate, as well as why these two methods are the most utilized and
accepted. Integration of social media platforms and the afnity groups
cultivated in those spaces presents a potential for meaningful discourse in
authentic environments.
Space is almost infnite online, and there are a wide variety of online
environments that are conducive to learning. Educators need not limit
their course design to the prescribed online learning management system
(such as Canvas, Google Classroom, and Blackboard), but can introduce
learners to a variety of tools online that create experiential learning envir-
onments. Attention to space also necessitates careful attention to and
engagement with asynchronous modes of communication online, such
as discussion boards, to ensure that those are also safe(r) spaces for all
learners.
For example, asking students to develop a professional learning net-

work on platforms like Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok related to their area
of study integrates personalized content learning with social technolo-
gies many students already use (New Mexico State University, 2020). In
this way, students are asked to leave the confnes of the online learning
environment and engage with the content authentically.
Within these online social environments, learners may have the oppor-
tunity to engage in deeper or more meaningful learning in spaces where
they are not bound by the expectation of academic discourse as the
acceptable method of communication.
In order to cultivate safe(r) online spaces for teaching and learning,
educators and learners must interrogate the language used to con-
struct those spaces. Attention needs to be paid to the “inequities and
disruptions in computer-mediated and online courses, such as those
caused by homophobic faming and the subtle intimidations enacted
through heteronormative language” (Alexander & Banks, 2004, p. 275).
Ignoring homophobia and homophobic comments teaches intolerance
and reinforces dominant heterosexist and heteronormative ideologies
(Meyer, 2007). More generally, language that reinforces binaries, whether
related to sexuality or gender, tacitly teaches intolerance for those whose
lived experiences exist outside the established binary.
Overt macroaggressions are easier to recognize and address: they are
personal attacks against another person using homophobic, transphobic,
or gendered terms meant to belittle the object of the attack rather than
that person’s course-related ideas. Microaggressions, covert discrimin-
atory acts, or comments that marginalized groups experience regularly
(Sue et al., 2007) are sometimes more challenging to address. Language
like, “that’s so gay” to refer to something distasteful, questions like, “Do
you have a boyfriend?” to someone perceived to be female, and comments
like, “You’re diferent from other queer people,” to someone perceived to
be diferent from the stereotype of a certain type of queer person serve
to marginalize queer-identifying students and reinforce heterosexist and
heteronormative experience.
Learners are not passive information receptacles, rather they are individ-
uals who have been socialized since birth and steeped in ways of knowing
unique to their families and communities. We suggest using questioning
to disrupt the use of these types of phrases and questions. A simple
question to ask is, “With that question or statement, what assumptions
are you making about this other student?” This is a non-threatening way
to guide students to examine and refect upon the language they use that
may unknowingly alienate their peers and engage in real conversation
about the efects of and the assumptions inherent in the language they
use to communicate and connect with peers.
To create and maintain safe spaces for all learners, it is imperative that
instructors stop the homophobic language, engage learners in an inter-
rogation of their language, and educate them about the consequences
of homophobic language not only in person but also in online spaces
(Lapointe, 2016).
One way to create and maintain safe spaces for all learners is through
mutually crafted and agreed-upon norms and expectations. The co-
creation of a course contract provides opportunities for students to take
ownership over the tone of the online space. This set of expectations
provides a reference point for students to guide their own online behavior,
redirect the behavior of their peers, and an anchor point for instructor/
student conversation, if necessary. In the crafting of this contract, guide
students to consider how language afects people in general and queer or
other marginalized voices specifcally.
This course contract is the frst step to building community in an online
educational space. Additionally, the ability to see and interact with their
peers, whether it occurs through synchronous video course meetings, or
through asynchronous video postings, can facilitate the building of com-
munity, reminding students of their peers’ humanity.
Conclusion
We began this chapter by providing historical context for the term queer
and then briefy describing the two most prevalent defnitions among
queer theorists. Queer (adj.) is used to describe a person whose sexu-
ality or gender identity is non-normative. Queer (v.) also means to make
something diferent. With these defnitions in mind, we provided a brief
history of queer theory, to include three notable queer theorists whose
work we draw on. Next, we addressed the aims of queer theory and its
critiques before moving on to a discussion of queering pedagogy, where
we underscored the necessity of incorporating student knowledge in the
curriculum as a way to engage students and maintain investment in the
content. Signifcant to this discussion is the importance of building on
student knowledge by approaching instructional design and planning
by asking questions of yourself and of the learners. The fnal section of

this chapter focused on queering practices, spaces, and discourses in the
context of online teaching and learning with recommendations about
instructional approaches, creating safe(r) spaces and interrogating lan-
guage used to reinforce the oppression of marginalized groups. Queering
pedagogy, space, and discourse is important for disrupting the systems of
power that exist within academic spaces that serve to further reinforce
oppressive ideologies and engage students critically with content.
References
Alexander, J., & Banks, W. P. (2004). Sexualities, technologies, and the teaching
of writing: A critical overview. Computers and Composition, 21, 273–294.
Barnett, J. T., & Johnson, C. W. (2015). Queer. In S. Thomson (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of diversity and social justice (p. 580). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefeld.
Britzman, D. (1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight.
Educational Theory, 45(2), 151–165.
Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement
with online students. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 313–340. doi: 10.24059/
old.v22i4.1384.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 34(6), 1241–1299.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among fve approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Oliveira, J. M. (2014). Troubling humanity: Towards a queer feminist critical
psychology. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 11, 41–58.
Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neo-
liberalism. In R. Castronovo, & D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democ-
racy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Freitag, M. (2013). A queer geography of a school: Landscapes of safe(r) spaces.
Confero, 1(2), 123–161.
Gee. J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing afnity spaces and game-based learning.
In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, learning, and society:
Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 129–155). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2014). Literacy and education. Routledge.

Glazier, R. A. (2016). Building rapport to improve retention and success in online
classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 436–443.
Gold, M. (2018, June 21). The ABCs of L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge:
Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York: Melbourne University
Press.
Jagose, A. (2009). Feminism’s queer theory. Feminism and Psychology, 19(2),
157–174.
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and
teaching in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2),
533–541.
Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive peda-
gogy. New York: Routledge.
Lapointe, A. A. (2016). Queering the social studies: Lessons to be learned from
Canadian secondary school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Social Studies
Research, 40, 205–215.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the post-
modern. New York: Routledge.
Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lovaas, K. E., Elia, J. P., & Yep, G. A. (2006). Shifting ground(s): Surveying the
contested terrain of LGBT studies and queer theory. Journal of Homosexuality,
52(1–2), 1–18.
Luhmann, S. (1998). Queering/querying pedagogy? Or, pedagogy is a pretty
queer thing. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f789/
3c95e540f1f2c10981adee807e2b56cec767.pdf.
Marinucci, M. (2016). Feminism is queer: The intimate connection between queer
theory and feminist theory (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
Mayo, C. (2014). LGBTQ youth & education: Policies and practices. New York:
Teacher College Press.
Meyer, E. J. (2007). “But I’m not gay”: What straight teachers need to know
about queer theory. In N. M. Rodriguez, & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Queering straight
teachers: Discourse and identity in education (pp. 15–32). Peter Lang.
Nemi Neto, J. (2018). Queer pedagogy: Approaches to inclusive teaching. Policy
Futures in Education, 16(5), 589–604.
New Mexico State University. (2020). EDLT 368: Integrating technology with
teaching [Course syllabus]. Available from the New Mexico State Canvas web-
site: learn.nmsu.edu.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of

expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.
Perlman, M. (2019, January 22). How the word ‘queer’ was adopted by the LGBTQ
community. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/language_
corner/queer.php.
Plummer, K. (2011). Critical humanism and queer theory: Living with the
tensions. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quali-
tative research (4th ed.) (pp. 195–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Inc.
Queer Nation. (1990). Queers read this. Retrieved from http://www.qrd.org/
qrd/misc/text/queers.read.this.
Reimers, E. (2010). Homotolerance or queer pedagogy? In L. Martinsson, & E.
Reimers (Eds.), Norm-strugles: Sexualities in contentions (pp. 14–28). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkley: University of California
Press.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Tendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Smith, K. (2013). Decolonizing queer pedagogy. Journal of Women and Social
Work, 28(4), 468–470.
Shlasko, G. D. (2005). Queer (v.) pedagogy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38,
123–134.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M.,
Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. E. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday
life: Implications for counseling. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.
Sycamore, M. B. (2008). That’s revolting: Queer strategies for resisting assimilation.
New York: Soft Skull Press.
Wagaman, M., Obejero, R., & Gregory, J. (2018). Countering the norm,
(re)authoring our lives: The promise counterstorytelling holds as a research
methodology with LGBTQ youth and beyond. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 17(1). doi: 10.1177/1609406918800646.
Using Freirean and 7
Rogerian Theory to
Create Anti-Racist
and Peace-Based
Intersectional Online
Learning Communities
Jennifer L. Martin, Denise K. Bockmier-Sommers,
Christopher L. Harris and Martin D. Martsch
Introduction
There has been much recent debate in higher education about how best
to deliver online instruction. Engaging online students through multiple
and varied modes of instruction, interaction, and participation is key
to optimal engagement, a satisfying classroom experience, and overall
learning. The need for heightened student engagement is particularly
salient with content considered to be “unsafe,” or troubling to students
(i.e., content pertaining to critical social justice (CSJ) issues involving
race, class, and sexuality, and other non-hegemonic identities). In this
chapter, we call on theorists Paulo Freire and Carl Rogers, Quality Matters
principles, and accessible design practices in order to deliver anti-racist
content in online learning environments. We will discuss peace education
as another pedagogical approach that may aid in delivering “unsafe con-
tent” in online environments.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-8
Freirean and Rogerian Theory 119
As critical pedagogues, we argue that CSJ work is crucial in our politic-

ally contentious world and particularly crucial in the wake of the global
pandemic that is COVID-19 coupled with the uprisings of the summer
of 2020 in response to state-sanctioned violence against Black Americans
by the police. These are classroom conversations that can no longer
be ignored, but those that should be broached together as a classroom
community—the professor learning along with their students. Since
violence has many diferent forms and impacts all people in ways that
often intersect and are interconnected, we argue that teaching students
through peace-based pedagogy is also a critical component for creating
classrooms that are conducive to these conversations.
Freire (1970) critiqued the banking model of education or the method
of teaching where students are empty vessels: the professor as a dissem-
inator of knowledge and the students as passive recipients. In this model,
students are not active in their own knowledge production or creation.
As individuals living in vexing times, we face social, cultural, economic,
and ethical issues on a daily basis; thus, students must be able to relate
to, apply, and create relevant knowledge pertaining to current issues
and unfamiliar situations that they might face in their careers (Mayo,
2002, 2004; Yadav et al., 2014). Often, these issues involve not only the
understanding of but also the appreciation of diversity. Yet, these are dif-
fcult conversations to have, particularly online and particularly for hege-
monic (white) students.
Carl Rogers believed that the relationship was of paramount import-
ance to the therapeutic relationship. According to Rogers, establishing
a safe and trusting relationship helped the client work through their
issues, resulting in successful outcomes. In much the same way, Rogers
applied his theory to education. Rogers found that showing students
empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard facilitated a safe
and trusting learning environment where students could become more
engaged and more able to deeply discuss course content. Rogers (1969)
posited that empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard are
necessary to establish a safe relationship between professor and student.
Empathy is defned as “…the emotional and cognitive ability to feel the
problems or distress of another person combined with the desire to help
or to relieve his/her distress” (Tausch & Huls, 2014, p. 136). Genuineness
is communicated by the professor being authentic and transparent.
Unconditional positive regard is derived from the professor’s acceptance
of the student—regardless of circumstances. Bockmier-Sommers, Chen
and Martsch (2017) found a relationship between the three conditions
120 Jennifer L. Martin et al.
(empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard) and increased

student engagement.
Ultimately, and in addition to course content, the professor creates the
socio-psychological aspects of the classroom environment, selecting the
topics that initiate and facilitate dialogue—and creating conditions where
students can also make curricular choices. However, in order for students
to be willing to look deep within themselves, the classroom environment
must feel safe, where students feel free to disclose deeply held beliefs
that reinforce biases (e.g., where students can authentically discuss their
fears of “the Other”). We argue that the utilization of Rogers’s model in
online environments will minimize the transactional distance between
professor and student and thus seek to open students to unsafe content,
minimizing potential student resistance and alienation and increasing
their empathy for those diferent from them. In this chapter, we create
and assess unique online learning communities (both undergraduate
and graduate, in education and human services felds) that encourage
students to confront biases within themselves, which are deeply rooted
within their perceptions of reality.
In addition to examining the theories of Freire and Rogers, which
underpin our work, we will share our preliminary empirical pilot study
on the efectiveness of our propositions. This chapter will also include
practitioner suggestions on how to create online courses according to
Rogers’s model of three interactive components: to convey empathy,
genuineness, and unconditional positive regard, as well as on how to
create counter-narratives within online environments. We caution the
reader that this chapter is theory-heavy; we spend the majority of the
chapter explaining and laying out the theory, and then we bring in prelim-
inary survey research to support our theory. This work is still in progress
and will expand beyond this chapter.
Relevant Literature and Theory
Carl Rogers’s Three Conditions
Bockmier-Sommers, Chen, and Martsch (2017) found that when

professors possess Rogers’s three conditions (empathy, genuineness,
and positive regard), student engagement increases. We apply Rogerian
theories to unique, intentionally created online learning environments
with CSJ and anti-racist foci. That is, intentionally created open dialogue
can help students realize the injustices of racism, homophobia, ageism,
sexism, and ableism. Students also have the potential to see systemic and
institutionalized “isms,” which is crucial to CSJ and anti-racist practice—
a key to this is moving beyond the self and having the opportunity to
live in someone else’s shoes. Lai and colleagues (2014) found that high
engagement with counter-stereotypical counter-stories can be efective
in reducing implicit biases, which is key in understanding and embracing
diversity. Direct participant engagement with counter-stories that inten-
tionally dismantle stereotypes can impact how messages are processed,
thus reducing implicit biases (Martin & Beese, 2020).
Expectations for students studying to be working professionals in the
felds of education and human services include compassion and empathy
for their students and clients, a sense of caring and, most importantly,
a commitment to CSJ and anti-racism. The latter is the underpinning
sentiment of the desire to correct social ills in the interest of the public
good. We acknowledge the importance for educators and human service
professionals to recognize CSJ issues involving race, class, gender, sexu-
ality, ableism, as well as to understand intersectionality.
Our research regarding online learning environments pertains to asyn-
chronous online classes. Creating a community of learners, or a com-
munity of inquiry, can be difcult in asynchronous settings because
communication often takes place in the form of writing; facial cues and
other forms of nonverbal communication may be absent (Cleveland-
Innes & Campbell, 2012). Also, students may have fewer opportunities
to get to know one another—perhaps never being asked to engage with
their peers in any meaningful way (Loeb, 2020; Whiteside et al., 2017).
We posit that when teaching CSJ online, the asynchronous component
further complicates the building of relationships, both student to student
and professor to student.
Peace Education as Pedagogy
Peace education exists as a feld that allows researchers, practitioners, and

educators to approach learning from multiple perspectives and discip-
lines, thus allowing them to address a range of societal issues such as vio-
lence, peace, and injustice. Perhaps, one of the greatest features of peace
education is its malleable nature, which allows it to address innumerable
issues. First, it is important to have an understanding and defnition of

what peace is and why it is important and necessary for a just society.
Pescara-Kovach, Dagostino-Kalniz, and Snauwaert (2005) provide the
following defnition of peace:
Peace is a cooperative and internally ordered social condition. For

peace to exist there must be a signifcant degree of mutual respect
between individuals. Peace is a social order wherein the human
rights based in the human dignity of every member is respected.
There can be no peace without justice. A just peace is fundamen-
tally an orderly cooperative social condition founded upon mutual
respect for the inherent dignity of every human being.
(p. 47)
Key pieces to take away from this quote and it’s conceptualization of
peace include the need for mutual respect between individuals, human
dignity being upheld and respected, as well as justice being present.
Indeed, if these requirements are not met, then peace is unable to exist.
Yilmaz (2018) notes that peace prevents violence in all respects, as
well as promoting forgiveness, collaboration, tolerance for diversity,
fairness and equity. According to Bajaj (2008), the goal of peace educa-
tion “is the transformation of educational content, structure, and peda-
gogy to address direct and structural forms of violence at all levels” (p. 1).
Furthermore, Mustapha, Petrol, and Nwahukwu (2016) ofer a conceptu-
alization of the purpose of peace education that furthers previous ideas
stated by including the psychological impact that violence has on individ-
uals, particularly that of young people, and how education can intercede
on the behalf of the youth:
The idea of peace education is anchored on the belief that if wars

begin in the human mind then it ends through our minds, through
education that war can be vanquished by peace. Peace education
refers to the process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and values needed to bring about behavior changes that will enable
children, youth and adults to prevent confict and violence, both
overt and structural; to resolve confict peacefully; and to create the
conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, inter-
personal, intergroup, national or international level.
(p. 365)
Yilmaz (2018) notes the power of the human mind, and the power of edu-
cation in not only upholding peace but vanquishing the ills that prohibit
its existence. This idea is a bedrock of the purpose of peace education:
to empower learners to be changemakers in their societies, regardless of
race, socioeconomic status, gender identity, etc.
Peace education has many diferent approaches and conceptualizations,
as it is a feld that educators and practitioners alike seek to use in
diferent areas. Perhaps, two of the most relevant approaches and
conceptualizations to peace education are as follows: one, understanding
violence and its many forms as the core problem of society, and two,
viewing peace education through a critical lens, i.e., Critical Peace
Education. Examining violence through critical peace education ofers a
chance to attack violence directly, aiming at the structural and systemic
ways in which violence operates. This is of particular interest to education
in general and online learning environments more specifcally because
peace education is positioned in a way to challenge students’ biases
and create dialogue that impacts them and their peers through viewing
violence through a lens of intersectionality. Yilmaz (2018) stresses the
importance of establishing a social structure “that is based on freedom,
justice, democracy, and toleration” in response to an increase in national
and international social problems related to religious, ethnic, political,
and economic factors (p. 141).
This dynamic of a multidimensional structure of violence means that
Peace Education, a multidimensional feld of study, is perfectly suited to
address violence, which theorists like Galtung (2013), Reardon (1999), and
Yilmaz (2018) identify as being the core problem of society. Because vio-
lence impacts every living being in diferent ways, everyone should have
a stake in eradicating violence. To acquire a stake in eradicating violence,
people must be able to speak authentically and openly. In order to speak
authentically and openly, people must feel safe. Again, facilitating safety
can be achieved by using Rogers’ three conditions (empathy, congruence,
and unconditional positive regard).
The Real and the Imagined Self: Cognitive Dissonance,

Racism, and Freire
Freire’s conception of literacy, the ability to “read the world,” serves as

our litmus test for CSJ literacy; CSJ literacy is crucial for those working in
education and human services. However, CSJ work does not come without
its challenges. As most students in these felds are currently majority
white, resistance to the cause of CSJ is not uncommon (DiAngelo, 2018).
According to DiAngelo (2018), “Given that the majority of white people
live in racial isolation from people of color (and black people in particular)
and have very few authentic cross-racial relationships, white people are
deeply infuenced by the racial messages in flms” (pp. 31–32). Unless a flm
is an “Own Voices” flm, a flm written, produced, acted, and created by
those whose stories are depicted, stereotypes can abound. It may become
more problematic when these flms depict white teachers working in
inner-city schools/environments. For example, flms like Dangerous
Minds, Freedom Writers, and Music of the Heart depict white saviors in the
form of white women as teachers, transforming inner-city schools and
the students who attend them. As critical pedagogues, we must dismantle
this reading of Students of Color with our predominantly white female
students. However, this will not be easy work, particularly online.
As DiAngelo (2018) has demonstrated, white fragility, i.e., the defensive-
ness a white person exhibits when confronted by information about racism,
prevents many whites from understanding that they beneft from centuries
of white supremacy. As we work to recruit more teachers of color and
human services professionals of color, we must continue to prepare white
students to be culturally responsive; to examine and work to dismantle
stereotyped, defcit, and biased beliefs; and to embrace the principles of CSJ.
Peace Education aims to develop a critical consciousness within its
proponents, which is necessary for true transformational change to be
enacted. Critical Peace Education is rooted in the works of Paulo Freire.
According to Bartlett (2008), Freire’s key concepts include the following:
• Viewing education as a political act. Education is often impacted by

political agendas and the legislature, directly and indirectly.
• Banking education, where “a relationship of domination in which the
teacher has knowledge that she deposits into the heads of the passive
objects of assistance – her students” (Bartlett, 2008, p. 3), is particu-
larly destructive and unconducive to the type of teaching that can
create empathy, genuineness, and positive regard between educators
and their students.
• Education, through peace pedagogy, focuses on teachers and
students having equity in the classroom. Fairness and equality must
be modeled in the classroom before they can be taught through
lessons. Relationships between teachers and students should thus be

democratic.
• In the end, teachers and students should work together to create or
construct knowledge. This should be one of the main goals of any
kind of education but is integral in the transformative nature of peace
pedagogy.
These ideas build upon the ideas of Freire, who argued for a critical con-
sciousness where students are able to question knowledge instead of
blindly internalizing the knowledge imparted by teachers without any
questioning or investigation (Bartlett, 2008). Again, this is why critical
consciousness is integral; one must be able to understand what exact
needs an individual or an entire community possesses in order to address
diferent forms of violence and injustices within their own context.
Applying a critical lens to these forms of violence ofers liberation
according to Freire. According to Bartlett (2008), education “… can be
used for liberation, just as it has been used for oppression” (p. 2). Through
dialogical encounters, students develop a critical consciousness of social,
political, and economic contradictions so that they can take action against
them (Bartlett, 2008, p. 3). Our students are to be our future leaders and
must be prepared to think for themselves and to think critically.
Mustapha, Petrol and Nwahukwu (2016) assert that young people
may exhibit violent behavior, including anger, frequent loss of temper,
extreme irritability, and becoming easily frustrated among others—as
well as bullying, fghting, and aggressiveness. They argue that “including
non-violence through Peace Education may impact on such child’s
behavior” (p. 365). This assertion shows the need for a critical lens to be
applied to Peace Education, to prepare students to think for themselves
and to analyze social structures within their own society. In order to apply
Freirean and Rogerian Theory, frst, we recommend the language of
Peace Education be used to create safer, nonviolent dialogue.
Pilot Study: Applying Freirean and Rogerian Theory

in the Online Classroom
As we are just beginning to test our theoretical model here empirically,

we share preliminary data from a pilot study. Our intention is to gather
additional data which will add to the validity and robustness of the model.
Participants
Twenty-two undergraduate and graduate students from a small mid-

western university participated in this study. Students participating in
this study were predominantly white and female. Toward the end of the
semester, participants were asked to complete a survey that was based
upon the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI). The BLRI
measures levels of regard, empathy, unconditionality, and congruence (or
genuineness).
Treatment1
The theoretical model we used to teach online classes was previously

developed by the two lead authors and entitled Building a Path Toward
Social Justice: A Theoretical Model. While we propose the model for
online classes, it can also be used in on ground classes as well. The model
evolved out of a need to provide a safe space for students to discuss dif-
fcult topics such as racism, LGBTQ+ issues, sexism, and other -isms
as they relate to CSJ. This theoretical model, based on using empathy,
genuineness, and unconditional positive regard in all interactions with
students, ventures to create such a space. Grounded on a foundation of
empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard, professors use
self-disclosure, facilitative exercises, and an open and dynamic classroom
to further facilitate students’ feelings of safety, social justice, and student
self-disclosure. The safer students feel, the more they will interact with
each other regardless of Otherness. Ultimately, students will develop
relationships with other students who are diferent from them. According
to the model, as this process occurs, students are more likely to diminish
conscious and unconscious discriminatory thought, feelings, and actions.
The following pilot study represents our preliminary endeavor to test this
model (Figure 7.1).
Measure
The BLRI measures level of regard, empathy, unconditionality, and con-

gruence (or genuineness). The BLRI splits Rogers’s three conditions
into four: separating unconditional positive regard into level of regard
DITIO
ON
NS
C
CTICE
RA
S
RE UT
COM
SU
ES
O
FA
LO
GE
Y
CI
SC
TH
NU
LI
ROWT
I
TA
PA
-D
IN
G
SO
LF
TY
TIV
EM
EN
CI
SE
FE
ES
E
AL
SA
EX
R
S
HE
RELATIONSHIP JU
ER
AC
WITH ST
CI
IC
TE
SE
“THE OTHER” E
S
STUDENT SELF DISCLOSURE
OPEN/DYNAMIC CLASSROOM
UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD
Figure 7.1 Building a Path Toward Social Justice: A Theoretical Model.
and unconditionality. Level of regard is defned as the “response of one

person in relation to another” (Barrett-Lennard, 2015, p. 11). Empathy
is “the extent to which one person is conscious of the immediate and
felt awareness of another” (Barrett-Lennard, 2015, p. 10). According to
Barrett-Lennard (2015), unconditionality is defned as “how little or how
much variability there is in one person’s afective response to another”
(p. 11). Congruence (or genuineness) is “the extent of his/her relation-
ship with another, such that there is absence of confict or inconsistency
between the frst person’s total experience” (Barrett-Lennard, 2015, p. 11).
The BLRI was modifed from 64-items to 50-items. This survey uses a
combination of positively and negatively worded statements in order to
reduce bias. For this study, we reverse coded some of the data such that
the larger number on the Likert Scale represented the more positive atti-
tude or agreement with the statement. For example, if a participant rated
an item measuring empathy as 6, the interpretation would be that the
professor achieved the highest level of empathy after reverse coding some
statements.
An example of a statement for the measure of level of regard may
sound something like, “She can mostly see what I mean.” An example
of a statement for the measure of empathy is, “She respects me.” An
example of a statement for the measure of unconditionally is, “Her
interest in me depends on how well I learn.” An example of a statement
for the measure of level of congruence/genuineness is, “I feel that she
is genuine—talks to me (us) straight.” Participants answered using a
1 (I strongly feel that it is not true) to 6 (I strongly feel that it is true)
scale. High scores indicate high levels of regard, empathy, uncondition-
ality, and congruence. The score may range from a low of 50 to a high
of 300.
Results
The questionnaire was administered to 23 students. Of these, only 18

were complete with no missing data (Table 7.1).
We found that scores of 3.5 or above represent positive relationships for
the professor’s expression of the four conditions. Again, the BLRI splits
Rogers’s three conditions into four: separating unconditional positive
Table 7.1 Scale Means

Condition Level of Empathy Unconditionality Congruence Total
Regard (Genuineness)
Survey items 1, 7, 8, 2, 3, 9, 4, 5, 10, 14, 23, 6, 11, 15, 18, (50 Items)
12, 16, 13, 17, 35, 40, 45, 49 19, 24, 25,
20, 21, 22, 26, (9 items) 30, 31, 36,
28, 32, 27, 29, 41, 46,
33, 37, 34, 38, 48, 50 (14
42 (12 39, 43, items)
items) 44, 47
(15
items)
Mean 4.64 4.36 3.76 4.56 4.37
Standard 1.29 1.05 0.77 0.51 0.83
deviation
regard into level of regard and unconditionality (as two separate scales).
The lowest total score for the four conditions in this pilot study is uncon-
ditionality. In other words, some students felt that their professors did not
value them unconditionally.
It may be that unconditionality is more difcult to express, par-
ticularly in an online environment. It may also be that students who
harbor biased or racist views feel that if they express those views they
will be devalued by the professors, thus making their relationship
more conditional. In other words, tackling issues of CSJ may limit stu-
dent perceptions of a professor’s unconditionality. We also wondered
if grade assignment impacts student perceptions of a professor’s
unconditionality.
It also may be that unconditionality is more difcult to achieve and
that professors must work harder to achieve it, especially when doing CSJ
work, especially when teaching online. In sum, our data indicate a split on
the two subscales of regard and unconditionality (formerly unconditional
positive regard). We fnd this to be extremely interesting and worthy of
further investigation.
Future Research
In future, we plan to test the model again using a more detailed study. We
may have two similar groups, taught by the same professor not yet trained
in Rogers methodology, one not receiving the treatment (application of
the model). After semester’s end and survey completions, the professor
would receive training in the model and then teach the same class again
the following semester. We could compare data from the two courses
to examine diferences. Also, in order to get at the intangible aspects of
unconditionality, we could conduct focus groups or individual interviews
(not led by their professors) with students in order to determine any
information on student perceptions of feeling their relationships with
professors being conditional.
Practitioner Suggestions
The following suggestions may assist professors in intentionally planning

their online courses so that the conditions are apparent before any
interaction with students occurs. According to Swan (2003), there are six
best practices when designing and teaching online:
1. Create clear goals and instructions

2. Devise varied presentation of course content
3. Develop active and engaging learning exercises
4. Provide students with feedback and clarity
5. Be fexible as students are achieving their learning goals
6. Provide students with mentoring and support
In addition, using audio/video feedback creates stronger presence and

is an excellent medium to convey empathy, genuineness, and uncondi-
tional positive regard. Using brief audio/video introductions to each
week’s course work can create excitement and give students directions
about what to expect and what to know. Using Socratic questioning in
discussions helps students move deeper into the material.
Suggested Activities to Build CSJ
Students must struggle with the idea of colorblindness, and professors

must create the conditions for dominant students to see how color and
identity blindness can damage all students, but particularly Students of
Color. Direct student involvement with counter-stories that intentionally
dismantle stereotypes can reduce implicit biases (Martin & Beese, 2020).
Students relating to counter-stereotypical characters can increase their
sense of empathy for others (Libby, 1991). For example, when students
envision being assaulted by a white man and rescued by a Black man, a
reduction of implicit biases about the stereotype of Black male as violent
are reduced (Lai et al., 2014). Case studies and young adult fction are
great resources, and students tend to like their inclusion in courses and
assignments.
Quality Matters
In an efort to ensure quality among online courses and content creation

in education, many institutions utilize Quality Matters, including rubrics
and resources for educators. Quality Matters identifes seven factors
that afect the quality of online content, including course design, course
delivery, course content, institutional infrastructure, LMS, faculty readi-
ness, and student readiness.
Quality Matters has a number of general standards to all QM rubrics as
well, which include the following:
1. Course overview and Introduction

2. Learning Objectives (Competencies)
3. Assessment and Measurement
4. Instructional Materials
5. Learning Activities and Learner Interaction
6. Course Technology
7. Learner Support
8. Accessibility and Usability
Quality matters especially in the context of creating culturally responsive

online content and courses, as the delivery of the course and its content
must be able to engage students with content that may be deemed as
“unsafe” or troubling to students (i.e., content pertaining to critical social
justice (CSJ) issues involving race, class, and sexuality, and other non-
hegemonic identities). Quality Matters is created for this exact purpose,
in that it enables educators to closely review, critique, and revise their
course and its components on a holistic level, with alignment of all crit-
ical course elements building the basis of a solid course. The principles
of Quality Matters are integral to this study and the delivery of course
content.
Universal Design: Online Courses
When designing online learning environments, it is crucial that we do so

with accessibility in mind—for this is an inherent value of CSJ. According
to Universal Design for Learning practices, there are ten steps for creating
online courses.
1. Create an accessibility statement.

2. Ensure that navigation is easy and consistent.
3. Write link descriptions (as opposed to crying and pasting links for
videos and websites).
4. Use and expect classroom etiquette in all forms of communication.

5. Do not use colored fonts to convey meaning or emphasis.
6. Use fonts consistently; ensure readability of all used fonts.
7. Conduct accessibility checks on all documents.
8. Describe all graphics using alternative text.
9. Caption videos and proofread the transcripts.
10. Create and provide edited transcripts for audio clips.
Adapted from: https://ualr.edu/disability/online-education/.
Discussion
In order to do CSJ online, professors must build a strong community of

learners who feel safe enough to make themselves vulnerable in order
to move from their comfort zones and confront their own biases and
discuss the societal problems that are perpetuated because of these
frmly entrenched biases. Anti-racist pedagogues address difcult and
complicated conversations of race and other forms of prejudice in our
society, but also must be mindful of the diferences between hegemonic
and non-hegemonic students within the same classroom.
Students perceived their professors as possessing empathy with a
mean rating of 4.36 out of 6.00, which indicated an above average
rating meaning that students felt understood. When students are
understood, they are more likely to feel safe to disclose. Students
perceived their professors as congruent or genuine as indicated by
their mean rating of 4.56 out of 6.00. Genuineness engenders in the
student a feeling of trust for the professor. When students trust,
they are more likely to believe what the professor is saying. Taken
together, the students’ perception that the professor is empathetic and
genuine serves to help students feel safe in any classroom, online or
on-ground.
While level of regard received the highest mean rating (4.64) in our
pilot study, unconditionality received the lowest rating (3.76). In Rogers’s
theory, both constructs are combined into one, unconditional positive
regard, making the divergence of the two scores curious. Our pilot data
indicate that unconditionality is more difcult for professors to achieve—
or perhaps it is simply more difcult to measure. It may be that professors
must work much harder to achieve it. Does unconditionality seem
unattainable because professors must grade or evaluate students’ work?

If so, is there a “solution” to this issue? Additionally, tackling issues of CSJ
may limit student perceptions of a professor’s level of unconditionality.
These questions and issues warrant further study.
While the generalizability of these results is limited because of a
small sample size and use of a convenience sample, the study does point
toward some interesting results. The beginnings of above average scores
in the areas of empathy level of regard, and genuineness, when using
the model establishes a base of safety from which to launch professor
self-disclosure, facilitative exercises, and an open and dynamic classroom
to further an increase in students’ feelings of safety, CSJ, and student
self-disclosure.
Conclusions
Critical to protecting non-hegemonic students from being asked to speak

for their entire group creates a safer space where students are freer to
speak if they so choose. Likewise, creating a safe space for non-hegemonic
students must include protection from prejudice and insensitivity on the
part of hegemonic students. Parameters of discussions must be immedi-
ately established to address the aforementioned concerns.
Key to both hegemonic and non-hegemonic students developing a
sense of safety, we contend that the students must feel a level of empathy,
regard, and genuineness emanating from their professors. Without this
foundation of afective conditions, we contend that students will be reluc-
tant to engage in honest and open discussion. Our fndings refect above
average student perceptions of empathy, level of regard, and genuineness.
As discussed, unconditionality may be more difcult to achieve in the
traditional academic setting. However, more research is necessary in this
area.
Note
1 As cited in: Martin, J. L., & Bockmier-Sommers, D. K. (In press). Evolving

toward critical social justice online: A Rogerian-based theoretical model. In E.
Mikulec, & T. Ramalho (Eds.), Best practices in teaching critical pedagogy online.
New York: DIO Press.
References
Bajaj, M. (2008). Introduction. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace education

(Vol. 5, pp, 135–146). Information Age Publishing Co.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2015). The relationship inventory: A complete resource and
guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Bartlett, L. (2008). Paulo Freire and Peace Education. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of peace education (Vol. 5, pp. 39–46). Information Age Publishing Co.
Bockmier-Sommers, D., Chen, C., & Martsch, M. (2017). Student perception
of teacher empathy, high regard and genuineness and the impact on student
engagement. e-mentor, 70(3), 66–72.
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and
the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open
in Distance Learning, 13(4), 269–292.
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about
racism. Beacon Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum Publishing Company.
Galtung, J., & Fischer, D. (2013). Johan Galtung: Pioneer of peace research. Springer.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. L., Joy-Gaba, … Nosek,
B. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investi-
gation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143,
1765–1785.
Libby, P. (1991). Barriers to using cases in accounting education. Issues in
Accounting Education, 6(2), 193–213. doi:10.2308/iace.2010.25.2.347
Loeb, S. (2020, March 20). How efective is online learning? What the research
does and doesn’t tell us. Education Week. Retrieved from: https://www.
edweek.org/technology/opinion-how-efective-is-online-learning-what-the-
research-does-and-doesnt-tell-us/2020/03.
Martin, J. L., & Beese, J. A. (2020). Moving beyond the lecture: Inspiring social
justice engagement through counter-story using case study pedagogy. The
Educational Forum. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1730531.
Mayo, J. A. (2002). Case-based instruction: A technique for increasing conceptual
application in introductory psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 15,
65–74.
Mayo, J. A. (2004). Using case-based instruction to bridge the gap between theory
and practice in psychology of adjustment. Journal of Constructivist Psychology,
17, 137–146.
Mustapha, G. A., Petrol, H. M. B., & Nwahukwu, K. I. (2016). Peace education

as a counselling strategy for inculcating non-violence value in children living
in confict areas. Counsellor, 35(1/2), 363–371.
Pescara-Kovach, L., Dagostino-Kalniz, V., & Snauwaert, D. T. (2005). School
shootings and suicides: Why we must stop the bullies. Pearson Publishers.
Reardon, B. A. (1999). Peace education: A review and projection. Peace Education
Reports, No. 17. Columbia University Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S.
Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology (pp. 151–168). Routledge.
Tausch, R., & Huls, R. (2014). Students, patients, and employees cry out for
empathy. In On becoming an efective: Person-centered teaching, psychology, phil-
osophy, and dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon, C. R. Rogers, H. C.
Lyon, & R. Tausch Jr. (eds.) (pp. 134–146). Routledge.
Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Swan, K. (Eds.). (2017). Social presence in
online learning. Online Learning Consortium.
Yadav, A., Vinh, M., Shaver, G. M., Meckl, P., & Firebaugh, S. (2014). Case-based
instruction: Improving students’ conceptual understanding through cases in
a mechanical engineering course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5),
659–677.
Yilmaz, F. (2018). Road to peace education: Peace and violence from the view-
point of children. International Education Studies, 11(8), 141–152.
Telecollaboration 8
and Critical Cultural
Connections
Patricia S. McClure and Lauren Cifuentes
Introduction
Linking distant classrooms together online, called telecollaboration in

the United States and twinning in the European Union model, creates
a centralized yet diverse learning environment (Müller-Hartmann &
O’Dowd, 2017; Waldman, Harel, & Schwab, 2019). Lack of critical peda-
gogy in these online intercultural exchanges is controversial among
educators promoting cultural competence and global citizenship. O’Dowd
(2015) argues that telecollaboration helps students develop beliefs and
attitudes regarding culture, communication, collaboration, and commu-
nity orientation toward social justice and global citizenship. Meanwhile,
Ciftci (2016) contends that telecollaboration is insufcient as a critical
application; indeed, he claims this practice, used by itself, promotes
white privilege. This chapter’s authors’ experiences support that thesis.
Therefore, we encourage using Critical Theory (CT) or Critical Race
Theory (CRT) when organizing, designing, modeling, and implementing
telecollaboration.
Most online instructors agree that telecollaboration is an efective
cross-cultural instructional practice for developing citizenship and
cultural knowledge. However, where this agreement usually ends is
whether teachers consider using a critical theoretical framework when
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-9
Critical Cultural Connections 137
designing a telecollaboration project. Research supports the practice

of designing telecollaboration using critical theoretical frameworks
(Ciftci, 2016; Hauck, 2019; O’Dowd, 2015; Truong-White & McLean,
2015; Waldman et al., 2019). However, the same research reveals that
telecollaboration projects often disintegrate into a superfcial “surfng
of diversity” because teachers and students lack the skills for discussing
difcult topics (Kramsch, 2014, p. 98). Therefore, our views are that
teachers who facilitate telecollaboration need to be grounded in crit-
ical theory and know how to apply it with students when conducting
intercultural exchanges.
The current wave of nationalism and isolationism has separated
the US citizenry from valuable global conversations and perspectives.
Using online education technologies can collapse distance and barriers,
making it possible to intentionally pair diverse classrooms across the
North American continent and globally. However, many teachers, mainly
white Euro-American educators, lack cognitive and emotional skills to
engage constructively across racial and cultural divides (DiAngelo, 2011).
These teachers are unaware of their racist ideology and bias and often
view themselves as their students’ saviors rather than advocates (Grant,
Lee, & Lyttle, 2018). Thinking they know what racism is and looks
like, the teachers, in reality, promote dehumanizing microaggressions
in order to maintain a non-racist classroom (Settlage, 2011). Therefore,
educators must internalize and apply culturally responsive and anti-racist
pedagogies.
Telecollaboration: What It Is and What It’s Not
Online intercultural learning was initiated with the dawn of the Internet.
For instance, in the late 20th century, multicultural studies explored
connections between students in Central Texas with students in the
Rio Grande Valley, Mexico City, Taiwan, Poland, and France. Students
conducted collaborative intercultural dialogues across geographical
distances using telecommunications technologies (Cifuentes & Dylak,
2007; Cifuentes & Murphy, 2000a; Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Shih &
Cifuentes, 2003). Those exchanges fostered relationships among the
teachers and students, blending two separate classrooms into one online
learning circle (Riel, 2014). Students worked and learned together using
their diversity as a learning resource (Cifuentes & Murphy, 2000b). These
138 Patricia S. McClure and Lauren Cifuentes
collaborative learning environments encouraged intercultural dialogue

among students in international classrooms.
Telecollaboration’s initial purpose was to provide online intercultural
exchanges between students in classrooms in diferent cultures and nations
in order to promote global and multicultural understanding and citizen-
ship (Cifuentes & Murphy, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann,
2018). However, today in the post-COVID pandemic era, telecollaboration
provides an ideal collaborative online learning platform for developing
critical consciousness. Issues regarding global learning, digital literacy,
and social justice education are real-world problems set in real time.
Telecollaboration afords heterogeneous groups with diverse learning and
cultural knowledge to coproduce deductive knowledge and develop sustain-
able, workable, and relevant solutions. This learning sharply contrasts with
the homogeneous classrooms in the United States, distributing standards-
based inductive knowledge among students to reinforce hegemony.
Telecollaboration promotes global citizenship, including the critical
understanding that all humanity is interdependent and interconnected,
and humans depend on one another for mutual survival (Krutka,
Carano, Cassell, Lavoie, & Davidson-Taylor, 2019). However, critical
understanding must transform into social action. For example, exploring
climate change through the lens of CRT encourages discussions framing
race as the master category for oppression. Through the CRT lens,
students can learn how the racist policies that drive consumer behaviors in
the Global North directly afect the climate and lives in the Global South.
The co-creation of the students’ intercultural critical consciousness on
this topic results in students exploring this life-threatening problem more
deeply. Telecollaboration develops cross-cultural communication skills
(Cifuentes & Murphy, 2000b; Kumi-Yeboah, 2018). These skills include
recognizing that it is the diferences among people that provide solutions
to human rights issues, racism, sexism, homophobia, and the degradation
and exploitation of the planet. Using cultural diferences to identify and
solve problems reduces the Euro-Western culture’s control of know-
ledge, economy, innovation, science, medicine, and the arts for the past
600 years. Cross-cultural communication abates the white Euro-Western
voice while raising Black, Indigenous, People of Color’s (BIPOC) voices,
thus creating, at long last, a more balanced and equitable conversation.
Such conversations encourage equity by disrupting the Euro-Western
power structure while decolonizing education, science, economy, and the
humanities.
Global citizenship skills converge with cross-cultural skills in

telecollaboration so that learners might build relationships that con-
tribute to their broad sense of humanity (Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley,
Irvine, Nieto, Schofeld, & Stephan, 2001; Marx & Kim, 2019; Merz &
Fox, 2016; Schenker, 2012). Eight specifc learning outcomes from the
combined two skill sets are specifc opportunities to decolonize Euro-
Western curricula and disrupt the typical hegemonic learning environ-
ment (O’Dowd, 2015; Schenker, 2012). Purposely using students’ cultural
ways of knowing in the collaborative learning environment reinforces
these learning outcomes (see Figure 8.1). Culturally responsive educators
Global Citizenship Cross-Cultural Skills
Socialization & Relationship

Building Skills
Critical Thinking &

Problem-Solving Skills
Communication
Language & Literacy Development
Personal Growth Development
Technology Skill Development
Development of
‘Value-Added’ Skill-Sets
Self-Reflection
Decolonization & Disruption of Hegemonic Learning
Figure 8.1 Telecollaboration Learning Outcomes.

use their students’ cultural knowledge as a powerful socio-cultural and

socio-historical foundation when designing activity-oriented, problem-
based inquiry and goal-based instruction (Nieto & Bode, 2018). Students
co-develop critical consciousness with one another when sharing their
cultural and community experiences during an inquiry-based and
problem-posing lesson. Therefore, the telecollaborative lessons’ frst
learning outcome includes developing socialization skills to converse,
dialogue, and negotiate with those who think, look, and act diferently
from oneself.
Another telecollaborative learning outcome strengthens students’
understanding of collaborating and cooperating with others. Instead of
embracing the Euro-Western concept that individualism and competi-
tion are most desirable, students learn that competition can be damaging.
At the same time, a collaboration focused on the common good often
obtains sustainable results. Collaborative learning among diverse minds
also develops positive race-consciousness, critical cultural thinking, and a
social justice orientation (Feagin, 2020; Marx & Kim, 2019). For example,
learning about capitalism through the eyes of overseas sweatshop workers
who make consumer goods sold in the United States instead of through
the eyes of middle-class Americans may generate discussions about priv-
ilege and equity.
Students learning how to communicate interculturally is another crit-
ical learning outcome. Learning to listen actively is equally important
as learning to express oneself succinctly. Learning how to listen more
and ofer less dialogue framed in white privilege are essential listening
skills for Euro-Western students to incorporate. Communication prof-
ciencies and collaborative learning also aid the development of language
and literacy among individual students. Finally, understanding that Euro-
Western communication methods are not universal and that people com-
municate diferently based on race, culture, and community supports
both the communication learning outcome and the language and literacy
development outcomes.
A ffth learning outcome is personal growth, especially toward adapt-
ability, fexibility, and broadmindedness. Personal growth development
includes positive race-awareness, critical consciousness, and the ability
to self-refect about one’s relationship with other people and the envir-
onment (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Self-awareness can develop through
conversations explaining a cultural or societal nuance to a cross-cultural
partner (O’Dowd, 2015). The development of these personal growth
attributes often leads to students’ abilities to recognize and respect

diferences. Alongside developing an understanding that diferences exist,
students can begin to recognize their own internal biases and ignorance
toward those diferences (Camardese & Peled, 2014).
Technology skills are essential for learning in online cross-cultural
environments. Reciprocally, developing such skills is an outcome of
cross-cultural exchanges. (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Corresponding
with the technology learning outcome is the “value-added” skill set
of intercultural and digital literacy, the ability to communicate cross-
culturally (Hauck, 2019). These outcomes often involve collaborative
problem-solving projects that engage learners in citizenship and com-
munity service activities, volunteerism, writing political blogs, and cre-
ating political videos for their social networks (Truong-White & McLean,
2015). The fnal telecollaborative learning outcome is self-refection that
provides learners opportunities to refect on their character, actions, and
motives.
Telecollaboration is not about “feel-good” gatherings for sharing
recipes and songs to learn about a culture other than one’s own.
Multicultural lessons in the United States often celebrate superfcial
aspects of immigrant and minoritized cultures to contrast the dominant
white Euro-American culture (Hawkman, 2020; Zhang, 2012). Cringe-
worthy attempts to promote diversity in education, like designating one
month out of the year for Black History or Women’s History, perpetuates
and reinforces stereotypes. Authentic race- and cultural-knowledge must
originate from that perspective, not from white epistemic knowledge.
Intentionally using critical intercultural pedagogies when planning and
implementing telecollaboration ensures that multiple perspectives will
be equally heard and respected to support co-construction of cultural-
consciousness and race-consciousness among learners.
Research shows that it is difcult for people to change prejudices and
negative stereotypes. Race-consciousness is resistant to change because
this form of consciousness is neurologically and emotionally developed
(Feagin, 2020; Eliyahu-Levi, 2020). Therefore, teachers and students with
strong prejudices against people from other races and cultures may have
difculties learning and interacting in environments that encourage
decolonization and disruption to hegemonic learning. Difculties arise
when the typical Euro-Western education setting for white supremacy,
color-evasive, and non-racism no longer dominates the learning environ-
ment. Cultural discourse becomes uncertain and threatening; therefore,
it is essential to know how to use the Critical Race theoretical framework

to create a non-threatening learning environment for everyone.
Theoretical Framework: Critical Theory/Critical

Race Theory
When designing a telecollaboration project, it is crucial to understand

how the phenomenon of consciousness develops critical thinking and
awareness (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Freire (1972), problem-posing
education leads to critical consciousness. Problem-posing education
within a safe learning environment uses the language of the oppressed
to move students and teachers to action as they formulate resistance
strategies. This type of education helps students develop the critical
consciousness to see, name, and challenge oppression. In the United
States, the race is the master category for oppression (Feagin, 2020;
Kendi, 2019).
Using CT or CRT as a theoretical framework reveals to students the
racial power structures in education. Because the US education system
centers on whiteness in curriculum and instruction, it uses color-evasive
language to frame an imagined reality where the white Euro-American
culture is superior to all other cultures (DiAngelo, 2011; Leonardo,
2009; Unzueta and Lowery, 2008). Color-evasiveness, commonly
known as “colorblind” racism, is the latest form of racial hegemony
advancing racist policies without appearing racist. Color-evasive edu-
cation develops citizenry, policies, and outcomes profoundly and sys-
temically racist (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Choi, 2008; Gordon, 2008; King &
Chandler, 2016).
The notion of privilege and superiority is often invisible to white
Euro-Americans; therefore, when telecollaboration projects are not
grounded in any critical theoretical framework, they devolve into a “feel-
good,” color-evasive exercise promoting the supremacy of the white
Euro-American culture. Without a critical framework, color-evasive
white Euro-American educators may exhibit a savior complex, much
like past white missionaries and colonizers interacting with “exotic”
cultures. White Euro-American educators lacking race-consciousness
often view themselves as saviors rather than as allies or advocates for
all their students. The white Euro-American perception that Black,
Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) Americans need “saving” mirrors
the assumptions that only Western nations can solve the problems that
emergent nations cannot.
The application of CT or CRT to online learning is advantageous
because, in recent decades, technologies have evolved such that, with
access, anyone can contribute to the content of human discourse. While
an educated global citizenry critically applies technologies to connect
with others from diferent cultures and backgrounds, large swaths of
race-ignorant citizenry connect with one another to spread conspiratorial
misinformation and disinformation using the same technology. Lies, con-
spiracy theories, and misinformation spread faster through social media
than factual information (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018). According to
MacPherson (2010), efective telecollaboration practices require critical
awareness when making choices and sharing power with co-teachers and
learners to foster critical problem-solving and factually accurate cross-
cultural communities.
Ideally, telecollaboration teachers step into the role of social justice
change agents who arbitrate and agonize over maintaining a just and
safe learning environment but remain fearless when stepping up to
address injustice. Telecollaboration teachers consciously possess cultur-
ally responsive, social justice, and anti-racist behaviors to avoid roman-
ticizing diversity or creating a shallow multicultural learning excursion.
Critical conscious educators also help students identify lies, misinforma-
tion, and conspiratorial nonsense on social media and dubious online
“news” sources. Actors who use technology to create false information
in an age of information engage in the form of hegemonic oppression
against diverse information and knowledge. Applying the CT or CRT
framework to online learning is one powerful strategy against this form
of oppression.
Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogies
Intercultural critical consciousness orients toward social activism, cul-

tural awareness, social justice, and the political. Lack of intercultural
critical consciousness ignorantly injects white supremacist and
racist ideology into the learning environment (MacPherson, 2010).
Developing the emotional constructs of cultural sensitivity, tolerance,
empathy, and the ability to self-refect organizes a critically conscious
mind. Before developing students’ intercultural critical consciousness,
teachers must frst develop critical consciousness within themselves.

Using both culturally relevant and culturally responsive teaching as a
pedagogical framework helps guide intercultural critical consciousness
teaching practices.
Culturally relevant teaching afrms students’ personal and cultural
knowledge within a collaborative learning environment and provides
means for supporting students as they develop their critical conscious-
ness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The combination of curriculum, content,
and instructional strategies provides students opportunities to identify,
challenge, and disrupt structural inequities. More importantly, culturally
relevant learning environments provide a safe learning space for students.
Using a culturally relevant framework in a telecollaboration learning
environment bridges individual knowledge with community knowledge
(Banks et al., 2001). Relevant learning builds on experiences students
bring with them from their cultures and communities.
On the other hand, culturally responsive teaching uses students’
cultural knowledge to teach content. By focusing on personal and cul-
tural strengths, teachers use prior knowledge when introducing crit-
ical analysis and problem-posing methods for students to use when
learning about social issues (Gay, 2018; Sleeter & Flores Carmona, 2017).
Culturally responsive educators use their students’ cultural knowledge
when designing instruction (Nieto & Bode, 2018). In telecollaboration,
culturally responsive teachers identify and draw attention to cultural
appropriation and shallow cultural connections in color-evasive, non-
racist classrooms. Using culturally responsive pedagogies builds socially
aware citizens by minimizing shallow multicultural lessons, methods, and
practices (Krutka et al., 2019).
Teachers who use both culturally relevant and culturally responsive
pedagogies build students’ academic and social abilities by building
upon their personal and cultural knowledge. Although the two peda-
gogies have slightly diferent approaches in activating students’ know-
ledge for learning purposes, teachers, particularly those grounded in
CT or CRT theoretical framework, can easily apply both pedagogies to
telecollaboration projects. Culturally relevant and responsive teachers
should hold high academic standards, build on student knowledge,
and develop the students’ critical consciousness and awareness about
oppression and power (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). The cultural
capital individual students bring into the learning environment is cur-
ricular assets benefting all students.
Student learning, academic achievement, and rigor are paramount

to teachers who practice culturally responsive and relevant pedagogies.
These teachers think deeply about the content, why they teach it, and
how they must teach it. They do not engage in defcit thinking that
achievement gaps result from uneducable students because of their
race, culture, or gender. It is non-racist and color-evasive educators who
suggest that low test scores and high dropout rates are racial and cultural
indicators of student behavior. Teachers grounded in CT or CRT know
that standardized tests, educational policies, curriculum, and instruction
create the illusion that white Euro-American students and spaces are
smarter (Kendi, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Therefore, these teachers
think deeply about using culturally relevant and responsive practices to
disrupt white supremacy in education.
Practicing cultural pluralism in telecollaborative projects allows all
students to maintain their unique individual identities while developing
an interdependent relationship with one another (Eliyahu-Levi, 2020).
Adopting the culturally responsive and relevant principle of promoting
respect for all learners’ cultural identities helps develop a healthy inter-
dependent relationship (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). A culturally
pluralist learning environment allows the individual development of a
student while engaging in collaborative learning. In telecollaborative
projects implemented from a CT approach, students learn to recognize
and honor their own identities while learning and respecting their peers’
identities.
Lastly, developing sociopolitical consciousness, or critical conscious-
ness, is a core culturally relevant and responsive principle. This prin-
ciple stresses the importance of providing educational opportunities
for learners to obtain knowledge, attitudes, and skills that contribute to
their respect, understanding, and solidarity among diverse ethnic, social,
cultural, and religious groups and nations. Teachers should encourage
students to question and think about why specifc societal and institu-
tional structures are in place and empower students to see themselves as
agents of change and social justice. They should ask students to challenge
and disrupt inequities among themselves, their communities, and the
larger society.
There is no template, checklist, or specifc instructions for using CT,
CRT, and Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogies. These the-
ories and pedagogies inform instructional practices instead of providing
a “how-to” guide. More importantly, theories and pedagogies provide
the lens for teachers to view their students, the curriculum and content,
and their role as teachers. Teachers approaching their practice from these
frameworks also bring cohesion and strength to these theories and peda-
gogies. However, centering students’ personal and cultural knowledge at
the heart of the teachers’ practice remains the most powerful instructional
strategy.
Equity Education: Using Student Knowledge
Teachers who do not recognize students’ prior knowledge outside the

classroom may exhibit a defcit mentality toward their students (Sleeter &
Flores Carmona, 2017; Valencia, 2010). This defcit mentality perpetuates
stereotypes such as assumptions that certain groups of students know less
than Euro-Western students or value education less than Euro-Western
families. BIPOC students often remain silent in the classroom due to their
teachers’ failure to recognize their cultural knowledge, race knowledge,
and community knowledge.
It is the teacher’s responsibility to become familiar with their
students’ cultural and race knowledge and bring to school. Teachers
should respectfully explore their students’ communities to understand
the primary sources and producers of the students’ community- and
home-based knowledge. To introduce a relevant lesson to students,
the teacher engages the students in discussions to identify several
topics of interest. These conversations should include questions to
students on why they are interested in learning more about the topic,
what they already know about the topic, and what they would like to
learn.
When learning communities construct knowledge collaboratively,
Vygotsky (1978) called the process inter-psychology or learning between
people. An inter-psychological learning experience is an interactive pro-
cess that includes discussion, negotiation, and sharing of personal stories
and experiences. Such learning experiences trigger intra-psychological
reactions within the individual learner. It is from these reactions that
the learner creates personal knowledge and meaning from the inter-
psychological interactions. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning is both
a social and cognitive process. In a critical intercultural learning environ-
ment, scafolding students’ prior knowledge helps them develop critical
learning habits.
Collaborative learning difers from cooperative learning and there-

fore requires a particular instructor skill set. Collaborative projects
require more time, negotiation, higher-level thinking skills, and inter-
action than cooperative learning (Harris, 2002). Although online collab-
orative projects are challenging to design and implement, these projects
deeply afect students’ attitudes about self and community by increasing
knowledge fow and problem-solving dialogues between students (Kumi-
Yeboah, 2018; Yang, Yu, Chen, & Huang, 2016). Collaborative projects
focus students on looking deeply into each other’s perspectives to nego-
tiate meaning and reality, which leads to the development of critical con-
sciousness (Freire, 1972; Harris, 2002).
Telecollaborative experiences are student-centered but require a high
level of teaching presence. Telecollaboration teachers are profcient in
creating safe classroom environments because learning topics can be
controversial (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2018). Developing a safe class-
room includes selecting appropriate technologies and materials, pairing
students and groups wisely, choosing topics carefully, and creating a
backup plan to handle problems. Additionally, teachers should be know-
ledgeable with online instructional design, project management, and crit-
ical modeling behaviors.
Developing a collaborative and student-centered telecollaboration
project requires the educator to critically assess and decode problems
(Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011). When educators recognize themes within an
issue, they link learning communities together in investigative learning
circles to explore the issue’s social, political, and cultural thematics. Much
like Freire’s (1972) thematic investigation, telecollaboration learning
groups design and develop learning products to represent their ongoing
critical dialogue. Educators critically analyze the learning products, pre-
pare didactic materials, and then return the materials to students with
questions and suggestions, thus creating another iteration of intercultural
problem-solving exchange. Educators become community liaisons,
guides, and mediators for students who act as scholarly investigators and
refective inventors of their own knowledge. Such educators provide
students with support and assistance to decode and master unfamiliar
and challenging information (Cummins, Brown, & Sayers, 2007).
Kumi-Yeboah (2018) identifes four phases of telecollaboration
projects that use individual student knowledge to develop all students’
critical consciousness. The frst phase is the icebreaker phase (See
Figure 12.2). This phase typically lasts two weeks and is divided into
two stages. The frst stage, the social lounge, is the frst week when
students introduce themselves. The second stage, cultural orientation,
occurs during the second week when students become acquainted with
each other’s popular cultural items such as food and traditional cul-
tural ceremonies and observances (Uzum, Yazan, Avineri, & Akayoglu,
2019). Introductory activities set the ground rules for discussion and
interaction, especially when there are multiple languages. This phase
introduces students to using bilingual resources, such as online trans-
lation tools. From the critical theoretical framework, this phase situates
where learning begins with introducing learners’ personal experiences
(Waldman et al., 2019).
In the second phase, the Cultural Construct Phase, the teacher
introduces students to the problem they must solve collaboratively. The
phase lasts roughly two to three weeks. The frst week(s) of this phase
includes information exchange activities like interviews and discussions.
Because of the co-teachers careful planning, the topic aligns with the
learners’ prior knowledge and experiences. Since social–cultural inter-
action is the basis for cross-cultural collaborative learning, the partner-
teachers plan how the topic will overlap the groups’ content and
knowledge (Yang et al., 2016). The partner-teachers determine the simi-
larities and diferences between the groups.
During the second half of this phase, comparison and analysis tasks
include comparing parallel text or using class questionnaires. The students
contrast and discuss their cultural constructs with one another to deter-
mine possible solutions to the problem. During this phase, partner-
teachers remain alert to cultural infuences on interactions and the
collaborative learning process and incorporate the critical methodology,
overt instruction to direct the learning (Waldman et al., 2019). To pre-
pare for overt instruction, teachers identify individual learning needs to
diferentiate instruction for each student and help them understand what
they are learning in the context of the learning experience (Henderson &
Exley, 2012).
The third phase, The Learning Product, has students collaboratively
working on a creative learning product to show the process used to solve
the problem. The students in both classrooms work together to produce
a document or multimedia product. In this phase, students often col-
lectively learn a new technology tool, application, or skill. The learning
products are sophisticated enough to make cultural translations and
adaptations (O’Dowd, 2012).
Phase Two: Cultural Phase Three: Learning Phase Four: Self-Reflection

Phase One: Icebreaker
Construct Product (2-3 weeks) (1-2 weeks)
Develop product that shows

Week Three: Introduce the Self-evaluation:
Week One: Social Lounge collaborative problem-
problem transformative practice.
solving process.
Learning new technology

Week Two: Cultural Week Four: Colaborative Critical framing of
or application introduced
Orientations problem-solving self-knowledge
during this phase.
Figure 8.2 Student-Centered Telecollaboration Project Development.
In the fnal phase, Self-Refection, students are directed to refect

inwardly to identify transformative thoughts about self, others, and
the lesson. Critical refection helps students focus on the processes and
inconsistencies between their experiences and their understanding of the
problem. The fnal phase uses two critical methodologies to encourage
students to evaluate themselves and the knowledge construction process.
The critical methodology transforms the practice into a self-refective
process that helps students transfer unfamiliar cultural information into
contextual knowledge (Waldman et al., 2019). The other critical method-
ology, critical framing, encourages learners to step back from the experi-
ence to view the entire process as outsiders.
Throughout these phases, students learn from one another. They
share and coproduce stories and counternarratives, both of which are
culturally relevant and responsive instructional strategies. Storytelling
activates a diferent type of learning. Listening to stories relaxes the
body, settles people more within themselves, and reduces anxiety
(Pranis, 2005). Because people often take in a story before fltering infor-
mation, students can listen to stories containing diverse perspectives
and viewpoints using nonprejudicial and nonjudgmental screening.
Counternarratives challenge Euro-Western knowledge and wisdom.
Developing counternarratives in a learning environment builds inclusive
learning communities. Curricula content becomes personal and intimate
when all students develop and share their stories. Counternarratives
have transformative properties when providing contextual information
that exposes the fallacy that Euro-Western knowledge is universal.
Counternarratives also provide the tie that binds together stories in
society’s margins and gaps. Students who occupy those places fnd they do
not live there alone. Stories display commonality when counternarratives

come from “other” students. Finally, discussions, counternarratives, and
storytelling introduce multiple perspectives. Therefore, teachers must use
culturally relevant and responsive pedagogies to reduce potential confict,
arguments, and prejudicial behaviors. Learning diferent perspectives is
essential, but equally important is teaching students how to respectfully
disagree rather than becoming angry, defensive, or dismissive (Sleeter &
Flores Carmona, 2017).
Critical Use of Technology
According to Siemens (2005), connectivism, a digital-age learning

theory, explains how the Internet, particularly Web 2.0 tools, are new
communication and information methods for formulating know-
ledge. Much of this type of learning is informal, meaning that learning
occurs across peer networks where people learn and share informa-
tion. In a formal learning environment, the teacher guides the students
regarding where and how to fnd and share information. Students are
encouraged to co-create shared knowledge on an online platform to
develop a connected community around the content. Connectivist
learning places the responsibility on students to choose what they
learn and how they share that learning. However, the teacher remains
active during the process to help guide students through their learning
experiences.
As noted before, culturally relevant and responsive teachers think deeply
about selecting content and utilizing online instructional practices bene-
ftting all students. Careful thought about technology guides teachers into
planning specifc educational outcomes. Therefore, teachers should delib-
erate on the positive and negative consequences of using technology to
develop critical consciousness. Helping students understand the harmful
use of technology, like electronic colonialism, will help develop critical
consciousness and is preferable to having students remain ignorant of
the types of manipulation generated by digital capitalism, media imperi-
alism, and digital colonialism.
Positive uses of technology that develop critical consciousness
include promoting self-regulated learning (Marczak, 2019). The ability
to self-regulate in their learning empowers students to be free and
autonomous and plan and organize the tasks needed to pursue a topic
of interest. Opportunities to solidify and apply tech skills to real-world

experiences exist when students self-regulate together in small groups.
Online learning does provide more opportunities to experiment and
practice using Web 2.0 tools to construct, share, and distribute global
knowledge (Camardese & Peled, 2014; Ciftci, 2016; Cifuentes & Murphy,
2000a). These tools ofer synchronous and asynchronous communication
methods, such as blogs, podcasting, video recording, emails, video con-
ferencing, and photography.
Applying critical theory when using Web 2.0 technologies provides
a powerful learning platform for developing digital counternarratives
(Truong-White & McLean, 2015). Designing a digital narrative
telecollaboration project provides learning opportunities for students to
develop their Web 2.0 tech skills while producing a digital story shared
locally and globally. Digital storytelling involves creating a 2-to-5-minute
story of shared living experiences blended with multimedia content,
voiceovers, photos, music, video clips, and text. Digital storytelling
creates a cross-cultural dialogue for social justice, human rights, and
environmental education. Sharing stories generates critical refection and
personal transformation. Digital storytelling also serves as a tool for pol-
itical organizing and social activism.
However, it is equally important to acknowledge the dark side of tech-
nology, too. Electronic Colonialism Theory, or eColonialism, explains
empire building by mass media corporations such as Disney, Netfix,
Google, and Comcast and social media giants such as Facebook and
Twitter (Suja, 2015). Electronic colonialism strives to infuence behaviors,
attitudes, desires, beliefs, and lifestyles and displace cultural norms,
traditions, and history (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Data have become a
valued commodity, similar to precious metals or agriculture commodities
markets. Tech companies collect and commoditize peoples’ data to sell to
one another. Consumers are no longer customers but data commodities
for corporations to buy and sell information.
Students engaging in online and telecollaborative learning must know
critical information and strategies to navigate the Internet and use Web
2.0 tools safely. Students need to critically understand that the free use
of a social media platform does come with costs. Teaching students to
recognize paid ads that purposely give misinformation, disinformation,
and lies will empower their abilities to be information-savvy critical
thinkers. Creating telecollaborative projects for students to understand
why conspiracy theories, false information, and misleading information
are abundant on the Internet helps develop critical consciousness, thereby

reducing the likelihood of falling prey to conspiracy scams.
Telecollaboration Problems and Challenges
Common problems emerging from telecollaboration projects are usually

poor instructional design, cultural diferences, or mismatched learning
objectives (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2018). However, most problems
are related to communication and student behaviors. Occasionally, a stu-
dent is unwilling to work in groups or engage in discussions. Another
common student behavioral communication problem is the use of rude
or insensitive language. Polarized and insensitive language increases reluc-
tance for discussion within the group. Another student problem occurs
when students are confused about using a technology tool. Teachers
who apply CT encourage dialogue with students around these problems.
Communication can also break down between the partner-teachers,
especially when there is no plan to communicate synchronously across
time zones and between languages (Yang et al., 2016). Therefore, when-
ever a communication problem arises, the best course of action is to view
the problem as a learning opportunity. Rather than viewing the commu-
nication breakdown as a negative experience, it becomes an opportunity
to explore why and how people from diferent cultures might interpret
behaviors and speech diferently. Reconciling those diferences requires
involving students and teachers in critical refection and problem-solving
(O’Dowd, 2012).
The lack of critical pedagogies in telecollaboration projects is a serious
problem. Many teachers in the United States routinely underestimate their
racial, cultural, linguistic, and class privileges and prejudices. The majority
of teachers are primarily white Euro-American, Christian, middle-class
females who live and work in segregated communities. Therefore, they
have less intercultural, cross-cultural, and multilingual experience than
other people (Krutka et al., 2019; Hauck, 2019; MacPherson, 2010). Often
these teachers adopt a color-evasive approach to global issues and are
concerned about helping “students cherish democracy and promote it
so that the rest of the world follows” (Truong-White & McLean, 2015,
p. 4). Viewing global issues as emergent nation problems that only Euro-
Western nations have the power to solve is an attitude and approach that
often leads to unfulflling and trivial cross-cultural exchanges.
Many white Euro-American teachers deny the existence of white priv-

ilege and have a general lack of awareness of larger sociopolitical injustices
(Markowitz & Puchner, 2014). The lack of race-consciousness reduces white
Euro-American teachers’ abilities to connect with their BIPOC students.
White Euro-American teachers often have difculties understanding the
importance of connecting learning with their students’ lived experiences
(Gere, Buehler, Dallavis, & Haviland, 2009; Hawkman, 2020). Not talking
about race/racism in the classroom creates an illusion for students that
racism is of no concern and requires no social action (Husband, 2012).
By lacking race-consciousness and denying white privilege, Euro-
American teachers are often unable to self-refect upon their racial apathy or
explore hidden biases (Buchanan, 2015; Galman, Pica-Smith, & Rosenberger,
2010; Gere et al., 2009; Jayakumar & Adamian, 2017; Markowitz & Puchner,
2014). Consequently, these educators often reject multicultural education
in favor of a more standardized curriculum and view themselves as saviors
rather than allies and advocates. Indeed, many white Euro-American
teachers think they know what racism looks like, so they go into the profes-
sion, envisioning themselves “saving” their BIPOC students (Matias, 2013).
Consequently, these teachers remain clueless about the microaggressions
they infict on their students. These attitudes and behaviors are unacceptable
in any classroom but are particularly disastrous for any telecollaboration.
Conclusion
For close to 30 years, online intercultural learning, known as

telecollaboration, has been used in US classrooms to promote multicul-
turalism, cross-cultural communications, and intercultural relationships.
This learning method currently helps US students develop foreign lan-
guage skills or learn about international business, trade, and commerce.
However, when framing telecollaboration with CT or CRT, the learning
experience provides teachers and students opportunities to develop
critical consciousness, digital literacy, and global social justice learning
(Cifuentes & Vilbert, 2014). Telecollaboration can disrupt and decolonize
hegemonic curricula and content by recognizing and afrming students’
diversity and using that diversity to guide students toward a sustainable
and social-justice-oriented understanding of global issues.
Designing a telecollaboration infused with critical theory and cultur-
ally relevant and responsive pedagogies requires deliberate and careful
planning. Teachers familiar with framing their lessons with these theories
and pedagogies understand that identifying specifc learning outcomes will
keep the telecollaborative project from devolving into a shallow and superf-
cial experience that promotes Euro-Western supremacy. More importantly,
critical telecollaborative teachers know that using students’ knowledge and
experiences builds academic and social skills and knowledge for all students.
These teachers understand their responsibility for exploring the primary
sources of their students’ home-based and community-based knowledge.
Because learning is a social and cognitive process, telecollaboration
projects are successful when designed as a collaborative learning experi-
ence. Designing telecollaborative lessons in distinct phases increases know-
ledge fow and deepens problem-solving discussions among students. By
carefully scafolding knowledge acquisition and the co-production of
knowledge, teachers guide students toward self-discovery and critical con-
sciousness. Using storytelling and counternarrative introduces learners to
multiple perspectives and often leads to interpersonal and intra-personal
cognitive and emotional growth development.
Telecollaboration projects provide opportunities for students to
develop their skills with Web 2.0 tools and digital literacy. Today’s digital
environment requires students to master the ability to co-create know-
ledge and increase their ability to distribute information safely. However,
students must learn how to navigate the dangers and pitfalls in the digital
environment to avoid falling prey to scams, lies, and conspiracy theories.
Finally, understanding how digital capitalism uses humans’ private infor-
mation as data commodities to be bought and sold develops students’
critical consciousness and digital literacy.
Applying critical theories and culturally relevant and responsive peda-
gogies when implementing any telecollaboration project creates an
inclusive learning environment. However, many white Euro-American
educators routinely lack racial understanding. Because they adopt a non-
racist, color-evasive attitude, they are often unaware of their privilege.
They cannot self-refect on their racial attitudes and hidden biases. These
attitudes and behaviors, at best, create shallow intercultural exchanges and,
at worse, promote racism and the illusion that Euro-Western knowledge
is the superior universal cultural knowledge among all global cultures.
Teachers should use CT and CRT to create telecollaborative projects
that have a meaningful impact on learners’ critical thinking skills. They
should be mindful of the possibility of conducting exchanges that
reinforce whiteness and racist policies to eliminate such exchanges.
Telecollaboration as social justice projects can show students that

when people of all cultures collaboratively share knowledge, skills, and
experiences to solve problems, they do it as one people. Students also learn
that individuals with cultural and racial diferences can be united by a
common cause while still maintaining autonomy. Providing intercultural
telecollaborative experiences as collaborative quests for knowledge has
transformative potential to cultivate agency for shared, collaborative,
inclusive action toward problem-solving and social justice.
References
Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. 2nd inter-
national conference on humanities, historical and social sciences. IPEDR, vol. 17.
Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., & Stephan,
W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and
learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196–203.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America (Fifth). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefeld Publishers.
Buchanan, L. B. (2015). “We make it controversial”: Elementary preservice
teachers’ beliefs about race. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 3–26.
Camardese, A., & Peled, Y. (2014). Using technology to bridge cultural
diferences. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(2), 21.
Choi, J. (2008). Unlearning colorblind ideologies in education class. Educational
Foundations, 22, 53–71. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.
uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ857639&site=ehost-live.
Cifuentes, L, & Dylak, S. (2007). Trigger visuals for cross-cultural online
learning. The International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and
Lifelong Learning, 17(2/3), 121–137.
Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K. L. (2000a). Promoting multicultural understanding
and positive self-concept through a distance learning community: Cultural
connections. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 69–83.
Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K. L. (2000b). Cultural connections: A model for
eliminating boundaries and crossing borders. Quarterly Review of Research on
Distance Education (inaugural issue), 1(1), 17–30.
Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K. L. (2001). Promoting world citizenship: Cultural
connections via telecommunications. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education
(pp. 101–131). Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. D. (2001) Teaching and learning online: A collabor-
ation between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 33(4), 456–474.
Cifuentes, L., & Vilbert, L. (2014). Digital literacy and critical thinking. In J. M.
Spector (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 216–219). San Francisco,
CA: Sage.
Ciftci, E. Y. (2016). A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-
based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 313–327.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing
human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3),
54–70.
Eliyahu-Levi, D. (2020). Cross-cultural online encounters with peers from.
Distance Education, 41(3), 402–423.
Feagin, J. R. (2020). The white racial frame. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Galman, S., Pica-Smith, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and tender
navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109359776.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice
(multicultural education series) (Third). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., Dallavis, C., & Haviland, S. (2009). A visibility pro-
ject: Learning to see how preservice teachers take up culturally responsive
pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 816–852. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0002831209333182.
Gordon, J. (2008). Inadvertent complicity: Colorblindness in teacher education.
Educational Studies, 38(2), 135–153.
Grant, K. S. L., Lee, V. J., & Lyttle, C. F. (2018). White preservice and inservice
teachers’ engagement with multicultural content in online courses.
Multicultural Education, 26(1), 17–23.
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaboration? Learning & Leading with
Technology, 28(8), 46–49.
Hauck, M. (2019). Virtual exchange for (critical) digital literacy skills develop-
ment. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 187–210.
Hawkman, A. M. (2020). Swimming in and through whiteness: Antiracism in
social studies teacher education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2020.1724578.
Henderson, R., & Exley, B. (2012). Planning for literacy learning. In R. Henderson
(Ed.), Teaching literacies in the middle years: Pedagogies and diversity (pp. 18–56).
Docklands: Oxford University Press.
Husband, T. (Ed.). (2016). But I don’t see color: The perils, practices, and possi-
bilities of antiracist education. Dordrect: Springer.
Jayakumar, U. M., & Adamian, A. S. (2017). The ffth frame of colorblind ideology:
Maintaining the comforts of colorblindness in the context of white fragility.
SociologicalPerspectives,60(5),912–936.https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417721910
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. New York: One World.
King, L. J., & Chandler, P. T. (2016). From non-racism to anti-racism in social
studies teacher education: Social and racial pedagogical content knowledge.
In A. R. Crowe, & A. Cuenca (Eds.), Rethinking social studies teacher educa-
tion in the twenty-frst century (pp. 3–20). Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22939-3.
Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization.
Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 249–252.
Krutka, D. G., Carano, K. T., Cassell, L., Lavoie, M., & Davidson-Taylor, K.
(2019). Wise practices and intercultural understandings: A framework for
educator videoconferencing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
51(4), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1652869
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Learning cultures on the move: Where are we
heading? Educational Technology and Society, 13(4), 4–14.
Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2018). Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning
framework for online instructors. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 181–201.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1520
Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2018). “i feel more confdent now” – modeling
teaching presence in teacher-training online intercultural exchanges. The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7(2), 157–177.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. London. Routledge.
MacPherson, S. (2010). Teachers’ collaborative conversations about culture:
Negotiating decision making in intercultural teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109353032
Marczak, L. (2019). Using technology to teach critical thinking skills. Retrieved
from Digital Learning Collaborative: https://www.digitallearningcollab.
com/blog/2019/1/16/using-technology-to-teach-critical-thinking-skills
Markowitz, L., & Puchner, L. (2014). Racial diversity in the schools: A necessary evil?
Multicultural Perspectives, 16(2), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2014.
889568
Marx, S., & Kim, Y. (2019). Technology for equity and social justice in educa-
tion: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 21(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.18251/IJME.V21I1.1939.
Matias, C. (2013). On the “fip” side: A teacher educator of color unveiling the
dangerous minds of white teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly,
40(2), 53–73.
Merz, S. A., & Fox, R. K. (2016). An international education perspective study
of teachers in the central United States. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 24(4),
551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1194310.
Müller-Hartmann, A., & O’Dowd, R. (2017). A training manual on telecollaboration
for teacher trainers. Retrieved from http://www.evaluateproject.eu/.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2018). Afrming diversity: The sociopolitical context of
multicultural education (Seventh). New York: Pearson.
O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through
telecollaboration. The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural commu-
nication (pp. 340–356). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805640.
O’Dowd, R. (2015). The competencies of the telecollaborative teacher. Language
Learning Journal, 43(2), 194–207.
Pranis, K. (2005). Little book of circle processes. New York: Good Books.
Riel, M. (2014). The Learning circle model: Collaborative knowledge building.
Retrieved from Online Learning Circles: Building knowledge through collab-
orative projects: https://sites.google.com/site/onlinelearningcircles/Home/
learning-circles-defned.
Schenker, T. (2012). Intercultural competence and cultural learning through
telecollaboration. CAILICO Journal, 29(3), 449–470.
Settlage, J. (2011). Counterstories from White mainstream preservice teachers:
Resisting the master narrative of defcit by default. Cultural Studies of Science
Education (Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9324-8.
Shih, Y. C., & Cifuentes, L. (2003). Taiwanese intercultural phenomena and
issues in a United States-Taiwan telecommunications partnership. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 82–90.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Sleeter, C. E., & Flores Carmona, J. (2017). Un-standardizing curriculum:
Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Suja, V. (2015). E-colonialism (impact on local culture). International Journal of
Engineering Research and Technology, 3(28). www.ijert.org.
Truong-White, H., & McLean, L. (2015). Digital storytelling for transforma-

tive global citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(2), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.38.2.11.
Unzueta, M., & Lowery, B. S. (2008). Defning racism safely: The role of self-
image maintenance on White Americans’ conceptions of racism. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 44, 1491–1497.
Uzum, B., Yazan, B., Avineri, N., & Akayoglu, S. (2019). Preservice teachers’ dis-
cursive constructions of cultural practices in a multicultural telecollaboration.
International Journal of Multicultural Education, 21(1), 82–104.
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary defcit thinking: Educational
thought and practice. New York: Routledge.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). the spread of true and false news online.
Science, 359(6380) (March), 1146–1151.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waldman, T., Harel, E., & Schwab, G. (2019). Extended telecollaboration
practice in teacher education towards pluricultural and plurilingual pro-
fciency. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 167–185. https://doi.
org/10.3828/ejlp.2019.11.
Yang, J., Yu, H., Chen, S., & Huang, R. (2016). Strategies for smooth and
efective cross-cultural online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 17(3), 208–221.
Zhang, H. (2012). Collaborative learning as a pedagogical tool to develop intercultural
competence in a multicultural class. China Media Research, 8(2), 107–111.
Queering Online 9
Pedagogies in Gender &
Sexuality Studies
M. Catherine Jonet and Laura Anh Williams
Introduction
What would it involve to create online learning environments hospitable

to learners who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and
other non-heterosexual/non-cisgender identifcations (LGBTQ+)? What
culturally responsive strategies can attend to such minoritized yet incred-
ibly diverse learners? This chapter formulates a queer practice of program
design and embodied online presence. It seeks to do so in order to struc-
ture a more plural and inclusive online learning ecology within Gender
and Sexuality Studies, a multi- and interdisciplinary feld that incorporates
feminisms, women’s studies, and womanism as well as queer theory,
queer of color critique, transgender and nonbinary studies, traditional
LGBTQ+ Studies, and more. Developing such an approach can enhance
learning, especially since as Muñoz (1996) suggested, “queerness has not
been let to stand, unassailed, in the mass public sphere critical conscious-
ness” (p. 11). The discipline of Gender and Sexuality Studies, as a whole,
attends to Ladson-Billings’s (1995) notion of critical consciousness as a
tenet of Culturally Relevant Teaching, emphasizing the necessity for
learners to “develop a broader sociopolitical consciousness that allows
them to critique the cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that
produce and maintain social inequities” (p. 162). Our goal is to identify
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-10
Queering Online Pedagogies 161
and theorize the queer methods we put into practice in shaping our
online program and courses.
Gender and Sexuality Studies at New Mexico State University seeks to
develop and practice a multifaceted approach to creating online learning
environments for LGBTQ+ students. This approach includes developing
and teaching online courses on queer and LGBTQ+ topics; shaping a cur-
riculum that is as informed by Queer and Transgender Studies as it is by
feminist and traditional Women’s Studies approaches; creating pathways
in our degree for an area of specialization in queer, transgender, and
gender studies; and creating outreach and expressive opportunities for
LGBTQ+ learners and practitioners of Queer Studies. As the longtime
director of the program and specialists in Queer, Gender, and LGBTQ+
Studies in our department, we work to develop new and queer approaches
to online learning, especially digital education about and for LGBTQ+
persons and texts, and to render our curriculum, the online culture of our
department, and the shape of our ofered degrees (B.A. major, minor, and
graduate minor) one that brings together Queer, Transgender, and Gender
Studies with Intersectional, Women of Color, Queer- and Transnational
feminisms from a range of disciplinary approaches and epistemological
perspectives. In our view, the very existence of our academic unit means
that our conceptualization of the feld must always be multilayered and
regard queer theory, gender identity, racialized, transnational, working-
poor and working-class queer and LGBTQ+ lives as seriously as it takes
feminist theory; woman as category of identity; and the extension of
women’s and gender studies beyond the political projects of mainstream
white, cis-gender, middle-class, US women.
Queer methods, for both humanities and social science scholars, is
a more recent confguration—one which, even in application, remains
patently queer. As Haber (2016) observed, “Of course there will never be
a queer method, but the time has come to shift: from queering methods
to experimentally using methods to more widely distribute queer politics,
sociality, and sensibility” (p. 151, emphasis in original). Ultimately, our
purpose is not only to advocate for enhanced inclusion by creating mean-
ingful digital learning environments for queer and LGBTQ+ learners,
especially working-class and frst-generation, immigrant, transnational,
and Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPoC) learners, but
also to suggest that queer approaches and practices ofer more academ-
ically robust and intellectually dynamic Gender and Sexuality Studies
programs. With its attachment to concepts like fux, disruption, camp,
162 M. Catherine Jonet and Laura Anh Williams
performance, multiplicity, and transgression, a queer method of program-

matic design can shape more digitally connected, critically refective, and
collectively afective online learning environments.
Theorizing Queer Methods
Queer theory ofers a productive feld for the creation and circulation
of new knowledge and ideas from often unaddressed perspectives and
confgurations. In their introduction to Imagining Queer Methods (2019),
Ghaziani and Brim noted an imbalance between the proliferation of
queer theorization compared to a relative lack of queer methodology:
Although queer theorists have made great strides on the clarifca-

tion of concepts like queerness, sexuality, gender, transgender, race,
nationalism, discourse, fuidity, performativity, and normativity,
among others, we have made much less progress on the application
of these ideas in our research.
(p. 3)
Currently, the idea of interrogating and developing queer methods is a

central discussion in Queer and LGBTQ+ Studies. For queer theorists
in the social sciences, this is a much-needed inquiry and establishment
of tools (Browne & Nash, 2010; Haber, 2016; Compton et al., 2018;
Ghaziani & Brim, 2019; Ward, 2019). But even as this turn toward meth-
odology further emerges as an important discourse, humanities scholar-
ship largely continues to resist the idea of the queer method. Ward (2019)
suggested
to pair the terms ‘queer’ and ‘methodology’—the former defned

by its celebrated failure to adhere to classifcatory systems or be
contained by disciplinary boundaries, and the latter defned by
orderly, discipline-specifc and easily reproducible techniques—
produces something of an exciting contradiction, a productive
oxymoron.
(p. 262)
As queer scholars trained in the arts and humanities, we have been reluc-
tant to identify our own approaches and practices in shaping our academic
program as “methods.” Humanities scholar Heather K. Love (2016) noted,

“This refusal to locate ourselves or to identify our methods has resulted
in a failure to grapple with queer studies as positive knowledge project”
(p. 30). Identifying and refecting on our own curricular, pedagogical, and
programmatic design tools as queer methods makes discernable the value
of such modes and the worldmaking that they enable in digital learning
spaces. This aim calls to mind Ahmed’s (2019) notion that the “project of
queering use does not aim to create distance from use but to inhabit use
all the more” (p. 222). We propose strategies to allow LGBTQ+ learners
to inhabit our online courses and other digital spaces all the more. Our
use of the concept follows Muñoz’s (1996) assertion of, “queerness as a
possibility, a sense of self-knowing, a mode of sociality and relationality”
(p. 6). To posit queer methods is to invest in the potentiality of queer pos-
sibility and knowing.
Our own queer methods are informed by queer theoretical approaches
to course content, programmatic design, and original content produced
through Feminist Border Arts—our arts and humanities collaboration that
creates original curatorial projects in the visual and textual arts (Feminist
Border Arts Film Festival, SJZ: Social Justice Zine), original content (video
production and flmmaking), and design pieces (graphic arts, illustration,
and digital art). For us, we do this work largely out of a research-creation
framework and have only recently engaged in theorizing this mode of
academic production as methods. The Canadian Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (2002) defned research-creation as follows:
An approach to research that combines creative and academic

research practices, and supports the development of knowledge
and innovation through artistic expression, scholarly investigation,
and experimentation. The creation process is situated within the
research activity and produces critically informed work in a variety
of media (art forms).
(“Defnitions”)
Research-creation reorients our understanding of method as a tool for

humanists and invites us to consider the possibility that queering could
be employed as a method to confgure a Gender and Sexuality Studies
program. For us, such work is one of the many ways in which we weave
a culture of openness and inclusion for sexual and gender minorities in
how we frame and imagine the program.
Queering the Curriculum
The queer methods discussed in this chapter ofer strategies at the pro-
grammatic and curricular scale as well as at the level of syllabus and course
design and virtual community-building. At the macro-level, we briefy
sketch out the institutional directions we have taken toward inclusivity
and accessibility, from re-naming the Women’s Studies program and the
degree to Gender and Sexuality studies; to creating pathways for fulflling
core degree requirements online. At the micro-level, we explore a range
of queer methods, practices we have mobilized in online spaces to foster
inclusive environments for LGBTQ+ learners.
In line with developments in the feld for Women’s Studies, we began
the institutional process to change our program’s name from Women’s
Studies to Gender and Sexuality Studies, which was approved and adopted
by our university in 2016. We undertook this process in order for our
departmental identity to refect our expansive and inclusive commitment
to women and people minoritized because of their gender or sexuality
and to refect not only our current curricular focus but also the growth
that had already been taking place over the previous decade. This cur-
ricular growth materialized through maintaining our courses on Women
and Immigration, Feminist Research Methods, and Feminist Theory,
while also increasing course oferings in Gender and Popular Culture,
Gender and Migration, Masculinities Studies, and Alternative Genders
and Sexualities. Around the same time, our faculty also committed to
ofering a pattern of online courses—a rotation of regularly scheduled
introductory-level, upper-division electives, as well as online options
for required core courses—such that students would be able to com-
plete our program’s degree requirements entirely online. Not only did
this commitment to our online students and majors place our degree
program on a shortlist of online degrees available at our institution, but
it also placed our program on a shortlist of fully online bachelor’s degree
programs in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies nationally, which
at that time included only Oregon State University and the University
of Massachusetts Dartmouth. While both the renaming of the program
and the move to ofer an online degree path were agreed upon by our
faculty in an efort to more visibly refect our commitment to inclusivity
and diversity, this enhanced inclusivity resulted in appealing specifcally
to LGBTQ+ learners.
Making Inclusion Visible
We suggest it is vital to consider queering as a tactic or method that extends

beyond course topic and content. In a 1993 interview, queer director Todd
Haynes noted that people “defne gay cinema solely by content: if there
are gay characters in it, it’s a gay flm. It fts into the gay sensibility, we
got it, it’s gay. It’s such a failure of the imagination, let alone the ability
to look beyond content” (as cited in Leyda, 2014, p. 32). In positing how
heteronormativity or queerness can function beyond narrative content,
Haynes asserted that heterosexuality in US society operates as “a structure
as much as it is a content” (p. 32). As Rivera and Nadal (2019) pointed out
that heteronormativity “infuences other phenomena and processes that
are not solely or directly linked to sexual behaviors, such as healthcare,
familial structures, and consumer behaviors” (p. 197). In opposition to
those heteronormative structures, we propose creating and incorpor-
ating queer structures in online learning environments. Rivera and Nadal
argued that such alternatives can be applied to organizational structures
“as a way of queering processes that were created to maintain systems of
privilege and oppression” (p. 197). Queer structures are a component of
the queer method because they orient students in a digital learning space
to interrogate their own assumptions and understandings about gender
identity and sexuality. In what follows, we sketch out varying methods we
employ to create queer structures in order to create a supported learning
space for LGBTQ+ students and Queer Studies scholars. These queer
structures help formulate an informed space where transgender and queer
knowledges are situated as fundamental and vital parts of human societies.
In our eforts to shape a Gender and Sexuality Studies curriculum that
envisages the combined feld as queer and transgender as it is Feminist
and Womanist, we focused on pursuing a range of discursive practices
that range from the everyday to broader institutional presence. One such
practice is writing and posting Statements of Commitment within of-
cial institutional sites like departmental webpages and course syllabi.
An example of a relatively simple yet vital action is that we include a
statement on our program’s Academic Overview website that makes
clear that our Gender and Sexuality Studies program is transgender and
gender nonbinary afrming. In our current moment, this statement of
solidarity is more than a message of support or outreach. Transphobia,
especially in regard to transgender women, is a prevalent and detrimental
issue in feminist and even in many social justice spaces, including aca-
demic ones. Moreover, culture wars directed at trans and gender non-
conforming learners, again, most notably, at trans women in regard to
Title IX and women’s sports, are an urgent contemporary issue that fur-
ther threatens the inclusion of transgender, nonbinary, and gender non-
conforming learners in academic institutions. This is all to say, it is essen-
tial for a Gender and Sexuality Studies program to frmly and visibly
assert transgender human rights as part of their core values and to con-
tend against anti-trans hate.
These gestures are signifcant eforts to visibly demonstrate a
commitment to inclusion within a larger institutional milieu that is largely
hostile to LGBTQ+ learners, staf, and faculty members. As Nicolazzo
(2016) pointed out, trans students “are highly isolated on college and uni-
versity campuses, even within what some may perceive outwardly to be
supportive communities” (pp. 37–38). Nicolazzo continued:
Trans* students’ avoidance of queer areas on campus is exacerbated

by the fact that cisgender and heteronormative spaces, which take
up the majority of campuses, provide minimal safety and com-
fort for trans* students. The continued lack of comfort and safety
for trans* college is predicated on—and perpetuated by—trans*
oppression. On the individual, institutional, and sociocultural levels,
trans* oppression forms a matrix of oppression trans* students must
wade through. Despite this, trans* college students remain resilient
in aspiring toward success.
(p. 38)
In contemplating these intersecting barriers, it is important to refect

on how these may exist in and shape online educational experiences for
LGBTQ+, especially trans, learners. Many learners at our institution, for
example, take both face-to-face and online courses. We also work with
and encounter online learners who are not physically present on campus.
However, attempts to invite and support the presence of LGBTQ+ learners
at our institution with tangible actions like publicly displaying “Safe Space”
posters or faculty members decorating their ofce doors with symbols like
the inverted pink triangle or the Philadelphia Pride fag do not necessarily
translate to the realm of digital learning and outreach. Creating a sense of
visibility and inclusion for LGBTQ+ learners and people in online envir-
onments has become an important infuence in our work.
This commitment to trans- and gender nonbinary access to education

can manifest both on campus and online. Alongside our department’s
action to add an all-gender restroom to the building which houses our
department, core faculty members in our program elected to add infor-
mation about personal pronouns and our institution’s preferred name
policy in course syllabi, as well as work with students to discuss, respect,
and honor personal pronouns in both face-to-face and online courses.
Including this information in course syllabi can help trans and nonbinary
students navigate the campus more comfortably, as well as learn what
institutional policies and resources exist that they might not know about.
Including preferred name and pronoun information in course syllabi will
also signal to all learners that honoring one another’s names and pronouns
is a foundational dimension of the shared learning environment.
When it comes to building visibility and presence for LGBTQ+
learners, it is important not to overlook or take for granted practices that
have the power to signal a sense of welcome and acceptance. Learners
may be aware of certain courses and faculty members or even the general
reputation of a program. While certainly helpful, these examples do not
necessarily equate to the general sense and presence of certain markers
and indicators of presence, interest, and acceptance in the digital space.
Formulating a concept of digital queer presence as a method to guide
and inform our choices and actions is an essential step in formulating an
enhanced inclusion for LGBTQ+ education and learners. These range
from developing courses that refect the diversity of LGBTQ+ experi-
ence and considering how course titles can function to attract LGBTQ+
learners, to generating a sense of online presence and to producing
online outreach projects that ofer learners at our institution opportun-
ities within a broader LGBTQ+ community.
Creating Digital Queer Presence
Although articulating a commitment to LGBTQ+ learners through course

policies signals the instructor’s support in creating a supportive learning
environment, something to keep in mind is that this is not a monolithic
group with a single set of educational needs; not all learners employ
and embrace the most widely circulated or most well-known terms to
describe their identities. Students may not be “out” to themselves, their
families, or their workplaces. Although students may be interested or
wish to pursue course study in the area, it may also be important that
course titles that include “queer” or “lesbian” do not appear on school
documents and transcripts. While this concern may not appear to be in
sync with contemporary ideas about queerness and its acceptance on uni-
versity campuses, we would argue that such an attitude is rooted in either
ignorance or erasure because queer and LGBTQ+ learners still face high
levels of discrimination and daily violence and aggression directed at out
and perceived LGBTQ+ persons. At a land-grant institution such as ours
that has many frst-generation, rural, and nonwhite students, to embody
as well as exceed the terms Queer and LGBTQ+ studies is important
work. These linguistic pathways can serve as entries to the feld and fur-
ther develop an understanding of concepts and alliances that go beyond
mainstream academic articulations of gender, sexuality, and identity. To
be sure, it is also central to point out that not all learners who seek out
queer, transgender, or/and LGBTQ+ studies identify as or with any of
these categories. Queer theories, in particular, have gained a great deal of
interest and circulation beyond queer critical discourse.
As Nash (2010) suggested in her articulation of the politics of queer
research, “Participants in variously understood gay, lesbian, queer and/or
lgbtq spatial networks, cannot be assumed to be operating with similar
understandings about their everyday lived experiences despite admittedly
interlocking histories and geographies” (p. 130). The emphasis Nash
placed here on recognizing that people who might be classifed as or even
self-identify as LGBTQ+, or any other confguration of terms, cannot
be presumed to employ or/and regard identity and experience in iden-
tical terms, even if larger social forces that target, harm, and even crim-
inalize marginalized and minoritized sexual and gender identities might
erase such distinctions. Violence directed at a bisexual man might be read
exclusively as violence directed at a gay man, and therefore, the broader
implications bound to the meanings of bisexual and pansexual remain
untraced. It is essential that distinctions and diferences are identifed and
accentuated. A queer and “queer friendly” Gender and Sexuality Studies
curriculum should be no diferent. Queer theory leans into contradictions,
so too should the range of courses and ideas used to formulate a pro-
grammatic conception of Gender and Sexuality Studies.
The complexities of identities, histories, and lived experience should
be refected in course names and oferings as much as possible in order
to recognize and refect nuances and diferences. It is not uncommon to
observe, for example, degree programs focusing primarily on “queer”
(as in queer theory) in its course oferings without also ofering courses
featuring additional understandings of LGBTQ+ specifcities and
lived experiences. While queer theory and queer approaches are abso-
lutely indispensable to the feld, it must be recognized that these do not
represent the only method to build and sustain a queer and LGBTQ+
curriculum. Moreover, this approach too often centers whiteness as the
sine qua non of queerness or transness (or both) without using the elas-
ticity of such terms to resist or problematize dominant discursive tropes
and mainstream institutional confgurations that continually decenter
Blackness and non-Western/non-European conceptions of gender and
sexual identities. As Cohen (1997) pointed out, a queer politics is defned
through its constitutive diversity, in opposition to dominant ideologies
that would erase those who exist outside its norms:
I envision a politics where one’s relation to power, and not some

homogenized identity, is privileged in determining one’s political
comrades. I’m talking about a politics where the non normative and
marginal position of punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens, for
example, is the basis for progressive transformative coalition work.
Thus, if there is any truly radical potential to be found in the idea
of queerness and the practice of queer politics, it would seem to
be located in its ability to create a space in opposition to dominant
norms, a space where transformational political work can begin.
(p. 438)
Queer, transgender, and LGBTQ+ course titles and oferings must be

varied and nuanced, but they must also communicate commitment
intersectionality—through decentering whiteness and patriarchy. A
beneft of locating LGBTQ+ studies in a Gender and Sexualities Studies
space is the robust opportunities it allows to consider and elaborate queer-
feminist, queer of color critique, and intersectional feminist approaches.
Such a multilayered confguration occurred in a recent semester when
we ofered a special topics course on Critical Disability Studies that
articulated this area of critical thought and activism through the work of
queer and trans Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, as well as
radical women of color.
In addition to the specifc formations that can come together in a
Gender and Sexuality Studies program to generate more inclusive course
topics, an overlooked but important tactic is to decenter feminisms as
the only or most important theoretical touchstone to produce know-

ledge within the feld. We seek to have varied course topics and terms,
but we also work to make commonly used terms like “gender” not
reduce down to an alternative way of describing “woman.” In other
words, we use gender impactfully and inclusively in our program. Queer,
postcolonial, and intersectional critiques and diference must be read
into the terms employed by the program like gender or feminism. Our
central critical theory seminar, for example, is both feminist and queer.
A course titled Feminist Food Studies includes a module called “Queer
Foods.” We employ language like “Alternative Genders & Sexualities,”
to describe a course that examines contemporary LGBTQ+ experiences
and critical thought. In courses that focus on gender and flm studies or
graphic narrative, the term gender is read broadly by us to be inclusive
of race and ethnicities, diferent gender identities—including trans and
nonbinary—as well as socioeconomic class, and queer sexualities. For us,
the term gender always already signifes complexity and stepping away
from binary gender and received ideas about race, sexuality, and other
subject positions like dis/ability that locates the multiple layers of iden-
tity through either/or terms.
Queer Pedagogies of Outreach: Online Queer World-

Making
In her exploration of the “queer history of information” McKinney (2020)

suggested that groups marginalized because of gender, sexuality, and race
who may otherwise be excluded or erased from mainstream media tech-
nologies, “have the most to tell us about how, when, and for whom infor-
mation matters” (p. 3). Information, McKinney argued, “brings a public
into existence by giving shape to networks framing common interests.
[…] Reading, researching, writing, publishing, communicating, and
archiving are all tactics marginalized users adopt to imagine and enact
transformative modes of public address” (16). Imagining and enacting
transformative modes of public address is at the core of our work as
researchers, creators, and queer pedagogues shaping an online Gender
and Sexuality Studies program that ofers specialization in Queer and
LGBTQ+ Studies, especially in our areas of critical thought and the inter-
disciplinary arts and humanities. Our work as Feminist Border Arts, our
university-based humanities and arts cultural production and curatorial
joint-project, embodies research-creation by producing and circulating

new knowledge through practice-based strategies. These practice-based
strategies include the curation of a transnational short flm festival that
includes both face-to-face and online flm programs, producing digital
cinema, shorts, and video art, and producing, exhibiting, and circulating
zines—self-made publications that often combine text and visual art and
range in any number of genres—with learners and community members.
Feminist Border Arts also produces and circulates through online
social media short video series and digital designs representing, gener-
ating, and exploring queer experiences. Digital collages we produced and
shared with our online community via Instagram during the shutdown
of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, for example, focused on imagining
queer and transgender inclusion in the encouragement of mask-wearing
and social distancing (Figures 9.1 and 9.2). These collages were part of
our Digital Humanities project that envisions the future existence of
Figure 9.1 Love in the Time of Coronavirus.

Note: Digital Collage by Feminist Border Arts (2020). https://www.instagram.
com/p/CICCyIkjOif/.
Figure 9.2 Keep Planning for the Future.

Note: Digital Collage by Feminist Border Arts (2020). https://www.instagram.
com/p/CH9coOvjSUI/.
LGBTQ+ people by playing on the queer theoretical construct of queer

futurity and queer potentiality. Love in the Time of Coronavirus (Figure 9.1)
uses altered images of the astronaut as a symbol and construct of both the
future, but also as a sign of queer cultural reclamations of camp, “bad”
sci-f, and other flmic and pop-cultural space tropes as well as connecting
to other marginalized groups’ embracing of futurity. One astronaut bears
a patch on her sleeve featuring the Transgender Pride fag and the other
astronaut wears one bearing the Philadelphia Pride fag, which contains
additional black and brown stripes to highlight the existence and partici-
pation of Black and Brown LGBTQ+ peoples.
Figure 9.2, Keep Planning for the Future, likewise relies on non-
naturalistic colors, particularly evoking the colors of LGBTQ+ Pride
fags that represent nonbinary gender identities, such as Nonbinary
Pride fag, the Gender-Fluid Pride fag, and the Gender Queer Pride fag.
Moreover, this digital collage contains an overlay stating that one should,
“Plan for your future—And mine and hers and theirs and his,” which
purposefully situates the pronoun “they” in the phrase as a singular pro-
noun. Both images telegraph the enduring fghting spirit of LGBTQ+
people and communities. Be loud. Be proud. Queers survive by fghting
back, by fghting the system, by fghting to exist every day—even in the
face of COVID-19 and connected social issues like homelessness and
suicide, which afects LGBTQ+ peoples in higher numbers than many
other groups. This image makes nonbinary and other genderfuid people
visible and argues that their survival is important. These images were
made as part of a series that was circulated exclusively online through
our Feminist Border Arts Instagram account and were created in prepar-
ation for World AIDS Day and in observance of the continued COIVD-
19 crisis.
These examples bring queer and transness alongside a “future retro”
representations of space travel because, ultimately, these images are in
conversation with Muñoz’s (2009) formulation of queerness as an “ideality
that can be distilled from the past and used to imagine a future” because,
as he states, the future is “queerness’s domain” (p. 1). Transmedial projects
through social media, material culture, and digital humanities that high-
light and explore what is, in essence, queer world-making is the purpose
of our queer work.
Queer world-making is a term frst popularized by Berlant and Warner
(1998), who stated that the “queer world is a space of entrances, exits,
unsystematized lines of acquaintance, projected horizons, typifying
examples, alternate routes, blockages, incommensurate geographies”
(p. 558). They contended that to enact queer world-making projects “is
to recognize that queer culture constitutes itself in many ways other than
through the ofcial publics of opinion culture and the state” (p. 558). This
location of queerness and transness often outside of or marginally in rela-
tion to ofcial publics and institutional conceptions of identity, experience,
and human life in general ofers the possibility of generating alternative
ways to reach out to and attempt to form queer senses of inclusion and
online community. In other words, LGBTQ+ learners already exist at what
Ahmed (2006) called an “oblique” relation to the heteronormative and cis-
gender mores and structures of university life and academic disciplining
that exist in face-to-face higher education and can also be a barrier in digital
learning (p. 560). We are compelled to queer the online learning experience
for students in our courses, degree program, and larger community who
takes interest in Gender and Sexuality Studies and our projects because we
believe that queer knowledge-making is important and not only adds to

the learning experience but is a vital area of growth for reconceptualizing
what constitutes learning, research outputs, and outreach.
Conclusion
When we describe our eforts in queer world-making as queer work, we

do so to acknowledge that the work we do is labor and that it is also an
opportunity to challenge and reshape ideas about research, creation, out-
reach, public and digital humanities from a queering perspective. Brim
(2020) asserted the value of LBGTQ+ learners encountering queer fac-
ulty, “Watching us do our jobs may be our students’ most intimate and
practical example of a successful queer career” (p. 117). Ultimately, Brim
views the queering of pedagogy to include helping learners to “envision
possibilities for queering nonqueer careers” (117). The beneft of using
queer methods as a shaping framework is that “queer worldmaking
and livability require us to embrace multiplicity and pluralism, not bin-
aries and dualisms” (Ghaziani & Brim, 2019, p. 12). These are productive
guiding principles to employ, especially when developing an academic
program that draws diferent and sometimes competing publics to its vir-
tual classrooms.
Terms
Cisgender: (cisgender man, cisgender woman) A person whose gender

identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Gender nonbinary: A person whose gender identity does not neatly align
with the male/female binary.
Heteronormativity: The world view that heterosexuality is the default or
“normal” sexual orientation.
LGBTQ+: An umbrella term that collectively refers to persons who iden-
tify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and other gender
or sexual identifcations outside of cisgender heterosexual. Because
of the wide-ranging diversity this category gestures toward, it is
important to note the contested and sometimes unsettled nature of
these terms.
Queer: Muñoz (1996) suggests the identity category exists and circulates
“as a shared structure of feeling that encompasses same-sex desire and
other minoritarian sexualities but also holds other dissident afective

relationships to diferent aspects of the sex/gender system” (p. 11).
Transgender: (trans, trans woman, trans man) A person whose gender
identity does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans identity is not dependent on hormone therapy or gender con-
frmation surgery.
Putting It into Practice
1. Post statements of commitment to LGBTQ+ learners, especially

trans and gender nonbinary learners, to course syllabi and depart-
mental websites.
2. Include personal pronouns and preferred frst name policies in course
syllabi. This demonstrates that honoring trans and nonbinary gender
identities is foundational to the learning environment.
3. Title LGBTQ+ courses with variety and nuance. Consider strat-
egies for appealing to students who may be interested in the sub-
ject but concerned about stigmatized language on ofcial university
documents.
4. Highlight inclusivity and intersectionality. Decenter whiteness and
patriarchy. Include LGBTQ+ afrming content even in courses where
sexuality is not the main focus.
5. Blur the distinction between pedagogy and outreach. Utilize popular
online social media tools to generate visibility and for creative, targeted
outreach.
References
Ahmed, S. (2006). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. GLQ: A

Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12(4), 543–574. https://www.muse.jhu.
edu/article/202832.
Ahmed, S. (2019). What’s the use?: On the uses of use. Duke University Press.
Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (1998). Sex in public. Critical Inquiry, 24(2), 547–566.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344178.
Brim, M. (2020). Poor queer studies: Confronting elitism in the university. Duke
University Press.
Browne, K., & Nash, C. J. (Eds.). (2010). Queer methods and methodologies:
Intersecting queer theories and social science research. Routledge.
Cohen, C. J. (1997). Punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens: The radical poten-
tial of queer politics? GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 3(4), 437–465.
https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-3-4-437.
Compton, D. R., Meadow, T., & Schilt, K. (Eds.). (2018). Other, please specify:
Queer methods in sociology. University of California Press.
Haber, B. (2016). The queer ontology of digital method. Women’s Studies
Quarterly, 44(3/4), 150–169. http://www.jstor.com/stable/44474067.
Ghaziani, A., & Brim, M. (Eds.). (2019). Imagining queer methods. New York
University Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/1476635.
Leyda, J. (Ed.). (2014). Todd Haynes: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi.
Love, H. K. (2016). Queer messes. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 44(3/4), 345–349.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/44474095.
McKinney, C. (2020). Information activism: A queer history of lesbian media technolo-
gies. Duke University Press.
Muñoz, J. E. (1996). Ephemera as evidence: Introductory notes to queer acts.
Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, 8(2), 5–16. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/07407709608571228.
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. NYU Press.
Nash, C. J. (2010). Queer conversations: Old-time lesbians, transmen and the
politics of queer research. In K. Browne, & C. Nash (Eds.), Queer methods and
methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research (pp. 129–142).
Routledge.
Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). Trans* in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating
campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Stylus Publishing.
Rivera, D., & Nadal, K. (2019). The intersection of queer theory and empirical
methods: Visions for the Center for LGBTQ Studies and Queer Studies. In A.
Ghaziani, & M. Brim (Eds.), Imagining queer methods (pp. 191–206). New York
University Press.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (2020, October 14). Defnitions of
terms:“Research-creation.”https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-fnancement/
programs-programmes/defnitions-eng.aspx#a22.
Ward, J. (2019). Dyke methods: A meditation on queer studies and the gay
men who hate it. In A. Ghaziani, & M. Brim (Eds.), Imagining queer methods
(pp. 259–276). New York University Press.
Tensions in Adapting a 10
Mandatory Indigenous
Education Course to an
Online Environment
Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn, Jennifer Markides,
Teresa Anne Fowler, Aubrey Jean Hanson,
Jennifer MacDonald, Yvonne Poitras Pratt and
Patricia Danyluk
Introduction
This chapter considers the tension-flled trajectory of moving a man-

datory course in Indigenous Education as part of the Bachelor of
Education program at a Canadian university from inception to prom-
ising online future directions.1 As curriculum in Canada moves through
revisions in order to incorporate Indigenous knowledges (Lowan-
Trudeau & Fowler, 2018), preservice teachers are in need of learning
about Indigenous Peoples. In 2015, the Werklund School of Education
ofered the Indigenous Education course in an online format to facilitate
the broadening of its preservice teacher programming to those students
located in rural and remote communities—and thereby help to address
some of the unique challenges in attracting and retaining teachers in
these settings—and those wishing to have an international experience
through the Teaching Across Borders program (Morris & Hanson, 2019).2
Each of these pathways requires a set number of courses to be delivered
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-11
178 Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn et al.
online, and the mandatory Indigenous Education course was chosen as

one of these courses.
Despite several pedagogical innovations over the years, the online
course has essentially remained a transplant from the face-to-face course
with some slight modifcations. The online format afords students
fexibility in a rich learning environment; still, several instructors fnd it
challenging to enact an ethics of care (Noddings, 2013) or relational peda-
gogies (Kovach, 2013) within this online learning. We know such care is
crucial when immersing students in difcult knowledge (Poitras Pratt &
Hanson, 2020; Simon, 2011), where topics including the impacts of colo-
nial histories and assimilation and the injustices of the Indian Residential
Schools system on the First Peoples of Canada represent an emotionally
fraught learning environment for both students and instructors.
One of the more contentious discussion items within our instructor
meetings is whether it is appropriate to teach such emotionally difcult
issues in an online environment. Several instructors have argued that
this content is best taught in person where care can be expressed in this
intense decolonizing experience. In the online medium, it is challenging
to gauge how students are processing the content and the efect on their
mental health and well-being after they log of. Further complicating the
issue is the realization that students are often distraught during the week
in which residential schools are taught, impacting the other courses in
which they are enrolled. Other instructors feel confdent that care can
be provided in an online environment by providing appropriate support
such as preparing students for the emotional impact of the content prior
to delivering it and working with a small circle of peers throughout the
term.3
Informed by literature on online education, Indigenous pedagogies,
mental health support, critical engagement, and social justice, we ofer
our experiences and perspectives navigating such tensions. We recognize
that with global pandemic circumstances, requiring interactions to be
swiftly moved into the online medium, there are more questions than
answers regarding efective practices. As part of our ongoing decolonizing
work, with the insertion of Indigenous onto-epistemological theoretical
frameworks into post-secondary institutions, we consider what is possible
in enacting relational pedagogy online while remaining critically oriented.
The authors ofer insights into encouraging student engagement and
learning and building caring learning communities in online Indigenous
education. Our team of coauthors includes seven women-identifed
Indigenous Education Course 179
instructors who have taught the Indigenous education course online. We

are a mix of tenure-track and contract faculty and Indigenous and settler
scholars. By drawing on our experiences teaching in-person, online, and
in the context of the global pandemic, the authors ofer their perspectives
on Indigenous pedagogies in online teacher education.
Context and Literature Review
The 2010 Deans Accord on Indigenous Education, signed by deans of

education from across Canada, paralleled the nation-wide activities
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action (2015)
around the same time that Canada was committing itself to the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP,
2007). In the years since, several Canadian universities and colleges have
incorporated some form of Indigenous education within their teacher
education programs. Although there is signifcant variation between
institutions, these courses generally provide an introduction to historical,
social, political, legal, and contemporary issues related to First Nations,
Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada. Over the years, our Indigenous edu-
cation course has been fortifed by social justice and anti-racist stances
developed through diversity and inclusion learning. These foundational
concepts are essential to understanding and enacting Indigenization, rec-
onciliation, and self-determination. Our program also ofers students
opportunities to explore and experience Indigenous pedagogies and
ways of knowing through land and place-based learning, community and
relationship building, and language preservation. These learning events
draw students from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences into
topics that demand a high degree of critical self-refection; a broadening
of awareness of issues, ideas, and experiences with which they may have
had little or no prior experience; and a commitment to conduct oneself
diferently as a result of this new knowledge and understanding.
In 2013, the Werklund School of Education realized its commitment
to the Accord through the hiring of fve Indigenous scholars to join the
only Indigenous scholar in Werklund at the time. At the same time, the
Indigenous education course was made mandatory. The course which
was frst met with considerable resistance as evidenced by the boycotting
of the class by a group of students has since been embraced by students
as one of the more impactful learning experiences within their program.
The evolution of this mandatory course has been collectively led and
accomplished through the involvement of a core group of Indigenous
faculty members who continually challenge themselves to move beyond
Westernized approaches to embrace Indigenous pedagogy and principles
in teaching and learning tasks (Louie et al., 2017).
Over the years, we have worked to Indigenize the pedagogy, that is
to say, to ofer Indigenous worldviews, address histories of colonialism,
and work from a holistic and relational perspective of being and learning
(Little Bear, 2014). The Indigenous philosophy of this course is enacted
through a collective assignment grounded in regional variations of the
Indigenous practice of witnessing and the ofering of optional experien-
tial learning opportunities including critical service-learning opportun-
ities in on-reserve schools (Poitras Pratt & Danyluk, 2017) and, more
recently, land-based learning with local knowledge-keepers. In each of
these land-based approaches, students are prepared for the experience
and guided by Indigenous scholars and/or knowledge-keepers who
underscore the importance of humility and openness to learning new
perspectives as essential to transformative learning. In light of these rela-
tional pedagogies prioritized over the years, the challenge of moving such
approaches to an online format in 2015 presented unique challenges.
Given that many of the supplemental learning experiences are ofered
in situ and not readily available to those students who opt for online
learning, a great deal of the learning takes place through reading and
writing, as students read articles and post written responses. This means
we have not fully realized the potential of the online environment to
engage with oral modes; orality is ftting with Indigenous knowledge
systems and course learning (Maracle, 2015). We have also not fulflled the
opportunity to extend service-learning opportunities to those students
who have opted for these alternative program options.
Advocates of online learning argue that it can ofer many advantages
not found in face-to-face courses, including the opportunity for students
to revisit discussions and more time for refection (Garrison, 2006). In
an online environment, students can more readily share their personal
perspectives often resulting in a more diverse learning experience
(Guthrie & McKracken, 2010). Other scholars have taken up related
issues, such as decolonizing Indigenous education in the 21st cen-
tury (Munroe et al., 2013) by designing culturally inclusive online
learning environments for Indigenous learners (Dreamson et al, 2017;
McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000), intercultural approaches to online course
design (Morong & DesBiens, 2016), and best practices for online teaching
and learning in post-secondary contexts (Keengwe & Kidd, 2010). Those
working across disciplines in online environments, such as Guthrie
and McCracken (2010), suggest weaving themes of social justice, lead-
ership, civic engagement with service-learning foster a transformative
learning environment through a sense of connectedness and collabor-
ation. In pushing for more efective online education, Howard, Schenk,
and Discenza (2004) contend that “[by] clinging to traditional pedagogies,
universities often diminish the potential educational advantages brought
by the technologies used for distance education” (p. vi). We also recognize
that across Canada, public online learning forums such as Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs) are engaging a diverse audience in learning
Indigenous truths stemming from the public interest generated by the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) and its 94 Calls
to Action. For all of these reasons, we as a team of instructors have come
together with a keen desire to investigate and improve the teaching and
learning experiences in online Indigenous education courses.
Diverse Personal Perspectives on Teaching Indigenous

Education Online
In the following sections, we each ofer a brief refection on our own

experience with enacting online pedagogy in Indigenous education.
Following this exploration, we detail the insights ofered by our overlap-
ping and particular experiences.
Yvonne Poitras Pratt (Métis)
As one of fve Indigenous scholars recruited to Werklund in 2013, I am

deeply invested in how the mandatory Indigenous education class is
taught. I recall being quite adamant that the Indigenous education class
was not an ideal class to deliver in an online format when this option
was frst proposed. Throughout the years, I have witnessed the anguish
students go through in discovering the dark truths of our nation’s colo-
nial past and how they have benefted from these injustices. I am there to
help students fnd their way through these often-shocking colonial truths
to a place of committed social action. For me, one of the greatest risks in
teaching Indigenous education is that students’ emotional reactions will

halt their learning and ultimately their willingness to take up this work in
their own classes. Ultimately, the heaviness of teaching Indigenous truths
must be balanced with the need to create hopeful possibilities. In an online
setting where postings on discussion boards are often privileged, I am fur-
ther challenged to fnd creative ways to enact active learning approaches
which can help students move through emotional learning to a place of
hope (Greene, 1995). In my view, the decision to move what is highly com-
plex relational work behind a screen represents an ethical impasse where
the risks can easily outweigh the benefts. Insert the 2020 global pandemic
and the new normal means citizens are staying home to slow the spread
of the virus and educators everywhere are forced into online teaching.
So, what to do? I should clarify at this point that I am not against the use
of technology in classrooms. Quite the opposite. My doctoral dissertation
focused on the strategic use of digital storytelling in my home community
of Fishing Lake Métis Settlement where thanks to a collective efort, we have
created 19 intergenerational digital stories which have worked to reclaim
voice from a uniquely Métis perspective (Poitras Pratt, 2020). Elsewhere I
have argued for the use of technology as a decolonizing means; the stra-
tegic and deliberate use of technology by those whose voice and stories
have been marginalized over the years is a powerful way to foster goals
of self-determination (Poitras Pratt, 2010a, 2010b). But what to do when
technology becomes the only means through which to connect to others?
As educators, our natural tendency is to look to others for inspiration and
guidance when we recognize that the largest risk lies in not teaching these
critically important lessons. In seeking ways to further humanize the online
environment, I am reminded that “learning to relate” is one of four major
learning outcomes in a thoughtful and caring form of online relational
pedagogy (Lalonde, 2017). In seeking to move beyond solely print commu-
nication, my colleagues and I have advocated and designed learning spaces
for oral and visual modes of knowledge transmission and encouraged our
students to do the same. Knowing we must do what we can given the current
global circumstances, I continue to prioritize relationships over technology.
Aubrey Jean Hanson
I have taught our online Indigenous Education course since its initial
ofering in 2015 when I joined the faculty as a new Métis scholar. I was
responsible for the initial translation of the course for online delivery, and
I taught it online before I taught it face to face. I had some prior experience
working in digital environments with youth who had been pushed out of
conventional school settings, and I was willing to accept the challenge. I
have always felt restless about the online design mirroring the on-campus
class, feeling that we could make better use of digital media to integrate
more orality into the course or use a less linear structure, for instance. I
am glad that our team is now working toward an intentional redesign.
Like some of my coauthors, I see both afordances and challenges in
teaching Indigenous Education online, valuing the opportunities to hear
from every single student in digital discussions rather than only from a
vocal few in the classroom, for instance, while struggling with the tensions
and confict that can erupt when students tackle contentious topics at a
distance. The online environment can be gentler in its pacing and allow
time and space for refection, but can also be permeated by all the perils of
digital media, including misinterpretation, strident or rash responses, and
feelings of loneliness or alienation from the course learning. I therefore
approach the online environment with a philosophy of nurturance and
love (hooks, 2003, p. 130), enacted through relationality (Wilson, 2008).
Knowing that relationality is essential to the learning done in
Indigenous Education, I have focused my online teaching on fostering
connections and relationships with and between students. Any gaps I
have perceived in the online design I have tried to fll with responsiveness
and care, working to support students and to build a challenging-yet-safer
learning environment. One illustration is how I have used synchronous
full-class sessions. In our online courses, instructors are usually allocated
three or four Zoom sessions. Rather than using these sessions to focus on
content, such as lectures or dialogue around the readings, I focus them on
relationship work. There are always some necessary items to deal with,
such as clarifcation of assignment expectations—also a form of care for
students—but I ensure that the bulk of each Zoom session is spent in an
act of connection.
Specifcally, I engage students in circle work (Graveline, 1998). Following
talking circle protocols in an online form (Currie & Kaminski, 2009), we
are able to listen to each person’s voice, make space for story, and create
a holistic understanding made up of diverse individual perspectives.
Those circles mean a tremendous amount to students when it comes to
gathering together, feeling their own experiences and struggles validated,
and countering the potential isolation of the online environment. In such
ways, I fnd space to prioritize relationality in my online teaching, and I

see positive efects on my students’ learning experiences.
Teresa Anne Fowler
In 2015, I joined the team to teach this course and wondered how I, a white
settler would ft? As I signed the contract, my son (youngest) came in and
asked what I was doing. I told him I was to teach a course on Indigenous
Education, and he said, oh, you’d be good at that before walking away. As
a professional educator, I also do this work, but also most importantly as
a mother of biracial children who share a First Nation and settler iden-
tity. Thus, as a white woman, I entered the EDUC 530 classroom for the
frst time. Exposing my vulnerability as well as how I came to my onto-
logical self (Hekman, 2014) as Butler (1993) states: “I cannot be who I am
without drawing on the sociality of norms that precede and exceed me”
(p. 32).
When my next course moved to an online format, like my colleagues,
I was apprehensive. How do we engage in relational pedagogies through
Boolean logic? My online class was for the Community-Based-Pathway,
intended for preservice teachers who live in remote communities, spe-
cifcally to provide access to Indigenous Peoples living in rural areas.
However, during our frst sharing circle, there were students who I had
taught last semester on campus! What?! For me, the question shifted
from why are students taking EDUC 530 online to why are students who
can access campus taking EDUC 530 online? Are these the same students
who would walk out or attempt to boycott this class?
In teaching this course online, I moved my pedagogy online. Trying
to emulate face to face in an online environment is a great challenge.
Even with some modifcations, relational pedagogy struggles to follow
this tech/access trend. Finding an ethical space between the sociality of
norms which socialized many of our pre-service teachers in Western
thinking and “the diversity of human worldviews” (Little Bear, 2014,
p. 77)—specifcally Indigenous worldviews in an online environment
means working within our means as teachers—we are good at that
(which may be a curse).
Noddings (2012) states that a caring relation to teaching is grounded
in the “experience of women” (p. 771). Thus, I asked myself, what would
I need in learning hard truths in a remote area? During our second week
of teaching online, I ask each student to respond to a survey to inquire

where they can go for emotional/mental support in their community and
if they have a trusted and critical person to which they can lean on. They
create their circle of supports. However, suppose a student does not have
a circle or cannot fnd support. In that case, we work together to problem-
atize this. This has led to excellent discussions about access to support to
assist individuals in fourishing, something often denied to those living in
remote communities—And just why is this?
Jennifer Markides
Are There Challenges or Drawbacks to Teaching Indigenous

Education Online?
For me, I struggle with teaching the mandatory Indigenous Education

course online for a few reasons. Having taught the on-campus version of
the course, I have experienced how transformational the experience can
be for the students and myself. It is intensive work. With over three hours
per week of face-to-face relationship building, shared experiences, candid
questions, discussions, and difcult learning, it becomes readily apparent
that the experience in the online environment is not and cannot be the
same.
As a Métis educator, I have found teaching Indigenous education
courses to be challenging, both personally and professionally. It is an act
of engaging with difcult knowledge (Britzman, 1998, 2013), where my
work to disrupt the students’ prior learning and preconceptions can infict
harm on them and myself.
Online, there are fewer hours of synchronous time together. With less
face-to-face time, it takes longer to develop relationships and rapport with the
students. The content is extremely controversial. We, the students and myself,
beneft from having time to get to know each other—however nascent—
before I introduce the difcult material and expect the students to embrace
new ways of seeing, knowing, and understanding the world diferently.
Time is my biggest enemy in teaching Indigenous education. There
is always more to teach than the time permits—a lifetime of learning to
foreground and inspire. The online asynchronous discussion posts require
copious amounts of time for writing on the student’s part, and reading and
responding on the teacher’s part. The time spent in the discussion boards
advances relationships and supports learning, but it requires a willful efort

that would otherwise be naturally occurring with face-to-face interactions.
The peer-to-peer encounters are also less frequent in online course. As
such, the relationship-building takes longer and can be less robust. Drawing
on complexity theory, the networks of communication and knowledge
sharing in the on-campus course can quickly become decentralized, while
the networks in the online course barely move from centralized control
to distributed webs of associations (see Davis et al., 2008). In order for the
course to elicit systemic change, the learning community needs to reach a
state of decentralized control, such that the students are no longer reliant
on the teacher to move the group toward emancipatory pedagogies and
practices through consciousness-raising and action (Freire, 2010), specifc
to Indigenous education.
While we prepare to teach online this fall—due to COVID-19—I am
saddened by the loss of face-to-face time with students. Having taught
the course online before, I am already dreading the feeling of giving twice
as much energy and yielding half as much growth in return. Students
have often identifed Indigenous education as one of, if not the, most
important and life-changing course in the program. As an educator, I
want that for all students; but, can I realistically support the development
of a robust system of deeply relational learning in signifcantly fewer
hours and shared experiences?
Jennifer MacDonald
My relationship with Indigenous Education arose through direct

experiences with the natural world. As an outdoor educator, I attuned
to the rhythms of the earth, resonating with relational ecologies of
Indigenous knowledges, and experienced struggle alongside students on
multi-day wilderness expeditions. In doing, holding space for story and
emotion, creating and doing, and paying closer attention to more-than-
human relatives are central aspirations to my practice and lent themselves
well as I began instructing this course.
As a descendant of Euro-settlers, I came into the instructor team with
hesitancy—refecting on the space I take as a white person—journeying
to unpack the colonial legacies of my existence. I wondered, just because
I felt a deep respect for Indigenous knowledge as an outdoor educator,
how was I unpacking neo-colonial ideology? Complexities of privilege
and complacency, and examining the ways I might perpetuate colonial

violence, are at the center of my mind and heart. Teaching the course
in the face-to-face format helped to develop the confdence to enact
deeply felt responsibilities and show to students in vulnerable ways. As
the majority of students were also non-Indigenous, sharing my own pro-
cess supported them to envision their own roles as educators. Working
through the difcult content, flling gaps in knowledge, and shifting
perspectives was an ongoing task. To be true to my own pedagogy, I often
supplemented course material with land-based activities to provide other
points of entry and to encourage students to consider relations broadly to
all living beings and enact hopeful possibilities.
My experience moving to the online course was diferent. I could not
engage emotion and vulnerability in the same way. Logistical concerns and
course expectations for coordinating online meeting times in small groups
across time zones were expressed as unrealistic. This anxiety hampered
much of the frst week for students instead of generating a relational
grounding for careful and sensitive work. As a result, the instructor team
agreed that the ongoing witnessing assignment could be written instead of
oral. Having seen the profound experience for students engaging this task in
the face-to-face format, I worried that it fell fat online and lost the organic
holistic engagement to be another cognitively privileging task. I often
wondered: How might we create an online space for students to express
emotion, have difcult conversations, and feel lifted up in the same way?
Opportunities to engage with the kinetics of Indigenous sensibil-
ities is important to me. I felt subtle shifts when I challenged my own
preconceptions of online learning and embraced the platform as a
gathering and sharing space for the curriculum of lived experiences
ofine. I started ofering weekly activities with the intention toward
embodying experiences with weekly objectives instead of reading and
writing, for example, walks guided by a relational frame, calling their
grannies, spending time with a place, mapping their biases, and creating
art. These activities were optional but for those who engaged, I noticed
the experience became central to online interactions.
Patricia Danyluk
Upon learning, I would be teaching the mandatory Indigenous course

online; I was excited by the possibilities. I had worked with Indigenous
communities in three provinces, and I thought I might be able to share

some of my research about early experiences of non-Indigenous teachers
in Indigenous communities (Danyluk & Sheppard, 2015). Each time I
teach the course, I spend some time positioning myself and discussing
the experiences and work that have brought me to this course. Yet, inev-
itably at the conclusion of the course when I receive student feedback,
I learn that although my students enjoyed the course and felt that they
learned a lot, the course might have been more “authentic” if it had been
taught by an Indigenous Instructor. This feedback implies the responsi-
bility for educating preservice teachers about colonization and its impact
is the work of Indigenous peoples alone. I view this as shared work and
believe some of this responsibility must fall to allies in this work. This
takes on heightened importance in light of the new Teaching Quality
Standard in our province that directs all teachers to apply foundational
knowledge about First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples to their teaching
(Alberta Education, 2019). Part of my responsibility as a non-Indigenous
instructor is demonstrating how this might be done respectfully so that
students can do this work in their own classrooms.
In an online environment, it is sometimes difcult to know how
students are processing the content. The decolonizing journey that this
course leads students through fnds many of them questioning who they
are and what is their role in this work. Although we have several syn-
chronous sessions during the course, I advise students to debrief the con-
tent within their groups and reach out to university counseling services if
they feel overly distraught. One of the other supports that I have developed
is weekly videos where I introduce the content for the upcoming week
and remind students of the supports in place. I fnd this practice provides
an opportunity for students to know me on a more personal level and fur-
ther humanizes the online experience. The online nature of these videos
means that once I post them, they become a permanent archive. In the
hypercritical environment that we fnd ourselves, I fnd myself creating
several takes of each video before I am comfortable with what I have said
and how it might be perceived.
This is where I diverge with some of my colleagues. From my per-
spective, I believe this course can be delivered in an online environment
in an ethical manner. I believe that part of the university experience is
engaging students in thinking critically. This means that sometimes
students encounter new learning that makes them feel uncomfortable.
This discomfort is part of the process of decolonization and often results
in transformative learning and this is a good thing. I provide resources for

the students but don’t act as their counselor.
Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn
As a settler, I am guided by the Nêhiýaw Kishêýihtamowin Plains

Cree Model (Kovach, 2010) as a way to refect on my own positioning.
Miskâsowin (fnding your belonging by going to the center of yourself ),
tâpwe (truth, trust, and reciprocal collaborations), and miýo-wîcêhtowin
(good relations and tribal ethics) are concepts I bring to my teaching and
hope my students will appreciate as they move through their learning as
well.
Invariably, courses that broach colonization and discrimination
unveil difcult truths and privileges about societies and our own ways
of thinking and acting that contribute to that narrative. These topics
stir students’ emotions and create tensions. While tensions and feeling
unsettled are not an issue—they are in fact necessary preconditions for
change (Freire, 2010; Ratner, 2014; Regan, 2010)—it is crucial to help
students navigate these tensions. There is a fne line between feeling
unsettled and overwhelmed. The former leads to deep and often trans-
formative learning, and the latter can cause disengagement from the
learning, further resistance, and othering. Coming into the online version
of the course, I wondered whether students would grasp the concep-
tual framework of the course, get past the tensions, and forge a sense of
community. To my contentment, most students engaged critically and
worked well together to envision how they could do and be better as they
embarked on their individual and collective journeys as educators.
Around the ffth week of the course, when students are exposed
to the most egregious abuses to which Indigenous children were sub-
mitted in residential schools, the dynamic of the course changed, and
student distress emerged in diferent ways. Some reported persistent
negative emotions, confusion, sadness, and not feeling comfortable
sharing with anyone else. One student, in particular, disclosed having
a past trauma triggered. The student missed work, deadlines, and
contemplated dropping the program. I wondered about students who
kept their difculties to themselves. I felt a degree of removal from
students, and they seemed to feel isolated in their experience and from
each other as well.
As the course ended, I not only had serious reservations of an eth-

ical order about the online delivery of the course, but also began having
apprehensions around teaching a diversity course where topics such
as racism, genderism, white, and Christian privilege are unpacked and
often contentious. I concluded that controversial and highly emotional
topics might not be appropriate for online instruction. As Cipolletta
et al. (2017) noted in the feld of psychological services, difcult topics
should be reserved to complement in-person interactions. In traditional
(in-person) settings, individuals can more easily and promptly communi-
cate empathy, support, and concern for each other’s well-being, in more
robust expressions of communal ethics of care. My position changed,
however, when the psychological community went from being divided
and tentative about online services, to seeing it as the most viable or only
alternative during the Covid-19 pandemic. Failure to move services online
would interrupt vital services to those in vulnerable circumstances. This
reframing of the online medium as protective caused me to rethink my
stance. The challenge now rests on instructional designs that furnish the
learning experience with wellness safeguards and clearer paths to com-
munal care and action.
Discussion
As our experiences reveal, teaching an online Indigenous education man-

datory course requires each of us to continually examine our positioning
and consider how we may enact the ethics of care (Noddings, 2012) to
promote meaningful learning. After all, if students experience distress in
troubling colonial concepts, ideas, narratives, and structures, they cannot
engage in the deep and transformative learning that is required to dis-
mantle them. Distress creates the opposite efect of learning; it leads to
disengagement, further resistance, and othering.
Although we share a common course outline, we each approach
the work from a diferent perspective and positioning which models to
students how this work can be taken up in multiple ways. This takes on
increased importance as each province and territory in Canada works
toward integrating Indigenous knowledge into their curriculum (Lowan-
Trudeau & Fowler, 2018). Our positioning, as either Indigenous or non-
Indigenous, raises unique concerns. Those of us who are Indigenous
instructors can encounter racist attitudes from students or a disregard
for our lived experiences as Indigenous community members. We know

full well the emotional toll that students face in learning Indigenous his-
tory, topics, and issues when introduced to the dark truths of Canada
in our course, yet we also navigate the emotional burden of teaching
deeply personal lived experiences of colonial outcomes, which is dif-
cult in the best of times (Markides, 2018; Poitras Pratt & Hanson, 2020).
Teaching such deeply difcult truths in an online environment can feel
quite removed from the very personal and relational aspects of our being.
Those of us who are non-Indigenous tend to be judged more harshly
in terms of “authenticity,” detracting attention from the shared work
involved in decolonization. A way around it is the modeling of vulner-
ability to build rapport, forge relationships, and inspire responsibility
within students.
While instructors of Indigenous Education routinely encounter
challenges in the face-to-face classroom, these challenges are often ampli-
fed when the screen adds another element of separation. Online instruc-
tion often focuses on the creation of products—in the form of discussion
board posts, e-mails, and other print communications—rather than on the
relational processes and oral traditions central to Indigenous pedagogies.
A degree of removal fattens the complexity of experiences and social
location; further, the online medium sometimes hinders communication
and empathy, which we must then work to counteract or repair. In an in-
person environment, instructors and students are better able to read body
language, gauge shifts in mannerisms and behaviors, and contribute to
collective well-being (Berger, 2016; Cipoletta et al., 2017). Students’ well-
being is a primary concern within online teaching and is expressed difer-
ently by each instructor. When students encounter distress that surpasses
our roles as instructors, we are asked to respond by connecting them to
the appropriate services. In enacting an Indigenous and critical pedagogy,
we take to heart the privileging of caring over content learning (Freire,
2010), yet we recognize that students require a robust understanding of
the historical context to engage critically and meaningfully in decoloniza-
tion, Indigenization, and reconciliation. This is the point where mental
learning meets the work of the heart (Poitras Pratt & Hanson, 2020).
Despite the challenges, the online space afords a number of oppor-
tunities. It expands access to remote communities and students who
otherwise would not be able to access this learning. Online contributions,
whether through written or audio posts, allow instructors (and peers)
to access the ways students are articulating their learning (Guthrie &
McKracken, 2010). With required online postings, students are asked

to understand the issues and materials of the course deeply (Garrison,
2006). No one can aford not to have a position; ideas are made vis-
ible and have the potential to infuence other learners. Relatedly,
instructors can engage with students to guide their learning and clarify
misunderstandings. The online medium also maintains the relational
inclination of the course. For example, instructors take up Indigenizing
practices such as Graveline’s (1998) circle work, where each student holds
an equal voice and listens deeply to their peers’ learning. A clear advan-
tage of the online medium is its multimodality, which invites learners
to privilege orality beyond print, resulting in a more nuanced expres-
sion of learning. Such Indigenizing practices as circle work, witnessing,
and watching Indigenous digital stories—with proper attribution—are
efective relational practices (Louie et al., 2017) that can be ofered online.
Another example is land-engagement activities where students can access
place-based knowledge in their own ways. These methods encourage
students to seek out relationships in the localities where they may begin
their teaching careers and enliven topics that are relevant to the course
content. These practices ensure that students are challenged to think
deeply about the outcomes of colonization in Canada and to take up
Indigenizing in meaningful ways.
Conclusion
In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, we now face a new host of
unprecedented challenges, not the least of which is the mandating of all
classes to online delivery. Without the privilege of choice, we understand
that it is best that we work toward minimizing risks and maximizing well-
being and pathways into online pedagogy. Through the years, we have
found weekly meetings where we debrief and share best practices and
learning activities, to be of immense value. Likewise, this collaborative
writing experience has ofered us a similar opportunity to move from
our individual considerations to a more holistic understanding of the
afordances and constraints of the course in an online medium. As a team
of instructors, we are committed to continually examining the course
and our teaching methods to make room for additional innovations
required to best serve student learning through direct engagement with
critical and Indigenizing frameworks. This is precisely the kind of critical
examination and humility we ask of our students when they enter the
learning space and begin to consider their own positioning and responsi-
bility to decolonize.
Notes
1 We would like to acknowledge Dr. Markides for identifying this book as a

proper avenue for our work and the intellectual labor of our research assistant,
Alison Van Rosendaal, who assisted adeptly with literature review work on
this project.
2 The online delivery of a mandatory Indigenous education course addresses
issues of equity and access, and the related issue of how to train and retain
teachers in rural and remote communities. With extra care and attention in
the design format, an online course ofers learners the opportunity to engage
in learning when and how it best suits them.
3 Similar concerns over resonance of content and positioning, the relational
co-creation of knowledge about the self and the world through the online
medium, have also emerged in the feld of educational and counseling psych-
ology. Although this body of literature is emerging and often divided, many
question the depth of the therapeutic alliance that can be forged between
psychologists/counselors and their clients in the online environment.
Limitations in identifying and ofering nonverbal communication cues and the
removal of a dedicated space outside familiar individual spaces to engage in
deep refection are some of the points of contention (Berger, 2016; Cipolletta
et al., 2017). Yet, in both educational and psychological felds of inquiry, there
is ample acknowledgement of potential opportunities for innovative use of
the online environment.
References
Alberta Education. (2019). Teaching Quality Standard. https://education.alberta.

ca/media/3739620/standardsdoc-tqs-_fa-web-2018-01-17.pdf.
Berger, T. (2016). The therapeutic alliance in internet interventions: A narrative
review and suggestions for future research. Psychotherapy Research, 27(5),
511–524.
Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic
inquiry of learning. State University of New York Press.
Britzman, D. P. (2013). Between psychoanalysis and pedagogy: Scenes of

rapprochement and alienation. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 95–117. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/curi.12007.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. Routledge.
Cipolletta, S., Frassoni, E., & Faccio, E. (2017). Construing a therapeutic rela-
tionship online: An analysis of videoconference sessions. Clinical Psychologist,
22(2), 220–229.
Currie, S., & Kaminski, J. (2009). Talking circles. First Nations Pedagogy Online.
https://frstnationspedagogy.ca/circletalks.html.
Danyluk, P. J., & Sheppard, G. (2015). Early teaching experiences in northern,
remote, or frst nation, Métis and Inuit communities. In L. Thomas, & M.
Hirschkorn (Eds.), Change and progress in Canadian Teacher Education: Research on
recent innovations in teacher preparation in Canada (pp. 217–250). E-book published
by the Canadian Association for Teacher Education at https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283731723_Change_and_Progress_in_Canadian_Teacher_
Education_Research_on_Recent_Innovations_in_Teacher_Preparation_in_
Canada.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching
in complex times. Routledge.
Dreamson, N., Thomas, G., Lee Hong, A., & Kim, S. (2017). Policies on and
practices of cultural inclusivity in learning management systems: Perspectives
of Indigenous holistic pedagogies. Higher Education Research & Development,
36(5), 947–961.
Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal,
6(1), 193–204.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by M. B. Ramos. Penguin
Books. (Original work published 1970).
Freire, P. (2010). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum Publishing Group.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(3), 377–403.
Garrison, R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Online Learning, 10(1), 25–
34. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1768.
Graveline, F. J. (1998). Circle works: Transforming Eurocentric consciousness. Fernwood.
Greene, M. (1995). On social imagination and the arts. https://youtu.
be/R8hp8GD8-p4.
Guthrie, K. L., & McKracken, H. (2010). Teaching and learning social justice
through online service-learning courses. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 79–94.
Hekman, S. (2014). Vulnerability and ontology. Australian Feminist Studies, 29(82),
452–464. https://doi.org/10/1080/08164649.2014.967742.
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge.

Howard, C., Schenk, K., & Discenza, R. (Eds.). (2004). Distance learning and
university efectiveness: Changing educational paradigms for online learning. IGI
Global.
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and
teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
6(2), 533–541.
Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In
L. Brown, & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous & anti-
oppressive approaches. Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s Press.
Kovach, M. (2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples
Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40–48.
Kovach, M. (2013). Treaties, truths and transgressive pedagogies: Re-imagining
Indigenous presence in the classroom. Socialist Studies/Études socialistes, 9(1),
109–127.
Lalonde, S. (2017). The relational model for teaching and learning (Unpublished
master’s thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. https://doi.
org/10.11575/PRISM/28290.
Little Bear, L. (2014). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming
indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77–85). UBC Press.
Louie, D. W., Poitras Pratt, Y., Hanson, A. J., & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying indi-
genizing principles of decolonizing methodologies in university classrooms.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(3), 16–33. http://journals.sfu.ca/
cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/187948/pdf.
Lowan-Trudeau, G., & Fowler, T. A. (2018). Towards a critical understanding
of Indigenous environmental issues in Canada: A curriculum review. https://
indigenousenved.files.wordpress.com/ 2018/ 03/ lowan- trudeau- fowler-
report-fnal3.pdf.
Maracle, L. (2015). Memory serves: Oratories. NeWest Press.
Markides, J. (2018). Being indigenous in the indigenous education classroom: A
critical self-study of teaching in an impossible and imperative assignment. In
E. Lyle (Ed.), Fostering a relational pedagogy: Self-study as transformative praxis
(pp. 35–44). Brill | Sense.
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cul-
tural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58–72.
Morris, M., & Hanson, A. J. (2019). Remembrance across borders: A dia-
logue on one educator’s experience of studying indigenous education in
Germany. Seminar: A Journal of Germanic Studies, 55(4), 360–378. https://doi.
org/10.3138/seminar.55.4.3.
Morong, G., & DesBiens, D. (2016). Culturally responsive online design: Learning
at intercultural intersections. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 474–492.
Munroe, E., Borden, L., Murray Orr, A., Toney, D., & Meader, J. (2013).
Decolonizing aboriginal education in the 21st century. McGill Journal of
Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 48(2), 317–337.
Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education,
38(6), 771–781.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education.
University of California Press.
Poitras Pratt, Y. (2010a). Merging new media with old traditions. Native Studies
Review, 19(1), 1–27.
Poitras Pratt, Y. (2010b). Taking a stance: Aboriginal media research as an act
of empowerment. In S. B. Hafsteinsson, & M. Bredin (Eds.), Indigenous screen
cultures in Canada (pp. 163–182). University of Manitoba Press.
Poitras Pratt, Y. (2020). Digital storytelling in indigenous education: A decolonizing
journey for a Métis community. Routledge Press.
Poitras Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. (2017). Learning what schooling left out: Making
an indigenous case for critical service-learning and critical pedagogy within
teacher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(1). http://journals.sfu.
ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2349/2379.
Poitras Pratt, Y., & Hanson, A. J. (2020). Indigenous instructors’ perspectives on pre-
service teacher education: Poetic responses to difcult learning and teaching.
Race, Ethnicity and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718085.
Ratner, C. (2014). Macro cultural psychology: A political philosophy of mind.
Cambridge University Press.
Regan, P. (2010). Unsettling the settler within: Indian residential schools, truth telling,
and reconciliation in Canada. UBC Press.
Simon, R. (2011). Afterword—the turn to pedagogy: A needed conversation on
the practice of curating difcult knowledge. In E. Lehrer, C. E. Milton, &
M. E. Patterson (Eds.), Curating difcult knowledge: Violent pasts in public places
(pp. 193–209). Palgrave Macmillan.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). The fnal report of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (6 vols.). National Center for
Truth and Reconciliation. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood.
UNDRIP. (2007). UN General Assembly. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007,
A/RES/61/295, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html.
An Autoethnographic 11
Rhapsody of Learning
to Teach Diverse
Students Online
Mark Stevens
Introduction: Of Self and Viewpoint
The critical framework that guides my teaching is composed of multiple

aspects. Some of this comes from my life views and experiences, and
other ideas have been found in research relevant to criticality. I believe this
combination can best be understood by the statement that as we interact
with each other, there is a need for recognition, respect, and caring.
Life experiences that led to this view also include various components.
One was as simple as becoming familiar with the books of Tony and
Anne Hillerman, which present crime mysteries intertwined with the
fascinating culture of the Dine, or Navajo people. I looked up related
nonfction sources and found myself drawn to their sense of together-
ness, and felt responsible for the problems and interests of all the people
(Correll & Watson, 1972). I continued looking for similar beliefs in other
parts of the world and came across the concept of Aroha while reading
of the Maori people, indigenous to New Zealand. Aroha describes con-
sideration of the well-being of others through compassion and respect
(McDonald, 2004). These ideas connect to religious beliefs that empha-
size how important it is to “love your neighbor as yourself ” (English
Standard Version, 2001, Leviticus 19:34, Matthew 22:39) and serve them,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-12
198 Mark Stevens
even if others think them unworthy of respect (English Standard Version,

2001, Matthew 25:40).
My critical stance may be rooted in that personal development, but is
based on recognized research. This journey began when I read it is a phil-
osophy meant to beneft oppressed people and can be based on communi-
cation, challenge, change, and justice (Brunkhorst, 1999; Donnell, 1999).
Individuals engaged in this thinking challenge privileged ways of knowing
so equity is increased (Brunkhorst, 1999). Education-related elements of
Critical Theory (CT) that appeal to me include speaking against social
regulation in learning and examining access to resources, such as online
technology, that create and perpetuate inequitable power relationships
(Luttrell, 2010). Viewed in this way a critical approach can support trans-
formative educational change, as it causes refection on what has been done
and could be done better (Myers et al., 2019). In fact, teachers can use a
critical approach to lead students to resist domination and reach for their
own learning goals (Salehi, 2019). This viewpoint supports examining and
challenging power relationships in schooling that limit the opportunities for
marginalized populations (Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2009; McLaren & Giarelli,
1995). This journey into criticality led to the Autoethnographic approach
used in developing and structuring the refections shared in this chapter.
Examination of the Problem
This chapter presents an autoethnographic look at experiences using tech-

nology, which eventually transformed into online teaching. In order to
make the online lessons more relevant, I began including resources related
to the problems faced by marginalized populations and designed the
lessons to meet their needs. The problem addressed in this study examining
online learning experiences of the marginalized has several parts, the one
that comes frst, and still exists, is that K-12 online learning is frequently
not equitable for marginalized populations. Another part is learning in
online environments is an ever-shifting concept, and reactions to these
changes can impact learners negatively and must be spoken against.
My Culturally Responsive Learning Framework
In order to present the way I enact culturally responsive learning, it is

useful to contemplate formal understandings of culturally responsive
Autoethnographic Rhapsody of Learning 199
teaching. Education recognized as more accepting of individuals has come

to be known by diferent terms through the years, including Culturally
Responsive Teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994), Culturally Responsive
Instruction (Teaching Tolerance – Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016), and
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching (Hollie, 2019). Ladson-
Billings described Culturally Responsive Teaching in a way that remains
relevant when she said it is: “A pedagogy that empowers students intellec-
tually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural and historical
referents to convey knowledge, to impart skills, and to change attitudes”
(Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 13).Unfortunately, there has not been as much
acceptance of this as one would like to see, as inequitable attitudes toward
people with learning challenges still remain (Page et al., 2020). More work
needs to be done to follow a culturally responsive instructional model
that diferentiates to ft student needs as they learn about themselves and
others in a way that empowers them to resist discrimination (Teaching
Tolerance – Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). My goal in the following
refections is to paint a picture of ways to maintain such a focus.
There are many ways for individual practitioners to think about
enacting a culturally responsive approach in their practice. I have chosen to
flter mine through the following research-backed Concepts of Concern:
(a) serving others; (b) academic support; (c) talking back to inequity;
(d) diverse perspectives—awareness of others; and (e) confronting self.
These can be better understood by viewing Table 11.1.
Relevant Concepts
In order to increase understanding of the following refections, several

concepts relevant to the study will be examined through a review of rele-
vant literature. Those ideas include the following: (a) marginalized learners;
(b) autoethnography as a way of inquiry; (c) equity in learning; and (d) online
learning for marginalized populations that as part of being pushed to the
margins have been underserved in frst traditional and now online learning.
Underserved Learners
Students who are chronically underserved in schools are often described as

marginalized. This term can inspire defcit thinking about these students,
200 Mark Stevens
Table 11.1 Concepts of Concern

Serving Others
• Validate and afrm students’ lives and diversity (Hollie, 2018; Kieran &
Anderson, 2019)
• Be sensitive to student cultural backgrounds (Wlodkowski, 2003)
• Understand how students construct knowledge and live their lives, and design
learning accordingly (Kieran & Anderson, 2019; Villegas & Lucas, 2007)
Academic Support
• Design and diferentiate instruction so diverse learners see relevance and
efectiveness (Gay, 2000; Teaching Tolerance – Southern Poverty Law
Center, 2016)
• Advocate for all students, regardless of learning challenges (Page et al.,
2020)
• Have class be a place where learners feel respected, see personal relevance
and choice, and feel competent (Wlodkowski, 2003)
Talking Back to Inequity
• Promote use of students’ critical voice (Teaching Tolerance – Southern
Poverty Law Center, 2016).
• Support students free thinking (Ramírez & Castañeda, 1974)
• Confront assumption marginalized students do not want to learn (Deci
et al., 2001)
• Help students question inequity in all areas (Ladson-Billings, 1995)
Diverse Perspectives—Awareness of Others
• Know student’s behavior and communication ways (Wlodkowski, 2003).
• Diferentiate to support student emotional needs (Ratey, 2001).
• Understand the role of culture and language in learning (Villegas & Lucas,
2007).
Confronting Self
• Explicitly engage questions of equity and justice in a fuid world (Ladson-
Billings, 2014)
• Follow a pedagogy of empowering opposition (Ladson-Billings, 1995)
• Refect on own experiences and culture, and compare to others (Delpit,
1995)
• “Design instruction from the perspective of students’ diversity as strengths
they have rather than defcits you are trying to fll.” (Kieran & Anderson,
2019, p. 1202)
such as that they misbehave, are not capable, and are not interested in
learning (Hollie, 2019). However, the truth is that they are learners who
are capable, but have been underserved by an educational establishment
that neglects to adequately take into account their cultural, linguistic,
gender, and other diferences when designing learning, thereby failing to
contemplate what is right for them (Hollie, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 2014;
Morales-Chicas et al., 2019).
Autoethnography
In order to examine these problems through a critical lens, the

autoethnographic approach was used. Adams et al. (2015) described
autoethnography as a method by which a researcher uses their experi-
ence to speak against beliefs and actions in society. In addition, Bochner
and Ellis (2006) stated that autoethnography involves “people in the pro-
cess of fguring out what to do, how to live, and the meaning of their
struggles” (p. 111). Someone following an autoethnographic approach
writes alongside current cultural practices, criticizes and talks back to
them, shares how their personal experiences relate, and shares thoughts
in a way understandable to diferent audiences (Manning & Adams, 2015).
I have always felt simplifying important things into stories is the best
way to help others engage in what is being said. Additionally, personal life
experiences have made me conscious of things happening to others that
are not respectful. While I may have combined these things when I began
teaching in 1994, I found it encouraging that autoethnography uses story-
telling to focus on helping people in society live better lives (Adams et al.,
2015; Ellis & Bochner, 2006).
Equity in Learning
A simple defnition of equity in learning would be “that all students receive

equal access to the same educational pathways” (Atchison et al., 2017,
p. 1). A more developed understanding describes it as including the ideas
of inclusion and fairness, expressed through the interacting practices of
teachers, schools, and national policy-makers (Ainscow, 2016).
To increase understanding of equity in learning, it is useful to consider
what it looks like when there is a lack of it. At times, school ofcials have
202 Mark Stevens
aggressively interacted with learners who are linguistically and culturally

diferent, such as English Learners, in a way that depersonalizes them and
displays a lack of equity (Lavadenz et al., 2019). This can appear as expres-
sion of racism due to achievement gaps experienced (Hung et al., 2019).
Also, researchers have pointed out one way this lack of learning equity
appears is by students who appear to lack the sociocultural capital to
succeed being silenced (Allan & Duckworth, 2018; Reardon et al., 2015).
Specifc examples of this lack of equity in learning exist. Forty per-
cent of parents of English Learners from Central and South America
experienced negative expressions of power by school authorities that
manifested as disinterested teachers, inadequate communication from
the school, and the feeling they had no input in the education of their
children (EdSource, 2004). One learner vividly described this aggression
to a school ofcial: “too often I heard, maestro, they don’t want me there.
They told me to come back when I learn English” (Lavadenz et al., 2019,
p. 184). These discriminatory practices can be challenged, and educa-
tional equity advanced, by targeting appropriate resources and crafting
policies that challenge the status quo (Atchison et al., 2017).
Online Learning for Underserved Populations
Learners who have not been served by traditional schooling have been
described as belonging to groups who have been historically underserved
(Darling-Aduana, 2019). Among these groups are learners who are: (a) in
need of special education support (Stahl et al., 2017); (b) English language
learners (Nelson, 2018); (c) linguistically, ethnically and racially diverse
(Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Morales-Chicas et al., 2019; Stevens & Rice, 2016);
and (d) children from economically disadvantaged communities (Akin &
Meuman, 2013; Jacob et al., 2016; Nelson, 2018).
This inequity appears in online learning as marginalized students
of various kinds struggle with accessing necessary technology tools,
resources, and assignments (Stahl et al., 2017). Specifcally, students with
disabilities may have educators who lack knowledge and desire to support
their needs for individualized learning in online settings (Crouse, 2018;
Rice, 2017). In addition, English Learners often face inadequate support
for understanding online materials (Nelson, 2018; Stevens & Rice, 2016).
At times, schools with large populations of students without economic
resources lose out to schools populated by children of economically
powerful parents when technology is allocated ( Jacob et al., 2016). Also,

racially marginalized students, such as African Americans, can experience
marginalization by having their existing digital literacy practices ignored
(Bean-Folkes & Ellison, 2018).
Refections
This article rests on my experiences, related to online learning, refected in

an autoethnographic fashion. I have used online learning in the classroom
since 1994 when there was one data line into a school of about 800. It was
then I started to take on a self-refective perspective on my own profes-
sional narrative of learning to teach online (Adams et al., 2015; Rice, 2011).
Similar experiences of doubt occurred through the years, but the most
vivid happened during a discussion with a school leader as I was explaining
an online elective for seventh-grade history students. She said “online and
blended learning will never work in a middle school like this.” She acted
as she cared about helping the marginalized in our school where 70%
receive free and reduced meal support, 32% are English Learners, 52%
are Latinx, and 15% receive Special Education services (School Division,
Student Membership Demographics). I wanted to better prepare myself
to fght this battle, so began a Ph.D. program in integrating online
learning in schools.
It was then I saw value in critical theory and felt I could use that per-
spective to work as an autoethnographer at times. The desire to speak
against uninformed online learning viewpoints put me in the position to
better understand the meaning of this struggle (Bochner & Ellis, 2006).
These shared personal refections will talk back to historical practices,
and current views of online learning, in an understandable storytelling
way (Adams et al., 2015; Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Manning & Adams, 2015).
Refection One: 2006—The Beginning of a Fascination with

Multimodal Learning
Multimodal learning involves at least two diferent modes of communica-

tion (images, text, audio, and video) being combined to create meaning.
I thought the audio and video would empower my English Learners and
Special Education students to exercise agency in constructing meaning
with this approach that involved self-direction. I used the Blackboard
204 Mark Stevens
learning management system to share Powerpoints that combined text,

images, and music pulled from compact disks. One example of how this
helped my students was when they saw the section dealing with protest
against the Vietnam war in the United States. They read short descrip-
tive passages and saw images of young people of that time experien-
cing validation of their counter-culture viewpoints. They even heard it
when listening to Country Joe and The Fish playing “Feel Like I’m Fixin
to Die Rag.” Students struggling with comprehension examined and
compared the various resources, and presented their interpretations.
Most interesting was several African American students recognizing the
attack on the institutional racism of the 1960s when Richie Havens sang
the song “Freedom,” at the Woodstock Festival in 1969.
Refection Two: 2009–2010—Student Ability Realized

through Web Authoring
The 1920s U.S. history unit also used the Blackboard to provide unit
activity guides, content Powerpoints, and links to discussion boards
to support self-directed learning. They then began constructing their
own website to present information on a related self-chosen topic that
extended what was seen in the content presentations.
One group of team taught (Special and General Education) African
American, Latinx, and Caucasian students decided to exercise their
agency by focusing on the music of Jelly Roll Morton, Bessie Smith,
Louis Armstrong, and Duke Ellington. In efect they designed their own
instruction from the perspective of diversity, closely connected to some in
the group. This allowed them to present afrming views about the diver-
sity of people in the past that they could relate to in diferent ways in the
present. In addition, they were able to promote an anti-essentialist view-
point highlighting the performer’s creative commonality, while making it
clear they all projected themselves as individuals with power.
Refection Three: 2010–2012—Reading Support Wikis

and Collaborative Advocacy
This refection shows school leadership can be supportive when

confronting marginalizing viewpoints regarding English Learners, and
others that struggle with reading comprehension. These concerns are

real, as achievement gaps in reading have averaged nationally 42% from
1992 to 2019 in reading, and 39% from 2001 to 2014 in social studies for
eighth grade learners (NCES, 2019, 2020). In my teaching I noticed similar
results, and after standardized testing in the Spring of 2011, I saw my
only students failing that test were English Learner/Special Education
students. That started me on an informal thinking process to fgure out
why. It seemed that if they were having trouble learning, the problem
may be in understanding the overwhelmingly lecture-like, text-based
presentation of content I used. I needed to fgure out a way to empower
students intellectually and emotionally to overcome these challenges.
I decided to try a combination of images, text, and video in a Blackboard
Wiki and called it a Reading Support Wikis (RSW). The Principal saw
testing data showing the positive impact the approach had and funded
development of RSWs for every one of 11 units through the year. She
even paid for Summer curriculum development where I trained a group
of teachers to build and use them. In efect, she became an advocate for
the use of online strategies that served student intellectual needs.
The following school year (2011–2012) RSWs were used for every unit,
and students were more engaged by this self-regulated approach that used
multimodal content. At the end of that year, I saw two of my English
Learner/Special Education students in the hallway talking to their admin-
istrator and counselor. I pointed out that both Manual and Mateo had just
passed the state standardized test after working hard all year. The sense
of pride they showed gave meaning to all the struggle necessary to build
the digital environment that served them. The actions of Manual, Mateo,
and others with the same challenges rejected the essentialist view that
students in those groups are incapable of exemplary efort. They became
allies in the fght against institutionalized discriminatory actions, whether
they be intentional or not.
Refection Four: 2012–2014—The Power of Authentic

Activities
It is an ignorant person who thinks they have learned all there is to learn
about anything, especially online learning. The desire to avoid this drove
me to enroll in a graduate program at George Mason University called,
at the time, Integrating Online Learning in Schools. One essential point
206 Mark Stevens
made was that it can be more difcult to engage students in online and
blended environments, so authentic activities can be used to increase
student buy-in. One related approach I used in multiple units was to
empower students to negotiate their truth as they worked to understand
the perspective of a person from history.
James, an African American boy who identifed with the LGBTQ com-
munity, said he felt validated when he was allowed to decide to focus on the
perspective of Little Richard during a study of post-WWII US Consumer
Culture. He composed and “recorded” an interview where Little Richard
discussed his song “Tutti Frutti,” and just what he meant in the lyrics. In a
later unit, James decided to do a biographical interview with Freddie Mercury,
lead singer of Queen. He was, in efect, confronting societal stereotypes by
showing no hesitation in demonstrating who he was by the work he did.
The following school year Sofa and Marianna, two Latinx students,
decided to be news reporters broadcasting the launch of Apollo 11 with
podcasts. They composed a series of reports using actual dates from 1969,
some of which included discussions with real historical people. Their
focus and creativity surprised many class observers, both adults and peers.
In efect their work was a strong response to microaggressions related to
the ability and desire of Latinx students, sometimes expressed by people
who fail to recognize their condescending attitudes.
Refection Five: 2014–2015: Google Classroom

Arrives in a Big Way
Online learning in a Google setting was a welcome development that

enabled a module approach, supporting marginalized learners in multiple
ways. Content was divided into small chunks that could be processed in a
self-paced way, resulting in improved comprehension. Student documents
could be reviewed, and supportive/directive comments left. These
comments could be posted synchronously in the exact spot students were
working, providing efective feedback and encouragement. Humorous
memes used in this way let students know you saw them as people and
cared. This friendly approach was essential to populations sometimes
marginalized, and not certain of teacher attitudes, such as emotionally
challenged, special education, English Learners, and racial minorities.
The Google environment also made it simple to provide a variety
of multimodal resources and analysis documents from which students
could pick in order to make a personal connection to things of the past.

One example comes from the Expense of Expansion unit examining US
growth after 1865. Learners could hear from Black Elk explaining what
he saw at the Massacre at Wounded Knee, hear from Vaqueros, and meet
African American US Marshal Bass Reeves. All of these Google enabled
capabilities allowed students to design their own instruction, with their
diversity guiding them and serving as a strength.
Refection Six: 2017–2018—Multimodal Technology

Enhanced Learning for English Learners (and Others)
As previously mentioned, my online learning journey eventually took me

into a doctoral program focused on technology design. I wanted to use the
things I was learning to take Reading Support Wikis (RSW) and make them
more efective in helping English Learners in reading and content learning.
I was able to move the RSW onto a Google Blogger thread that allowed cre-
ation, in one place, of separate RSW modules for each lesson in a unit. This
more robust web environment allowed improvements that included the
following: (1) placing module text into an easily scrollable box; (2) styling
text headers with bolding, diferent sizes, and coloring to support compre-
hension; (3) linking from text to illustrative images and Spanish and Arabic
translations that had audio for non-readers; (4) providing audio of the text
controllable by a play bar embedded above the text box; and (5) images and
videos with captions embedded in the text box that aided comprehension.
This was all backed by an engaged teacher presence that supported learner
cognitive engagement (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison, 2009).
Students using the redesigned RSWs did perform well on social studies
content, vocabulary, and reading comprehension assessments. One stu-
dent described the impact RSWs had by saying “I could see the ideas in the
words in my head and understand what it was talking about.” All of this
speaks against the viewpoint that online related learning is not efective
for all students, particularly those developing English language skills.
Refection Seven: 2018–2019—Inserting Different

Perspectives in Learning
It is important to act against assumptions, spoken and unspoken, that his-

tory learning is best when a teacher controls all aspects, including topics
208 Mark Stevens
studied, resources used, and how the work proceeds online. Sometimes
this leads to unengaging drill-and-kill lessons that miss the goal of encour-
aging students to examine historical resources from which they can get
validation and afrmation of who they are.
In the 2018–2019 school year, I collaborated with another researcher
to design a secondary-level professional development opportunity
related to The Manhattan Project during WWII. Online resources were
collected that would allow teachers to discover the many perspectives
involved in development of atomic weaponry, which they could then
take to their students. We decided to pilot use of these resources with
groups of students in my classes so we could observe how they learned
when they chose a perspective that culturally and linguistically appealed
to them. Text, audio and video interviews, images, interactive maps,
and other resources were provided to make it possible to explore the
experiences of (1) African Americans—scientists and others displaced
by the project; (2) Latinx Americans displaced by or involved in the
work; (3) Native Americans displaced; (4) Women; (5) Jewish Americans;
and (6) pacifsts. This project avoided an essentialist approach that
promoted only one perspective of an historical event by empowering
students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically to pick their
own path.
Refection Eight: 2019 and Before—Supporting Learners

Emotionally Online
Supporting emotionally challenged students has been mentioned in pre-

vious refections, but I do it here again because my practice has taught me
they are often a group that gets inconsistent support.
The frst experience had to do with a very active and motivated student
who was not in class, and I received an email saying she would be out
of school for two weeks. I ofered to modify and post lessons to Google
Classroom so she could stay connected, and got a response stating that
where she would be there is no internet access allowed. Based on personal
experience I suspected that meant she was receiving in-facility care in a
mental health institution. I talked with her counselor, and was told at that
time academic work was not a focus. Later I thought about how I could
have constructed Google Classroom access for her parents so they could
see what we were doing, and share with her, as they saw ft, while she was
getting better. This would have empowered her emotionally to succeed

academically, and in life, with help from caring adults.
Another student with emotional challenges of a more active nature
did some things that resulted in not being allowed in school for a time.
I attempted to make connections with him through the assigned out of
school teacher, school email, and phone calls. I felt contact with a regular
teacher for whom he had worked hard would help, as well as keep learning
going through feedback on work documents and synchronous coaching.
I did make contact, and was able to support his learning, which advances
the view that with active support online students in his situation could
thrive emotionally, academically, and in general.
Refection Nine—Online Learning during the Time

of COVID-19–2020
Online learning during the time of Covid involves ever-changing practices

as educators seek to serve students in difcult times. In many cases,
school districts, and individual schools, do a great job navigating this
environment and supporting all students, particularly the marginalized
ones these refections have focused upon. The one emerging narrative I
want to confront is that some of these students cannot be successful in
online settings that involve, among other things, virtual class meetings, or
assignments shared on Google Classroom.
Alejandra—Digitally Authoring to Serve Her Peers
One story speaking against this viewpoint involved Alejandra, who missed
the frst part of the school year due to behavior issues. After being placed
on my class roster part way into the year, she still did not show up for any
synchronous class sessions. When Alejandra started coming to class she
had missed four assessments, I decided I did not want her to experience
the resulting failing grade and ofered an alternate deal where she could
earn credit. She was to pick eight vocabulary terms from the history unit
we were doing and make a Google Slide presentation that contained an
image showing the term and a simple explanation in English, so students
needing extra help could be supported. Instead, Alejandra chose to do 15
terms and exercised her multilingual voice by making a Spanish version
210 Mark Stevens
of it. This made me conscious of the fact that nothing is more important
in these times than to validate and afrm them for who they are, without
asking them to change to become a specifc version of the “successful
student.” Alejandra had used the online learning world in her own way
to step up and serve others in need.
Aafsha and Mateo: Solving Technology Problems
Another topic frequently discussed about online learning during the

Covid 2020 era has been that students are being held back by the myriad
technology problems, including synchronous class session operation.
One day about half way through the 80-minute synchronous class Aafsha
said in the group chat that her screen was frozen and that while she could
hear us, was unable to see what we were talking about. Several students
gave suggestions in the group chat, which proved inefective. Then, I got
a private chat message from Mateo that he thought he knew how to help
her, but was too shy in front of the whole class. I invited him to meet
Aafsha privately in our Google Meet online room, and they both agreed.
Within fve minutes, I saw profuse thanks from Aafsha to Mateo for fxing
her problem. In efect both of these accounts turned out to be afrming
experiences for the students involved as it showed that others see them
as people with abilities, not just a student from a certain group doing the
basic things.
Essential Findings That Emerged
These refections on online learning in a middle level setting are closely

connected to various aspects of an ethnographic analytical approach. In
order to add further validity to these fndings and implications they were
shared with a colleague, who analyzed them by providing peer debriefng
(Anfara, 2002).
The lenses used to arrive at the essential fndings were the following:
(a) confronting beliefs and practices (Tierny, 1998); (b) speaking against
uninformed societal beliefs and actions (Adams et al., 2015); (c) talking
back to current and past views (Manning & Adams, 2015); and (d) people
fguring out what to do and the meaning of their struggles (Bochner &
Ellis, 2006)
Confronting Beliefs and Practices
Often, it has been the actions of students that confronted the belief that
marginalized students in middle school cannot learn with online strat-
egies. Refection Two shared how a group of Team Taught learners used
multimodal web design skills to tell the stories of marginalized peoples.
Refection Three told how two Special Education/English Learners skill-
fully used multimodal analysis skills over an entire school year.
Many people in society seem to believe middle schoolers are self-
absorbed, and some educators (and others) would agree. This incom-
plete view was confronted by the story in Refection Nine of a student
who decided to take responsibility for her own grade problem and then
did more work than requested to beneft other challenged students in
need of help. This view can also be confronted by a story not included in
the Refections. One student, during the Covid-19 related move to totally
online learning, started answering a peer’s questions when I had to move
to another spot in a shared document to help other learners. Others did
likewise.
Speaking against Uninformed Societal Beliefs and Actions
Actions that confront discriminatory notions are closely related to those

that speak against uninformed viewpoints. Early in my teaching, I saw
this done by Team Taught students who constructed their own website
to present information on a self-chosen topic (Refection Two). The evo-
lution of learning technology in later years made it possible for Sofa and
Marianna to make a podcast that not only demonstrated knowledge but
displayed creativity (Refection Four).
It is my opinion some educators have given little thought to humor
as an engagement tool in K-12 online learning. It need be no more than
memes shared with the class or placed strategically on individuals’ work
documents, short videos, or online work time alarms using burps and
zombie noises. However, Refection Five points out it can be an engage-
ment tool essential to students not sure how teachers feel about them.
One fnal societal action spoken against in refections two, fve, and
seven was the insufcient examination of online resources related to
experiences of traditionally marginalized racial groups, such as African,
Latinx, and Native Americans. Perhaps, it is the need to quickly “cover”
212 Mark Stevens
objectives on State Standards that prevented it, but it was particularly

encouraging to see students dig into the stories of Little Richard, Black
Elk, and various Vaqueros.
Talking Back to Current and Past Views
One interesting thing emerging from talking back to views of online

learning is that while it is now a central part of education, there has been,
and continues to be, resistance. One example comes from my conversa-
tion with a leader in the 2015–2016 school year who said “middle school
students could never learn that way” (blended and online). Even during
the online learning associated with the Covid pandemic, there was disbe-
lief that it could be done efectively for all learners.
Views on the importance of equity in learning have also been talked
back to through the years, becoming more acceptable through time.
Refection One from 2006 spoke about letting students “see themselves,”
but at that time, other teachers did not even want to discuss that lesson.
Refection Four shows progress has been made because even gender iden-
tity issues are now openly encouraged. Sometimes, the drive to equity is
advanced by students themselves, as in the case of Alejandra in Refection
Nine.
People Figuring Out What to Do and the Meaning

of Their Struggles
Two interesting perspectives enable us to see people fguring out their

struggles and what should be done, those of students, and my own. The
gender-identity questioning student in Refection Four found meaning
by exploring their identity through digital records of others who did the
same thing. Refection Seven pointed out online sources give learners the
chance to see themselves in history in a largely self-directed way.
My struggle to make meaning is largely centered on publicizing the
practice of online learning and related practices such as multimodal
resources. Refection One points out how that has been an issue since
2006. Refection Three shows Reading Support Wikis supported reading
comprehension online, a support-beneftting multiple student groups.
In addition, the story in Refection Five of the continuing development
of Google Classroom and the associated beneft to multimodal learning

access provides validation of my focus.
Conclusions
The conclusions to these refections are based on the two parts of the
problem explored. The frst had to do with the fact that K-12 online
learning is frequently not equitable for marginalized populations. While
planning curriculum it can be difcult to get other educators to meaning-
fully include examination of opinions counter to the prevailing narrative
of state standards. They may list a few ideas from Teaching Tolerance on
examining diversity in social, cultural, political and historical contexts,
but meaningful action can be lacking (Teaching Tolerance – Southern
Poverty Law Center, 2020). Even though we have supposedly made
progress in thinking about equity after the protests of the Spring and
Summer of 2020, my experience shows teachers: (1) declined to explore
the concept of opposition using the Vietnam War protest song “Feel
Like I’m Fixin to Die Rag”; (2) decided not to use a multimodal presen-
tation of a Sioux man, Black Elk, explaining what he saw at the Massacre
at Wounded Knee; and (3) decided there was not enough time to have
students explore the story of Bass Reeves, frst African American US mar-
shal, which displayed how African Americans exercised agency in the post
enslavement years.
The second part of the problem dealt with the fact that learning in
online environments is an ever shifting concept, and reactions to these
changes can impact learners negatively, creating the need to speak against
it. One way this appears is that decisions as to what is to be done in
online learning follows a familiar curriculum design pattern. Specifcally,
decisions are made by administrators who sometimes display a reluc-
tance to consult teachers and other educators, in possession of relevant
expertise. This is better when a truly collaborative approach is followed,
where egos and insistence on using the newest approach heard about in a
leadership meeting are put aside, and school decision-makers work mean-
ingfully with teachers and researchers experienced in the online learning
areas being considered so all marginalized students are served in ways
helpful to them. I am thankful the school at which I work now takes such
a progressive approach designed to support diferent groups looking for
equitable treatment.
214 Mark Stevens
This kind of equitable thinking and action has always been the right
way to think and do. Unfortunately, there was not an overt focus on that
in the early 1990s when I started. There were echoes of thinking equit-
ably, but the educational establishment often did not push it, meaning we
ended up not doing enough.
Now, when we design learning we must challenge ourselves to truly
hear and respect others based on what they are saying about who they
are by their actions and help students see the value in understanding that.
For instance, it is acceptable to learn by examining African American
artists’ creativity, and soldiers’ bravery, throughout US history. However,
that needs to provoke not just admiration of their actions, but generate
the desire to discern how their actions are a call for equitable treatment.
In my earlier years of teaching, I thought helping students admire the
actions of African American in history was enough. Now, I see we must
strive to help them use their critical consciousness to recognize historical
peoples’ struggle against inequality, see it in our current times, and use
that determination in their own lives.
Encouragement of critical consciousness is also relevant to work with
other populations sometimes marginalized, such as English Learners.
My actions using online tools did help them with content related reading
comprehension, which at that time I saw as a sufciently equitable efort
to support their learning. I have since come to understand that was not
enough, and it is necessary to keep these words as a guiding light: “design
instruction from the perspective of students’ diversity as strengths they
have rather than defcits you are trying to fll.” (Kieran & Anderson, 2019,
p. 1202). The efort to use students’ culture and diversity in mind may
not always be easy, but is the right thing to do (Hollie, 2018; Kieran &
Anderson, 2019).
Call to Action
The call to action I am putting forth is for both researchers and teachers to
give more than lip service to the issue of equity through online learning.
Follow the call of James Brown from back in 1972 about politicians and
life in the United States, when he sang “Like a dull knife, Just ain’t cutting,
Just talking loud, Then saying nothing, You can’t tell me, How to run my
life, You can’t tell me, How to keep my business sound, You can’t tell me,
What I’m doing wrong, When you keep driving and Singing that same
old song” (Brown & Byrd, 1972). In other words, don’t just say you think
in an equitable way, work that way. Researchers focus on investigating
online learning used to help the marginalized by working with teachers
struggling to do that work on the front lines. Teachers reject the over-
control of school district pre-existing curriculum guides and take the time
to think how you can use online learning strategies to support all types of
learners through a stronger focus on equity, even if you think you teach
equitably already.
References
Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S., Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding

qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Ainscow, M. (2016). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in educa-
tion: Possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community,
1(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-12-2015-0013.
Akin, I., & Meuman, C. (2013). Identifying proactive collaboration strategies
for teacher readiness for marginalized students. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 10(4), 235–244.
Allan, D., & Duckworth, V. (2018). Voices of disafection: Disengaged and dis-
ruptive youths or agents of change and self-empowerment? British Journal of
Special Education, 45(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12201.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching
presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on
stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
28–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028.
Atchison, B., Difey, L., Rafa, A., & Sarubbi, M. (2017). Equity in education: Key
questions to consider. Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.
org/wp-content/uploads/Equity_in_Education_Key_questions_to_ con-
sider.pdf.
Bean-Folkes, J., & Ellison, T. L. (2018). Teaching in a culture of love: An open
dialogue about African American student learning. School Community Journal,
28(2), 213–228.
Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. S. (2006). Communication as autoethnography. In G.
J. Shepherd, J. S. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on
theory (pp. 110–122). Sage.
216 Mark Stevens
Brown, J., & Byrd, B. (1972). Talkin’ Loud and Sayin’ Nothing [Recorded by
James Brown]. On Talking Loud and Saying Nothing - Part I [single]. Polydor,
London, England.
Brunkhorst, H. (1999). Adorno and critical theory. University of Wales Press.
Correll, J. L., & Watson, E. L. (1972). Welcome to the land of the Navajo: A book of
information about the Navajo Indians (Vol. 3). Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Times
Publishing Co.
Crouse, T., Rice, M., & Mellard, D. (2018). Learning to serve students with dis-
abilities online: Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Online Learning Research,
4(2), 123–145.
Darling-Aduana, J. (2019). Behavioral engagement shifts among at-risk high
school students enrolled in online courses. AERA Open, 5(4), 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2332858419887736.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational
Research, 71(1), 1–28.
Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural confict in the classroom. New Press.
Donnell, D. O. (1999). Habermas: Critical theory and selves-directed learning.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 251–261.
EdSource. (2004). No child left behind in California? https://edsource.org/wp-
content/ publications/NCLB_1-04.pdf.
Ellis, C. S., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An
autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891241606286979.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). Crossway Bibles.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual devel-
opment and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education,
23(2), 93–104.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gutiérrez M. V., Willay, C., & Khisty L. L. (2011). (In)equitable schooling
and mathematics of marginalized students: Through the voices of urban
Latinas/os. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(2), 26–43.
Hollie, S. (2018). Culturally authentic and responsive texts. Teacher Created Materials.
Hollie, S. (2019). Branding culturally relevant teaching: A call for remixes. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 46(4), 31–41.
Hung, M., Smith, W. A., Voss, M. W., Franklin, J. D., Gu, Y., & Bounsanga, J.
(2019). Exploring student achievement gaps in school districts across America:
The case for investigating opportunity gaps. Education and Urban Society,
52(2), 175–193.
Jacob, B., Berger, D., Hart, C., & Loeb, S. (2016). Can technology help promote
equality of educational opportunities? The Russell Sage Journal of the Social
Sciences, 2(5), 242–271. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.12.
Kieran, L., & Anderson, C. (2019). Connecting universal design for learning with
culturally responsive teaching. Education and Urban Society, 51(9), 1202–1216.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518785012.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009).
(E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed
methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational
Researcher, 38, 687–699. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351980.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a.
The remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.
org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751.
Lavadenz, M., Armas, E. G., Murillo, M. A., & Jáuregui Hodge, S. (2019). Equity
for English learners: Evidence from four years of California’s local control
funding formula. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 176–192. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1598113.
Luttrell, W. (Ed.). (2010). Qualitative educational research: Readings in refexive meth-
odology and transformative practice. Routledge.
Manning, J., & Adams, T. E. (2015). Connecting the personal and the popular:
Autoethnography and popular culture. The Popular Culture Studies Journal, 3,
187–222.
McDonald, B. L. (2004). Inclusive education professional development:
Working across cultures. In V. Heung, & M. Ainscow (Eds.), Inclusive educa-
tion: A framework for reform. Proceedings of the international conference on inclu-
sive education 16–19 December 2003 (pp. 83–96). Centre for Special Needs
and Studies in Inclusive Education, The Hong Kong Institute of Education,
Hong Kong.
McLaren, P. L., & Giarelli, J. M. (Eds.). (1995). Critical theory and educational
research. State University of New York Press.
Morales-Chicas, J., Castillo, M., Ramos, P., & Guzman, B. L. (2019). Computing
with relevance and purpose: A review of culturally relevant education in
computing. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 21(1), 125–155.
Myers, W. R., Pippin, T., Carvalhaes, C., & De Anda, N. (2019). Forum on Paulo
Freire’s pedagogy: Leaning educationally into our future. Teaching Theology
and Religion, 22(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12472.
218 Mark Stevens
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2019). Digest of edu-

cation statistics 2017 (NCES 2018–070). Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2018/2018070.pdf.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2020). The nation’s report
card. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE.
Nelson, R. (2018). Update: Online learning (Vol. 40). http://www.k12.wa.us/
ALD/Providers/ default.aspx.
Page, A., Mavropoulou, S., & Harrington, I. (2020). Culturally responsive inclusive edu-
cation: The value of the local context. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1757627.
Ramírez, M., & Castañeda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, biocognitive development,
and education. Academic Press.
Ratey, J. J. (2001). A user’s guide to the brain. Pantheon.
Reardon, S. F., Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., & Weathers, E. S. (2015). Patterns and
trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In H.
E. Ladd, & M. E. Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of research in education fnance and
policy (pp. 491–509). Routledge.
Rice, M. (2011). Competing and conficting identity plotlines: Navigating
personal narratives of entering teaching. Studying Teacher Education, 7(2),
145–154.
Rice, M. (2017). Few and far between: Describing K-12 online teachers’ online
professional development opportunities for students with disabilities. Online
Learning, 21(4), 103–121.
Salehi, A. (2019). Teacher and student interactions and characteristics from
critical theorists school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Education, 8(2), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i2.17926.
Stahl, W. M., Rank, S., East, T., Rice, M., & Mellard, D. (2017). Report on the
stakeholder forum on elementary and secondary online learning and students with
disabilities. Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. http://
www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
SuperForumReport_March20171.pdf.
Stevens, M., & Rice, M. (2016). Inquiring into presence in a middle level blended
learning classroom. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(4), 447–473.
Teaching Tolerance – Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016). Critical practices
for anti-bias education. https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/fles/2019-
04/TT-Critical-Practices-for-Anti-bias-Education.pdf.
Teaching Tolerance – Southern Poverty Law Center. (2020, December 31).
Social justice standards: Unpacking diversity: https://www.tolerance.org/-
professional-development/ social-justice-standards-unpacking-diversity.
Tierny, W. G. (1998). Life history’s history: Subjects foretold. Qualitative Inquiry,

4, 49–70.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational
Leadership, 64(6), 28–33.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Fostering motivation in professional development
programs. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(98), 39–48.
Teaching Writing 12
Informed by Systemic
Functional Linguistics:
Bringing Professional
Development Up to Scale
through Online Courses
María Estela Brisk, Tracy Hodgson-Drysdale and
Elizabeth MacDonald
Teaching writing has evolved from a focus on product to an emphasis

on process. Interest in genre pedagogy has emerged due to “better
understandings of how language is structured to achieve social purposes
in particular contexts of use” (Hyland, 2007, p. 148). In the 1980s,
linguists and educators in Australia collaborated on genre-based peda-
gogy informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004). SFL is a critical theory of language that considers lan-
guage development and use to be embedded in context. These educators
were motivated by the lack of success schools had in engaging students
with varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds with the literacy curric-
ulum, while valuing their cultural and linguistic background (Rose &
Martin, 2012). Educators and linguists in the United States, concerned
with the need to bring a linguistically responsive pedagogy (LRP) to
education (Lucas & Villegas, 2011), introduced SFL genre pedagogy to
DOI: 10.4324/9781003006350-13
Online Writing Course Instructor Development 221
schools serving multilingual populations (for example, Aguirre-Muñoz

et al., 2008; Brisk, 2015; de Oliveira & Dodds, 2010; Gebhard et al., 2007;
Schleppegrell et al., 2014).
A variety of professional development (PD) eforts supported the rollout
of this new pedagogy. Researchers focused on the skills teachers need to
apply SFL pedagogy to disciplinary instruction (de Oliveira & Smith, 2019;
Schleppegrell, 2020). In addition, researchers have studied the impact of
teacher preparation on teacher knowledge and its impact on student
learning (Accurso & Gebhard, 2020; Matruglio, 2020; Sembiante et al.,
2020) and the need for explicit instruction to enhance students’ literacy
learning in the United States and internationally (Schwarz & Hamman-
Ortiz, 2020). Others have explored how SFL informed PD has encouraged
teachers to support multilingual learners in acquiring disciplinary lan-
guage while validating their own language practices (Brisk & Ossa-Parra,
2018; Khote, 2018; Ramírez, 2020). This critical perspective is essential for
21st-century schools with increasing multilingual populations.
This chapter presents an online PD effort to improve writing
instruction in a large urban district with a high percentage of diverse
students. It then explains the framework that informed the profes-
sional development, including critical SFL theory, a supportive peda-
gogy, and quality online courses. The chapter then delineates the
context, development, features, and impact of the online courses. It
concludes with elements that made possible a quality effort to bring
professional development up to scale from intense work at one school
to the district in general.
Conceptual Framework
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the Teaching and Learning

Cycle (TLC) informed the content of the online courses, while the lit-
erature on online teaching and learning guided the instructional design.
This combination resulted in bringing quality professional develop-
ment to over 18 schools in a district with students from 139 diferent
countries. The nine largest language groups include Spanish, Haitian
Creole, Cape Verdean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Arabic,
Somalian, and French. (https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/cms/
lib/MA01906464/Centricity/Domain/187/BPS%20at%20a%20
Glance%202019-20_FINAL.pdf.)
222 María Estela Brisk et al.
Systemic Functional Linguistics
SFL is a theory of language developed by Michael Halliday in part as a

reaction to unequal attitudes toward vernacular languages and oral var-
ieties of English as opposed to the high status given to written English
(Halliday, 1989, 1993). Halliday placed equal value on all forms of lan-
guage by defning language as a semiotic system to make meaning in con-
text, where users make choices given the demands of the context of the
particular situation in the three dimensions of the register (feld, tenor,
and mode) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Language users make choices
given the topic of the text, the relationship with their audience, and the
goal of producing a cohesive text.
The writing practices of a culture are characterized by recurrent
forms of texts used for specifc purposes, each characterized by specifc
discourse organization and language features. These are called genres
(Martin & Rose, 2008). Each genre difers in its purpose and is achieved
through stages or text structure.
Children develop these language resources, given their experiences in
a variety of linguistic contexts. They come to school with a wide know-
ledge of the world around them and the language(s) to express it. As they
enter school, children experience new contexts and new forms of lan-
guage, expanding their linguistic and literacy resources (Christie, 2012).
Australian SFL linguists and educators studied the writing practices
in schools, many of which served immigrant and aborigine populations.
They concluded that students were mostly taught to write personal
narratives, absent of any efort to teach students the genres of power
(Martin, 2009). These linguists and educators set out to change what was
happening in schools, not with the purpose of giving teachers more strat-
egies, but with “the ambitious goal of democratizing the outcomes of
education systems” (Rose & Martin, 2012, p. 4). They developed an SFL-
informed genre pedagogy which aspires to both teach the genres of power
and take a critical perspective of them. “[T]he underlying intent of SFL
praxis in teacher education has always been critical” (Troyan et al., 2020,
p. 12) because of the features of the theory, i.e., contextual, functional,
and pliable. The contextual and functional view frames language as a
resource for making meaning given the context without specifying abso-
lute value to any form of language. The fexibility allows educators to use
diferent aspects of the theory given their needs. A number of linguists
and educators have applied this theory to give minoritized populations
access to disciplinary discourses while simultaneously applying linguistic

and culturally responsive pedagogies (Brisk & Ossa-Parra, 2018; Khote,
2018; Ramírez, 2020) and multilingual students themselves are taught
to take a critical view of language and literacy encountered in schools
(Harman, 2018).
In conclusion, with or without the critical label, SFL theory and its
application to education has helped challenge assumptions about lan-
guage and has allowed the implementation of educational practices that
support students in acquiring the language of power while valuing their
own discourses as an important resource for making meaning. In addition,
by giving teachers the knowledge and choice of what to teach rather than
a scripted curriculum, SFL genre pedagogy empowers teachers as well.
A Supportive Pedagogy: The Teaching and Learning Cycle
From work with schools emerged the TLC, an approach to writing

instruction that seeks to provide the necessary scafolds for students of
any background to access the school curriculum, without sacrifcing its
intellectual strength (Gibbons, 2008). Teachers build students’ linguistic
and disciplinary content knowledge to support writing development
through four stages: development of content knowledge, deconstruc-
tion of text, joint construction of text, and independent construction
of text (Rothery, 1996). Humphrey and Macnaught (2015) assert that
this approach to writing instruction where students are apprenticed to
learning writing in the context of exploration and collaboration supports
second language learners. Instead of lowering the difculty of the curric-
ulum, teachers increase the scafolds, including the use of students’ native
languages, to allow access to their grade-level curriculum (Brisk & Ossa-
Parra, 2018; Gibbons, 2008; Khote, 2018).
Online Teaching and Learning
Research in online learning shows that the most efective forms of e-

learning engage instructors in “translating the concepts and ideas [of their
domain] and applying them pragmatically to their unique educational
environment” so that participants experience “a worthwhile educational
experience that meets the demands of a knowledge society” (Garrison,
2017, p. 6). Recurring themes identifed as essential in e-learning include

course design and organization; the online learning environment; the
instructor and their role; the learner and their role; learner outcomes;
engagement through presence, interaction and community; institutional
factors; and administrative factors (Martin et al., 2020; Tallent-Runnels
et al., 2006).
Quality of Instruction
Quality of instruction in online contexts is the result of careful planning

and course design to achieve content coherence. Concepts within courses
must connect clearly with support from concrete examples of real-world
problems that enable teachers to synthesize theory, research, and practice
(Morita-Mullaney et al., 2020; Renn et al., 2020). At the core of course,
design are learning tasks divided into meaningful subtasks with clear
guidelines to support learners in attaining the learning goals (Chen, 2007).
When learners have a stake in setting goals and objectives and content is
presented in fexible learning environments, learners are encouraged to
participate in social negotiation which is integral to learning and which
encourages ownership through active engagement in knowledge con-
struction (Chen, 2007).
Presence and Interaction
Engagement in online learning requires three types of presence: social,

cognitive, and teacher (Dixson, 2015; Garrison, 2017; Garrison &
Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Social presence is essential to online engage-
ment because making interpersonal connections in online courses leads
to the creation of Communities of Inquiry (CoI). Cognitive presence
moves participants’ thinking along a continuum where new informa-
tion is learned, integrated and applied to resolve a problem, but cognitive
presence alone is not enough. Teacher presence is integral to elements
such as course design, facilitation, and instruction (Garrison & Cleveland-
Innes, 2005).
Although deeper learning occurs through the three presences,
interactions need to be carefully planned to systematically support and
guide learners through the process of learning and to constitute a CoI. The
quality of interactions is what allows participants to deepen their learning

by working through the phases of inquiry and engaging in deep learning
(Garrison, 2017) and three types of interaction are possible: learner–
teacher; learner–content; learner–learner (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes,
2005). To increase the efectiveness of these interactions, Communities
of Practice (CoP) can be formed within programs, individual courses,
and quality online PD for K-12 teachers (Renn et al., 2020). CoP have
three essential elements: the domain, the community, and the practice. The
role of the domain is to establish a shared interest among participants by
encouraging interactions among them. The role of the community is to
support people as they jointly construct knowledge and understanding
with increasing complexity while allowing for expertise from participants
to be shared with one another. The role of the practice is for people to
“codevelop resources and strategies that inform their shared identities as
practitioners” (Renn et al., 2020, p. 3). This can lead to ongoing benefts
and collaborations, where participants become advocates and take on
leadership roles.
A Protocol for Online Teaching
Chen (2007) developed a conceptual framework to explain the design of

a “Support-based Online Learning Environment” to show how a fve-
week intensive summer course was taught online. For the current ana-
lysis of a transition to online learning, a protocol of best practices in
online learning was created based on the framework. Current research
that focuses on best practices was then integrated into the protocol to
add depth to each category and to ensure that all categories are relevant
(Table 12.1) (Morita-Mullaney et al., 2020). This protocol was used to ana-
lyze the online courses created through the project.
Professional Development to Improve Writing Instruction:

From School Based to Online
To explain the creation, implementation, and impact of the online PD,

this section presents the context and development of the online courses,
the content and structure of the asynchronous and synchronous sessions,
an explanation of assignments, and provides a sense of the general
Table 12.1 Online Learning Protocol

Best Practices
Learning Task
Meaningful tasks increase motivation and positive attitude
Task design: larger task broken down into meaningful subsections with clear
instructions
Content and Learning Support
Curricular coherence: show logic and connections in courses through
framework
Make the amount of content manageable
Mix of individual and group work
Ofering multiple access points to the content through varied materials and
learning tasks; alignment among scafolds, learning tasks, and assignment
design
Clear course design: consistent, easily navigable layout; clear timeline,
calendar, and dates
Timely feedback and support
Students state goals at the outset and refect at the end
Timeline that meets teachers’ needs
Timeline that meets district needs and budget
People and Social Support
Instructor presence: professional, friendly, frequent, and timely feedback
Build a sense of community online through timely interactions; community
of practice; self-evaluation and peer review
Group work within courses so participants can support each other
Small group work for discussions
Virtual synchronous ofce hours
Adjusting courses based on feedback from participants, and help from
instructional designers
Technology and Technical Support
Overcome perceptions of online learning being isolating, passive, difcult
Online programs created by a “multi-perspective design team” approach for
better design
Practice tasks (assignments, quizzes, forums, etc.) before they count for
grades
Introduction to the course to ensure students know where resources are (e.g.,
video tour of course)
evaluation and impact of the course, concluding with the challenges

participants faced. The voices of the participants are heard throughout
the various aspects of this narrative.
Context and Development of Courses
In 2007, Boston College agreed to work with Russell elementary, an

urban school with a large percentage of multilingual students, to accom-
plish their goal of improving writing instruction. In cooperation with the
principal and a group of teachers, the university team proposed to carry
out professional development on writing instruction. The in-person PD
took place over ten years. Teachers were never given a fxed curriculum
but they were introduced to the genres and language of writing in the
various disciplines informed by SFL and the TLC approach to instruc-
tion. As a result, student writing improved as measured by standardized
state test scores, changing their status from “failing” to a school of
“excellence.”
The success of this project led to requests for similar PD from other dis-
trict schools. After providing in-person professional development in mul-
tiple schools for two years, three four-week synchronous online courses
on the genres of writing were developed by María Estela Brisk with
technical assistance from staf at the university. They included four asyn-
chronous modules with one introductory and four weekly synchronous
sessions. The asynchronous aspect of the courses included all material
needed to provide the knowledge base while the goal of the synchronous
weekly meetings was to keep participants on task and supported, to
clarify upcoming content and assignments, and most importantly to build
community.
Although these courses were open to graduate students and teachers,
they were specifcally promoted to have whole schools participate in
order to change the way they teach writing. Teachers’ participation was
funded by the district or schools.
Over the course of implementation, data were collected to evaluate
and improve the courses. In the frst year, a formal evaluation was carried
out by the university. In the second year, which saw an increase in middle
school teachers, a select group of teachers were interviewed and their
assignments were analyzed for understanding of the theory. Moreover,
numerous comments from participants received via email were collected
over time. To analyze participants’ understanding of the theory, their unit

assignments were analyzed for one course.
Asynchronous Content and Structure of the Courses
The asynchronous material posted in a Learning Management System

(LMS) was divided into an introductory module with general informa-
tion and four weekly modules. The modules for all courses followed the
same pattern with respect to organization, content, and assignments. The
only diference was the SFL genres taught, and they were grouped by
course according to the three text types featured in the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS): narratives, informational/explanatory, and argu-
ment, which were the standards followed by the schools (see Figure 12.1).
The content of each module was further divided into sections of
individual topics, assignments, and directions for the synchronous
Three 1-credit 4 weeks fully online courses

Course 1 Course 3
TELL STORIES PERSUADE
SFL and CCSS
Personal Recount
Exposition One side
Procedural Recount
of the argument
Historical genres:
autobiographies, Narrative Argument Scientific Argument
empathetic
autobiographies, Response to
biographies, Literature
historical recounts
Common
Discussion
Core Both sides of the
Fictional Narrative
Standards argument
GIVE INFORMATION
Course 2 GIVE INSTRUCTIONS
Reports
Informational Procedure
Explanations
General, Scientific Explanatory
Figure 12.1 Matching SFL with CCSS in the Courses’ Content.

sessions. Modules included short video lectures of a slideshow and

the face of the lecturer, and short captioned videos illustrating spe-
cifc teacher practices produced from hours of video taping Russell
teachers at work. Working with text videos showed analysis of student
work and demonstrated practices by analyzing mentor texts and jointly
constructing texts. Readings, worksheets, and recommendations for
mentor texts further supported the content of each module. One
teacher commented, “I didn’t feel like anything we did was for no
reason. Everything was benefcial” (Laura 4/6/19). A math teacher,
who struggled with teaching writing, added, “the classes have been
really helpful,” they “challenged me to incorporate the writing com-
ponent into math” (Carol 4/13/19).
In each course, there were multiple opportunities to learn how to
implement the TLC through asynchronous video demonstrations and
synchronous practice. The practices featured in the TLC were new to
participants. Teachers were surprised and enthusiastic about the impact
on learning to write. For example, teachers thought that giving feedback
at the planning stage was a good idea and one commented:
I think her point about doing most of your revising before you start
writing, like revising all of your ideas. That was really helpful to
me too, giving kids a lot of feedback in that brainstorming phase
because then I ended up giving so much less feedback in their revi-
sion phase and it just felt less painful.
(Amanda 3/22/19)
Middle school teachers were particularly surprised at the notion of joint

revision of student work and were happy to confrm that it worked when
they tried it. The strong scafolding proposed by the TLC allows engage-
ment of students at diferent stages of language and literacy develop-
ment. One teacher commented that they had previously taught writing
based on the required texts in the reading curriculum, which were too
difcult for some students, but that using mentor texts and research
resources at diferent levels of reading difculty allowed all students to be
fully engaged (Sean 4/13/19). Teachers liked the high expectations and
strong scafolding promoted by the TLC, stating “Even though you have
students that are ESL or if you have students that have diverse needs, she’s
[course instructor] not going to allow you to lower expectations for those
students and that’s a helpful message” ( Julie 3/10/19).
Teachers enjoyed the variety of materials available in the course, such

as teacher videos and the lectures which demonstrated how to teach lan-
guage in ways that participants could then present to their students. One
commented on the functional approach to language:
[I]t’s not really useful to say that’s a preposition. It’s way more useful
to say why you would use that or why an author used it and why it
benefts a reader and so that kind of approach to language.
(Amanda 3/22/19)
Following the inclusion of bilingual Spanish/English schools, material

related to writing in Spanish was added to the content. Some participants
suggested the lectures could be either chunked more or indexed for easy
access when participants wanted to review a particular issue. To ease the
navigation of content and tasks, a checklist was added to the beginning
of each module. With the switch to teaching online due to the pandemic,
a discussion board was created for participants to share their experiences
becoming online teachers. A modifed version of the TLC was added to
the content of the courses with suggestions for how to implement each
aspect online.
Synchronous Sessions
Each course had fve one-hour synchronous sessions: one at the begin-
ning of the course and one at the end of each module. The purpose of
these sessions was to help participants navigate the content, structure,
and assignments and build community. The introductory synchronous
session walked participants through the course to familiarize them with
the format and provided an overview of the content and the assignments.
This was added after the frst round of courses where many participants
showed confusion about the logistics of the format.
The remainder of the synchronous sessions had three main goals: to
prepare participants for the content and assignments in the upcoming
module, to provide feedback on issues related to the assignment carried
out in the previous module, and to teach some aspect of language.
Language was always the hardest for teachers to understand and imple-
ment in their instruction so, although it was covered in one module, the
added practice was always welcomed. These hourly video conference
(VC) sessions were conducted in the evening to accommodate teachers’

schedules and included at least two breakout sessions where participants
met in small groups to carry out a specifc task.
Assignments
There were weekly assignments either related to the development of a

genre unit or to tasks, such as discussions of topics to share participants’
knowledge or to discuss a reading that illustrated the implementation of
the approach by teachers. Each participant also created a full lesson plan
from one of the lessons in their units.
The major assignment was the development of a genre unit in the
genre and grade level of their choice. Participants worked on it over
the course of the four weeks in small chunks handed in weekly before the
synchronous session. Teachers liked that the culminating assignment of
the course was a unit they could implement in their classrooms. Although
they found it hard work, they felt it made them think holistically about
what they were going to teach and when to teach what. Responding to a
question in the course evaluation about how they liked creating a unit, a
teacher wrote:
Through the readings, I was able to develop a deeper understanding

on the research of systemic functional linguistics, which allowed me
to plan for higher order thinking questions to ask students during
instruction. And as I completed the readings I simultaneously
developed my unit and using the lessons activities in language,
writing, deconstructing, and co-constructing which helped me to
make sense of the work that I would be modeling and facilitating
with my students as I developed my unit.
(Evaluation Report 4/4/2018)
Teachers could create these units individually or in groups. Groups were

formed with other participants in the course teaching at the same grade
level or other teachers in their school who were not participating in the
course. Collaborating with other teachers was appealing:
[I]t was really great to do it with a group and to be able to have time
to collaborate with the other teachers and it has led to really good
discussions outside of the course and it gave us a nice foundation to

kind of build on our knowledge of SFL.
(Anna 2/28/19)
Teachers commented that they would have liked to see more sharing of
the units, lesson plans, and student work.
The unit assignment included an overview with the following
components: a pre-assessment, a topic for writing, two writing projects,
mentor texts, research resources, and standards. A map of lessons that
refect the Teaching and Learning Cycle in teaching the genre’s purpose,
stages, and language features was also required in the unit assignment.
Progress of participants’ learning and a deepened understanding of a
particular genre can be evidenced through the unit assignment. Shifts
of pedagogical thinking in regards to instructional practices for teaching
writing can also be witnessed through the outline of lessons within
the unit. Analysis of the unit assignments from one section of Teaching
Reports and Explanations revealed a range of increasing understanding of
the content. Participants who had already taken another of the courses
had the least difculty with the content. Some participants new to SFL
genre pedagogy showed a signifcant amount of learning about genres,
their purpose, and use of text resources and assignments. More than half
of the units represented a change in writing projects from the frst sub-
mission to the last. Only one participant’s fnal product showed limited
understanding of what was taught.
Participants received detailed written feedback on their assignments,
especially those related to the unit, before live sessions and had the
opportunity to ask more questions either through email or individual
VC meetings. Some participants emailed the instructor to check on
each aspect of their unit, especially if they were implementing it at the
same time as they were taking the course. Some continued to commu-
nicate with instructors, requesting additional feedback or sharing their
experiences implementing their unit even long after the course was
over. Participants liked the feedback they received in connection to the
assignments, “she’s just the most responsive human in the entire world
which is really helpful because you can just email and then immediately
you will get seven answers for your one question and… I think that’s
really helpful” (Amanda 3/22/19).
The recurrent feedback from facilitators had an impact on helping
teachers enhance their understanding. One teacher stated, “at frst I
thought explanation would be too difcult, but now that you put it into
words like that I think I would have students write an explanation” (Casey,
7/9/20). Another teacher, realizing her original plan to teach report
writing on favorite animals was too simplistic for high school students
and changed it to teach systems explanations of the human body and
consequential explanations of the impact of exercise on the human
body. Some teachers were able to align their mentor texts to the proper
genre and, in turn, plan lessons that more accurately deconstructed the
stages and language features of that genre. For example, one teacher
pared down a list of 15 texts representing a range of mixed genres to
two mentor texts that illustrated report writing, her unit’s genre of focus.
Occasionally, teachers’ reading background guided their decisions, pro-
ducing activities to support reading comprehension rather than writing.
In sum, for the most part, the course content and facilitator’s feedback
infuenced participants’ decisions of what and how to teach writing to
varying degrees of success.
General Evaluation of the Courses
There was general satisfaction with the courses by participating teachers.

The frst-year evaluation showed that over 95% of participants were satis-
fed or very satisfed with questions related to LMS materials, VC sessions,
communication with the instructor, and navigation of course materials
(Evaluation Report 4/4/2018). One teacher stated that the online courses
had resulted in the highest quality teaching she had ever done.
Teachers liked the approach to teaching writing and the critical per-
spective that gave voice to students and teachers alike. For example, a
teacher who had done a lot of English as a Second Languge (ESL) writing
instruction felt that:
I never saw a good writing program until I saw this. Like I think
this kind of blew me away cause I was already concerned like ‘oh
I’m a good writing teacher’, my students were producing a lot and
publishing and stuf like that, but like those endless conferences,
I mean that just wasn’t happening anymore once I saw this. Like
those conferences that are like ‘fx this, change the prep, every little
thing’. Does that make sense?
( Julie, interview 3/10/19)
A middle school teacher further commented:
[The] writing that we did was always some sort of prompt at the
end of each unit based on the book we read… I don’t think it was
really teaching writing. It was analyzing literature. I mean which I
think is important as well but we weren’t actually teaching them
how to write… and a lot of teachers didn’t like it but couldn’t articu-
late why they didn’t like it.
(Laura 4/6/19)
A fourth-grade teacher who had majored in writing in college was thankful

to be able to change the way she taught writing and the impact it had on
her students. A principal further reiterated how excited she was with the
progress teachers made and the resulting quality of students’ writing.
Feeling empowered with instruction energized teachers. For example,
one teacher stated:
Much of what we have been given to teach in public education today

is scripted. Investing time, in laying out the lessons, objectives, and
activities frst, helped me to engage in the curriculum and to write
lesson plans. It also gave me ownership to the work I was creating.
(Evaluation Report 4/4/2018)
A teacher working with emergent bilinguals expressed her satisfaction

with being able to have students use their native language to demonstrate
knowledge of the content while simultaneously showing they were cap-
able of acquiring the language of power in the school context.
Middle and high school ESL teachers who visited the Russell school to
watch the approach in practice were particularly impacted. Their depart-
ment head commented that the visit “really inspired our middle school
and high school teachers because we were like gosh if they can write that
way, our students can really grow quickly too” (Anna 2/28/19).
Challenges
Participants encountered challenges related to the demands of a graduate

course, the novelty of the online format, and the approach to teaching
writing.
Challenge with Rigor, Medium, and Structure
When the frst course started, four years ago, 30% of the participants
who responded to the questionnaire sent by the university had never
taken an online course. Some had experience with webinars and had
difculty understanding that the live sessions were not the core of
the course. The material to learn was all in the course platform to be
reviewed on their own time. The synchronous sessions helped build
community, guided them with respect to assignments, and clarifed and
reinforced concepts. Another problem was that unlike webinars there
was a major assignment, which was not due at the end but a chunk
every week. One teacher expressed “there was a little confusion on my
end around what was expected when we started to do the unit plan and
the assignments themselves” (Paul, 4/6/19). Most participants seemed
disoriented for the frst couple of weeks. Several participants ended
up dropping the course, “I had started the class last year but had to
drop it… because it was a little hard to understand the online format
at that point” ( Julie, 3/10/19). In online courses, students are expected
to follow the material as it is presented in the modules, rather than
via a traditional syllabus. However, a number of frst-year participants
sought a traditional syllabus, which was subsequently added to all three
courses.
Since then, and especially due to education and work moving online
for many as a result of the pandemic, the difculties have declined. Only
one participant in the past two years was completely unaware of the
asynchronous material. However, even those who have previously taken
courses online may be confused if the structure is diferent. In July 2020, a
group of teachers took one of the four-week courses on teaching writing
as the last requirement in a program that included courses taught using
a hybrid model in which some modules were asynchronous and some
in-person. Initially, they had difculty understanding the role of the syn-
chronous meetings in these courses.
The diference in expectations between a workshop and a graduate
course as PD is still not fully apparent to some. Participants are not just
expected to gain some ideas but to learn a way to teach writing and apply
it to their proposed genre units. Their units are supposed to refect full
knowledge of the content of the course, and although participants are
encouraged to use their background knowledge, they are also expected to
apply the view of language and pedagogy advanced by the course. A live
introductory session was added at the start of each course to address

these difculties.
The demand on teachers’ time was challenging, partly because teachers
have so many commitments and, for some, due to the misconception
that the course was mainly the one-hour weekly session. When the frst
course was ofered a number of teachers dropped, once they realized the
expectations of the course. Some schools allowed teachers to work on
the course assignments during their grade-level planning time, making it
easier for teachers to collaborate during school time, thus lessening the
burden.
Challenges with the Content
Teachers learn about diferent genres in each course according to the three
text types featured in the CCSS: narratives, informational/explanatory,
and argument. Teachers found the narrative course the most challen-
ging possibly because it includes many genres and fctional narrative is
the most difcult genre to implement. In addition, many teachers take
the narrative course frst. Thus, by the time they take the others, they are
more used to SFL and the TLC.
In general, teachers have an easier time learning the content related to
the purpose and the stages of a genre than with teaching language. This
was true in the face-to-face PD where language was not emphasized until
the teachers had a good grounding in the purpose and the stages of the
genre. For that reason, language is included in the third module after they
have reviewed content related to purpose and stages. In addition, every
live session includes an activity with language to facilitate participants’
comprehension.
The strategies of text deconstruction and joint construction, as well as
joint revision, were new to all teachers. It took more than reading about
them and watching demonstration videos asynchronously to learn to use
them in teaching. Live demonstration during the synchronous sessions
further supported this understanding.
Middle school disciplinary teachers generally had difculty with
the notion of teaching writing in connection with their discipline. For
example, a math teacher created a unit for the frst course where the math
content dominated. The names of the lessons, standards, objectives,
activities, and projects all specifed the math content she was teaching
in the unit and not the writing content (unit proposal 10/20/18). In the
second course, working together with a literacy teacher, she not only
understood the procedure genre and applied it to the math content, but
concluded that writing beneftted math instruction. She stated that her
students took seriously the aspects of math that were the focus of their
writing projects. In addition, she found that writing procedures helped
students who had difculty with math concepts: “it really helps kids who
struggle with remembering multi-step procedures” (Carol 4/13/19).
Conclusion
Online technology is just the vehicle for learning. The theory and
practices grounding the content of the courses were essential in building
enthusiasm and expertise among participants (see Figure 12.2). Teachers
were accustomed to being given a scripted writing program or nothing
at all to teach writing versus being taught a theory that deepened their
linguistic and literacy knowledge and gave their students access to the
Supportive Critical SFL

pedagogy
Online
instruction
Up to scale teacher preparation

for writing instruction
Figure 12.2 Quality Scaled Up Professional Development.

genres of power and disciplinary discourses with a critical lens. As a result

of learning the SFL genre pedagogy, they felt their view of writing and
their practices, as well as their students’ writing, improved. The critical
perspective of the pedagogy made for fexibility that embraced teachers’
initiatives and students of all levels of profciency. The ESL teachers par-
ticularly appreciated the critical perspective of the theory and instruc-
tional practices that allowed them to work with students of diferent levels
of language profciency without having to water down the curriculum.
Middle school teachers found that the courses helped them learn how
to integrate writing with disciplinary instruction, giving a purpose for
writing and strengthening knowledge building.
The quality of these online writing courses was not only confrmed by the
multiple positive comments received but also by reviewing the literature on
best practices. These courses feature the characteristics of best practices with
respect to learning tasks, content and learning support, people and social
support, and technology and technical support (Chen, 2007) (see Tables 12.2–
12.5). The learning tasks were meaningful, applicable to the working environ-
ment of participants, and manageable. Both course content and assignments
were broken down into smaller chunks. The weekly module cycles defned
by the live VC sessions paced the work over the length of the course.
The content and learning support aligned with the curricular requirements
of the district, making it easier for teachers to embed instruction in
their classrooms. The material was divided into three stand-alone short
courses focused on specifc genres which made it possible for teachers to
make choices and commit to the demands of the courses. Other features
of the courses that facilitated learning were the variety of ways in which
the content was presented, the consistent organization across modules
and courses, the rich feedback, and consideration of participants’ busy
schedules when scheduling courses.
The courses provided people and social supports through live weekly VC
sessions which helped build community through whole and small group
activities, accessibility of instructors, and the ability to work in groups for
the major project. In addition, modifcations were made to the courses in
response to participants’ feedback and new curricular needs of participants,
such as materials in Spanish and considerations for online teaching in schools.
An important aspect of the online learning experience and one where
the experience of participants varied greatly is managing the technology.
The courses ofered technical support through instructions posted in the
courses, provided through initial emails, and in the frst live VC sessions.
Table 12.2 P
arallel between Learning Tasks in Best Practices and Online
Courses
Best Practices Practices in the Online Writing Courses
Learning Task
Meaningful tasks increase motivation Participants created a unit that was
and positive attitude applicable to their practice.
“I didn’t feel like anything we did
was for no reason. Everything was
beneficial.”
Task design: larger task broken down Each module was broken into
into meaningful subsections with small content topics, individual
clear instructions assignments, and synchronous
section directions
Table 12.3 P
arallel between Content and Learning Support in Best Practices
and Online Courses
Curricular coherence: show logic and The content was organized to
connections in courses through adapt to the State Curriculum
framework Frameworks that the schools need
to follow
Teachers liked the content. They felt
they were learning how to teach
writing. They considered the
approach much better than what
they had tried before
Make the amount of content To make the content manageable, it
manageable was divided into three four-week
courses, each focusing on two
genres
Mix of individual and group work The major assignment could be
done in groups, the discussions
and lesson plan needed to be done
individually
(Continued )
Table 12.3 Continued

Ofering multiple access points to the Great variety of materials for
content through varied materials learning, including short lectures,
and learning tasks; alignment teacher instructional videos,
among scafolds, learning tasks and video demonstrations (using
assignment design Vittle) on text deconstruction,
joint construction, and analysis of
student work, teacher interviews,
readings, and worksheets
Clear course design: consistent and All courses had the same format, just
easily navigable layout of the the genres covered were diferent.
course; clear timeline, calendar, In turn, the organization of each
dates module within the courses was
consistent.
Timely feedback and support Participants received feedback on
their work, their emails, and during
face-to-face online meetings.
Students state goals at the outset and Participants proposed a plan for a unit
refect at the end at the beginning and developed it
throughout the sessions
Timeline that meets teachers’ needs Courses were scheduled from
October through March, leaving
the frst month of school free and
the months of state testing also
open
Timeline that meets district needs and At the request of districts, courses
budget were added in the summer
Table 12.4 Parallel between People and Social Support in Best Practices and
Online Courses
People and Social Support
Instructor presence: professional, Teachers were very appreciative of
friendly, frequent, and timely the thoughtful and timely feedback
feedback they received. They found the
instructors accessible
Build a sense of community online Synchronous sessions and breakout
through timely interactions; activities helped build a sense of
community of practice; self- community. Working on units
evaluation and peer review together gave the opportunity
to discuss ideas and help
understanding
Group work within courses so The project was directed to the
participants can support each other whole school. For the most part
teachers from the same school took
the course in groups. Sometimes
principals and literacy coaches
joined
Small group work for discussions Synchronous sessions included a
couple of breakout sessions
Those working in groups in their
units worked in groups either in
person in their schools or virtually
Virtual face-to-face ofce hours Initially, ofce hours were set at a
fxed day and time. However,
nobody took advantage of
this. Rather, face-to-face online
meetings took place at the
participant’s or instructor’s request.
Adjusting courses based on feedback Numerous adjustments were
from participants, and help from made over time responding to
instructional designers participants’ suggestions. These
included adding an introductory
synchronous session to explain
the course and a syllabus, moving
the synchronous sessions to an
earlier time, adding a checklist
to each module, eliminating one
assignment, adding materials to
teach in Spanish and for online
writing instruction
Table 12.5 Parallel between Technology and Technical Support in Best

Practices and Online Courses
Technology and Technical Support
Overcome perceptions of online Clear course design, group work for
learning being isolating, passive, unit plans, synchronous sessions to
difcult because of tools create community.
Online programs can be created by The courses were created and further
a “multi-perspective design team” developed by experts in SFL
approach for better design genre pedagogy with diferent
professional backgrounds and
technical support staf at the
university. The main designer had
developed and used much of the
material in both graduate-level
courses and face-to-face PDs
Practice tasks (uploading assignments, Participants practiced creating and
taking a quiz, participating in a uploading an ungraded assignment
forum, etc.) before they count for at the beginning of the course.
grades Upcoming assignments were modeled
during synchronous sessions
Introduction to the course to ensure Introductory synchronous session
students know where resources are explained the course and walked
(e.g., video tour of course) students through the asynchronous
materials
The course designer worked with the technical department at the uni-
versity to create the courses. Members of this department continue to
provide support to both instructors and participants.
In spite of the courses having the features of best practices and
containing robust theoretical grounding, there were still challenges
for participants related to previous experience with online learning,
expectations of the courses, and novelty of the theory that challenged
previous notions of what it means to teach writing. Middle school
teachers, who have a strong preparation in a specifc discipline but only
superfcial knowledge about the language of their discipline (Humphrey,
2017), struggled with the notion of having to teach the structure and lan-
guage of the genres. Features of the courses that helped ameliorate these
challenges were the collaboration among teachers and consistent feed-
back from instructors.
The online medium was indispensable to bringing the writing approach

to scale because it circumvented the need for a common physical space
for instructors and participants (Fishman et al., 2013). Indeed, over 18
schools have already participated with many more to come. However,
it was the combination of theory-based rigorous content that had been
tested long term in a school with full collaboration among practitioners
and researchers and an online environment that aligned with best-known
practices that resulted in a quality PD.
References
Accurso, K., & Gebhard, M. (2020). SFL praxis in US teacher education: a critical litera-
ture review. Language and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.
1781880.
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K., (2008). Developing
teacher capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for
Systemic Functional Linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1–2), 295–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880802640755.
Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for
K-5 classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317816164.
Brisk, M. E., & Ossa-Parra, M. (2018). Mainstream classrooms as engaging spaces for
emergent bilinguals: SFL theory, catalyst for change. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual
learners and social equity: Critical approaches to Systemic Functional Linguistics
(pp. 127–151). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60953-9_7.
Chen, S. J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses:
An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 13(1). www.ncolr.org/jiol.
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional per-
spective. Wiley-Blackwell.
De Oliveira, L. C., & Dodds, K. (2010). Beyond general strategies for English
language learners: Language dissection in science. Electronic Journal of Literacy
Through Science, 9, 1–14. Retrieved from http://ejlts.ucdavis.edu.
De Oliveira, L. C., & Smith, S. L. (2019). Systemic functional linguistics in
teacher education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.
org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.494.
Dixson, M. D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The
Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4). Retrieved
from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-learning-journal/.
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G.,
Johnson, H., & Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online
and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum
implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426–438. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487113494413.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry frame-
work for research and practice. Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive
presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15389286ajde1903_2.
Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the
language of persuasion. Language Arts, 84(5), 419–430. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/41962214.
Gibbons, P. (2008). ‘It was taught good and I learned a lot’: Intellectual practices
and ESL learners in the middle years. The Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 31(2), 155. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/
A195069822/AONE?u=ocul_carleton&sid=AONE&xid=a6199b09.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Language in a changing world. Applied Linguistics
Association of Australia.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional
grammar (3rd ed.). Hodder Arnold.
Harman, R. (2018). Transforming normative discourses of schooling: Critical
Systemic Functional Linguistics praxis. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual learners
and social equity: Critical approaches to Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 1–20).
Springer.
Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic literacies in the middle years: A framework for enhan-
cing teacher knowledge and student achievement. Routledge.
Humphrey, S., & Macnaught, L. (2015). Functional language instruction and
the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL
Quarterly, 50(4), 792–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.247.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruc-
tion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.
Khote, N. (2018). Translanguaging in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Culturally
sustaining pedagogy for writing in secondary schools. In R. Harman (Ed.),
Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to Systemic Functional
Linguistics (pp. 153–178). Springer.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically

responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically
diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–71). Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic per-
spective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
linged.2009.01.003.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox. https://
doi.org/10.1558/equinox.22043.
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. (2020). A systematic review of research on
online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009.
Matruglio, E. (2020). What two teachers took up: Metalanguage, pedagogy and
potentials for long-term change. Language and Education (Advanced online
publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1825477.
Morita-Mullaney, T., Renn, J, Garcia, A., & Wright, W. E. (2020). Preparing K-12
teachers for efective instruction of English learners: The transformation of a
Purdue University online language teacher education program. In H. S. Kang,
D. S. Shin, & T. Cimasko (Eds.), Online education for teachers of English as a global
language (pp. 19–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429264900.
Ramírez, J. A. (2020). The case for culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy:
Bilingual reading to learn for Spanish-speaking immigrant mothers. System.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102379.
Renn, J., Morita-Mullaney, T., & Wright, W. E. (2020). Components of a quality
online program. TESOL Connections. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.
commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2020-06-01/3.html.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge
and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an Educational Linguistics. In R.
Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). Longman.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2020). The knowledge base for language teaching: What is
the English to be taught as content? Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 17–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777519.
Schleppegrell, M., Moore, J., Al-Adeimi, S., O’Hallaron, C., Palincsar, A., &
Symons, C. (2014). Tackling a genre: Situating SFL genre pedagogy in a
new context. In L. de Oliveira, & J. Iddings (Eds.), Genre pedagogy across the
curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts (pp. 25–39).
Equinox.
Schwarz, V. S., & Hamman-Ortiz, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics,
teacher education, and writing outcomes for US elementary English learners:
A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100727.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727.
Sembiante, S. F., Cavallaro, C. J., & Troyan, F. J. (2020). Language teacher candidates’
SFL development: A sociocultural perspective. Language and Education. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1833909.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S.
M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research,76(1),93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093.
Troyan, F. J., Harman, R., & Zhang, X. (2020). Critical SFL praxis in teacher
education: insights from Australian SFL scholars. Language and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1807563.
Index
accessibility: checks 132; of dialectical 11–13, 15, 18

instructors 238; practices 67, 69, 72, dialogue: critical 147; cross/
164; statements 131 intercultural 137–138, 151; student
activism 14, 37, 80–81, 91, 93–95, 143, 31–32, 37–38, 40, 50, 75, 90,
151, 169 120–121, 123, 135, 137, 140
agency 13, 15, 23, 45, 68, 71, 95, 155, difraction 4–5
203–204, 213 digital divide 82
Analysis Design Development disability studies 6, 63, 65, 74, 169
Implementation Evaluation
(ADDIE) 29–31 enhanced inclusion 161, 167
anti–racism 121 ethics of care 89, 93, 178, 190
autoethnography 199, 201
feminisms: Black feminism 79, 80,
Black, Indigenous, People of Color 83–84, 90; Cyberfeminism 79, 82,
(BIPOC) 46, 49, 138, 142, 146, 153, 89, 91–92, 94–95; feminist 79, 80–84,
161, 169 86–88, 90–92, 97–98, 160–161, 169,
170; technofeminism 79, 80–82
colorblindness 130, 142
conscientization 11, 13–17, 21, 22, gender roles 51, 106
37–38 global citizenship 136, 138–139
COVID-19 pandemic 1, 43, 47–48,
56–57, 119, 173, 186, 190, 209, 211 hegemony 11–13, 46, 102, 138, 142
Critical Race Theory (CRT) 18, 43–46, heteronormativity 174
48–50, 52–57, 136, 138, 142–145, hidden curriculum 16–17, 38
153–154
cultural competence 18, 22–23, 136 identity: blindness 130; cisgender
culturally responsive teaching 19–20, 105, 160, 166, 174; cultural identity
27, 37, 81, 85, 144, 199 17, 64; gender identity 101–102,
248 Index
114, 123, 161, 165, 174; gender racism: baston of 47; examining 46;
nonbinary 165–167, 174–175; institutional 204; overt 113, 122,
transgender 175 148; realities of 20; structural 122;
Indigenous: education 177–186, systemic 46
190–191, 193; history 191 readiness: faculty, teachers, instructors
intercultural exchanges 136–138, 154 51, 131; for online education 33, 50,
interest convergence 43, 44, 48–50, 52, 215; student 131
54–56 relational pedagogy 87, 163, 178, 180,
182–184, 187, 191–194
language ideologies 2 relationships in online learning 12,
LGBTQ+ afrmation (or Queer 19, 21, 34, 38–39, 44, 111, 121,
pride) 83, 100, 101, 105, 108, 123, 125–126, 128–129, 139, 153,
160–172, 174 175, 182–183, 185–186,
191–192, 198
marginalization 44, 50, 106, 203
mental health 36, 51, 74, 178, 208 self-directed learning, student
moral dimensions of teaching 19 choice 204
multicultural, multiculturalism 16–17, social justice 33, 37, 44, 85–86, 94–95,
45, 137–138, 141, 143–144, 153 118, 126–127, 131, 136, 138, 140,
143, 145, 151, 153, 155, 163, 166,
New Materialism 4–5 178–179, 181
social media 53, 80–81, 94, 122, 143,
online pedagogy 181, 192 151, 171, 173, 175
syllabi 165, 167, 175
pedagogies: anti–racist 132, 137;
feminist 45, 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, telecollaboration 136–139, 141–144,
92–98; humanizing 14–17; peace– 147, 149, 151–155
based 119; queering 107–108, Title IX 166
111, 114–115; relational 178, 180,
182, 184; technowomanist 95, 98; Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
womanist 6, 91, 98 70–72
policy: classroom 56, 167; policymakers
56, 201; school 20, 48–49 whiteness: decentering 169, 175;
praxis 14, 17, 71, 74, 85, 90, 93, 222 white saviors 90, 124, 137, 142, 153;
privilege, white 136, 140, 153 white supremacy 46–47, 52, 124,
project–based learning 6 141, 145, 154
womanist: history 6, 79, 83–88, 91,
queer 100–106, 110–115, 160–169, 97–99, 165; technowomanism 79,
170–174 85–86, 91, 99; womanism 79, 83–87,
queer pedagogies 6, 102, 107–109, 170 91, 97–98, 160

Designing Intersectional Online Education - Critical Teaching and Learning Practices-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing Intersectional Online Education - Critical Teaching and Learning Practices-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing Intersectional

Designing Intersectional Online Education provides expansive yet accessible

Xeturah M. Woodley is the Associate Vice President for Instruction at

Mary F. Rice is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Language,

About the Editors viii

About the Contributors ix

Introduction: Designing Online Learning as Intersectional,

1 Critical Pedagogy & Culturally Responsive Pedagogy:

2 Designing for Cultural Responsiveness in P20 Online

3 Interest Convergence: A CRT Interrogation of the

4 We Are One, But We Are Many: Using Disabilities Studies

5 Womanist and Feminist Pedagogy: Infusing the Wisdom

6 Multiplying the Possibilities of Knowledge: Queering

7 Using Freirean and Rogerian Theory to Create Anti-Racist

8 Telecollaboration and Critical Cultural Connections 136

9 Queering Online Pedagogies in Gender & Sexuality Studies 160

10 Tensions in Adapting a Mandatory Indigenous Education

11 An Autoethnographic Rhapsody of Learning to Teach

12 Teaching Writing Informed by Systemic Functional

Xeturah M. Woodley, Lecturer—University of New Mexico &

Mary F. Rice, Assistant Professor —University of New Mexico

Nouf Alsuwaida, Assistant Professor—University of Ha’il

Denise K. Bockmier-Sommers, Associate Professor—The University

University of Missouri in St. Louis. Her research focuses on the use

Yvonne El Ashmawi, Clinical Assistant Professor—Loyola University

María Estela Brisk, Emeritus Professor of Education—Boston

Design; and Design and Development Research to graduate students

Tabitha Parry Collins, Adjunct Professor—New Mexico State University

Ramona Maile Cutri, Associate Professor—Brigham Young University

Patricia Danyluk, Senior Instructor—University of Calgary

Teresa Anne Fowler, Assistant Professor—Concordia University of

Elissa West Frazier, Doctoral Candidate—Loyola University Chicago

Aubrey Jean Hanson, Associate Professor—University of Calgary

published scholarship in Canadian Literature, Studies in American Indian

Tracy Hodgson-Drysdale, Adjunct Research Professor—Carleton

M. Catherine Jonet, Associate Professor—New Mexico State

Madelaine-Marie Judd, Service Improvement Manager—University

Shelley Kinash, Director for Advancement of Learning and Teaching—

Ph.D. is in education technology and her dissertation research was about

Shamika Klassen, Doctoral Student—University of Colorado at Boulder

Elisa Lacerda-Vandenborn, Assistant Professor—University of Calgary

Elizabeth MacDonald, Instructional Coach—Boston College

dual-language schools, and the preparation of pre-service teachers. She

Jennifer Markides, Postdoctoral Fellow—University of Calgary

Jennifer L. Martin, Assistant Professor—University of Illinois at

Martin D. Martsch, Associate Professor—University of Illinois at

and teaches a variety of courses including research methods, working

Patricia S. McClure, Adjunct Instructor—New Mexico State University

Jennifer MacDonald, Ph.D. Candidate—University of Calgary

Linda E. Oldham, ELA Content Specialist—Deming Public Schools

Yvonne Poitras Pratt, Associate Professor—University of Calgary

Mark Stevens, History Teacher—Fairfax County Public Schools

Laura Anh Williams, Associate Professor—New Mexico State University

explores abjection, disgust, and agency in Asian American literature and

Mary F. Rice and Xeturah M. Woodley

to support students cognitively, afectively, emotionally, socially, and even

of reproducing “this is what I see,” individuals closely examine the mul-

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Duke University Press.

Burgstahler, S. (2015). Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning

Part I: An Overview of Critical Pedagogy

Defnitions and Origins of Critical Pedagogy

In this section, we provide a definition, brief history, and summary of

as emancipatory and their primary purpose as a commitment to