As online distance education courses continue to expand their reach and serve a broader audience, we are required to understand the affordances and challenges of supporting equitable learning environments. The globalization of online distance education requires instructional designers and educators to work outside of their own bias to address a learner population that represents a diverse set of cultures, physical and cognitive abilities, socioeconomic status, age, gender and learning preferences. Distance education offers opportunities for learners to connect over time and space barriers, engage outside of their social contexts, and access content from almost anywhere. An additional affordance is the utilization of open educational resources (OER), or the free use of high-quality, digitized materials and improved access of educational resources in online distance education (Hockings, Brett, & Terentjevs, 2012). Unfortunately, many course designers fail to take social responsibility to meet the needs and expectations of their intended audience (McAnany, 2009).
An empirical study by Baker, Dee, Evans, & John (2018) found that instructors are 94% more likely to respond to White males in discussion forums compared to any other race or gender distinctions and that peer-to-peer interactions suggest that White females are more likely to receive a response from another White female. How can we design discussion forums and online social learning spaces to support more equitable engagement?
In addition to gender bias, cultural factors influence learning and engagement in asynchronous learning spaces. Current research implies that cultural differences can have a negative effect on student perceptions and participation in online courses. For example, the cultural differences between Eastern and Western educational structures. In Eastern educational structures which are often characterized as teacher-centered (instructor holds absolute authority over learners) versus Western educational structures that are categorically deemed “student-centered” and encourage critical discourse, questioning, and dialogue within the learning process (Liu, Liu, Lee, & Magjuka, 2010). Often, cultures intersect in educational environments and students have to temporarily work within the social norms of the course instructor or course design. This can be problematic, as assumptions can be made on behaviors, perspectives, and values during the teaching and learning processes. By developing “cultural sensitivity” or the degree in which one is able to view from the perspective of a culture other than one’s own, is a necessity in instructional design. Though critically reviewed, Hofstede’s dimensional model of cultural differences is frequently utilized to analyze cultural differences in teaching in learning.
As Zhang (2001) states, “Recognizing and prizing the diversity found in many of today’s learners is prerequisite to the successful incorporation of cultural pluralism into instruction. It is critical that educators value these alternative styles, and see them viable and valid assets to instruction.” (p.299) Instructional designers are uniquely situated and ethically responsible to be aware of cultural issues, and at the minimum, be aware of their own cultural biases (Hartescu, 2012). However, Parrish states designers are challenged “…to understand which learning behaviors are based on deeply entrenched cultural values that should not be challenged and which behaviors are more superficial practices that can be challenged for the sake of promoting learning.”(p.10)
Not only do online courses connect diverse learners with unique cultural characteristics, but distance education can also reduce barriers for learners with physical and mental disabilities. Borrowing principles from architecture, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and universal design principles, focus on creating comprehensive plans that would be ideal for all within the use of a single space. Unfortunately, educational technologies and learning platforms are often not developed specifically for distance education delivery systems and therefore, lack synchronous functionalities to support those who require translators for visual, hearing, speech, language, learning, and mobile disabilities (Schwartz, 2004).
Design Implications:
Course designers are responsible to create ethically-sound course designs, and this is not an easy task. Research recommends that inclusive design should reduce student anxieties by setting clear expectations, facilitate active social learning spaces with specific guidance to develop safe spaces and enabling learners to participate in critical discourse, provide multimodal designs to accommodate learner preferences, support social presence with informal learning spaces and encourage awareness of communication delivery systems within the learning management system, structure course designs to allow ample time for learners to develop relationships prior to collective or cooperative activities, review potential power dynamics among learners and with the course instructor, create course materials or legends providing context to cultural references or colloquialisms, define expectations of instructor presence, and (if possible) conduct a learner analysis or needs assessments within course development cycles (Uzuner, 2009). Designers should strive to incorporate instructional strategies to encourage learners to feel a sense of belonging within an online learning community. One way to do meet this goal is to utilize small-group learning experiences to support active learning strategies, reinforce critical reflection and promote interaction with diverse peers (Black, Krahmer, & Allen, 2018).
In the course development process, designers should seek opportunities for learners to work through multiple layers of reflection and to encourage learners to collaboratively construct knowledge within cultural, social, political, economic, and historical contexts. In addition, instructional designers should integrate multicultural perspectives within course content and materials (Higbee, Schultz, & Goff, 2010). McAnany (2009) offers three principles to integrate multicultural perspectives into instructional materials including “do no harm”, “make the learning experience relevant” and “incorporate global concepts and images into instructional messages”. The goal is to design multicultural course materials that do not disrupt from intended learning outcomes, offer relevancy to learner contexts, are sensitive to cultural values, and engage learners to broaden their perspectives. Liu et al. (2010) recommend scaffolding and taking a well-balanced approach to learning activities and multimedia aids to reduce language barriers English as a Second language (ESL) learners.
It should be mentioned that most course development processes and models do not formally or proactively call for instructional designers to design for learners with mental and physical disabilities. Typically, accessible and universal design approaches are not applied until a student identifies themselves and requests specific accommodations to meet their needs. Often, these accommodations (i.e. note-taking assistance, closed-captioned and transcribed media, and extended time for assessments) need to be retroactively implemented into the course design and can cause a delay in the student’s progress (Silver, Bourke, & Strehorn, 1998). Unfortunately, due to faculty time constraints, limited institutional resources for training and development, and limited administrative support course designers often do not actively embed inclusive strategies into their courses (Dallas, Sprong, & Kluesner, 2016). Ideally, universal design learning (UDL) principles should be applied and interwoven throughout the entire course development process and the course design should be flexible and adaptable to just-in-time modifications. As Chandler, Zaloudk, and Carlson (2017) suggest, “…the principles of UDL offer educators a framework from which to systematically address the potential learning differences associated with each division of the learning process. By designing courses with ‘space’ for individuals to co-construct their learning opportunities and processes, educators can remove barriers for students from diverse life contexts and support their success in higher education.” (pp. 153-154) Also, instructional designers should use differentiated instructional strategies and challenge learners to personalize their learning by enabling them to select resources and activities aligned to course outcomes.
Finally, as Patrick Parrish reminds us, “Funamentally, when we teach, we are teaching culture. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes are all manifestations of culture and are not somehow immune to it. Moreover, when we teaching, we are passing along not only what we know, but how we come to know it as well as the basis for accepting it as useful knowledge, and the values these represent. Teaching and learning are not only embedded in culture, they are cultural transmission in action- the means to culture.” (p.5)
References:
Baker, R., Dee, T., Evans, B., & John, J. (2018). Bias in online classes: Evidence from a field experiment (CEPA Working Paper No.18–03). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp18-03
Black, S., Krahmer, D., & Allen, J. D. (2018). Part 6: Diversity and Inclusion. The Reference Librarian, 59(2), 92-106.
Chandler, R., Zaloudek, J. A., & Carlson, K. (2017). How Do You Intentionally Design to Maximize Success in the Academically Diverse Classroom?. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 151, 151-169.
Dallas, B. K., Sprong, M. E., & Kluesner, B. K. (2016). Multiuniversity Comparison of Faculty Attitudes and Use of Universal Design Instructional Techniques. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 30(2), 148-160.
Hartescu, I. (2012). ONE SIZE FITS ALL?-CULTURAL DIVERSITY REFLECTED IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS. In Conference proceedings of» eLearning and Software for Education «(eLSE) (No. 01, pp. 501-506). ” Carol I” National Defence University Publishing House.
Higbee, J. L., Schultz, J. L., & Goff, E. (2010). Pedagogy of inclusion: Integrated multicultural instructional design. Journal of college Reading and Learning, 41(1), 49-66.
Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference-inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 237–252.
Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: International student perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 177–188.
Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2), 1-19.
McAnany, D. (2009). Monkeys on the screen?: Multicultural issues in instructional message design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 35(1).
Schwartz, L. (2004). Advanced accessibility features for inclusive distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(3).
Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal Instructional Design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence, 31(2), 47-51.
Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of culture in distance learning: A research review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
Zhang, J. X. (2001). Cultural diversity in instructional design. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(3), 299.