Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing and Using Online Discussions to Promote Social Justice and Equity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education

Abstract

The online student population continues to grow as students look for convenience and flexibility, which has positive consequences as online courses are often equivalent in quality to face-to-face courses and provide access to higher education for students who otherwise may not attend. However, some groups of students have lower rates of persistence than others, which may be due, at least in part, to issues of equity and inclusion that arise in online courses. In this chapter, we begin by sharing the reasons some groups of students are underrepresented in online courses and why they have lower persistence rates when they do attend. Then we discuss how online discussions differ from face-to-face discussions and their impact on students from underrepresented groups. To improve online student experiences, we outline a plan that builds off student strengths. We emphasize the creation of a welcoming classroom culture, culturally responsive pedagogy, universal design for learning, and transformative learning to create equitable small group online discussions using multi-modal asynchronous and synchronous technologies. Within this plan, we also address barriers related to bandwidth and access to technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Asynchronous::

Students participate at times that work best for their learning while meeting a set schedule of deadlines.

Discussions::

Interactions among peers guided by the instructor.

Instructors::

People teaching online courses, including those involved with course design.

Microaggressions::

Acts of everyday systemic racism which include acts of disregard or subtle insults stemming from often unconscious attitudes of white superiority (Bell et al., 2016; Solorzano & Perez-Huber, 2020).

Online learning::

Post-secondary, credit-bearing coursework that is delivered through a learning management system (LMS) such as Blackboard or Canvas.

Persistence::

Students enrolling in a course and completing it with a passing grade.

Synchronous::

Students participate at the same moment in real-time.

Underrepresented::

Students who have historically been less well represented in higher education (e.g., LatinX and Black students).

References

  • Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research-based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121

  • Andel, S. A., de Vreede, T., Spector, P. E., Padmanabhan, B., Singh, V. K., & De Vreede, G.-J. (2020). Do social features help in video-centric online learning platforms? A social presence perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baraniuk, R., Finkbeiner, N., Harris, D., Nicholson, D., & Williamson, D. (2017). Free is not enough. Open: The philosophy and, practices that are revolutionizing education and science (pp. 219–226).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraclough, L., & McMahon, M. R. (2013). US-Mexico border studies online collaboration: Transformative learning across power and privilege. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(2), 236–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basaran, B., & Yalman, M. (2020). Examining university students’ attitudes towards using web-conferencing systems in distance learning courses: A study on scale development and application. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 12(2), 209–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature review. Sage Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2158244015621777

  • Bell, L. A., Funk, M. S., Joshi, K. Y., & Valdivia, M. (2016). Racism and white privilege. In L. A. Bell, M. S. Funk, K. Y. Joshi, & M. Valdivia (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 133–181). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker, K. C., Merriweather, L., & Campbell-Whatley, G. (2016). The effects of diversity training on faculty and students’ classroom experiences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), n1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 10(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103

  • Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313–340. https://cdl.unm.edu/assets/docs/supporting_engagement.pdf

  • Callister, R. R., & Love, M. S. (2016). A comparison of learning outcomes in skills-based courses: Online versus face-to-face formats. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. L. (2015). Transitioning from a model of cultural competency toward an inclusive pedagogy of “racial competency” using critical race theory. Journal of Social Welfare and Human Rights, 3(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAST, (2013). The three principles of UDL. http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles

  • Cherney, M. R., Fetherston, M., & Johnsen, L. J. (2018). Online course student collaboration literature: A review and critique. Small Group Research, 49(1), 98–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J. J., Ford, K., Zhang, L., & Dillon, J. M. (2018). Online course taking behavior for on-campus college students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 19(4), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management & E- Learning, 5(3), 298–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, V., & Kelly, A. E. (2019). Improving student attitudes toward discussion boards using a brief motivational intervention. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. R. (2016). Microaggressions in online courses. Technology, Colleges and Community Worldwide Online Conference proceedings. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69164

  • Collins, B. (2011). Raymond Andrews as Griot: Privileging Southern Black Communities through oral storytelling and cultural history. American Studies Journal, 56. https://doi.org/10.18422/56-08

  • Dahlstrom-Hakki, I., Alstad, Z., & Banerjee, M. (2020). Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with disabilities: The impact of social presence. Computers & Education, 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842

  • Darby, F. (2020). 6 quick ways to be more Inclusive in a virtual classroom. How do you create online or hybrid courses with an ethos of inclusion and equity embedded throughout? Chronicle of Higher Ed. https://www.chronicle.com/article/6-quick-ways-to-be-more-inclusive-in-a-virtual-classroom?bc_nonce=ow77s5b9figfwc5allmfgp&cid=reg_wall_signup

  • Darby, F., Sathy, V., & Goodson, L. (2020, April 15). Planning and facilitating quality discussions [Webinar]. Sponsored by Association of College and University Educators, ACUE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, M. D., Greenwell, M. R., Rogers-Stacy, C., Weister, T., & Lauer, S. (2017). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Communication Education, 66(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domingue, A. D. (2016). Online and blended pedagogy in social justice education. In L. A. Bell, M. S. Funk, K. Y. Joshi, & M. Valdivia (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed., pp. 370–396). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecklund, K. (2013). First-generation social and ethnic minority students in Christian universities: Student recommendations for successful support of diverse students. Christian Higher Education, 12(3), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eschmann, R. (2020). Digital resistance: How online communication facilitates responses to racial microaggressions. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220933307

  • Fatani, T. H. (2020). Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (Multicultural education series). Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, S. (2020). A framework for fostering emerging online learner persistence: The role of synchronous and asynchronous discussions. The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v14i1.6253

  • Gordon, M. (2020). Synchronous teaching and learning; on-ground versus Zoom. International Journal of Education and Human Development, 6(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwait, C. & Andrews, R. (2011). E-learning theory and practice. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitner, K. L., & Jennings, M. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching knowledge and practices of online faculty. Online Learning, 20(4), 54–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, N. E., Moss, G. S., Bradley, C. L., Larson, L. R., Lovelace, M., Prevost, L. B., Riley, N., Domizi, D., & Camus, M. S. (2012). The ‘Facebook’ effect: College students’ perceptions of discussion boards in the age of social networking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060210

  • Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. (2011, May 22). Why are so many students still failing online? The Chronical of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. P., & Mejia, M. C. (2014). Online learning and student outcomes in California's community colleges. Public Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaupp, R. (2012). Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-white achievement gap. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(2), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivation, volition and belief change strategies to improve mathematics learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 407–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, K., & Kambhampaty, A. (2020). Identifying course characteristics associated with sociodemographic variation in enrollments across 159 online courses from 20 institutions. PLoS ONE, 15(10), e0239766–e0239766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeds, E. M., Campbell, S. M., Baker, H., Ali, R., Brawley, D., & Crisp, J. (2013). The impact of student retention strategies: An empirical study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., Ojiemwen, A., Thomas, M., Riopelle, C., Harwood, S. A., & Browne Huntt, M. (2019). Racial microaggressions and sense of belonging at a historically white university. American Behavioral Scientist. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859613

  • Luyt, I. (2013). Bridging spaces: Cross-cultural perspectives on promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majid, S., Idio, C. D., Liang, S., & Zhang, W. (2015). Preferences and motivating factors for knowledge sharing by students. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649215500045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslowski, A. K. (2020). Infusing multiculturalism, identity, and social justice in asynchronous courses. Teaching of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320964772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, K. J. (2020). “It’s systemic”: Environmental racial microaggressions experienced by Black undergraduates at a predominantly white institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(1), 44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. P. (2020). Belief without evidence? A policy research note on universal design for learning. Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320940206

  • Nagpal, S. (2020, October 19). Raising student motivation during the pandemic. Faculty Focus, The Chronical of Higher Education. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching

  • NYU Steinhardt. (2020). Guidance on culturally responsive-sustaining remote education. Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc5da7c3560c36b7dab1922/t/5e7a26b60fdceb59f

  • Ojeda, L., Castillo, L. G., Rosales Meza, R., & Piña-Watson, B. (2014). Mexican Americans in higher education: Cultural adaptation and marginalization as predictors of college persistence intentions and life satisfaction. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, A., Andruczyk, M., & Marquart, M. (2018). Addressing microaggressions and acts of oppression within online classrooms by utilizing principles of transformative learning and liberatory education. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 27(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2017.1417945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortagus, J. C. (2017). From the periphery to prominence: An examination of the changing profile of online students in American higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peralta Online Equity Initiative. (2020). Peralta equity rubric. Peralta Community College. https://web.peralta.edu/de/equity-initiative/equity/

  • Paine, R. (2018). A framework for understanding poverty—A cognitive approach (6th ed.). aha! Process, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotts, C. (2020a). The space between: Identifying cultural canyons in online spaces and the use of LatinX culture to bridge the divide. DBD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, L., Hullett, E. M., & Boysen, S. (2020). Are you a robot? Revitalizing online learning and discussion boards for today’s modern learner. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poll, K., Widen, J., & Weller, S. (2014). Six instructional best practices for online engagement and retention. Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Raza, S. A., Khan, K. A., & Rafi, S. T. (2020). Online education & MOOCs: Teacher self-disclosure in online education and a mediating role of social presence. South Asian Journal of Management, 14(1), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.21621/sajms.2020141.08

  • Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2020). To level the playing field, develop interest. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219864705

  • Rieber, L. P., & Estes, M. D. (2017). Accessibility and instructional technology: Reframing the discussion. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 6(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthotto, I., Kreth, Q., Stevens, J., Trively, C., & Melkers, J. (2020). Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103854

  • Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solorzano, D., & Perez-Huber, L. (2020). Racial microaggressions: Using critical race theory to respond to everyday racism. Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, D. (2020, March 14). Videoconferencing alternatives: How low-bandwidth teaching will save us all. Iddblog. https://www.iddblog.org/videoconferencing-alternatives-how-low-bandwidth-teaching-will-save-us-all/

  • Strada Center for Education Consumer Insights (2020, July 29). The value of online education [Webinar]. https://www.stradaeducation.org/video/released-july-29-the-value-of-online-education/

  • Takacs, S. & Zhang, J. (2020). Universal design for learning: A practical guide. Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Innovation. Justice Institute of British Columbia. https://ctli.jibc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/UDL_A_Practical_Guide.pdf

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uijl, S., Filius, R., & Ten Cate, O. (2017). Student interaction in small private online courses. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 237–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Wang, Y. (2020). Compare synchronous and asynchronous online instruction for science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

  • Woodley, X., Hernandez, C., Parra, J., & Negash, B. (2017). Celebrating difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching online. TechTrends, 61(5), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0207-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2011). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8862QJ6

  • Yuan, C.-H., & Wu, Y. J. (2020). Mobile instant messaging or face-to-face? Group interactions in cooperative simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106508

  • Zach, L., & Agosto, D. E. (2009). Using the online learning environment to develop real-life collaboration and knowledge-sharing skills: A theoretical discussion and framework for online course design. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 590–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. Computers & Education, 69, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Suggestions for Future Reading

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Social Work, The College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN, USA

    Staci Gilpin

  2. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

    Virginia Clinton-Lisell

  3. Sociology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

    Elizabeth Legerski

  4. Education Foundation and Research Department, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

    Bri Rhodes

Authors
  1. Staci Gilpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginia Clinton-Lisell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Legerski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bri Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Staci Gilpin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

    Laura Parson

  2. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

    C. Casey Ozaki

Appendix A

Appendix A

Designing and Using Equitable Online Discussions Checklist

Prior to the first discussion , instructors should…

  • Share the purpose and usefulness of discussions.

  • Survey students to learn more about their discussion preferences and access to technology.

  • Based on survey information, create small discussion groups, prompts, and determine type (asynchronous and/or synchronous). Individually reach out to students who may have technology needs to problem solve.

  • Co-create discussion guidelines with students.

  • Share the grading rubric.

  • Educate students about bias and microaggressions in online environments.

  • Plan how to address bias and microaggressions when they occur.

  • Identify campus agencies who support students struggling with anxiety, depression, acculturated stress, and marginalization.

During each discussion , instructors should…

  • Facilitate discussions by providing consistent and timely feedback.

  • Continue to educate students about microaggressions. Keep an eye out for those “teachable moments.”

  • Be ready to immediately respond to bias and microaggressions.

After each discussion , instructors should…

  • Immediately review student self-reflections and contact students about concerns that arise, especially as they relate to bias and microaggressions. Refer students to campus agencies as needed.

  • Gather take-aways from group members and yourself and post the take-aways in your announcements.

  • Provide discussion grades and feedback in a timely manner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gilpin, S., Clinton-Lisell, V., Legerski, E., Rhodes, B. (2022). Designing and Using Online Discussions to Promote Social Justice and Equity. In: Parson, L., Ozaki, C.C. (eds) Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88608-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88608-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88607-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88608-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation