4 Feminist Moves for Community in Online Discussions
Stephanie Rollag Yoon, Jana Lo Bello Miller, and Staci Gilpin
I feel more connected with my classmates. In previous online classes, it always feels like you have a list of things to do, but you’re mostly doing this stuff without connecting with your classmates.
—Courtney (Spring 2021)
As three instructors dedicated to equity within our online education courses, we found ourselves sharing a desire to create digital spaces where students felt a connection, as described in the epigraph to this chapter. This connection offers what bell hooks (1994, p. 40) conceives as a “shared commitment and a common good that binds us.” This binding and “situatedness” of connection and a sense of belonging move space into “place” where these online social interactions authentically honour students’ multiple identities (Massey, 1994). In seeking to improve our own practices, we began meeting as an intentional act to shift our pedagogy by sharing resources, reflecting on our practices, and trying new strategies. We explored how our online teaching creates space for students to engage in critical reflection and connection with peers in order to participate in learning and move beyond invisible boundaries that often separate students from each other and their learning. We believe that this process allowed us to experience connection in an online space in the same ways that we were asking our students to connect. Grounded in the work of bell hooks (1994, p. 12), our collective, reflective practice celebrated “teaching that enables transgressions—a movement against and beyond boundaries,” where students feel connected with each other and through their learning.
In this chapter, we share how feminist pedagogical moves shift our online teaching to focus on connection and its impact on students’ persistence. We describe how our positionality influences our lens for teaching and learning. Then we highlight how a feminist lens has pushed and continues to push our online teaching practices in ways that support students’ connections to each other and their learning. We share our qualitative research process as we reflect on our implementation of relationship- focused discussion groups. Our findings trace the link between online pedagogical moves focused on connection building and persistence rates. Across our qualitative study, we include our reflections and those of our students. Finally, we highlight the specific strategies that have come out of this reflexive research and its implications for our teaching and learning.
Drawing from Experience
Aligned with our commitments to our students, we recognize the need to acknowledge the lens that we bring to our work (Romero-Hall, 2021). Although our roles within our institution vary, we came together through a similar understanding that “teaching and research are mutually dependent, each informing the other… and that we must be cognizant of this in our work as feminist scholars and teachers” (Light et al., 2015, p. 8). We bring our research backgrounds into our pedagogy and apply our collective knowledge to teaching practices for our online settings. Staci brings a lens of designing, teaching, and researching in and about digital spaces with a focus on learner persistence. She adds to our conversations her experiences with online discussions in undergraduate education courses, in which she implements small-group discussions utilizing both synchronous videoconferencing tools and asynchronous discussion boards. Stephanie brings her teaching experience to the undergraduate and MEd programs and research focused on multi-modal writing and socio-cultural theory.
She continually reflects on teaching across hybrid and online settings in relation to the ways in which students present multiple identities. Jana brings her experience as an instructor for the MEd program, specifically in the area of culturally responsive practices. Across our courses, we are interested in pushing our own pedagogy forward as we engage with opportunities for students to develop relationships that support their learning in specific courses. Through the connections that we made at the intersection of our shared knowledge of theory, histories of research, and ongoing reflections on pedagogy, we came to an intentional focus on how a feminist approach to our online pedagogy in student discussions could shape students’ experiences related to connection and have an impact on their overall experience in school, leading to persistence.
Online Course Design and Student Persistence
Our conversations highlighted concerns that students’ lack of connection in online classes affected their learning and persistence in courses at the same time that we were noticing an increase in the need for online teaching. This need comes from a growing online student population as students look for convenience and flexibility, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating transitions from face-to-face to online modes of delivery. In fact, surveys of 22,000 diverse American learners of all ages show that 59% of learners prefer online-only or hybrid models over exclusively face-to-face experiences, with the preference even stronger for women and Black learners (Strada Center for Education Consumer Insights, 2020).
We see this interest as promising since online courses are often equivalent in quality to face-to-face courses (Bowers & Kumar, 2015) and provide access to higher education for students who otherwise might not attend college or university. However, studies show that students have 10% to 20% lower persistence rates for online courses than for face-to-face courses (Hart, 2012; Xu & Jaggars, 2011). We believe that our online instruction must begin with an understanding of the social environments that surround students to reflect on what affects students’ experiences in classes. In this way, our lens aligns with aspects of the community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000) since it is concerned with relationships and community in online courses between instructors and students through the concept of social presence (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Rovai, 2002).
In addition, we look to theories that focus on critical cultural and feminist perspectives that highlight interconnected demographic, socio-economic (Bourdages & Delmotte, 2001), academic, pedagogical, psychological, social, and technological (Kelly & Zakrajsek, 2020) variables that work together to aid students in successfully completing their coursework. It is incorrect to think that students do not borrow from aspects of their physical selves as they craft online identities (Gajjala et al., 2017). Instead, intersecting identities of age, name, gender, and race are important to the navigation of digital spaces. Instructors must understand the complexity of identity within physical spaces and the implications for online student success. It is through our own diversity of experiences and theoretical perspectives that we have developed our understanding of relationships that exist online but are shaped by complex influences beyond the class.
We reflect on these influences as we acknowledge that online courses continue to fall below face-to-face courses in terms of opportunities for student-to-student interaction. Recognizing the importance of social interactions, we see this context as a factor affecting student persistence rates (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Instructors often seek to address this deficit through text-based asynchronous discussion boards, even though students frequently report dissatisfaction with these types of discussions because of their isolating and transactional nature (Kauffman, 2015; Majid et al., 2015). Furthermore, tools such as asynchronous text-based discussion boards can also control how students interact with others and project themselves, also affecting identity presentation (Garcia & Nichols, 2021). In the end, students and instructors are frustrated.
To address this frustration and improve online student persistence, developing research calls for the use of synchronous video-conferencing technologies to support more organic conversations (Berry & Kowal, 2020; Paulsen & McCormick, 2020; Ragusa & Crampton, 2018). However, when a synchronous component becomes part of an asynchronous course, it jeopardizes the flexibility and convenience that online students desire (Simpson, 2013), along with the anonymity that others desire (Berry & Kowal, 2020), and some might not have the necessary bandwidth to participate fully (Stanford, 2020). Recognizing these complexities of synchronous discussions and looking for ways to use technology fully to support a sense of community are necessary to bring equity to online learning communities and to provide opportunities for students to use their many identities. We argue that much research on persistence rates in online learning does not bring feminist pedagogy’s focus on the link between students’ connections with each other and the content and the impact those relationships have on their overall experience in the class.
Feminist Pedagogical Moves
Within our study, we trace how feminist pedagogy supports the building of connections between students and between students and instructors in online learning. We draw from feminist pedagogy to address contextual and social attributes in digital spaces by acknowledging the intersectionality of identities (Carbado et al., 2013; hooks, 2000), recognizing hierarchies of power (hooks, 1994; Kumashiro, 2002), and engaging in reflexivity (Gildersleeve, 2010; Pillow, 2003). We highlight how feminist pedagogy makes space for students’ multiple identities by validating personal experiences and ways of being (Gajjala et al., 2017). Within online spaces, there are opportunities to do this work by allowing students to share their perspectives in multiple modes available through digital tools. Online learning can acknowledge hierarchies of power by shifting the facilitation of cooperative learning into the hands of students and centring materials and topics central to students’ lives (Correia et al., 2019; Gajjala et al., 2017). Finally, we see space for reflexivity in online learning to occur as teachers are given space to reflect on their teaching and interactions with students and to make changes in response to their new awareness. Bringing these aspects of feminist theory together, we see a direct link among feminist pedagogy, the building of connections in online learning, and the expansion of access and equity, leading to higher rates of persistence in online learning (Lather, 2007; Pillow, 2003; Plotts, 2020a, 2020b).
We see a feminist lens as an opportunity to explore how digital tools provide spaces for students, instead of limiting them, to bring and engage with multiple identities in the format of synchronous discussions (Savin-Baden, 2010). Specifically, we draw a connection between these tenets of feminist pedagogy and online learning by focusing on building community through relational, student-led, small-group discussions, supported by advances in technology (Plotts, 2020a, 2020b; Woodley et al., 2017). Unfortunately, opportunities for small learning communities in online courses are limited compared with face-to-face classes, and the research in this area needs to be expanded (Gilpin et al., 2022), which brings us to the context of this study.
Research Purpose and Questions
Our interest in this topic was influenced by interactions with other online instructors across our networks. We felt a common desire to move away from transactional asynchronous discussion boards with long threads of text and point-oriented rubrics and toward those that provided opportunities for more relationship-focused small-group discussions. Drawing from our own commitment to feminist pedagogies centred on community and connection, the embodied aspect of doing and engaging, and reflexivity, we wondered how the online tools (e.g., primarily asynchronous discussion boards) that we used to facilitate online discussions across our program influenced our pedagogy to be more transactional than relational. This study is focused on the following research question. How does a relationship-focused implementation of virtual learning community (VLC) discussions affect students’ sense of connection?
Methods
In seeing a need to explore this topic further, we utilized qualitative methods (Erickson, 1986) to explore our implementations of student-led, small-group, online discussions. With a primary focus on the design of the discussions, perceptions of students and instructors, and recommendations for practitioners, we collected data throughout the 2020–21 school year.
Participants
After receiving IRB approval (#1622862-1), we collected data from 33 students (23 undergraduates and 10 graduates) enrolled in two different asynchronous online teacher preparation courses at a small Midwestern liberal arts college. Many of the participants were female and fell between the ages of 18 and 34.
Implementation
This study focuses on our implementation of student discussions in online learning communities, which we refer to as virtual learning communities. These discussions utilize video-conferencing technology that all students have access to via accounts provided by their institutions. Our implementation of VLCs aligns with the key tenets of feminist pedagogy as described earlier in the chapter: identity, hierarchies of power, and reflexivity.
Identity. In honoring ways to make spaces for students to bring their identities to class, we assign students to small groups of three to five, nurturing social presence, community, and group cohesion (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016; Plotts, 2020a, 2020b; Qiu et al., 2014; Woodley et al., 2017). To support optimally the development of community, students create their own group norms and remain in the same small groups all semester unless there is a specific reason for a change.
Hierarchies of power. Recognizing that hierarchies are always present in classes between peers and instructors, we sought to create a framework that allowed students to lead their own learning with each other. As instructors, we identified overarching lesson topics/objectives, readings/viewings, and a starter prompt/directive, and students took turns facilitating the discussions (Correia et al., 2019; Page et al., 2020; Szabo, 2015). Students took notes on a shared Google Document in which we could provide feedback in the form of further questions or resources after meetings (Phirangee et al., 2016). The discussions counted toward approximately 20% of a student’s final grades in the courses, and specific examples, guidelines, and grading rubrics were provided to students at the beginning of the semester (Aloni et al., 2018; Fehrman & Watson, 2021). In the next paragraph, we discuss how we continually reflected on and adjusted these parameters.
Figure 4.1. Framework for Virtual Learning Communities.
A full explanation of implementations and resources is available on the Feminist Pedagogy for Teaching Online website (feministsteach.org).
Reflexivity. As reflexive practitioners, we “seek pedagogy that treats knowledge, and thus curriculum, as provisional and uncertain” (Light et al., 2015, p. 5) because we believe that it should always shift in response to students’ needs in a particular context. As we implemented VLCs with our students, we recognized the need to adapt the process continually. Figure 4.1 features an overview of our VLC framework that honours this ongoing change. The first part, under implementation, highlights key elements that we initially implemented in our VLCs. The second part, under adjustments, outlines changes that we made in response to students’ needs. These changes included students creating their own norms with support from instructors, allowing students to decide whether to meet synchronously or asynchronously, and students creating their own questions to lead discussions. These changes were made through our ongoing reflection. Within our reflexivity, we considered and were guided by the aspects of feminist pedagogy.
Data Collection
Within these courses, our data include our discussion frameworks, students’ discussion notes, students’ reflections on discussion groups, and our interactions with students. In addition, we took notes on our own ongoing meetings to discuss our pedagogical choices and reflections.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis utilized qualitative coding procedures to identify common themes across students’ reflections (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). We began by reading reflection responses and identifying patterns. We reread responses multiple times, analyzing the data for convergence and divergence of themes (Patton, 2002, p. 467). We triangulated our themes as they connected to student discussion notes, class notes, and our ongoing conversation notes. Through this exploration, we illuminate how teacher educators curate learning experiences for preservice teachers and how these practices can model spaces open to multiple identities through the advancement of humanizing pedagogy, ultimately influencing the persistence of students in online courses and the potential for them to use similar practices in their own teaching.
Findings: Participatory Learning Experiences
We integrated our flexible virtual learning communities with the hope that students could connect with each other to participate in learning. Reflections from students show how the discussion formats affected their views of themselves, their relationships, and their collaborations moving forward, ultimately affecting their participation in their learning and persistence. The themes below resonated across the reflections.
Validation of Personal Experience
Aligned with elements of feminist pedagogy, students indicated that they saw spaces within their conversations where their personal experiences were validated, leaving room to bring their identities. Across their reflections, they noted how the VLCs allowed them to bring their own experiences in a way honoured by peers and instructors. One student explained that “[you] bring your own thoughts and ideas to the table to share.” The consistent responses in how students talked about “bringing their ideas” indicate the spaces for them to engage with each other. They also talked about how this would affect them beyond the class: “After I led the final discussion, I feel like I am at a point in my life where I can do really good work in a group and alone. This makes me feel very versatile as an educator because that is the balance you need to have to be successful.” These comments speak to the spaces for students’ identities within the conversations and how students see their identities as educators moving forward. As instructors in teacher preparation programs, we note that this trajectory highlights the need for students to feel validated within their learning communities.
Participatory Learning and Connection
Students’ reflections on their VLC discussions highlighted a sense of engagement and connection with each other. The reflections in emails to instructors, as well as formal reflections, highlighted that students were actively learning through their discussions as they were developing connections with each other. Their reflections indicated that they were interested in how these experiences affect their relationships beyond the course. As one student noted, “we will keep in touch with each other through email. We will be there for any support someone might need.”
Development of Critical Thinking and Open-Mindedness
Students consistently commented on how being in their groups allowed them to feel more connected to classmates than they did in other online classes in which they did not experience a virtual learning community. As students felt connected with each other, they engaged in conversations in meaningful ways. These conversations were described as “fun,” “enjoyable,” “engaging,” and “deep” across the feedback. We see these spaces of dialogue moving the conversation to personal experiences, connections, and spaces for movement in perspectives, an open-mindedness that cannot be created as easily in stagnant, asynchronous discussions. As one student noted, “it is really nice to get to know others from different campuses and apply all of our knowledge and experience together collaboratively! The discussion experience has been nothing short of fun and educational.”
Implications: Nurturing Connections
Based on the discussion frameworks, students’ discussion notes, their reflections on discussion groups, and our interactions with students and with one another, we highlight specific strategies that support connection and persistence through a feminist pedagogical lens. Recognizing that teaching and learning are not stagnant but ever changing and evolving based on context and identity, we share three implications.
Consider Embodied Learning
We began this work with the notion that providing opportunities for students to engage in discussions in a synchronous session allowed them to bring their lives into the classroom. These synchronous sessions meant that they were discussing things as their pets and children were in the background. They could laugh or cry together in real time. As feminist scholars, we considered it important that students had opportunities to engage in discussions that included their voices and lives in order to build upon relationships as their lived experiences were integrated into their discussions (Romero-Hall, 2021).
Recognize the Role of the Audience in Online Learning
The framework was designed as a place where students could be storytellers of their experiences, making connections to course themes, in ways that worked for them. Our experiences with students showed that asynchronous discussions had a sense of permanence in the structure, which placed a different focus on the audience for students. Synchronous sessions allowed for a modality that provided spaces for shifting identities and a known, present audience (Andrews & Smith, 2011). This type of organic thinking allows for an openness to nurture community. Recognizing the role of stagnant text is important in considering how students can show up in particular modalities. DeRosa (2021) highlights other ways that this type of openness can occur, such as through social annotation since it allows for more fluid texts. She goes on to share recent technological advances that make it possible for instructors to embed social annotation tools within learning management systems so that students can seamlessly create knowledge together without having to log on to another platform. This development has led to instructors replacing discussion boards with social annotation activities.
Agency for Connection
Although the use of synchronous sessions was valuable, enforcing them can work against the opportunity for the agency that we were striving to create. When a synchronous component becomes part of an asynchronous course, it jeopardizes the flexibility and convenience that online students desire (Simpson, 2013), along with the anonymity that others prefer (Berry & Kowal, 2020), and some might not have the necessary bandwidth (high-speed internet) to participate fully (Stanford, 2020). In classes, we gave students the agency to choose a format that worked best for them to connect, either synchronous or asynchronous. We recognized that students could determine their needs and respond in ways that worked for them. This agency was also extended to the ways that students formed their own group norms and the ways that they were able to develop their own prompts.
Seeking Our Own Connections
Our own practices shifted through our reflective practices with each other. As teacher educators, we prioritize time to engage in conversation with each other to improve our practice. Creating time and space to work together, setting our own norms, and identifying connecting goals allow us to move our practice. Creating our own space to connect on theory, research, and practice moves our work. We believe that supporting teacher educators in finding this time pushes this work forward. As we continue this work, we will highlight our own understanding of feminist theory as it relates to our work in online learning so that we continue to bring these lenses together.
Conclusion: Committing to Connection
I think with having the learning communities it helped build relationships and a sense of openness because we would talk about assignments and discuss them together if anyone had questions. That way we were kinda checking in with each other and making sure we were all on track.
—Student (Spring 2021)
Engaging in the work of building community for ourselves as practitioners and our students as learners is never done. As hooks (1994, p. 189) reminds us, this type of teaching calls for “welcoming the opportunity to alter our classroom practices creatively so that the democratic ideal of education for everyone can be realized.” While writing this chapter, we continued to shift how we let our students make spaces in their virtual learning communities and look for new opportunities for them to facilitate their learning through their connections with each other. Through our own community, we can shift to new ways of having students work collaboratively to create knowledge and design their learning experiences. We are eager to connect to other online learning strategies that centre similar perspectives, such as creating liquid syllabi (Pacansky-Brock, 2021), that offer students more opportunities to influence the syllabi in real time. We also see this work as connected to students annotating course resources through annotation tools and open pedagogical practices (DeRosa & Jhangiani, 2017). Finally, we see how this work calls for reimagining our grading practices. The practices themselves are less important than the underlying focus on opportunities for students to engage in experiences that lead to community. We remain committed to the idea that students who experience a sense of connection in their learning can bring their identities, which leads to space for persistence.
Key Takeaways
- Although there is a growing interest and need for online learning, the persistence rate of students enrolled in online courses is significantly lower than that of students enrolled in face-to-face classes and has been traced to a lack of student-to-student interactions.
- Feminist pedagogy provides a needed link between students’ overall experiences in online courses and opportunities to build connections by honouring their identities, acknowledging hierarchies of power, and engaging in reflexivity.
- Relational-focused small groups, rather than transactional discussions, provide opportunities to expand connections, increasing student persistence rates.
- Opportunities for connection in online learning validate personal experiences, increase.
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), 1–17. https://
doi .org /10 .19173 /irrodl .v17i3 .2293 - Aloni, M., Harrington, C., Regan, A. R., & Landrum, R. E. (2018). Research-based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271–289. https://
doi .org /10 .1037 /stl0000121 - Andrews, R., & Smith, A. (2011). Developing writers: Teaching and learning in the digital age. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
- Berry, L., & Kowal, K. (2020, June 19). Part deux: Discussion on the rocks? Add a twist of fresh alternatives!
Online Learning Consortium Innovate 2020. https://
onlinelearningconsortium .org /olc -innovate -2020 -session -page / ?session =8131&kwds =discussion - Bourdages, L., & Delmotte, C. (2001). La persistance aux études universitaires à distance. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’enseignement à distance, 16(2), 23–36.
- 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 - Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race,
10(2), 303–312. https://
doi .org /10 .1017 /S1742058X13000349 - Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. https://
doi .org /10 .4135 /9781452230153 - Correia, A. P., North, C. A., Korkmaz, C., Simmerman, V., & Wallace, K. B. (2019). Authentic online discussions: A narrative inquiry into sharing leadership and facilitation among teachers and students. International Journal on E-Learning, 18(2), 165–189.
- DeRosa, R. (2021). Liquid margins 27: Social annotation and OER [Webinar]. Hypothes.is. https://
web .hypothes .is /event /liquid -margins -27 -opening -books -social -annotation -and -oer / - DeRosa, R., & Jhangiani, R. (2017). Open pedagogy. In E. Mays (Ed.), A guide to making open textbooks with students (pp. 6–21). Rebus Community. https://
press .rebus .community /makingopentextbookswithstudents /chapter /open -pedagogy / - Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.119–62). Macmillan.
- Fehrman, S., & Watson, S. L. (2021). A systematic review of asynchronous online discussions in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 35(3),
200–213. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /08923647 .2020 .1858705 - Gajjala, R., Behrmann, E. M., Birzescu, A., Corbett, A., & Bondor, K. F. (2017). Epistemologies of doing: Engaging online learning through feminist pedagogy. In E. Losh (Ed.), MOOCs and their afterlives: Experiments in scale and access in higher education (pp. 135–160). University of Chicago Press.
- Garcia, A., & Nichols, T. P. (2021). Digital platforms aren’t mere tools—They’re complex environments. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 14–19. https://
doi .org /10 .1177 /0031721721998148 - Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,
2(2–3), 87–105. https://
doi .org /10 .1016 /S1096 -7516(00)00016 -6 - 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 - Gildersleeve, R. E. (2010). Dangerously important moment(s) in reflexive research practices with immigrant youth. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 23(4), 407–421. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /09518398 .2010 .492809 - Gilpin, S., Clinton-Lisell V., Legerski, E., & Rhodes, B. (2022). Designing and using online discussions to promote social justice and equity. In L. Parson & C. C. Ozaki
(Eds.), Teaching and learning for social justice and equity in higher education (pp. 15–43). Palgrave Macmillan. https://
doi .org /10 .1007 /978 -3 -030 -88608 -0 _2 - 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), 19–42.
- hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
- hooks, b. (2000). Where we stand: Class matters. Routledge.
- Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, Article 26507. https://
doi .org /10 .3402 /rlt .v23 .26507 - Kelly, K., & Zakrajsek, T. D. (2020). Advancing online teaching: Creating equity-based digital learning environments. Stylus Publishing.
- Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy. Routledge Falmer.
- Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. SUNY Press.
- Light, T. P., Nicholas, J., & Bondy, R. (2015). Feminist pedagogy in higher education. In T. P. Light, J. Nicholas, & R. Bondy (Eds.), Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice (pp. 1–10). Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
- 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), Article 1550004. https://
doi .org /10 .1142 /S0219649215500045 - Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Polity Press.
- Pacansky-Brock, M. (2021). The liquid syllabus: An anti-racist teaching element. Colleague 2 Colleague Magazine, 1(15), 2. https://
scholarspace .jccc .edu /c2c _online /vol1 /iss15 /2 - 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, 68(2), 128–136. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /07377363 .2020 .1745048 - Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Sage.
- Paulsen, J., & McCormick, A. C. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student
engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20–29. https://
doi .org /0013189X19898690 - Phirangee, K., Epp, C. D., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between facilitation methods, students’ sense of community, and their online behaviors. Online
Learning, 20(2), 134–154. https://
doi .org /10 .24059 /olj .v20i2 .775 - Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2),
175–196. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /0951839032000060635 - Plotts, C. (2020a). The space between: Identifying cultural canyons in online spaces and the use of LatinX culture to bridge the divide. DBD Publishing.
- Plotts, C. (2020b). The space between: Identifying cultural canyons in online spaces and the use of Black cultural attributes to bridge the divide. DBD Publishing.
- Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014). Influence of group configuration on online discourse writing. Computers & Education, 71, 289–302. https://
doi .org /10 .1016 /j .compedu .2013 .09 .010 - Ragusa, A. T., & Crampton, A. (2018). Sense of connection, identity, and academic success in distance education: Sociologically exploring online learning environments. Rural
Society, 27(2), 125–142. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /10371656 .2018 .1472914 - Romero-Hall, E. (2021). How to embrace feminist pedagogies in your courses. Association for Educational Communication & Technology. https://
interactions .aect .org /how -to -embrace -feminist -pedagogies -in -your -courses / - Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1), 1–16. https://
doi .org /10 .4000 /dms .2685 - Savin-Baden, M. (2010). Changelings and shape shifters? Identity play and pedagogical positioning of staff in immersive virtual worlds. London Review of Education, 8(1),
25–38. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /14748460903557662 - Simpson, O. (2013). Student retention in distance education: Are we failing our students? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 28(2), 105–119. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /02680513 .2013 .847363 - 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). Public viewpoint: The value of online education [Webinar]. Strada Education Foundation. https://
stradaeducation .org /report /pv -release -july -29 -2020 / - Szabo, Z. (2015). Better together: Teams and discourse in asynchronous online discussion forums. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research (JPER), 23(1), 73–88.
- 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 - Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2011, March). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges. Community College Research Center
Working Paper No. 31. https://
ccrc .tc .columbia .edu /publications /online -hybrid -courses -washington .html