1 Feminist Pedagogy and Collaborative Meaning Making
Letizia Guglielmo
Expanding on previous work at the intersection of feminist pedagogy and online learning, this chapter offers a framework for inviting students to co-construct knowledge and for reinforcing collaborative, decentred teaching in the broader design and facilitation of online activities. Specifically, I share strategies for developing online discussion prompts and for framing the reading of and engagement with student responses as a process of constructing collective course content and of collaborative meaning making. In the parts that follow, I share what I have learned in nearly two decades of online teaching guided by feminist pedagogy in a range of courses.
My first forays into online distance learning began in 2004 as a faculty member in the Department of English at my institution. I was teaching first-year writing courses as part of the institution’s general educational requirements and soon volunteered to teach online asynchronous parts as part of my teaching load. In the early stages of doctoral work in rhetoric and composition at another institution at the time, and with an interest in computer-mediated instruction, I was intrigued by the possibility of expanding the department’s offerings and access for students and excited by the prospect of engaging with a new course modality. I had never enrolled in an online course but had experience regularly teaching in computer-supported classrooms and working with WYSIWYG HTML editors to build basic websites. Within a few months, I developed and began teaching online asynchronous first-year writing courses grounded in feminist rhetoric and pedagogy, which became the subject of my dissertation.
As part of this work, I explored the impact of a feminist course design on the development of community and student success and retention in online asynchronous first-year writing courses (Guglielmo, 2009). As a facet of this feminist pedagogical approach, I used discussion boards as the primary site for decentring authority, for enacting and promoting feminist pedagogical tenets, and for encouraging community building and active contribution to the learning process. In later publications, I continued to explore the discussion board as a site for feminist intervention and discursive interruption, and digital and social media as both shifting and shaping rhetorical space and women’s appeals to ethos, ideas that have continued to inform my online teaching (Daniell & Guglielmo, 2016; Guglielmo, 2012). In that time, like numerous other scholars, I have also interrogated the participatory and egalitarian possibilities of online spaces, including the misogyny and violence—both on- and offline—that these digital spaces have facilitated and “the ways in which digital technologies both subvert and reinscribe gender, race, and other corporeal hierarchies in virtual space” (Richards, 2011, pp. 6–7; see also Bailey, 2017; Ewell, 1998; Juhasz et al., 2020; Mantilla, 2018; Yoon, 2021). Yet, more than a decade since that earliest work, I continue to see the potential for feminist pedagogy to shape meaningfully a broad range of online student learning experiences across disciplines.
The experiences that I draw from in this chapter also highlight, grow out of, and are shaped by various privileges, including being employed in a tenure-track and later tenured faculty position. These privileges allowed me to develop course designs from first-year to graduate courses guided by feminist pedagogy even before I was tenured, and to develop and teach new courses and create course designs across programs, including at the general educational level. Having held various administrative positions over that time period, including as both assistant director and interim director of the first-year writing program, coordinator of the gender and women’s studies program, and interim department chair of English, I have also had the broader opportunity to develop and facilitate professional development initiatives for colleagues that shaped online learning pedagogy and course design outside my own courses and to participate in decisions that influenced future directions of online learning in my department and college. These affordances and realities certainly might not represent the experiences of colleagues who teach online courses in contingent positions, who might have little influence on curriculum development or course design, and whose vulnerable, and often marginal, status might not facilitate or permit a rethinking of pedagogical approaches that aim to shift power in learning spaces. With these realities in mind, in this chapter I aim to share strategies that are adaptable and flexible, allowing individual instructors to apply what is most feasible for their own courses and for their own classroom spaces within the variety of constraints that can shape online teaching and learning environments.
Mapping Feminist Pedagogy and Online Distance Learning
In her often-cited 1987 article “What Is Feminist Pedagogy?” Carolyn M. Shrewsbury highlights the engagement at the heart of feminist pedagogy, engagement that shapes the classroom into a space for reflective and collective learning, for supporting activism, and for fostering change (p. 6). Since the publication of her article, scholar-practitioners within women’s studies and outside the discipline have continued to theorize feminist pedagogy in ways that have expanded its scope and applicability and its student-centred goals. With connections to the collective engagement of consciousness-raising groups of the women’s liberation movement, these liberatory, decentred, and activist tenets shape teaching and learning environments guided by feminist pedagogy into spaces where both instructors and students play active roles as co-teachers, engage reflectively with each other and with course content, identify opportunities to blend theory and practice, and apply feminist rhetorical strategies such as intervention and interruption to highlight and amplify marginalized voices and perspectives (Byrne, 2000; Chick & Hassel, 2009; Crabtree et al., 2009; Ewell, 1998; FemTechNet, 2013; Guglielmo, 2012; Reynolds, 1998; Rinehart, 2002; Ryan, 2006).
Over two decades ago, feminist scholars began exploring the potential for increasing access to higher education through online learning. In questioning “whom we reach” in these courses, Alsgaard (2000) and other scholars focused on increased access for women, including non-traditional students, working students, and parents, prompting feminist teachers to consider how we account for the complexities of students’ lives with the affordances of online learning. These early works also highlighted the role of online discussions and discussion boards in this access, including who speaks up in online discussion board forums and the interventions that the space facilitates (Alsgaard, 2000; Hocks, 1999). Extending this work, more recent scholarship has theorized the intersections of access with embodiment, including Herman and Kirkup (2017, p. 792), who explore how “women in distance learning contexts are removed from the male gaze, by not being obliged to inhabit embodied spaces where they are objectified as ‘the other’ rather than simply being a member of the student group” (see also Juhasz et al., 2020; Yoon, 2021).
In another early application of feminist teaching to online environments, Ewell (1998) questioned how to “maintain the pedagogical principles that I had come to view as essential” (p. 101–102) while redefining what “work” and “success” could look like in an online teaching and learning environment, including “the kinds of activities that inspire learning” (p. 111). These questions remain essential in theorizing feminist pedagogy in online teaching and learning. Proposing a similar rethinking of learning experiences in digital spaces, Whitehouse (2002) highlighted the online environment’s “multiple entry points to learning that are very effective in reaching the goals of feminist pedagogy” (p. 210) and advocated opportunities for students to engage in “discussion as a class and as individuals” as well as “a sense of building a community of learners” (p. 213).
Extending these early reflections, in their article “‘Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Virtual’: Feminist Pedagogy in the Online Classroom,” Nancy Chick and Holly Hassel (2009, pp. 196, 197) explored the intersections of feminist pedagogy and online learning and advocated a course design grounded by a feminist pedagogical framework rather than guided first by the technology. “Feminist pedagogy,” they argued, “operates under the assumption that knowledge is constructed. Recreating the engaged and interactive class dynamics of a F2F classroom informed by feminist pedagogy is just one part of creating the ‘virtually feminist’ online course; translating the notion of knowledge as constructed is also essential” (p. 201). Centring this knowledge construction, they point to online discussions as a significant site for feminist pedagogical activity.
As illustrated by each of these scholars, my own initial thoughts about online learning centred on the belief that my greatest challenge and ultimate goal would be to ensure interaction—both student-instructor and student-student—in the online course to approximate or replicate the space of the face-to-face classroom, including the spontaneous and deliberate social interaction and collaboration characteristic of my writing courses. Creating structures for as well as participating in these interactions supported my initial goals in online learning guided by feminist pedagogy (Guglielmo, 2009, 2012). Yet these strategies also created a great deal of extra work for me and for my students in performing “presence,” often without the consistent and collaborative meaning making from complex discussions that I valued in feminist pedagogy. Refocusing my efforts over many semesters in online courses on writing and rhetoric and gender and women’s studies, from general education to graduate courses, I continued to refine course designs in line with my pedagogical values. In the next part, I offer a set of guiding practices for engaging online distance learning with feminist pedagogical practices adaptable across disciplines and replicable in a variety of courses.
A Framework for Feminist Pedagogy in the Online Course
In nearly 18 years of online teaching, I have learned to ask key questions when I begin preparing for a new semester of online teaching or when I develop a new online course. What, in terms of course design and assignments, will foster the kind of learning and engagement with course content that matters for this course? This question has helped me to reframe my thinking about what constitutes “work” in my courses (Ewell, 1998) and what students need to be supported in meaningful learning and engagement. How can I affirm and reinforce that knowledge is co-constructed in this digital space, and how can I ensure that “students [are] encouraged to make their own meanings and connections” (Chick & Hassel, 2009, p. 202) as agentic co-teachers within the space? With these goals in mind, I offer the following framework, made up of five key moves, which guide my feminist pedagogical approach to online teaching.
- Keep technological tools simple, accessible, and consistent.
- Establish and reinforce collaborative meaning making and co-teaching as central to the course design and to student success.
- Decentre and distribute authority, expertise, and voice.
- Envision multiple ways in.
- Make your feminist pedagogy visible and transparent.
Although I spent many semesters experimenting with new technological tools and digital platforms intended to shape how I both “packaged” and “delivered” course content and how students interacted with that content and with each other, often these digital tools created additional barriers to teaching and learning. When a digital platform became obsolete or the learning management system (LMS) was updated, I often found myself spending hours recreating content. This labour compounded the “invisible work that is often not recognized as part of the ‘teaching enterprise’: for example, the ‘back-channel’ communication to coordinate activities and to enable collaborations, the provision of emotional care and the tending of relationships, the active facilitation of equal participation, and the creation of learning materials that demystify abstract concepts” (FemTechNet, 2013), work critical to teaching and learning. For students, moving between digital tools—especially when they are outside the LMS—can create challenges to access and be overwhelming (Hentges, 2016); this overwhelm is compounded when tools are added to course outcomes focused on new content, including theories and methods for research and analysis that might require significant intellectual work.
Collaborative Meaning Making and Co-Teaching
What has remained in my course designs is my use of discussion boards as a central site for enacting a feminist pedagogy. Regardless of my institution’s LMS, discussion boards are embedded within the system, and they provide a consistent point of entry for students likely to have engaged with them in previous courses. Like Chick and Hassel (2009, p. 205), I invite students to participate in “complex discussions … that privilege student voices over the monolithic authority of the instructor” and to approach the discussion board not simply as a tool for talk but also as a site for engagement with each other and with course content, for collective meaning making, and for intervention and interruption. Significantly, according to Mays Imad (2020, p. 8), “meaning-making gives us a sense of control and increases our sense of belonging, self-worth, and personal fulfillment. At the same time, it also helps us feel as if we are a part of something bigger than ourselves.” Furthermore, discussion board activities “provide a timely opportunity to build collaborative bridges between professors and students, with an objective of sharing power and innovating feminist praxis on both sides” (Turpin, 2007, p. 19), and they foster “student development of application and integration learning goals” that might not be as effectively reached with other digital and social media tools (Camus et al., 2016, p. 91).
As part of the initial framing of online activities in my online courses, I include this introduction to establish immediately students’ roles as active community members and co-teachers: “Given our online format, the D2L Discussion Board will serve as a space for critical analysis and discussion of course texts and collaborative meaning-making. The discussion board will also serve as a space for individual reflection and progress on major assignments. Your participation in these activities and your contributions are essential not only to demonstrate engagement with course content, but also to contribute to the collective knowledge and learning of the group.”
However, more significant as a visible and ongoing reinforcement of this collaborative meaning making and co-teaching is my response to and engagement with discussion board activities. For any given module—generally spanning one or two weeks of the course—I provide students with both a checklist of activities that is downloadable and printable as well as a “Module Overview and Introduction” document. Included in this document are questions to guide students’ reading and analysis and their engagement with each other and with course content. During modules that include discussion board activities, many of these questions are included as prompts, inviting students to find their own ways into course content by responding to and posing questions of their own to extend that analysis and application. “Within this community,” as Chick and Hassel (2009, p. 198) explain, “students care about others’ learning and well-being as well as their own, and they feel free to use their sites of authority—where they already stand and what they already know—to help contribute to the knowledge of the course” (see also Gajjala et al., 2017).
In addition to initiating their own and responding to one another’s posts, reading each other’s analyses, reflections, and applications of course content and considering peers’ questions create opportunities for collective and collaborative meaning making in a consistent space that functions as the centre of course interaction. With different purposes over the course of a semester, discussion activities—both public and private—also offer space for reflection, for sharing positionality and where students enter a conversation on a topic, and for revisiting and rethinking that knowledge with subsequent discussion activities. See Box 1 for a midterm discussion prompt grounded in reflection and collaborative meaning making, with embedded questions that allow students to build upon previous work and engage with peers.
Decentred Authority and Expertise
As a deliberate strategy to decentre my voice, to reinforce the co- constructed meaning making and collective knowledge among the group, and “to demonstrate commitment to mentoring students without becoming an overwhelming presence online” (Turpin, 2007, p. 20), I rarely respond directly to posts on the discussion board. Instead, I frame each module overview and introduction with a reflection on the previous discussion activity, centring students’ voices (each by name) and the connections and contributions that the students have made to our collective learning. This discussion wrap-up precedes any new content for the module, reinforcing the significance of student voices in continuing to frame and guide our work, and it highlights ideas essential to course outcomes in students’ own words. It also offers space to highlight interruption or intervention, “communicative acts [with] the primary aim of shifting and bringing attention to power relations” (Hocks, 1999, p. 112; see also Gajjala et al., 2017, pp. 136–137, 154), and to the silencing or erasure of marginalized voices and perspectives, including “productive modes of dissenting opinions” (Hassel et al., 2011, p. 12), through which students raise alternative views or contrasting examples that make visible this marginalization.
These discussion wrap-ups reinforce course knowledge as constructed, demonstrate how and where students use keywords central to learning outcomes, provide examples to put theory into practice, and pose questions that continue to shape engagement with course content. They also prompt students to return to and revisit topics asking them to reflect on learning, especially how their peers’ posts continue to shape their engagement with and understanding of major keywords and concepts. Notably, the discussion wrap-ups also demonstrate that our learning is in process and co-constructed, subject to revision, expansion, and deliberation—a kind of annotation that “supports group collaboration, shared meaning making, and the social production of new knowledge” (Kalir & Garcia, 2021, p. 142). (See Box 2 for sample wrap-up contents; student names have been redacted).
In practical terms, this condensed content is more accessible and can reach the larger group in a way that multiple individual responses on the discussion board might not, especially if students have already moved on from that discussion. As Ewell (1998) noted early on, and as other scholars have reinforced, the activities “comp[el] students to engage with the material and with each other—explicit goals of feminist as well as of other student-centered pedagogies”—and “students can no longer simply talk back to the teacher,” as they might when questions are offered for discussion in a face-to-face course setting (pp. 106, 107).
To continue to make the co-teaching visible in the course, instructors can invite students to design and construct the digital rhetorical space, including the expectations for engagement and contribution. This language of contribution, collective knowledge, and community membership can be reinforced through other course online activities centred on the discussion board, including a 24-hour café for student questions or resources that everyone in the group is expected to contribute to, or collaborative co-construction of netiquette guidelines and expectations for active participation in online activities. My expectation for participation is one area that I have reconsidered over the course of many years of online teaching. Given the number of posts that students are required to read for each discussion, the expectation that all students will post for every discussion can often decrease their engagement with peers’ posts.
One strategy for addressing this potentially surface engagement is to create discussion groups that allow for more intimate and meaningful exchanges on a focused topic or two. The benefit here is that a broader range of discussion prompts or topics can be addressed, distributed among the groups, and each small group can contribute to the larger meaning making, since the results of the discussions are available to all. In my courses across disciplines, I have had success with posting a variety of discussion prompts as individual posts, allowing students to self-select prompts and by default to create small group discussions on those topics through their responses to the prompts and to each other. Box 3 provides an example of discussion prompts that give students choices in topics and contribute to the content of the course. These discussion prompts give students choice in topics and contribute to the content of the course. In facilitating “complex discussions” (Chick & Hassel, 2009, p. 205), questions can involve analysis of or response to readings, application of keywords or major course concepts, integration of course content with events or situations external to the course (Camus et al., 2016), and opportunities for students to draw from personal experience and expertise (Mannon, 2019, p. 9). With the choice of multiple discussion activities throughout the semester, students find varied ways to contribute to and engage with course content.
Reimagining How to Enter Successfully
In continuing to reflect on what constitutes “work” in the online course and how we might provide “multiple entry points” (Whitehouse, 2002, p. 210) for students, we can design courses that highlight personalized learning as an advantage of online courses (Herman & Kirkup, 2017) while reinforcing collaborative meaning making and co-teaching. In this way, treating students as agentic co-educators also includes offering them choices in finding multiple ways into and through the course and various opportunities to contribute to it. In repurposing Whitehouse’s (2002) use of “entry points,” I can offer choice and flexibility to account for the complexities of students’ lives with the affordances of online learning. On a practical level, this choice can include flexibility in the frequency and number of discussion board activities to which students are expected to contribute. In my courses, that flexibility includes identifying a specific number of online activities that students can opt out of and allowing them to distribute certain percentages of course work (e.g., reading responses) over multiple assignments or just one. Providing multiple voices as course texts and giving students choices in how they engage those voices can also reinforce the decentring of authority and shared expertise in the course (Guglielmo, 2021). In addition to working with a variety of print texts and audio and visual texts that amplify marginalized voices and experiences, students are invited to draw from multivocal and co-constructed knowledge in more formal course assessments and longer writing assignments and projects to reinforce the value and significance of this work.
Conclusion
At the macrolevel, regardless of course content and discipline, the success of my feminist pedagogy in online teaching hinges on two additional key findings from ongoing scholarly conversations. First, Richards (2011, p. 9) explains that “as our textual presence comes to represent the totality of our classroom presence, feminist teachers must contend with how to maintain a focus on making power dynamics transparent without traditional notions of embodiment, relations, and collaboration.” Second, Turpin (2007, p. 23) reminds us that “students believe in the power of their own language because we all come to the virtual classroom space as contributors to the imagined structure; instead of walking into a traditional classroom as passive recipients of knowledge, they are coming to mutually agreed-upon space to collaborate with me and each other. Rather than seeing me at the front of the room lecturing, they ‘see’ me as both a facilitator and a contributor to the discussion.”
Transparency, then, in sharing our feminist pedagogy, in articulating our intentions to distribute the intellectual work of the teaching and learning space with students, and in performing our commitment to decentring and disrupting hierarchy is essential to transformative feminist pedagogy in online learning. For feminist teachers who wish to enact a feminist pedagogy outside women’s studies courses, this transparency can be complicated and even fraught if and when we name our pedagogy “feminist” (Carillo, 2007). Yet more significant, I would argue, is how we deliberately point to and reinforce collaborative meaning making and co-teaching as essential facets of our online courses and as the responsibility of both students and instructor, of all members of a course community. Feminist pedagogy, then, is not simply one way to approach online learning. It is essential to our continued transformation of online distance learning as equitable and meaningful.
Key Takeaways
- This chapter offers a framework for inviting students to co-construct knowledge and for reinforcing collaborative, decentred, feminist teaching in the broader design and facilitation of online activities.
- Online activities through the discussion board allow students to initiate their own posts and respond to others’ posts, and reading peers’ analyses, reflections, and applications of course content and considering peers’ questions, create opportunities for collective and collaborative meaning making in a consistent space that functions as the centre of course interaction.
- Essential to this process is how we deliberately point to and reinforce collaborative meaning making and co-teaching as essential facets of our online courses and as the responsibility of both students and instructor, of all members of a course community.
- Feminist pedagogy is not simply one way to approach online learning; it is - essential to our continued transformation of online distance learning as equitable and meaningful.
References
- Alsgaard, M. (2000). Digital feminism: Reaching women through web-based courses. Feminist Collections, 22(1), 22–24.
- Bailey, C. (2017). Online feminist pedagogy: A new doorway into our brick -and-mortar classrooms? Feminist Teacher, 27(2–3), 253–266. http://
doi .org /10 .5406 /femteacher .27 .2 -3 .0253 - Byrne, K. Z. (2000). The roles of campus-based women’s centers. Feminist Teacher, 13(1), 48–60.
- Camus, M., Hurt, N. E., Larson, L. R., & Prevost, L. (2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects on student participation, learning, and overall course performance.
College Teaching, 64(2), 84–94. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /87567555 .2015 .1099093 - Carillo, E. C. (2007). “Feminist” teaching/teaching “feminism.” Feminist Teacher, 18(1), 28–40. https://
doi .org /10 .1353 /ftr .2008 .0019 - Chick, N., & Hassel, H. (2009). “Don’t hate me because I’m virtual”: Feminist pedagogy in the online classroom. Feminist Teacher, 19(3),
195–215. https://
doi .org /10 .1353 /ftr .0 .0049 - Crabtree, R. D., Sapp, D. A., & Licona, A. C. (2009). Feminist pedagogy: Looking back to move forward. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Daniell, B., & Guglielmo, L. (2016). Changing audience, changing ethos. In K. Ryan, N. Myers, & R. Jones (Eds.), Rethinking ethos: A feminist ecological approach to rhetoric (pp. 89–110). Southern Illinois University Press.
- Ewell, B. C. (1998). Feminist pedagogy in cyberspace: Learning to teach (a little) differently. Works and Days, 16(1–2), 99–114.
- FemTechNet. (2013, September 30). Transforming higher education with distributed open collaborative courses (DOCCs): Feminist pedagogies and
networked learning. https://
femtechnet .org /wp -content /uploads /2014 /10 /FemTechNetWhitePaperSept30 _2013 .pdf - Gajjala, R., Behrmann, E. M., Birzescu, A., Cobett, 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. https://
doi .org /10 .7208 /chicago /9780226469591 .001 .0001 - Guglielmo, L. (2009, Spring). Feminist online writing courses civic rhetoric, community action, and student success. Computers and Composition Online. http://
cconlinejournal .org /CCO _Feminism /home .html. - Guglielmo, L. (2012). Classroom interventions: Feminist pedagogy and interruption. In E. Lay & J. Rich (Eds.), Who speaks for writing: Stewardship in writing studies in the 21st century (pp. 102–111). Peter Lang.
- Guglielmo, L. (2021). Multivocal and decentered expertise: Audio and visual texts in the online gender and women’s studies course. Films for the Feminist Classroom,
11(1). http://
ffc .twu .edu /issue _11 -1 /feat _Guglielmo _11 -1 .html - Hassel, H., Reddinger, A., & van Slooten, J. (2011). Surfacing the structures of patriarchy: Teaching and learning threshold concepts in women’s studies. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2). https://
doi .org /10 .20429 /ijsotl .2011 .050218 - Hentges, S. (2016). Toward #SocialJustice: Creating social media community in live and online classrooms. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy,
26(2), 230–238. https://
doi .org /10 .5325 /trajincschped .26 .2 .0230 - Herman, C., & Kirkup, G. (2017). Combining feminist pedagogy and transactional distance to create gender-sensitive technology-enhanced learning. Gender and Education, 29(6),
781–795. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /09540253 .2016 .1187263 - Hocks, M. E. (1999). Feminist interventions in electronic environments. Computers and Composition, 16(1), 107–119. https://
doi .org /10 .1016 /S8755 -4615(99)80008 -5 - Imad, M. (2020). Transcending adversity: Trauma-informed educational development. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 39(3). https://
dx .doi .org /10 .3998 /tia .17063888 .0039 .301 - Juhasz, A., Wexler, L., Losh, L., & Irish, S. (2020, March 28). Feminist pedagogy in a time of coronavirus pandemic. FemTechNet. https://
www .femtechnet .org /feminist -pedagogy -in -a -time -of -coronavirus -pandemic / - Kalir, R., & Garcia, A. (2021). Annotation. MIT Press.
- Mannon, B. (2019). Digital selves: Personal narrative pedagogy in the online writing course. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 7–19.
- Mantilla, K. (2018). Digital and social media. In L. Guglielmo (Ed.), Misogyny in American culture: Causes, trends, and solutions (pp. 75–113). ABC-CLIO.
- Reynolds, N. (1998). Interrupting our way to agency: Feminist cultural studies and composition. In S. C. Jarratt & L. Worsham (Eds.), Feminism and composition studies: In other words (pp. 58–73). Modern Language Association of America.
- Richards, R. S. (2011). “I could have told you that wouldn’t work”: Cyberfeminist pedagogy in action. Feminist Teacher, 22(1), 5–22. https://
doi .org /10 .5406 /femteacher .22 .1 .0005 - Rinehart, J. A. (2002). Collaborative learning, subversive teaching, and activism. In N. A. Naples & K. Bojar (Eds.), Teaching feminist activism: Strategies from the field (pp. 22–35). Routledge.
- Ryan, J. D. (2006). Writing the world: The role of advocacy in implementing a feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 17(1), 15–35.
- Shrewsbury, C. M. (1987). What is feminist pedagogy? Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15(3–4), 6–14.
- Turpin, C. A. (2007). Feminist praxis, online teaching, and the urban campus. Feminist Teacher 18(1), 9–26. https://
doi .org /10 .1353 /ftr .2008 .0017 - Whitehouse, P. (2002). Women’s studies online: An oxymoron? Women’s Studies Quarterly, 30(3–4), 209–225.
- Yoon, H. (2021). Digital flesh: A feminist approach to the body in cyberspace. Gender and Education, 33(5), 578–593. https://
doi .org /10 .1080 /09540253 .2020 .1802408