8 Students as Designers, not Consumers Framing Accessible, Participatory Learning as a Social Justice Approach to Online Course Design

Literature Review

Modelling Participatory Design within Online Writing Instruction

To keep students at the centre of instruction and move away from “‘teacher- dominated’” courses (Lapadat, 2002, as cited in Boyd, 2008, p. 239), composition studies and the related field of technical and professional communication have turned to the concept of user-centred design (UCD). With respect to technology and/or product development, UCD marks a shift from systems-centred to user-centred approaches in which designers start the process “with user’s practical knowledge (rather than with a set of formal specifications)” (Blythe, 2001, p. 332). The writing classroom equivalent would be identifying and incorporating students’ needs into course design (a user-centred approach) rather than evaluating students’ experiences of a course after its design, technologies, and goals have been predetermined by the instructor (a systems-centred approach) (Blythe, 2001, p. 334). Instructors might also be constrained by an institutionally mandated choice of LMS or by the interface of the LMS itself, which “tacitly reinforces the systems approach to design” (Harris & Greer, 2016, p. 48).

A user-centred approach to OWI is one way in which instructors can mitigate such constraints by focusing on “users first, technology second” (Greer & Harris, 2018, p. 17) while being aware that no LMS is a neutral tool given how its “design structures the way students engage with the instructor, the content, and each other” (Harris & Greer, 2016, p. 47). UCD is also attractive to (online) instruction since its goal to “decenter authority by placing ‘users’ at the heart of the design endeavor” (Opel & Rhodes, 2018, p. 73) is complementary to the goals of learner-centred education that “positions students as co-constructors of knowledge” (Boyd, 2008, p. 224). Some scholars (Bjork, 2018; Opel & Rhodes, 2018) have noted that uncritically applying “users” to students risks positioning them as “consumers” instead of learners.

It is also important here to address conceptions of universal design, “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Connell et al., 1997). As Aimi Hamraie (2016) explains, though universal design was conceptualized as an accessibility practice, it has become a way in which designers have come to understand uncritically disability as tied to systems of oppression. Much like usability-inspired checklists, universal design flattens and effectively erases disabled experiences. Although Hamraie might have critiqued universal design with respect to built environments, this naturally extends into the architecture of online educational spaces and curricula. For instance, though administrators and educators might use an LMS compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the standards promoted through these guidelines do not necessarily recognize the diversity of disabled experiences.

Making sure that web content follows universal standards of accessibility as set forth by the guidelines (e.g., high colour contrast or screen reader compatibility or what is referred to in Chapter 9 of this volume as “basic web accessibility”) perpetuates disability as an issue of compliance rather than as intersectional and interdependent (Hamraie, 2018). As we describe later in this chapter, conceptualizations of an accessible LMS such as Blackboard Ally run the risk of reducing disability to yet another checklist. This is not to say that usability—as it has been described in this chapter—or universal design do not hold value; rather, the two can act as jumping-off points that then need the principles of UCD truly to understand and preserve the diversity of human experiences.

However, UCD cannot be adopted wholesale into f2f or online writing courses, but it can inform course design. The constraints of the (online) classroom (e.g., instructors not being able to conduct extensive research on their students before classes begin, adjust their course designs during the time frame of the semester, or completely divest the authority granted to them by the institution) mean that instructors can model but not duplicate UCD practices (e.g., collecting user research, performing iterative design, and collaborating with users during the design process) (Blythe, 2001; Greer & Harris, 2018). Some strategies that they can use to apply user-centred principles to student-centred design include integrating quick, frequent usability check-ins with students (Borgman & Dockter, 2018; Shivers-McNair et al., 2018) and presenting course content in multiple formats while paying attention to accessibility features such as video captions (Borgman & Dockter, 2018). The capacity of instructors here plays a crucial role in determining how these user-centred strategies actually play out (Grant-Smith & Payne, 2021).

To augment these strategies, instructors can turn to participatory design, which can be seen as a branch of UCD by being done “with the users” as opposed to being done on “behalf of the users” (Spinuzzi, 2005, p. 165; refer also to Salvo, 2001; Mehta & Gleason, 2021). Stemming from Pelle Ehn’s work in Scandinavian design, participatory design “attempts to examine the tacit, invisible aspects of human activity; assumes that these aspects can be productively and ethically examined through design partnerships with participants, partnerships in which researcher-designers and participants cooperatively design artifacts, workflow, and work environments; and argues that this partnership must be conducted iteratively so that researcher-designers and participants can develop and refine their understanding of the activity” (Salvo, 2001, p. 164).

Although participatory design, such as UCD, began in a workplace context, it can be adapted to a student-centred classroom in order to “engage students as active participants, … enable them to set some goals for learning, … [and] recognize the techne [i.e., knowledge] that they bring to the class” (Blythe, 2001, p. 335). One way to help students articulate their often tacit techne is to assign writing prompts that have them reflect on and clarify their writing and learning needs (Blythe, 2001). Other applications of participatory design within OWI include publishing scholarship with students about reflections on course design (Shivers-McNair et al., 2018); using backward design to construct a course, its activities, and its assignments around learning outcomes (Greer & Harris, 2018; Harris & Greer, 2016); breaking up longer writing activities into “smaller ‘micro lessons’” (Harris & Greer, 2016, p. 51); and offering students different options for completing assignments, communicating with the instructor and their classmates, and navigating course content (Harris & Greer, 2016).

To achieve its goals, participatory design “emphasizes co-research and co-design,” which can be enacted through three stages of methods as discussed by Spinuzzi (2005, p. 167): initial exploration of work, discovery processes, and prototyping. In the initial exploration of work, designers use ethnographic methods such as observations, interviews, and site visits to learn more about the users and how they work with one another. In the discovery processes, designers and users collaborate to understand users’ values and goals for the work being done and come to a consensus on what the result should be. In prototyping, designers and users iteratively redesign the workplace and its tools (pp. 167–168). Combined, these stages aim to “empower workers to take control over their work” (p. 167). This “activist brand of research” (p. 167) is arguably connected to social justice or the “critical reflection and action that promotes agency for the marginalized and disempowered” (Jones, 2016, p. 343) and can be adopted to acknowledge and establish students as co-creators of online course designs.

Another approach to participatory design is modelled on Whitlock and Zbitnew’s chapter in this volume, “Making Accessible Media: An Interview,” which outlines the creation of an open-access course that teaches how to integrate accessibility into media content. Here inclusive approaches are seen as a starting point rather than an afterthought. Although prior scholarship cited earlier has recommendations for applying participatory design practices to OWI, the closest that comes to modelling its three stages of methods is Rodrigo and Ramírez’s (2017) study of developing templates for online technical and professional communication courses. Thus, more research is needed on how instructors of online FYW courses can likewise adapt the stages of participatory design to collaborate with students in online course designs and in so doing create a more inclusive and accessible online learning environment.

Modelling Participatory Design in an Online, First-Year Writing Classroom

In this section, Stevens describes two pedagogical interventions designed as assignments within an FYW online writing course (OWC) at a land-grant, Midwestern university noted for agricultural education. Both interventions ask students to consider the tenets of participatory design as a way “to understand knowledge by doing” (Spinuzzi, 2005, p. 163) in order to assess their own knowledge of accessibility in a self-contained way. Specifically, the interventions act as examples of stages 1 and 2 of participatory design: initial exploration of work and discovery processes. In the section on recommendations, Stevens describes how her online FYW classes move toward stage 3, prototyping, and suggests ways in which to enact this stage more directly. Although these FYW courses are focused primarily on different genres of writing, students are able successfully to consider their own places in the digital world through these interventions by analyzing accessibility and usability in a writing context.

Additionally, a focus on usability and accessibility produces meaningful conversations on disability, and the stigmatizing actions of the higher education system, which have resulted in a shifting of the “‘problem’ of disability away from individuals and toward institutions and attitudes” (Price, 2011, p. 4). Distress and loneliness are on the rise (McGinty et al., 2020) and allowing the online writing classroom to become a safe(r) space for students to explore their accessibility needs becomes important during a time of increased student anxiety and depression. In their chapter in this volume, “Caring Online: A Justice-Oriented Approach to Online Pedagogy,” Reid and Shanouda offer a model of how to co-create a safe(r) space with students in an online classroom based on a care-informed pedagogy grounded in love and justice. Care-informed pedagogy is one method that can be used in tandem with participatory design in order to create a more inclusive and equitable classroom.

Institutional Context and Description of Course and Assignments

Although the university where Stevens’s pedagogical interventions took place began as an agricultural university, it prioritizes the humanities through a vertical writing program housed in the Department of English that reaches students at two different stages of their education. The FYW general education requirement, English 110 (College Composition I) or 120 (College Composition II), is intended for first-year students, but students at other levels can enrol in it. After students have earned at least 60 credits, typically in their third or fourth year, they enrol in a 300- or 400-level discipline-specific writing course. This dual writing requirement gives the department’s writing program the unique opportunity to reach all students enrolled at the university, an opportunity not afforded to every undergraduate writing program.

These FYW courses are capped at 22 students per section and often taught by graduate teaching assistants who have taken the required graduate teaching practicum. In addition, instructors have the opportunity to teach English 120 asynchronously online. As Stevens has noted, though, instructors in the FYW program are often left to their own faculties in regard to online course design, a common situation noted in OWI scholarship (Litterio, 2018; Melonçon, 2017). In what follows, Stevens describes her pedagogical inventions that model the principles of participatory design. While a master’s student and lecturer in the Department of English, she taught seven sections of FYW online as the instructor of record. These sections were designed using the LMS Blackboard and had a total of 135 students. During the fall 2019 semester, when these interventions were introduced, her sections of English 120 included three large writing assignments, 24 small pieces of work (e.g., discussion boards, journals, etc.), three peer review sessions, a midterm reflection, and a final portfolio, all of which culminated to produce a writing course with collaboration and communication as a major tenet. The course was taught using a labour-based grading contract (Inoue, 2019) that prioritized students’ exploration of the writing process rather than a graded final document, thus prioritizing the smaller “labours” of the course such as discussion boards and peer review sessions just as much as the larger writing projects.

However, Stevens also introduced the idea of students as co-designers through a partnership that she developed with her students allowing them to consider their accessibility needs and voice these needs and concerns. These interventions also recognize an ongoing conversation on disability (especially mental disability), accessibility, and inclusion at large in academia.

Positioning Students as Co-Designers in a FYW Course

In this section, Stevens discusses two assignments situated at different points of the semester, designed simultaneously to assess the students’ readiness for the online environment from an accessibility standpoint and to position them as co-designers of the course. Each assignment was meant for students to reflect on different areas of their learning, termed “exploration” and “reflection” below, taking into account Spinuzzi’s (2005) three stages of participatory design research as well as building upon Blythe’s (2001, p. 338) pedagogical strategy of prompting students to articulate their knowledge. What these assignments prove is each student’s ability to become an active participant in the design process of a course and to advocate for their own accessibility concerns and needs.

Recommendations

Conclusion

Since FYW courses can reach almost every student at the university level, providing a participatory design structure to the OWC is beneficial for the accessibility concerns of the students enrolled. Adopting the stages of participatory design can also help students to become “‘successful insiders’” (Powell, 2009, p. 677) by making the tacit expectations of the instructor, the course, and the university explicit to them, which in turn boosts student retention. Doing so can support not only students with disabilities but also those who identify as non-white, first-generation, English-language learners, and/or non-traditional students. Mina Chun’s chapter in this collection, “Poetic Journeys: College Students with Disabilities Navigating Unanticipated Transitions during the Pandemic,” offers an example of a participatory approach that centres students’ voices in the classroom through poetic inquiry. To add to this work, we call for future research to explore additional ways that online instructors can explicitly follow in terms of the stages of participatory design while also providing recommendations for accessibility that consider the needs of students with mental health disorders such as anxiety as well as those with physical disabilities. In this way, both OWI and course design can not only take further strides in accessible, inclusive, online learning environments but also expand the ways in which students can collaborate with instructors as co-designers of these environments.

Notes

1. 1   Although a content management system (CMS) and a learning management system (LMS) are sometimes used interchangeably, we use LMS to connote “an integrated set of software/programs that automate the administration, tracking and reporting of online courses/programmes” over CMS, largely used for data access and storage (Ninoriya et al., 2011, p. 645).

2. 2   By “disability,” we mean a socially constructed identity marker. We recognize that social constructionism “can be used as a method of silencing” (Dolmage, 2017, p. 54) and that “those who expose these realities might be blamed for them or disbelieved as the university secures itself” (p. 55).

3. 3   Although in this chapter we focus on pedagogical interventions with the LMS Blackboard, required by the university, we acknowledge that the same focus on usability can be applied to other LMSs, such as Canvas and Moodle.

4. 4   In prioritizing accessibility and inclusion, it is also important to note that “expressing” in this context is used in a variety of ways to prioritize students’ comfort level when approaching accessibility concerns. Since the course is asynchronous, discussions appear in text form primarily and vary from public (discussion board) to private (journal function) conversations or written emails.

References

• Berne, P., Levins Morales, A., Langstaff, D., & Sins Invalid. (2018). Ten principles of disability justice. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 46(1–2), 227–230.
• Bjork, C. (2018). Integrating usability testing with digital rhetoric in OWI. Computers and Composition, 49, 4–13.
• Blackboard. (2020). Blackboard Ally for LMS. Blackboard. https://www.blackboard.com/teaching-learning/accessibility-universal-design/blackboard-ally-lms
• Blythe, S. (2001). Designing online courses: User-centered practices. Computers and Composition, 18, 329–346.
• Borgman, J., & Dockter, J. (2018). Considerations of access and design in the online writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 49, 94–105.
• Bourelle, A., Bourelle, T., Knutson, A. V., & Spong, S. (2016). Sites of multimodal literacy: Comparing student learning in online and face-to-face environments. Computers and Composition, 39, 55–70.
• Boyd, P. W. (2008). Analyzing students’ perceptions of their learning in online and hybrid first-year composition courses. Computers and Composition, 25, 224–243.
• Bunn, M. (2013). Motivation and connection: Teaching reading (and writing) in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 64(3), 496–516.
• The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2020). Here’s our list of colleges’ reopening models. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-a-list-of-colleges-plans-for-reopening-in-the-fall/
• Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2013). Position statement of principles and example effective practices for online writing instruction. National Council of Teachers of English. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/owiprinciples
• Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design. North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm
• Danielewicz, J., & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), 244–268.
• Dietz-Uhler, B., Fisher, A., & Han, A. (2007). Designing online courses to promote student retention. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(1), 105–112.
• Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism. University of Michigan Press.
• Dringus, L. P., & Cohen, M. (Eds.). (2005). Proceedings from 35th ASEE/IEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Frontiers in Education Clearing House.
• Friedman, J. (2018, January 16). How online classes work: 10 frequently asked questions. US News. https://www.usnews.com/higher-education/online-education/articles/2018-01-16/how-do-online-classes-work-10-frequently-asked-questions#Q5
• Ginder, S. A., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Mann, F. B. (2019). Enrollment and employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2017; and financial statistics and academic libraries, fiscal year 2017. US Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019021REV.pdf
• Greer, M., & Harris, H. S. (2018). User-centered design as a foundation for effective online writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 49, 14–24.
• Griffin, J., & Minter, D. (2013). The rise of the online writing classroom: Reflecting on the material conditions of college composition teaching. College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 140–161.
• Hamraie, A. (2016). Universal design and the problem of “post-disability” ideology. Design and Culture, 8(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714
• Hamraie, A. (2018). Mapping access: Digital humanities, disability justice, and sociospatial practice. American Quarterly, 70(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2018.0031
• Hamraie, A., & Fritsch, K. (2019). Crip technoscience manifesto. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 5(1), 1–34.
• Harris, H. S., & Greer, M. (2016). Over, under, or through: Design strategies to supplement the LMS and enhance interaction in online writing courses. Communication Design Quarterly, 4(4), 46–54.
• Henry, S. L., Abou-Zahra, S., & White, K. (2016). Accessibility, usability, and inclusion. W3C. https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-inclusion/
• Hewett, B. L., & Bourelle, T. (2017). Online teaching and learning in technical communication: Continuing the conversation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 217–222.
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
• Inoue, A. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. Parlor Press/WAC Clearinghouse.
• Inoue, A. (2019). Labor based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. WAC Clearinghouse.
• Jones, N. N. (2016). The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 342–361.
• Lapadat, J. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 1–21.
• Litterio, L. M. (2018). Uncovering student perceptions of a first-year online writing course. Computers and Composition, 47, 1–13.
• Lokken, F. (2019). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning at community colleges. Instructional Technology Council. https://www.itcnetwork.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/2019%20ITC%20Annual%20Survey%207-2019.pdf
• McGinty, E. E., Presskreischer, M. S., Han, H., & Barry, C. L. (2020). Psychological distress and loneliness reported by US adults in 2018 and April 2020. JAMA, 324(1), 93–94.
• Mehta, R., & Gleason, B. (2021). Against empathy: Moving beyond colonizing practices in educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09901-2
• Melonçon, L. (2017). Contingent faculty, online writing instruction, and professional development in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 256–272.
• Mitchell, D. T., Snyder, S. L., & Ware, L. (2014). “[Every] child left behind”: Curricular cripistemologies and the crip/queer art of failure. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(3), 295–313.
• National Council of Teachers of English. (2013). First-year writing: What good does it do? http://mjreiff.com/uploads/3/4/2/1/34215272/nctepolicybrief.pdf
• Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113.
• Ninoriya, S., Chawan, P. M., & Meshram, B. B. (2011). CMS, LMS, and LCMS for eLearning. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 8(2), 644–647.
• Opel, D. S., & Rhodes, J. (2018). Beyond student as user: Rhetoric, multimodality, and use-centered design. Computers and Composition, 49, 71–81.
• Oswal, S. K. (2015). Physical and learning disabilities in OWI. In B. L. Hewett & K. E. DePew (Eds.), Foundational practices of online writing instruction (pp. 253–289). WAC Clearinghouse.
• Oswal, S. K., & Melonçon, L. (2014). Paying attention to accessibility when designing online courses in technical and professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(3), 271–300.
• Oswal, S. K., & Melonçon, L. (2017). Saying no to the checklist: Shifting from an ideology of normalcy to an ideology of inclusion in online writing instruction. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 40(3), 61–77.
• Peterson, P. W. (2001). The debate about online learning: Key issues for writing teachers. Computers and Composition, 18, 359–370.
• Porter, J. E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26, 207–224.
• Powell, R. R. (2009). Retention and writing instruction: Implications for access and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 664–682.
• Price, M. (2011). Mad at school. University of Michigan Press.
• Ragan, T. J., & White, P. R. (2001). What we have here is a failure to communicate: The criticality of writing in online instruction. Computers and Composition, 18, 399–409.
• Reinheimer, D. A. (2005). Teaching composition online: Whose side is time on? Computers and Composition, 22, 459–470.
• Rendahl, M., & Kastman Breuch, L.-A. (2013). Toward a complexity of online learning: Learners in online first-year writing. Computers and Composition, 30, 297–314.
• Rodrigo, R., & Ramírez, C. D. (2017). Balancing institutional demands with effective practice: A lesson in curricular and professional development. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 314–328.
• Sackey, D. J., Nguyen, M.-T., & Grabill, J. T. (2015). Constructing learning spaces: What we can learn from studies of informal learning online. Computers and Composition, 35, 112–124.
• Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 273–290.
• Sapp, D. A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition, 22, 471–489.
• Savenye, W. C., Olina, Z., & Niemczyk, M. (2001). So you are going to be an online writing instructor: Issues in designing, developing, and delivering an online course. Computers and Composition, 18, 371–385.
• Scott, S. (2019). Access and participation in higher education: Perspectives of college students with disabilities. National Center for College Students with Disabilities. http://www.nccsdonline.org/research-briefs.html
• Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html
• Sherwood, D., VanDeusen, K., Weller, B., & Gladden, J. (2021). Teaching note—Teaching trauma content online during COVID-19: A trauma-informed and culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(sup1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1916665
• Shivers-McNair, A., Phillips, J., Campbell, A., Mai, H. H., Yan, A., Macy, J. F., Wenlock, J., Fry, S., & Guan, Y. (2018). User-centered design in and beyond the classroom: Toward an accountable practice. Computers and Composition, 49, 36–47.
• Skallerup Bessette, L. (2020). 5 myths about remote teaching in the COVID- 19 crisis. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-myths-about-remote-teaching-in-the-covid-19-crisis/
• Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174.
• US Department of Justice. (2020). A guide to disability rights laws. US Department of Justice. https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor65610
• Warner, J. (2018). What is first-year composition? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/what-first-year-composition
• West, W., Rosser, B. R. S., Monani, S., & Gurak, L. (2006). How learning styles impact e-learning: A case comparative study of undergraduate students who excelled, passed, or failed an online course in scientific/technical writing. E-Learning, 3(4), 534–543.
• Witte, A. (2018). “Why won’t Moodle …?”: Using genre studies to understand students’ approaches to interacting with user-interfaces. Computers and Composition, 49, 48–60.
• Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/adaptability-to-online-learning.html