1.5: Equity in Course Design

What is equity?

The following text is adapted slightly; Kristine Miller wrote about the need for equity to be considered in public and environmental design, but what she's describing is true for educational design, as well. While she's considering transit and green space, we're considering a classroom space, albeit virtual.

In the past few years, unfortunately, the term equity has become ubiquitous and its definition murky. It seems like every government report or new foundation initiative has incorporated the word into its title. In “Is Equity the New Coconut Water?,” Vu Le comments on the term’s overuse in Seattle: You can’t walk down the street without hearing someone saying something like, “Equity. Equity, equity, equity. Blah blah community engagement Seahawks equity” (Vu, 2014).

If the term has lost its intended meaning, should we, as Vu Le asks, put it back on the grocery store shelf next to the kombucha? Does it still have value to designers working for social justice? I think we need to keep it (or take it back, depending on your view). Its prevalence presents ample opportunities to spark conversations about its real meaning. Each time the word is spoken—in a public meeting or behind closed doors, in a foundation report or a design proposal—there is an opening, a moment when an important and difficult conversation about systemic racial disparities could occur.

But equity does not mean equal because the playing field is not level. We don’t start from a point of equality. There is value in the specific and surprising turn of phrase required in defining equity. We see the word equity and think equal—everyone receiving the same amount of benefits or suffering the same risks related to any new policy or project. That seems fair. But equity does not mean equal, because the playing field is not level. We don’t start from a point of equality. Throughout our history and up to today, unfair policies have privileged certain groups of people over others. Privilege exists when one group has something of value that others do not because of the groups they belong to, not because of what they have done or failed to do.

This disjuncture between equity as equal and equity as fair can fuel the conversations needed to make San Francisco, Portland, Austin, Madison, and Minneapolis/St. Paul into places where everyone has the chance to flourish—conversations that acknowledge and examine the history of this privilege and its specific impact on people in each city.

Equity is an ethical principle, a position on what is good and right. It refers to the fair distribution of impacts—both benefits and costs. To quote Braveman and Gruskin, two health equity researchers:

…equity…is the absence of systematic disparities…between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage—that is, wealth, power, or prestige. Inequities…put groups of people who are already socially disadvantaged (for example, by virtue of being poor, female, and/or members of a disenfranchised racial, ethnic, or religious group) at further disadvantage…. (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003, p. 254)

Equity does not mean numerically equal. It does not mean, for example, that the same amount of transit should be available to all people. Why? For low income families, who spend 45% of their income on transportation, a change in routes or schedules can mean less time at home, and missing the bus because of inconsistent scheduling can mean losing a job. For these families, the costs and risks are higher than they are for me. I have direct access to two cars, know lots of people with access to cars who could help in a pinch, and won’t get fired if I’m late for work.

Another reason to take hold of the word equity is that if we don’t clearly define and deploy the word, it will be usurped by those with the most power—usually those with the least interest in making better outcomes for people who historically and presently have the most at stake. It’s not just professionals or government officials who say “equity” but mean equal; it’s also community members involved in public participation processes. Depending on your implicit definition of equity, you are going to argue for very different design and planning approaches [2] --  ones that either benefit everyone or benefit a few.

This text is from Chapter 1 of Design Equity by Kristine Miller (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License).

Equity in Course Design

The recently published Faculty Playbook from the Online Learning Consortium and Every Learner Everywhere listed "five primary areas of consideration" for faculty who are building an online course. Drawn from research by Kevin Kelly (2019), the areas to consider are:

• Academic: Students' preparedness for learning and readiness for online learning.
• Pedagogical: Course organization and design, quality interaction, and effective, equitable teaching practices.
• Psychological: Students' feelings of social belonging and ability to address stereotype threat, as well as perceptions of course relevance and instructor compassion.
• Social: Students' perceptions of connection versus isolation related to the course.
• Technological: Students' ability to access and use course technologies (O'Keefe et al., 2020, p. 13).

In designing courses at Lane, we have access to many rich tools that offer ways to create and review courses for how well they have integrated practices that support access, equity, and inclusion.

How does this apply to building online?

When building an online course, whether it's brand new or a revision of past work, considerations of equity should be part of the planning process. Equity, access, and inclusion should intersect in both what content is presented and how it is presented; how assessments are constructed; and how and what kinds of interaction are included. Here are some examples of ways to build equitable, inclusive courses:

• Provide clear communication at the start of the course about how often and through what means learners are expected to communicate, and offer alternative methods to those who may not have constantly on broadband access.
• Consider whether there are low-tech means to meet the same ends. For example, is live streaming video (through Zoom) the only way for students to engage with a lecture, or can they listen to a download of audio and interact on a discussion board that requires less active internet time?
• Provide timely feedback and knowledgeable support to all learners, not just those who turn in assignments on a certain timeline.
• Review how requirements in the course might make students reveal personal details they may not otherwise want to share (in ice-breaker exercises, live videos, or other open-to-others reflections).

Is synchronous video an equity issue?

A recent article in Inside Higher Ed tried to compile both the benefits and concerns of using synchronous video (live, scheduled Zoom sessions or similar) in online courses. When and whether to include synchronous sessions as a part of online courses has been debated for years, including in educational research.

Benefits to synchronous sessions:

Students who are able to participate in synchronous video sessions generally report being satisfied with the experience. Particularly during an emergency move to online, live video offers the comfort and familiarity of in-person class presentations, and it can also provide a chance to get real-time answers to questions. In addition, it's a way that faculty can humanize their course -- adding a bit of presence and interaction.

Challenges of synchronous sessions:

Some students will not be able to participate in live, online video sessions, for reasons including:

• Lack of access to reliable broadband internet
• Lack of access to updated technology
• Lack of access to necessary accommodations (such as live captioning)
• Lack of private or quiet space in their home or schoolwork area

In addition, particularly if video sessions are scheduled without significant advanced notice, students may not be able to participate because of other existing responsibilities.

Many of us have experienced technical difficulties in joining or participating in video meetings in the past. Even these small issues can frustrate students and heighten anxiety, particularly when they feel they are missing a chance to interact with course materials and will learn less.

What's the solution?

As mentioned in the article above, the best practices for including live video sessions are:

• Schedule sessions only when they are the best way to provide the content or interaction.
• Offer meaningful alternatives to the sessions beyond posting a video after the fact, such as a chat session or collaborative question-and-response document
• Provide pre- and post-video notes that allow students to follow along with the content (similar to lecture notes or study guides); ask for student volunteers to record notes from their own point of view when possible
• If synchronous video will be required in your course, clearly communicate the times, dates, technical requirements, and expectations for participation within the first week.
• If synchronous attendance is required, describe completely your "late" or "absent" policy and provide means for students to make up classes missed.