Inclusive Pedagogies

Christina Page, Jennifer Hardwick, and Seanna Takacs

Christina Page

Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Surrey, British Columbia

Inclusive Pedagogies by Christina Page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

1

Territorial Acknowledgement

The KPU Teaching and Learning Commons acknowledges that KPU is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded lands of the Coast Salish Peoples. This includes the territories of the Kwantlen First Nation, who bestowed their name on this university​​.
​
We thank all First Nations for sharing their land and resources with us in friendship and in peace​.

2

Introduction

As we seek to create equitable learning environments for students, many educators seek information on specific practices that can enhance the teaching and learning experience for all.  This resource seeks to offer practices in several key areas:

Making implicit cultural and disciplinary classroom expectations explicit.

Identifying and supporting academic literacies.

Implementing universal design for learning.

Supporting multilingual writers.

Supporting diverse teams.

Creating inclusive online learning environments.

As we approach each of these areas, a common temptation is to search for technically-focused solutions, without considering the underlying approaches to intercultural teaching that inform practice. For this reason, this resource is intended to build upon the foundational principles explored in Foundations for Intercultural Teaching. Engagement with these principles, ideally in the context of a supportive educator learning community, lays the groundwork for contextualizing inclusive pedagogical practices in a broader philosophy of intercultural teaching and personal intercultural development.

This resource comes together because of the expert contributions of several members of the KPU Teaching and Learning Commons team.  Special thanks to Seanna Takacs and Jennifer Hardwick for their contributions to the chapters in this resource.

As you move ahead, you will be introduced to a range of practices. The first three chapters in this guide, What are Inclusive Pedagogies, Making Implicit Expectations Explicit, and Implementing Universal Design for Learning provide foundational principles that support educators across disciplines.  These chapters are a recommended foundational starting place for all readers.  From there, you are invited to explore the practices that are most relevant to your particular context.

Welcome to the journey of inclusive pedagogical practices.

1

What are Inclusive Pedagogies?

What are Inclusive Pedagogies?

Inclusive pedagogies are practices that create equitable and socially just learning environments, ensuring that all learners have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of course learning outcomes.  These practices are based on ways of thinking about education that consider individual, curricular, and social factors that impact students’ ability to learn effectively.

Individual, Curricular, and Systems Factors Impacting Learning[1]

Often, when students struggle to succeed in a course or program, we respond to the challenge as an individual student problem.  For example, common assumptions that arise when students new to the Canadian postsecondary education system struggle are that “they can’t do it” or that “failure is their fault” (Killick, 2018).  For example, we may suggest that students are lacking prerequisite language or academic skills, and that this lack is preventing success (Carroll & Ryan, 2005). While there are cases where students may benefit from individual academic support, focusing entirely on the individual level can perpetuate a system of deficit thinking about students.  A primary characteristic of deficit thinking is its tendency to blame victims of inequitable systems for their own difficulties (Davis & Museus, 2019), neglecting consideration of other broader conditions that can impact learning. For example, students may have the necessary academic ability for success, but may be hindered by a lack of time for academic work caused by work obligations or family commitments. Therefore, while connecting students to individual supports may be a helpful response for some learners, consideration of curricular and systemic factors is also necessary.

A curricular lens focuses on the ways that curriculum design and delivery may inhibit effective learning for students.  Rather than viewing students as lacking the ability to meet objectives, this perspective considers that the curriculum itself may be dis/abled, lacking the ability to adapt to student learning needs (Waitoller & King, 2016).  The curricular lens investigates both the content of the curriculum and the normative pedagogical practices used within a discipline. A curriculum can be dis/abled when it fails to incorporate content that represents the cultural diversit(ies) of the learners it aims to educate (Waitoller & King, 2016), or lacks the relevance to meet their learning needs (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001).  A curriculum can also be dis/abled when it does not offer multiple means for students to access content and to demonstrate their successful achievement of learning outcomes (Waitoller & King, 2016).

Finally, a systemic lens considers the ways in which dominant educational and societal norms create barriers to learning. Davis and Museus (2019) highlight that the deficit mindsets, with their focus on individual performance, serve to maintain the status quo of the dominant culture, and to perpetuate systems that marginalize.  Approaching inclusive pedagogy from a systemic lens may include consideration of the ways that the dominance of the English language or Eurocentric ways of knowing create and maintain barriers for many learners.  A systemic lens provides space to consider the broader cultural and educational assumptions that shape what happens in the classroom, and to reimagine what might be possible by expanding pedagogical possibilities to incorporate new norms.

Voice and Agency

Wrigley (2005) describes inclusive pedagogies as those which enhance the voice and agency of the learner.   Voice includes the opportunity for students to be engaged in active discussion that incorporates their own lived experiences.  Agency involves choices in how to learn, how to communicate knowledge, and how to use learning in a meaningful and authentic way.  Incorporating voice and agency, according to Wrigley, may involve de-privileging theoretical knowledge over experiential knowledge, allowing for meaningful integration of lived experience, knowledge, and practice.

Enhancing learner agency can also occur through forms of authentic assessment that allow students to apply their course knowledge to a real-world or simulated real-world task (Indiana University Bloomington CITL, 2021).  Authentic assessment tasks enhance learner agency by providing opportunities to integrate course knowledge, skills, and broader knowledges and approaches that students bring to their learning from previous life experience. Rather than studying as passive consumers of knowledge that may feel foreign to their own context, learners with agency and voice are actively engaged in demonstrating their ability to apply their learning to future professional contexts.

Supporting learners in using their voice in academic contexts is a key principle of the academic literacies framework (Lea & Street, 1998). Students entering new learning environments, whether they involve new educational cultures or new disciplinary cultures, may find their ability to voice ideas limited through a lack of understanding of the conventions of academic and disciplinary communication. Academic literacies works to unpack these conventions and to provide scaffolded support to students so that their voice and perspectives are expressed in academic and professional settings. These principles for supporting student voice in disciplinary contexts are explored in the chapters on Identifying and Supporting Academic Literacies and Supporting Multilingual Writers.

The principles of universal design for learning (UDL) (CAST, 2021) also provide a framework for enhancing learner voice and agency.  UDL challenges deficit conversations about student learning by highlighting the fact that diverse learners can meet curricular learning objectives when offered choice about the ways they engage with learning, the ways in which information is delivered, and the ways in which they demonstrate their learning.  UDL is particularly helpful in offering learners agency to learn in a way that best aligns with their learning strengths, making proactive choices about the ways in which they will meaningfully engage with course learning objectives.  These principles will be explored further in the Implementing Universal Design for Learning chapter.

In summary, inclusive pedagogies encompass a range of strategies, some that focus specifically on the needs of culturally diverse learners, and others that apply more broadly. Supporting student voice and agency is an important way of ensuring that culturally diverse learners are empowered, rather than marginalized, in learning spaces.  These strategies ultimately benefit all learners, as all students carry a range of knowledges and “diverse diversities” (Dervin 2016) into the classroom, and express these in their learning.

Critical Inclusive Pedagogy

An inclusive pedagogical practice requires combining the critical and the practical; it requires reflective critique of the role of curriculum, systems, and the ways in which we engage in these systems as educators, as well as practical shifts in practice. In other words, inclusive pedagogy is a philosophy that is worked out through praxis, and that continues to develop through ongoing action and reflection.  Stewart (2016) frames this process as critical inclusive pedagogy.

The Foundations of Intercultural Teaching module offered an invitation to explore cultural and disciplinary identities. This foundational practice provides the grounds for exploring how our understandings of teaching, learning, and professional practice developed within our social contexts.  The inclusive pedagogies journey includes an invitation to build on this foundational understanding, exploring why our educational systems and curricula traditionally developed in particular directions, and who might be excluded from fully engaging in these systems. The inclusive pedagogies journey then invites shifts in practice which include shifting norms around faculty-student interaction, sharing power with students, empowering the student voice, and inviting students to actively bring their own stories and experience into learning (Stewart, 2016).

The remaining chapters of this book focus on specific classroom practices. Engaging in a critical inclusive pedagogical practice involves situating these practices in a broader intercultural teaching philosophy that aims towards justice, inclusion and equity. This foundation impacts how we engage in intercultural teaching. Considering these practices only as a series of technical changes can lead to overwhelm and frustration. As you engage with the content in the remaining chapters, consider which areas are likely to have the greatest impact on dismantling barriers for your students and within your disciplinary context.

References

CAST. (2021). About Universal Design for Learning. CAST | Until Learning Has No Limits. https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl

Davis, L. P., & Museus, S. D. (2019). What Is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. NCID Currents, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110

Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.

Indiana University Bloomington Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2021). Authentic Assessment. Teaching Resources: Assessing Student Learning. https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/assessing-student-learning/authentic-assessment/index.html

Killick, D. (2018). Developing intercultural practice: academic development in a multicultural and globalizing world. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=1032840

Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (2001). First Nations and higher education: The four Rs – respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. In R. Hayoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IEW/winhec/FourRs2ndEd.html.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). “Canaries in the coalmine”: International students in Western universities. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: improving learning for all (ebook, pp. 3–10). Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Stewart, S. (2016). Advancing a critical and inclusive practice. In F. Tuitt, C. Haynes, & S. Stewart (Eds.), Race, equity, and the learning environment: the global relevance of critical and inclusive pedagogies in higher education (First edition, pp. 9–22). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for Dis/Ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366-389,473-474.

Wrigley, T. (2005). Inclusive pedagogies — restoring agency and voice to the learner. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 3(1), 297–315.

This framework was suggested by Seanna Takacs and Jennifer Hardwick, personal communication. ↵

2

Making Implicit Expectations Explicit

As educators, we have spent much of our lives in classroom cultures, both as students and as instructors. Over time, without even realizing it, this has given us a status of academic culture insiders.  The expectations of our academic and disciplinary cultures have become second nature.

Many of our students, however, experience our academic culture as outsiders.  This can be true of students whose previous education took place outside of Canada, but also true of many other groups that may feel traditionally alienated from academic culture.  This group may include first generation students, Indigenous students, and adult learners returning to postsecondary education.  Facilitating inclusion and equal participation for these students involves two strategies (1) shifting the classroom environment to make space for the contributions that our students offer, and (2) making the implicit expectations of the classroom explicit to students.  This second strategy is an often-neglected pillar that avoid the disconnection that contributes to academic difficulties (Blasco, 2015).

A key skill to increase support and inclusion is identifying tacit, implicit knowledges and making them explicit for students. This is a challenging task for educators for two reasons:

We have reached “expert” status in learning how to learn within the context of a particular education system.

We have reached “expert” status in learning to think, read, write, and problem solve within our disciplines.

Implicit Knowledge about Academic Systems

We have tacit, unspoken knowledge about how academic systems work.  This includes knowledge about how to relate and communicate in a classroom (whether online or face to face), knowledge about how to approach academic texts, and knowledge about how assessment takes place. Some of these unspoken knowledges might include:

Classroom knowledge:

How to respectfully address the instructor

When and how to ask questions or respond with comments

How to join an online class meeting

How to select whether using the microphone or chat function is more appropriate at a particular point in an online class

What an appropriate academic tone for an online forum post might be

How to respectfully disagree with a post on an online forum

Knowledge about academic texts:

How to identify the important focal points in an academic reading

Where to find key information in an academic journal article

How to distinguish between information that should be memorized and information which should be integrated and applied

How to organize an academic text in a particular class (consider the differences between a lab report, a history essay, and a business report)

How to distinguish between formal and informal language use

Knowledge about how assessment takes place

How courses with continuous assessment are paced over the course of a semester

How to approach a course syllabus and extract information about key assignments

What different assessment types (e.g. report, oral presentation, group project) might typically involve

Often, the knowledges listed above, and others, remain unexplained within the class. Students may assume that others already are familiar with the expectations, and are unaware that many of their peers are also in the same place on their journey. Students may feel hesitant to ask clarifying questions, or they may assume that the expectations from their previous educational experiences will also be true for their current learning.  As a result, students who have the skills, abilities, and desire to succeed may fall short of expectations, largely because of unawareness.

For reflection: How were your implicit expectations about how education works formed?  What do you believe that your students know when they enter your class? What might you want to explain more directly in your syllabus, assignments, course materials, and discussion with your students?

In addition to knowledge about academic systems, we also carry discipline-specific knowledge and procedures, that while new to us earlier in our academic careers, have now become embedded within our ways of thinking and communicating.  These knowledges, sometimes known as academic literacies (Lea and Street, 1998), go beyond reading and writing skills, and concern the ways that information is organized and presented, and the ways that problems are solved within a discipline.Implicit Knowledge: Disciplinary Thinking

The Decoding the Disciplines approach (Middendorf and Shopkow, 2018) provides one method for decoding some of the implicit knowledges.  When these knowledges remain implicit, they can create learning bottlenecks for students.  Bottlenecks, as defined by Middendorf and Shopkow, are areas in a course where a high percentage of students struggle to meet a particular learning outcome.  These bottlenecks are common and frequent, central and foundational to the learning in the course, and often aggravating for educators to continually manage.

Where do you observe that many students consistently struggle to meet a core expectation in your course?

Write these examples down – these may be your students’ learning bottlenecks

The Decoding the Disciplines model moves through a seven step cycle:

Decoding the Disciplines (from Middendorf and Shopkow, 2018)

Define the Bottleneck

The first step in addressing a bottleneck is to ensure that it is defined precisely. For example, a statement like, “students’ portfolios list experience without reflection” is likely too general to identify and support a specific thinking and writing task. A more specific statement such as “students do not yet understand that reflective writing combines evidence with personal reflection on its significance and meaning for their future work” is likely to be of more help.

Create one or more specific “bottleneck” statements that define and describe a common learning challenge in one of your courses.

Uncover the Mental Task

Perhaps the most challenging step in addressing bottlenecks is uncovering the mental processes that a proficient expert uses to address the task. This step involves breaking down the task into its smallest component steps, thinking out loud to be able to directly explain a task that is typically intuitive and automatic to experts. This step involves two key questions:

What are the specific steps in this process?

Why do you do each step?

Because this process is inherently challenging, it is often helpful to work alongside a colleague outside of your discipline who can help in uncovering assumptions and identifying gaps between your thinking process and how you currently articulate that process to others. For example, your colleague could try to follow your verbal or written directions (e.g., assignment guidelines) to complete a task, and identify the points that are unclear. Through the process, a colleague can continue to ask questions and summarize, providing you with clearer knowledge of what might need to be more explicit to a novice learner.

Example: 

Bottleneck:  When writing research papers, students do not demonstrate the ability to extract relevant information from research articles and to integrate this information into their papers

Component Mental Tasks

Critically reading research articles

Taking notes

Paraphrasing key information

Integrating key information into a longer argument

Design a Modelling Exercise

After you have identified the thinking processes and tasks that your students need to practice to successfully move through the learning bottleneck, the next step is to design a class exercise where you model the process for students, demonstrating the questions you ask yourself, the ways you think as you engage in the task, and the processes you apply at each step.  For example, if I wanted to support my students in knowing how to approach a research article, identifying the relevant information to use as a part of a broader research task, I might model my process in approaching, reading, and annotating an academic article.  I would demonstrate:

How I read the abstract and keywords to determine if the article is relevant to my research.

The process I use to skim a literature review, and how I identify additional sources I may want to review. Because I observe that many students do not yet understand the purpose of a literature review, I would highlight that this portion of the article provides background knowledge about what is known about the topic, but that it does not reflect the main findings of the research that will be described in the article.

The way I skim the methods section to gain basic information about how the study is conducted. At this stage, depending on the level of the students’ course, I will mention to students that they will encounter unfamiliar terminology, and that their goal should be to gain a broad understanding without becoming stuck on specific research terms.

I will highlight the way that I carefully read the results and discussion, taking notes on key points. I might also model specific annotation strategies that my students may find helpful.

Give Practice and Feedback

After modelling the task, the next step is to provide a practice exercise for students. Break larger tasks into smaller subtasks, and provide formative feedback on the students’ work.  Examples of practice tasks might be a thesis statement design exercise, an executive summary development task, or practice on a single section of a lab report. In my example of the article reading task, after completing the modelling exercise in class, my next step might be to assign students a reading exercise where they read an assigned research article following a list of guided reading questions, take notes on what they believe to be the key information in the article, and receive formative feedback on the quality of their notes and the accuracy with which they identified key information.

Address Emotional and Developmental Bottlenecks

In addition to skill-related bottlenecks, bottlenecks can also arise from emotional and developmental factors.  Emotional bottlenecks can include students’ worry about a course that they have been repeatedly told is difficult, leading to anxiety about their performance, or a value conflict between the course material and students’ personal or community beliefs.  Developmental bottlenecks common to students who are early in their postsecondary education include a tendency towards polarized thinking and difficulty including multiple perspectives (Evans et al., 1998). Possible strategies to address these bottlenecks include regular opportunities for reflective writing, and a practice of celebrating small successes throughout the course.

Assess Mastery

At this stage in the process, students build back up from the smaller practice tasks they have completed in their learning journey towards a final product.  The tasks that were previously broken down, and the formative assessment that students received are now integrated into the larger project. As tasks are integrated, students are assessed on their ability to complete the full project.

Share

The final step in the journey is to share learning with other colleagues. When multiple colleagues in disciplinary teams work through this process on different bottlenecks, faculty teams can develop a rich collection of shared pedagogical resources that can effectively support student learning through bottlenecks.

For reflection:  After reading this chapter, what learning bottlenecks can you define in your courses?  How would you like to begin the process of addressing these bottlenecks (independently, with a close colleague, or with support from the Teaching and Learning Commons)?

References

Blasco, M. (2015). Making the tacit explicit: rethinking culturally inclusive pedagogy in international student academic adaptation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.922120

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Middendorf, J. K., & Shopkow, L. (2018). Overcoming student learning bottlenecks: Decode the critical thinking of your discipline (First edition). Stylus.

3

Tying Universal Design for Learning to Intercultural Teaching 

Seanna Takacs and Jennifer Hardwick

Theory

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an approach to curriculum development that takes into account learner variability or jaggedness (Rose, 2016). Jaggedness is the idea that strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and preferences exist in a distribution, across many domains for all learners. For instance, one learner may have strength in verbal reasoning and mathematical reasoning while showing a moderate struggle with working memory capacity which another learner could show strength in verbal reasoning, working memory, and show weakness in mechanical reasoning. Further, these strengths and weaknesses are contextual – they are bound to the expectations, assessments, and interest in particular areas of interest. If you’ve heard the expression that all learners are different, that expression refers to jaggedness.

Designing for multiple pathways through the learning process.

At its core, UDL was created to eliminate the inequities created through educational systems. UDL is an inclusive pedagogy because it seeks to identify and address barriers to learning for all students, and through curriculum design, support student choice and agency which in turn supports the growth of expert learning. Through UDL, we have the opportunity to ensure that all students have voice and visibility, and to become motivated, purposeful, resourceful, and strategic learners. In this way, UDL supports social justice by promoting equity and uncovering both explicit and hidden curricula (Chardin & Novak, 2021). Unlike traditional delivery models of curriculum development that starts with a corpus of content that learners come to, UDL starts by acknowledging and accounting for the ways that people vary and how a curriculum can be designed with flexibility, choice, and agency to include as many learners as possible.

In a traditional delivery model of curriculum, where learners are expected to work towards externally imposed goals, at roughly the same pace, meeting milestones, and completing assessments at regular intervals, barriers or challenges are more likely perceived as deficits. Learning differences that can stem from endless variation in language, culture, educational experience, disability, interest, time, or resources can often mean learners are understood in terms of a lack of readiness, lack of ability, or simply “not cut out for” learning the course content.

UDL turns this thinking on its head and starts from the point of variability. UDL relies on decades of psychological and neuroscientific research to acknowledge that human variability is a beautiful rule. Designing learning experiences that are authentic and meaningful, where learners are given both voice and choice pushes pedagogy beyond access to embrace deep learning.

 “Instead of asking if the learner is ready for the lesson, UDL asks if the lesson is ready for the learner”
~ Michael McSheehan

Principles

There are several guiding principles to Universal Design for Learning that can be used as checkpoints when instructors seek to develop curriculum.

Teaching to the margins

Teaching to the margins means that as instructors we account for the students who might be left out of conventional instruction (for any number of reasons) and targeting curriculum design at those students first. Whose voices are centered in the content and learning activities? Who is left out? What role is there for difference? If instructors or students are taken by surprise by variability, can the design of the curriculum be modified to account for it? These questions can help us reflect on who our typical students might be and who may experience barriers. Often students at the margin take us by surprise or create a sense of concern of overwhelm. Many teachers meet students at the margins with individualized learning support. Is there a role that course design can play in meeting these students? Is there a way that designing multiple means can bring students together?

Proactive vs. reactive

When we embark upon a design process, we are thinking ahead about what kind of curriculum features would be most inclusive rather than addressing accessibility problems as they crop up. As instructors, have we planned for variation in advance of the course design? Have we brought previous teaching experience forward into the course design? Are we waiting for accommodation letters or anticipating the barriers students are likely to experience? A key aspect of UDL is anticipating variation and planning for it through design in advance of the course.

Enabling Access

Designing curriculum with a UDL framework means that we are mindful of enabling access as a first step. Are we canvassing students regularly for accessibility? Are we having regular conversations with students to gauge access? Are we partnering with IT, Accessibility Services, and Teaching and Learning staff to ensure access in terms of pacing, captioning, and assistive technology? Course and content access are contextual and variable. The UDL framework holds that accessibility should be defined by continual check-ins and development.

Supporting the development of Expert Learners

Expert learners are those who: understand and can acknowledge the ways they best learn, prefer to engage with content and each other, seek help, and persist in the face of challenges. Instructors can ask: have we built in ways for students to develop their own goal structure? Have we built in ways for students to offer feedback and support each other? Is there a place for students to speak openly and explicitly about cultural experience and cultural similarity and difference? Are we offering proactive access and recognizing difference in your course design?

Providing flexibility in getting to learning outcomes

The UDL framework centres flexibility as a design feature in supporting learning. Learning outcomes describe the specific skills and knowledges that students should gain over the course of an activity, assignment, or class. Traditionally, instructors provide one pathway for students to meet outcomes. For example, if the outcome is being able to articulate and support a clear argument, many instructors will employ an essay assignment as a way for students to gain and showcase their skills. Students who face barriers when writing might end up failing this assignment even if they understand how to make and support an argument.  Universal Design for Learning asks instructors to consider multiple pathways to meet outcomes. For example, in the case above, the student might be able to make an argument verbally. Instructors who are designing with UDL will want to regularly revisit their outcomes and check to see that they are providing options for reaching them.

Explicitly addressing expectations and structure

As addressed elsewhere in this book, courses often have a “hidden curriculum” — a implicit knowledges or implicit expectations — that act as a foundation. UDL seeks to address hidden curriculum by making expectations and outcomes explicit and providing transparent pathways through courses. Faculty should think carefully about what they assume students already know and work to make those expectations clear. For example, is it assumed that a student understands how to cite sources or access peer-reviewed research? If so, make that known, and let students know what can be done to gain that knowledge if they don’t already have it.

Frequent, varied assessment

Regular feedback ensures students know if they are meeting expectations and it provides a way for faculty to provide individual guidance and (if appropriate) additional resources that might benefit student learning. As such, assessment and feedback should be offered early in the semester and should continue regularly throughout a course. Additionally, assessment should take different forms to give students opportunities to share their knowledge in multiple ways.

Connection to Intercultural Teaching

Both intercultural pedagogies and Universal Design for Learning invite instructors to de-center their worldviews and to recognize that there are multiple ways to know, learn, and share. This means engaging in practices of self-reflection, taking intentional and active steps to include diverse voices and methodologies, and providing multiple pathways that honour individual learner’s experience and agency. Both frameworks also position these different ways of knowing, understanding, and expressing as assets rather than deficits.

Both UDL and intercultural practices also invite instructors to think deeply about systemic barriers that students might face as a result of their identities, abilities, or circumstances, and to work to reduce them. This means focusing on structural challenges rather than student deficits; instead of looking at what a student may not understand and assuming the student has failed to do the work or lacks the necessary skills, both UDL and intercultural teaching invite instructors to think about why a student might not understand. Is the student able to access the materials? Is there a hidden curriculum that assumes cultural knowledge or unstated academic skills? Does the structure of the course or assignment make it difficult for the student to share their knowledge in a meaningful way? What changes can be made to course or assignment design to reduce structural barriers and improve learning?

Within both UDL and intercultural frameworks, the answers to these questions are found through ongoing communication between students and faculty. UDL and intercultural pedagogies work best when faculty and students can communicate about their expectations, concerns, limitations, and approaches, and work to find solutions to challenges together.

The Framework

There are three aspects of the Universal Design for Framework. You can find the full framework here: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

The three aspects of the framework are grounded in the three networks involved in learning actively. In terms of mobilizing a UDL framework to support intercultural awareness, there are a number of ways of orienting pedagogy.

Engagement

The WHY of learning

Can diverse voices make content meaningful?

Can we use different cultural frames to understand challenge and persistence?

Representation

The WHAT of learning

What context for content can culture offer?

Can diverse perspectives shed light on the ways that we approach content and develop communities of knowledge?

Action and Expression

The HOW of learning

Can cultural variation offer alternatives to the way knowledge is expressed?

Can diverse perspectives support the value of different assessment methods?

Two Examples

Consensus vs. Debate

By Jennifer Hardwick

As a settler Writing Centre instructor in the Aboriginal Leadership Opportunity Year (ALOY) bridging program at the Royal Military College, I often liaised with faculty about student challenges. One spring, a history professor approached the ALOY support team, expressing concern about the number of ALOY students who were failing a debate assignment.

The professor had asked students to write a position paper on a specific topic using academic sources, and then split the class into groups for a class debate. The debates had gone very poorly, with the students ignoring the assigned structure and talking amongst themselves about their ideas casually. The professor said, “They seem incapable of critiquing one another and engaging in critical thought. I have never had a problem teaching students to debate before.”

I suspected the challenge was not the students’ critical thinking skills (which had been evident in their previous work), but their understanding of the assignment. I consulted with Kanonhsyonne Janice Hill, Mohawk Clan Mother and Director of Four Directions Aboriginal Student Centre at Queen’s University, who was able to articulate why the implicit cultural understanding at the core of the assignment acted as a barrier. She explained to me that within many Indigenous nations, building consensus is a more important skill than debate. She noted that young people who grew up in traditional environments would have been trained to listen carefully to those with opposing points of view, and to look for strengths, commonalities, and compromises rather than weaknesses in their colleagues’ arguments. Engaging in open critique would not only be seen as disrespectful and arrogant, but unhelpful given that the goal of any conflict is to build relationships and work together to solve problems.

With Jan’s permission to share her knowledge, I was able to work with the history professor on redesigning the assignment. He was able to identify critical thinking, analysis, the use of evidence, and clear verbal communication as outcomes for the assignment, and we were able use intercultural teaching and Universal Design for Learning principles to redesign the assignment and rubric. Instead of a formal debate, the students were given an option of working to reach consensus as a unit; building consensus would meet the same outcomes, with a slightly different structure. The students unanimously approved of the change, and the class was very successful in meeting the outcomes.

The original assignment unintentionally and implicitly employed Western cultural values about debate and argument, and only provided one pathway for students to meet outcomes. The re-designed assignment employed intercultural pedagogies and Universal Design for Learning to take cultural approaches into account, and to provide students with several pathways to share their knowledge. The new approach didn’t only reduce barriers for students, it made the assignment stronger by calling attention to cultural understandings of debate, encouraging greater communication between the instructor and students, and inviting each person in the classroom community to think critically about how they approach information and dialogue and why.

Language Variation in a Reading Psychology Course

By Seanna Takacs

I taught a practicum course to undergraduate students who had ambitions of being teachers. The course was divided into two parts. For the first six weeks of the course, students learned about the psychological research behind reading (phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, comprehension processes). After the six weeks, students were assigned to work with a child in the community for whom they developed a personalized reading intervention plan. The students worked one-on-one with the child every day for three weeks. Once the intervention was completed, students wrote a report on the aims, activities, and outcomes of the instruction.

A component to the course that bears special attention is that students were expected to write using language that would be found in a psychological report. Specifically, language was meant to be neutral, refer explicitly to the method in developing the intervention based on an initial interview and testing protocol, and measure results of the intervention “objectively”. Any subjective evaluation had to be acknowledged as such and grounded in one of the theoretical frameworks that had been discussed in the first six weeks of the course.

I taught the course for about six years, in different iterations and each time the final report was the hardest part. It was hard to write for the students and it was hard to mark for me. In the psychological speak that I was teaching students to use, and after which this section is named, language variation was the main source of this difficulty.

So, what did I see in terms of language variation? There was a broad variation, broad jaggedness, in the variation of languages that had to do with subject area, language background, and preference for the voice used to describe the teaching and learning experience. Language variation was students who had a background in writing English; writing adhered more to the structure of the novel or short story. It was students who were English language learners, who spoke global Englishes, who insisted on ungrounded subjective evaluations of student work and character. Language variation was also students who simply didn’t like the psychological report voice because it didn’t do justice to their students, their learning, or themselves.

As I gained confidence in teaching the course and gained the trust of my supervisors and students to implement changes that made sense, I started checking in about language variation. I asked questions about what was meaningful to report on, why a storytelling voice was helpful, what role metaphors play, and which aspects of the psychological reporting voice could be valuable. In the language of Universal Design for Learning, I started attending to and evaluating student variation; I began to investigate jaggedness. I began to appreciate that shoehorning student reports into report language meant that the relationships that students had developed with the children were not captured. For many students, the trust and care that emerged in the learning setting could not be reflected in the report. Leaving behind so much meaningfulness and voice meant that students struggled with anything they wanted to say.

In the end, I changed the expectations for the report. I kept the skeleton of report language – rationale, method, and two outcomes, tied to empirical research. In discussion with students, we added stories, anecdotes, examples, metaphors, and future directions. Students wrote what they would change if they were to do it again, the advice they’d give to reading teachers, and what their favourite part of their three weeks of tutoring was. Student commented on how they learned to read, and how approaches to reading instruction varied by culture and by language.

In the last years of teaching the program, I gained an intercultural and experiential lens on the course. By developing multiple pathways to report writing, and embracing language variation, report writing became richer, more descriptive, more interesting to write, and truly wonderful to mark. Before I called it Universal Design for Learning, voice and choice were key.

References

Chardin, M. & Novak, K. (2021). Equity by Design. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Rose, L.T. (2016). The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness. Toronto: Harper Collins.

4

Identifying and Supporting Academic Literacies

In the previous chapter, we explored the aspects of our educational practices and disciplinary structures that often remain implicit in classroom practice, and considered practices for supporting students by making these more explicit.  In this chapter, we will more deeply explore the concept of academic literacies, as well as the support and scaffolding strategies that aid students in acquiring discipline-specific modes of writing, oral communication, and digital communication.

What are Academic Literacies?

The academic literacies model considers student academic communication within its broader social context (Lea, 2016).  Academic literacies are the practices that a student (as a novice in their disciplinary community) must learn in order to read literature, interact with other members of the academic community around key shared ideas, and communicate according to the expected conventions of their discipline (Kelly-Laubscher & Van der Merwe, 2014; Wingate, 2018).  The academic literacies model challenges several common assumptions about academic writing and communication:

The idea of a shared set of academic skills that can be applied to all disciplines. While it is true that some foundational skills transfer easily to similar disciplines (e.g. humanities), assuming that students can acquire a generic set of “study skills” and academic writing skills that will easily transfer to any area can be problematic. Students may experience confusion and frustration when the “generic” skills they learned differ from the specific conventions expected within their discipline (Wingate 2006, 2018).  The academic literacies model acknowledges that students may need to acquire multiple, distinct sets of discipline-specific skills as they interact with courses across disciplines (Kelly-Laubscher & Van der Merwe, 2014; Lea & Street, 1998; McKay & Simpson, 2013).

The idea that students have learning “deficits” that must be remediated before entering their disciplines.  Often, when students struggle to meet learning outcomes in an introductory course, an assumption is made that the students are underprepared or are in need of remedial work. For many students, however, who have already moved through preparatory studies, their difficulties may arise from challenges applying generic skills to a new context (Wingate 2006). Student may struggle to understand why practices that previously earned positive feedback no longer satisfy the requirements of their new environment (Lampi & Reynolds, 2018).  The academic literacies model assumes that all students are novice members of a new academic community (Lea & Street, 1998).  While it is true that for some students, the journey to acquire an academic culture is more challenging because of larger distances between their previous experience and their current academic culture, all students enter their disciplines as novices who are acquiring a new academic “language” as they enter a professional community.  Explicitly teaching disciplinary conventions to students supports all learners in a course, and is a natural part of the learning process, rather than a remedial task.

The idea that academic literacies involve only reading and writing.  Increasingly, academic and professional communication moves beyond writing, into digital spaces. The academic literacies model acknowledges that communication increasingly extends modalities such as micro-blogging, web-based publication, and video production, and highlights that instruction on how to use these tools in professional contexts is also a part of academic literacies development (Lea, 2016; Richards and Pilcher, 2018).

In summary, academic literacies is a non-deficit approach to considering the development of the range of literacies required in a disciplinary context.  It involves providing a structured and scaffolded introduction to the communication tasks in a course.  Embedding academic literacies instruction is particularly important at the introductory level, but a well-planned academic literacies program considers how literacies will be developed and taught over the full course of a students’ academic career in their program.

Collaborations for Academic Literacy Development

A common barrier to embedding academic literacy development in courses is faculty uncertainty about the process. Academic literacies work can often feel like it is outside of the scope of of normal teaching responsibilities (Benzie et al., 2017;

Murray & Nallaya, 2016; Wingate, 2018), and that it requires a set of specialized skills that may be unfamiliar.  While professional development and personal growth contribute to comfort in teaching academic literacies, at the beginning stages of the journey, collaboration with other professionals can be a foundational and enriching step.

Specialists in academic literacies often work at an intersection of theory and practice, applying knowledge of linguistics to understanding the specific communication structures and conventions in a given situation (Lillis & Scott, 2015). Specialists who do this work can be found in different institutional contexts, including teaching and learning departments, writing centres, and learning centres. Regardless of institutional location, academic literacies specialists can create strong partnerships with instructional faculty by combining the novice perspective in a disciplinary context, with specific knowledge of how texts can be understood, broken down, and explained clearly to novice learners (Clarence & McKenna, 2017).  Partnerships can result in the creation of teaching and learning resources that, once developed, instructional faculty can easily embed into their courses on an ongoing basis.

Breaking Down a Text

One technique for supporting academic literacies development is breaking down and systematically exploring the features of a well-written academic text, at or slightly above the students’ current developmental level.  This process involves exploring the social context of the text (for example, the relationship between the writer and the audience), and the ways in which this is enacted through text structure, organization, vocabulary, and grammatical choices.  The template below provides a general overview of the types of questions that might be asked of a text during this process; these questions can be adapted to select those that are most relevant to the text being explored.

The first section of the exercise involves exploring interpersonal meaning — the relationship between the author and the reader. This information is often left implicit, but has a significant impact on the text structure and language choices made.  The second section highlights features in the organization of the text, and is useful for exploring topics such as the organization of particular business communication forms, the structure of a lab report, or the differences between a more complex paper and a simple five-paragraph essay.  The final section probes into the more detailed vocabulary and grammar choices that are normative within the discipline.  Connecting this information with the broader social context and communication situation is useful for supporting students in distinguishing between professional communication and more informal styles of writing.

Questions for exploring Interpersonal Meaning[1]

Questions about the text | Key sentence from the text
What is the purpose of the text?  What does the writer expect the reader will think, feel, or do after reading? |
Who is the audience for the text? |
Questions about the text | Key words and observations
How formal is the text?  (formal, semi-formal, informal) |
How objective is the text? (Is a personal opinion?  A scientific paper?) |

Questions for exploring Textual Meaning and Organization

Questions about the Text
Notes

What is the general layout/format of the text?  (Does it have a title page?  Where are the page numbers?  Are headings used?)

How is this text organized overall?  What information is in each paragraph?

Where does the author state the main argument/thesis?

How is the introduction organized?  How does the author indicate how the paper will develop?

How is the conclusion organized?  How does the author summarize the content of the text?

If the author uses information from other sources, how does the author introduce this information? (e.g. Berry states that ___)

If the author uses information from other sources, how does the author cite this information in the text of the paper?

If there is a works cited page or bibliography, what do you notice about how it is organized?

Questions for Exploring Grammar and Word Choice

Questions about the Text
Examples

What do you notice about the sentence structure in the text?  Are there many simple sentences?  Many complex sentences?

What words are used to connect ideas together and to show the relationships between sentences?

Are there verb tenses or verb forms that occur often in this text?  Why do you think these are chosen?

Are there any words or expressions that occur often in this text?

Are there any technical terms that occur often in this text?

In general, does this text use everyday vocabulary or specialized vocabulary?

How is the vocabulary in this text different than vocabulary you might use in everyday speaking?

The Role of Examples in Academic Literacies Development

The theoretical foundation for academic literacies includes social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), which holds that learning is social in nature, and that novices to a discipline learn by observing more experienced members of the community.  In terms of academic development, this means that novices learn by observing and emulating the examples of instructors and others who are already proficient in the skill being acquired. Examples of proficient work can be a powerful source for socially learning academic literacies.  Examples, however, are often underused, often because of fears that providing examples will lead to an increase in plagiarism or other academic integrity violations.

A different perspective on examples is that, rather than contributing to an increase in plagiarism, they may actually reduce academic integrity violations by providing students with a stronger understanding of what is required. Often, academic integrity violations occur when students become convinced that they are unable to successfully achieve a given task; the clear understanding provided by systematically analyzing strong examples can enhance students’ confidence that they have the core abilities needed for success.

Sources for examples may include:

Previous successful student work (anonymized, and used with clear consent from the author).

Instructor written examples (colleagues may find it effective to work in teams to develop these).

Writing from student journals.

Professional writing (particularly at the higher levels of instruction).

It may also be helpful to create examples of writing that does not yet meet professional standards, and allow students to analyze how this writing may be improved.

By providing multiple opportunities for students to analyze the conventions of successful communication within their discipline, paired with strategic practice of important skills, students will begin to develop a stronger understanding of how to meet the professional communication demands of their chosen fields.

For reflection and action:  Identify a writing assignment or other communication task that is often challenging for your students. Consider taking one of the following steps: (1) Using the information in this chapter, construct an exercise that allows students to break down an example of a well-composed text; (2) Reach out to a collaborator that can assist you in developing an academic literacies development strategy for your course.

Recommended Reading

Freeman, K., & Li, M. (2019). “We are a ghost in the class.” First year international students’ experiences in the global contact zone. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.270

This article outlines international student experiences acquiring academic literacies in their first two semesters in Western academic environments, including the potential impact on students when academic literacies are not made explicit in the curriculum.

References

Benzie, H. J., Pryce, A., & Smith, K. (2017). The wicked problem of embedding academic literacies: Exploring rhizomatic ways of working through an adaptive leadership approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1199539

Clarence, S., & McKenna, S. (2017). Developing academic literacies through understanding the nature of disciplinary knowledge. London Review of Education, 15(1), 38–49. a9h. https://ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=121734927&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kelly-Laubscher, R. F., & Van der Merwe, M. (2014). An intervention to improve academic literacies in a first year university biology course. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–23.

Lampi, J. P., & Reynolds, T. (2018). Connecting practice & research: From tacit to explicit disciplinary writing instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(2), 26–28.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Lea, M. (2016). Academic literacies: looking back in order to look forward. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 88–101. http://cristal.epubs.ac.za/index.php/cristal/article/view/91/123

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2015). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 4(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5

McKay, T. M., & Simpson, Z. (2013). The space between: Pedagogic collaboration between a writing centre and an academic department. Perspectives in Education, 31(4), 27–42.

Murray, N., & Nallaya, S. (2016). Embedding academic literacies in university programme curricula: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.981150

Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Academic literacies: The word is not enough. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1360270

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268

Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000264

Adapted from: British Council. (2005). Planning a Writing Lesson: Genre Analysis Form. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/genre_form.pdf ↵

5

Supporting Multilingual Writers

Supporting multilingual writers effectively is a complex challenge for many faculty.  Questions about how to ensure students reach professional standards that support future employment prospects, while honouring student voice, agency, and linguistic identity require thoughtful balancing of competing priorities. This chapter explores the contextual, theoretical, and practical issues involved in working with multilingual writers.

A Word on Terminology: ESL, EAL, Multilingual and Translingual

Writers for whom English is not their mother tongue are referred to in a variety of different ways.  Traditionally, and perhaps most commonly, the term ESL (English as a Second Language) is used to refer to these writers.  More recently, EAL (English as an Additional Language) has come into more common use, acknowledging the fact that these writers may in fact be users of more than two languages, and English may be a third or fourth learned language. While commonly understood, these terms are often somewhat problematic, as they frame individuals primarily as those who are lacking a key skill (in this case, stronger English language skills), rather than as people who have the resource of multilingual proficiency.  An additional term, translingualism, is used to highlight multilingual individual’s fluidity and agency in their linguistic choices as they use the resources of all of the languages available to them (Dovchin, 2019).  This chapter uses the term multilingual writers to highlight students’ proficiency in multiple languages, and the richness of the linguistic resources that support them in their learning.

Contextual Factors Impacting Multilingual Writers

Multilingual writers strive to develop their writing in a context where linguistic discrimination is often present. Linguistic discrimination (Dovchin, 2019), linguicism (Skutknabb-Kangas, 2016), and linguistic racism (De Costa, 2020) are processes by which unequal power and resources are distributed to one group over another on the basis of language. In the global context, English is a language which has received tremendous global power as a result of colonial and globalized processes, and status and resources are often unequally distributed to native English speakers as a result of their linguistic status.  Linguistic discrimination manifests in institutional contexts and at the level of individual interactions.  Even as multilingual writers are striving to improve their English, they are the same time participating in systems where they receive discrimination on the basis of their non-native speaker status, which can harm their ability to meaningfully participate alongside native speakers in classroom situations, and diminishes the regard for their perspectives when presented in writing (Sah, 2019).

Linguistic discrimination also occurs between varieties of English.  Kachru (1996b) describes the creation of three concentric circles of English use:  inner circle countries (e.g., England, Canada, New Zealand), where native-speaker varieties of English are the dominant language; outer circle countries (e.g., Nigeria, India, Nepal), where English was historically established in the process of colonization; and expanding circle countries (e.g. China, Vietnam, Korea), where English gained status through the processes of globalization.  Within these concentric circles, inner circle varieties typically hold greater status and prestige (Kachru, 1996a).  As a result, multilingual writers who are proficient users of an outer circle variety may find their English use criticized as non-standard or inadequate for professional writing (Sah, 2019).

Because of these contextual factors, multilingual writers often find themselves positioned primarily as lacking in their ability to fully meet native-speaker norms, rather than as resourceful users of multiple languages or multiple varieties of global English. This deficit positioning typically works to maintain the dominant power of native-speaker Englishes in the global language hierarchy (Davis and Museus, 2019), and tends to create structures that discriminate, rather than empower, students to communicate effectively in academic and professional environments.

Navigating Complexity in Supporting Writers

Supporting multilingual writers through a strengths-based lens that acknowledges the legitimacy of global varieties of English raises several complex issues.  For example, because the majority of speakers of many outer circle varieties use English as an additional language, determining which features of writing emerge from legitimate use of a particular variety, and which reflect potential errors can be complex (Sharma, 2005).  For readers unfamiliar with the writer’s context and the linguistic norms they have learned, determining when error correction is appropriate can be challenging.

Another significant challenge is finding an appropriate balance between respect for the writer’s usage and voice, while at the same time equipping multilingual writers with the tools for successful communication in their academic and professional communities. Failing to provide appropriate instruction can disadvantage multilingual writers.  For example, Roessingh and Douglas (2012) found that while multilingual immigrant youth enter postsecondary education at a higher rate than their Canadian-born peers, their undergraduate grade point averages were lower, which placed barriers to pursuing graduate education. Mahboob and Szenes (2010), in a qualitative study comparing the grades of native and non-native English speakers on an assignment, found that non-native speakers received significantly lower grades that their native-speaking peers.  They noted, however, that while this may provide some evidence for linguistic racism, a complicating factor was that the non-native speakers also used significantly less complex academic language in their work. Mahboob and Szenes conclude that empowering multilingual writers involves both attention to avoiding linguistic racism and the implementation of a structured, genre-based pedagogy that provides explicit instruction on writing within a particular academic discipline.

The path ahead in effectively supporting multilingual writers involves a web of interrelated knowledges and practices, which include:

A commitment to avoid linguistic discrimination in evaluating multilingual student writing.

Openness to understanding the varieties of English as a global language by critically examining the ways in which inner circle native-speaker norms are privileged.

Implementing pedagogies that empower multilingual writers by providing clear and contextualized instruction on academic communication in their disciplines.  These strategies are explored more fully in the Identifying and Supporting Academic Literacies chapter of this book.

Labelling Writing Challenges: “What’s in a Name?”

In order to equip multilingual writers in their language growth, it can be important to accurately identify and label the sources of their writing difficulty.  Multilingual writers commonly report that they receive feedback that improvement in their grammar or professionalism is needed; however, this feedback is often non-specific, and difficult for the writer to translate into actionable steps.  Often, this occurs when we experience a piece of writing that does not fit our expectations as the reader, but feel challenged to identify the reason for our difficulty in grasping the students’ meaning.  Expanding our vocabulary and ability to label writing challenges can help us in providing actionable guidance to writers.

Three common sources of writing challenges for multilingual writers in postsecondary courses are:

Challenges related to ongoing language acquisition;

Challenges arising from differences in varieties of English; and

Challenges related to genre and discourse-level issues.

Challenges related to ongoing language acquisition

Multilingual writers have often completed a language proficiency exam as a condition of their admission to their programs, demonstrating a high level of proficiency in English.  Their language development, particularly in academic domains, still continues to develop throughout their educational journey.  Academic language proficiency develops more slowly than general communicative language proficiency, typically requiring 5-7 years of ongoing exposure to complex academic vocabulary and discourse (Cummins, 2000).  With practice and exposure to academic language, continued growth towards stronger professional proficiency occurs.  It is important to understand that this journey typically unfolds over a period of years, rather than weeks.

Challenges arising from differences in varieties of English

Multilingual writers from countries where outer circle varieties of English are used may have years of exposure to English language educational environments.  When entering an environment where they are first exposed to an unfamiliar variety, differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, and usage can create challenges for writers as they navigate the differences between academic and professional norms.

Challenges arising from genre and discourse-level issues

Often, when the flow of thought in a multilingual writer’s text seems challenging to the reader, the major issue impeding understanding is occurring at the discourse level, rather than the grammatical level. Higher level issues, such as the expected organization of a text, may be more important to address than smaller errors in grammar or vocabulary.  When reading a text, it can be helpful to consider whether the writer would benefit more from addressing higher-level organizational issues in order to more effectively communicate with the reader.

Strategies for Responding to Multilingual Writers

Identifying multilingual writing challenges accurately is the first step to developing a supportive instructional and feedback strategy.  Consider the following strategies for creating an environment that facilitate the growth of multilingual writers, while demonstrating respect for linguistic and cultural identities.

Responding to challenges arising from ongoing language acquisition
Strategies for working with students who are still developing academic and professional language proficiency include focusing primarily on errors that impede your understanding of the writer’s meaning (Matsuda & Cox, 2011), rather than providing direct feedback on all minor errors.  Another strategy is helping students to identify patterns of high-frequency errors in their work (Cogie et al., 1999), which allows students to focus on 2-3 specific areas for growth. Rather than correcting all observed errors, selectively identifying areas for improvement can be more effective (Ferris, 2008).  Allowing students to focus on a defined and meaningful goal, rather than a vague direction to “improve grammar” is more likely to result in concrete improvement.

Responding to challenges arising from varieties of English
When you experience challenges responding to student writing that might be rooted in differences in English varieties, responding through a framework of difference rather than correctness may be helpful.  Consider contextualizing feedback through a cultural lens, with statements such as “This word choice might be considered by Canadian readers as unusual in a professional context.  An alternative may be…”

Responding to discourse and genre-based writing challenges
Developing students’ understanding of genre expectations is often best done through scaffolded and structured instruction, as these activities benefit all students, not only multilingual writers. consider partnering with a Teaching & Learning Commons or Learning Centre colleague for assistance in using these strategies.

A 3-C Framework for Responding to Multilingual Writers’ Work

When providing feedback on student writing, consider the following framework to guide your process:  clear, constructive, and contextual.

Clear:  As much as possible, with consideration of categories explored in this chapter, clearly identify the specific writing challenge you are observing.  If you are providing feedback related to grammar, aim to identify 2-3 specific focus areas for the student (for example, selection of verb tenses, eliminating sentence fragments or run-on sentences, reviewing article use).  While you may not be a language expert, labelling areas for improvement specifically as much as possible aids students in creating measurable goals for growth.

Constructive: Aim to identify a specific step that students might take in response to your feedback.  For example, a feedback statement such as “work on grammar” is unlikely to provide a student with an actionable next step. A statement such as “make an appointment with a Learning Centre tutor to practice organizing your ideas within paragraphs” identifies a focus area, as well as a supportive campus resource.

Contextual: Aim to contextualize feedback within Canadian academic culture and your specific disciplinary culture.  This acknowledges that “correctness” in language choice is often situated within the norms of a particular context, and that these norms are not always universally shared.  Using phrases such as “in scientific writing”, or “in Canadian business communication” signal that you acknowledge students as learners in their new academic and disciplinary communities, and allows students to situate themselves within the multiple cultural and academic communities that are a part of their broader experience.

Supporting Academic Integrity Development in Writing

Academic integrity, particularly in the context of written assignments, is one component of broader academic literacies development. In Western academic cultures, discussions about plagiarism are placed within the framework of academic integrity and cheating.  In the journey to developing academic literacies, many well-intentioned students use writing practices that are considered plagiarism, perhaps unknowingly, on their journey to understanding and applying academic conventions related to using knowledge from other sources.

Unintentional plagiarism occurs when students borrow words and ideas from other sources, without correctly using the citation and referencing conventions of their discipline.  It is helpful to distinguish these instances of plagiarism, which may be committed by otherwise strong students who are making an effort to write well, from academic dishonesty with intent (Pecorari, 2010).

Why does unintentional plagiarism happen?

 Cultural differences in the use of language and text.  Alastair Pennycook notes that current Western conventions about plagiarism and information use are a recent innovation.  The idea that ideas can be owned by an author, and therefore stolen by another, is both recent and culturally specific (Pennycook, 1996).

 Placing high value on the words of the original text.  Pennycook (1996)  highlights several examples where students strongly preferred to retain the words from the original source, in one case noting that a student felt it dishonest to retain an idea while changing the words.  In other cases, students may lack confidence in their own academic writing skills,  believing that their text will be less powerful if they use their own voice.

Limited grasp of academic vocabulary.  Because of the complexity of academic vocabulary, students require a longer time to gain proficiency in high level academic language, generally 5-7 years or more (Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). Therefore, even students who seem fluent in English may struggle with limited linguistic resources to paraphrase complex ideas, and may resort to retaining the words of the original text. When this is a factor for students, it may be helpful to emphasize that clarity of expression, rather than complexity, supports effective academic writing.

Limited familiarity with academic writing conventions and/or limited ability to apply their knowledge.  Many students enter the Canadian university system without having previous experience with research-based academic writing.  Even though these students may attend introductory tutorials, and in fact demonstrate some mastery of this content, they may still struggle as they learn to apply these writing conventions (Pecorari, 2010). Consider systematically increasing expectations for students’ use of citation conventions throughout the course, allowing time for formative feedback and development.

Using information from sources effectively requires knowledge beyond citation mechanics. This knowledge can be supported within a broader program of instruction in academic literacies, which can include the following components:

 Conduct structured in-class exercises with these models with models of well written texts at your students’ current academic level.  For example, you may ask the students to do the following tasks:

Identify direct quotes, paraphrases, and summaries, and describe the type of citation that is used after each.

Match in-text citations with their corresponding full references.

Analyze well-written paragraphs to observe how an author integrates information from multiple sources with their own ideas.

Facilitate structured learning opportunities on academic paraphrasing (see the Integrating Material from Research handout for an example).  This type of exercise could be done in-class, or as an online learning activity where students provide peer-review according to set criteria for a strong paraphrase.

Encourage students to attend academic writing workshops as well as individual tutoring sessions at the Learning Centre.  Often, students need multiple exposures to learn new academic conventions, and additional presentations from multiple facilitators may help.  Individual peer tutoring allows students the opportunity to ask specific questions about their own work, and to practice applying their knowledge to their writing with the support of an experienced peer.

Other Strategies for Supporting Writing Development

Allow students to complete a significant amount of writing, including ungraded and low-pressure writing.  The maxim that “we learn to write by writing” is particularly true for multilingual writers, who benefit from multiple opportunities to practice academic writing skills.  Consider including ungraded freewriting and other informal writing activities in the course.

Create an environment that values the contribution of meaningful ideas over linguistic perfection. Over-focusing on accurate expression can create an environment where individuals begin to limit their contributions (Sah, 2019), resulting in less practice, and ultimately weaker long term development.  Paradoxically, greater tolerance of difference can create spaces where students feel less inhibited, are more able to contribute, and develop in their ability to communicate through practice.

Allow multiple opportunities for feedback and revision. A key contributor to strong writing development is the opportunity to receive feedback on a piece of work, to make revisions, and then to resubmit the work for further feedback (Fischer et al., 2017). Again, this strategy benefits all students, not only multilingual writers.

Embed a strategic partnership with the Learning Centre in your course, offering structured opportunities for students to work with tutors as they complete major assignments.  This allows students to work on identified developmental goals in a personalized learning environment.

References

Cogie, J., Lorinskas, S., & Strain, K. (1999). Avoiding the proofreading trap: The value of the error correction process. The Writing Center Journal, 19(2), 7.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy:  Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Davis, L. P., & Museus, S. D. (2019). What Is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. NCID Currents, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110

De Costa, P. I. (2020). Linguistic racism: its negative effects and why we need to contest it. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(7), 833–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1783638

Dovchin, S. (2019). The politics of injustice in translingualism: Linguistic discrimination. In T. A. Barrett & S. Dovchin (Eds.), Critical inquiries in the sociolinguistics of globalization (pp. 84–101). Multilingual Matters.

Ferris, D. (2008). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410607201

Fischer, L., Meyers, C., & Dobelbower, S. (2017). Exploring how pedagogical strategies change student perceptions of writing apprehension. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(4), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.04254

Kachru, B. B. (1996a). The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes, 15(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00112.x

Kachru, B. B. (1996b). World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333196

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Mahboob, A., & Szenes, E. (2010). Linguicism and racism in assessment practices in higher education. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 3(3), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v3i3.325

Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2011). Reading an ESL writer’s text. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 4–14.

Pecorari, D. (2010). Academic writing and plagiarism: a linguistic analysis. London: Continuum

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141

Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. R. (2012). Educational outcomes of English language learners at university. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(1), 80–97. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/182449/182509

Sah, P. K. (2019). Academic discourse socialization, scaler politics of English, and racialization in study abroad: A critical autoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 174+. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581311618/AONE?u=ko_acd_can&sid=AONE&xid=ecb020f0

Sharma, D. (2005). Dialect stabilization and speaker awareness in non-native varieties of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(2), 194–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00290.x

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2016). Linguicism. In G. Gertz & P. Boudreault (Eds.), The SAGE Deaf studies encyclopedia (pp. 583–586). SAGE Publications. https://www-doi-org.roxy.nipissingu.ca/10.4135/9781483346489.n188

6

Facilitating Classroom Communication

Supporting Multilingual Students in the Classroom

Taking on the challenge of completing a university-level academic program in a second, third, or fourth language is a significant undertaking for students. For many students, the transition to the complex academic language demands of the university environment is significant, even when previous study has been intensive and adequate to meet entrance requirements. For other students, who may have significant experiencing using a variety of English other than Canadian academic English, adjusting to new forms of language can also be a challenge.

The following strategies can help to create an inclusive classroom environment for multilingual students. Like other inclusive classroom practices, these strategies can be supportive to a wide varieties of students, improving learning opportunities for all.

Emphasize important ideas:  This can be done in several ways (in general, communicating using multiple means and strategies is helpful). (1) Include key vocabulary and main ideas on PowerPoint slides (2) Repeat key points using different words (3) Allow a pause after introducing a new or major idea, in order to allow time for processing.

Avoid metaphors and culturally-specific references:  These references may be unknown to students from non-dominant cultures, and may confuse rather than clarify the point you are making.  Similarly, humour may also be misunderstood.

Encourage discipline-specific vocabulary development for all students:  Particularly in introductory courses with large amounts of new vocabulary,  incorporate a glossary-building activity into the course, where all students define key terms and create their own examples.

Provide “gapped notes”: By creating handouts that provide an overall structure for the lecture, with space for students to write their own notes on key points, students can develop their note-taking skills with less worry that they are missing key points.

Explicitly provide strategies for pre-class preparation:  While all students benefit from class preparation, this can be particularly helpful for multilingual learners.  Have students complete pre-class reading that includes key vocabulary and course concepts before coming to class. Ask students to prepare 2-3 questions they can ask in class based on their preparation (this can also facilitate verbal participation in class) (Carroll, 2005).

Facilitating Classroom Participation

Some internationally-educated students are unfortunately stereotyped as being passive or unable to contribute classroom discussion.  Limited verbal participation in class can come from a variety of factors, making each student’s experience of class discussion unique. Some factors that can make students hesitant to participate in class are:

(1) Differences in roles of instructors and students across cultures.  Some classroom context may place more value on instructors disseminating knowledge, while students show respect by listening quietly and working to absorb this knowledge. Similarly, criticizing an idea put forward by an instructor, even as a part of a planned dialogue in class, may be viewed as disrespectful (Murdoch University, n.d.).

(2) Challenges understanding and using English in a fast-paced exchange. Some international students have gained their English skills through structured classes that focus on grammar; these students may have excellent reading and writing skills, but limited experience using English communicatively.  Other students may have been educated in English-medium schools, but nonetheless struggle to understand spoken communication in an unfamiliar dialect. For these students, strategies that allow them to reflect and prepare spoken contributions may be valuable.

(3) Hesitancy arising from the experience of linguistic discrimination. Unfortunately, many students who are eager to participate in classes become discouraged by the responses of instructors or classmates to their English language use.  These negative responses include demonstrated unwillingness to engage in dialogue with non-native English speakers, accent bullying, or disrespectful responses to classroom contributions (e.g., Houshmand et al., 2014; Sah, 2019). These experiences of linguistic discrimination can lead students to restrict their own classroom participation. For this reason, creating an environment that facilitates and encourages respectful responses to all student participation is key to multilingual students’ success.

Consider the following strategies to support multilingual student participation:

Consider re-framing class participation as engagement in learning, and emphasizing that students are graded based on the evidence that they contribute to their own learning and that of others. This recognizes that there other ways to demonstrate active engagement besides verbal participation in whole-class settings. Consider including activities such as forum posts, active participation in small-group tasks, and attending office hours as a part of student engagement in learning.

Allow students to process individually or in smaller groups before sharing in the class.  Think-Pair-Share activities allow a student time to process their thoughts quietly first, then to discuss with a partner or small group, and then to share with the class.

Encourage students to bring pre-written questions with them to class.  You might choose to have students read these aloud, or to collect these at the beginning of the class period in order to choose questions to address.

Set shared expectations for participation in discussion sessions.  Ensure that all students understand that questioning and exploring ideas either from readings or a lecture is encouraged, and is not viewed as disrespectful.

Involve other students in synthesizing stories or less direct contributions from other students.  Allow students opportunities to connect examples to key course concepts. Dmitriov and Haque (2016)  share the following example of how an instructor might integrate a student contribution respectfully into the larger classroom discussion.

An interculturally effective instructor may validate this approach by saying:

Thank you, Rose, for that really interesting example. I appreciate how you used the story about the transformation in your home town to illustrate the models that we are discussing. And I just want to check in with the class: can anyone identify the key issues in water management that Rose’s story identified? (p.10)

Model comfort with silence and pauses.  Avoid responding immediately during silent periods, and help students understand the role of reflective pauses in discussions.

Supporting Faculty-Student Communication

Conventions for communication between faculty and students in postsecondary institutions often remain an implicit, unstated practice in the classroom environment. This can create barriers for students who are unfamiliar with the expectations of the Canadian classroom.  Supportive strategies to help students engage in the faculty-student relationship can include:

Explaining to students how they can contact you.  Consider setting up an office hours appointment for each student in the early weeks of class.

Creating an early, low-stakes assignment that allows students to share their background and experiences with you, such as a letter with their expectations for the course.

Providing a list of topics that students can use during office hours meetings.

Providing flexibility in how students might connect, and sharing these options with the class. Possible options could include traditional office hours, open office hours in the Learning Centre, online office hours, and email communication.

Explicitly mentioning norms about relating to instructors in the Canadian context.  For example, you might explain on the first day how you prefer for your students to address you, and that this form of address is considered polite and respectful.  When encouraging students to think critically or challenge ideas, tell students directly that this is a part of their learning, and that it is not considered disrespectful (Dimitrov, 2009).

References

Carroll, J. (2005). Lightening the load: teaching in English, learning in English. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: improving learning for all. London; New York: Routledge.

Dimitrov, N. (2009). Western guide to mentoring graduate students across cultures. University of Western Ontario Teaching Support Centre.

Dimitrov, N., & Haque, A. (2016). Intercultural teaching competence: a multi-disciplinary model for instructor reflection. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1240502

Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial microaggressions targeting Asian international students in Canada. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035404

Murdoch University. (n.d.). Working with students from Mainland China: A condensed guide for Australian lecturers. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from http://chinapostgraduates.murdoch.edu.au/

Sah, P. K. (2019). Academic discourse socialization, scaler politics of English, and racialization in study abroad: A critical autoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 174+. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581311618/AONE?u=ko_acd_can&sid=AONE&xid=ecb020f0

7

Supporting Diverse Teams

Preparing students to work in diverse teams is a key stated goal in many courses. We envision preparing students for the workplace with the organizational and relational skills to engage in major projects with coworkers from a variety of backgrounds. In the classroom, however, team projects may be a site of conflict, and the vision of students creating a strong product while engaging in growing intercultural relationships seems lost.

There is no doubt that teamwork is challenging, yet filled with potential rewards. Supporting intercultural learning in teams includes supporting interpersonal and intercultural learning processes.  This includes supporting student interaction in the classroom throughout the course, as well as designing supportive structures for team learning and group projects.

Support Student Interaction

Image Credit: University of Manitoba Centre for the Advancement of
Teaching and Learning

Despite the increasingly intercultural environment in our classrooms, and the reality of future careers in a globalized world, interaction between international and domestic students both inside and outside of the classroom is often weak. (Arkoudis et al., 2013) How can instructors support students in realizing the benefits of an intercultural learning environment?

The Interaction for Learning Framework outlines six key areas where instructors can work to facilitate learning through intercultural relationships. These six foundational practices can be weaved into classroom activities throughout the course, and serve to support student work in intercultural teams.

Planning for interaction:  This is the foundational element of the framework.  Fostering meaningful interaction occurs when interaction is integrated throughout the course design, as the means of achieving key learning outcomes.  The course design also intentionally communicates the benefits of intercultural interaction, the place of peer learning within the course, and the ways in which peer learning will be assessed.

Fostering communication of learners:  This component involves “setting the tone” for interaction and communication in the classroom. Students may be less hesitant to interact in smaller groups inside or outside of the classroom if they participate in structured, low-risk interactive activities.

Supporting interaction: Creating the environment for effective interaction involves setting expectations and guidelines for peer learning and team based activities. This can include providing instruction on how teams work.

Engaging with subject knowledge: This dimension of the framework focuses on actively helping students engage with subject content along with their peers.  As students engage with new concepts, they increase their learning through active application, where they share their own examples and elicit relevant examples from peers.

Developing reflexive process:  As students work on developing intercultural communication skills, there will inevitably be moments of misunderstanding or frustration. By engaging in reflection, students will process their interactions thoughtfully, as well as consider their own role in peer and team learning activities.

Fostering communities of learners:  In addition to the regular classroom community, other structured communities can support students in learning across cultures.  This component of the framework includes encouraging interaction beyond the classroom (Arkoudis et al., 2010).

Processes to Support Intercultural Learning in Team Projects

Identify the Purpose of the Project

At the beginning of the assignment design process, consider how your project connects to your course learning objectives.  Many courses have objectives that include working effectively in a team. Consider the following examples:

Foundations in Design 1100:  Collaborate effectively in team-centered activities.

Biology 1110: Cooperate with group members to complete tasks in a shared learning environment.

As you review your course assignment in light of course learning outcomes, identify:

Is the project’s primary purpose to fulfill content learning objectives?

Is the project’s primary purpose to fulfill process learning objectives?, or

Does the project include a combination of project and process goals.

An effective team project is also one that requires collaboration — that is, it is larger than an individual student could reasonably complete on their own.  An effective project design also allows students to meaningfully collaborate and share labour (UNSW, 2018). If intercultural collaboration is a key aim, consider how the project design provides opportunities for students to contribute personal and cultural perspectives to the project task (e.g., comparing information from different geographic regions, solving a case study that involves consideration of practice in an intercultural context).

In summary, when designing a team project, ensure that the “why” for engaging in intercultural collaboration is clearly embedded within the project task itself.

Assess Both Process and Product

The course objectives in the section above indicate that the skill of working in teams itself is a learning objective.  This means that the assignment design should include assessment of the students’ team work skills, in addition to assessment of the assignment product itself. And, if a skill is assessed in a course, this indicates that it should also be explicitly taught.

If intercultural team learning and group process development are objectives of the project, it is wise to assess both the product and the process the team used to achieve their final result. Nederveen Pieterse et al., (2013) found that a focus on task performance can undermine intercultural communication in teams, while teams that have a strong learning orientation are more likely to engage effectively with one another.  Students often use grades and assessment tools to identify what is important in a course, and will likely respond accordingly.  If interpersonal and intercultural skills are an objective of the assignment and course, it is wise to assess them accordingly.

UNSW Sydney (2018) outline a list of process skills that may be considered in assessment:

ability to arrive at consensus

ability to manage and resolve difficulties

effectiveness in project management (e.g. timelines and milestones)

effectiveness in giving and accepting support and advice

commitment to group processes (e.g. participating, taking responsibility)

extent of contribution (e.g. gathering and researching information, preparing written reflections)

quality of contribution (e.g. applying higher order critical evaluation and problem solving skills).

Process skills can be assessed through self and peer evaluations, reflective journals about team meetings and process, or conferences where you dialogue with the team about their process.

Choose a Strategic Process for Team Formation

Should you allow students to develop their own teams, or assign students to groups? While it may appear that students prefer to select their own teams, and there are some benefits to self-selected teams, such as lower conflict, strategically forming student groups can support effective work and intercultural engagement. Even when in diverse classrooms, domestic and international students may fail to engage in meaningful interaction (Arkoudis et al., 2013). Instructor selected teams can support students in branching out into new intercultural relationships, supporting the goal of student intercultural development. At the same time, strategically organizing teams can facilitate an effective work process.

Harding (2018) suggests grouping students according to their need and motivation. For example, group projects may fail because of unavoidable schedule conflicts, leaving students with multiple commitments feeling isolated from their teammates and the project as a whole. It may also be helpful to find out about student goals for the project, including the time they intend to spend.  This can reduce “social loafing”, where some team members participate minimally, while others carry a more significant load.

Surveying students about strengths and abilities can also provide an important source of information for strategic team formation (Reid & Garson, 2017). Ask students to identify 4-5 key strengths.  If the project requires certain technical skills (e.g., PowerPoint creation, video development, website development), survey students about their skills in these areas. This can allow students to co-mentor one another within their team, with students sharing their strengths and skills with teammates (Gunawardena et al., 2018).

In summary, while instructor formed teams can be vital in creating diverse teams with students from different backgrounds working together, they can also support the work process in other important ways.

Include Instruction on Diverse Teams in Class

“What we know… successful teamwork happens when instructors actively provide instruction on the skills and processes for working collaboratively” (Channon et al., 2017).

Teaching on team processes might include processes like:

An initial instructional session on teams and teamwork (e.g., elements of a good team, stages of team life).

Instruction on professional communication in team contexts (e.g., using email professionally, strategies for using digital communication tools).

Structured, in-class activities to help teams develop their relationships and roles within the team (e.g. identifying and sharing strengths with teammates, developing a team charter).

Including specific guidance in the assignment guidelines about how teams can organize their team process at each of the major phases in their work.

Examples of specific class content on team building can be found in Facilitating Student Collaboration in Groups and Teams. 

When intercultural teamwork is the goal, specific instruction in intercultural development can also facilitate effective teamwork. This can include introducing students to the benefits and challenges of work in an intercultural team. For example, diverse teams support divergent thinking and the generation of creative solutions to complex problems, as multiple perspectives enhance thinking (Tadmor et al., 2012). However, culturally diverse teams can also struggle with miscommunication, particularly when students are unaware of the differences in values and practices that can impact how a team works together.  Even in culturally diverse environments, students often require support in developing the cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal abilities that support effective intercultural interaction (King and Baxter Magolda, 2005).

Relevant topics for intercultural development can include:

Discussion of one’s own personal and social identities (e.g., Identity Wheel exercises).

Exploration of value dimensions that can inform the ways in which we prefer to act and relate to others (e.g., values about communication, values about leadership, values about time, and values about planning).

An exploration of “small cultures” or team cultures.  This includes the idea that a team can develop its own cultural norms that are negotiated between the team members. This team culture should give attention to incorporating the strengths and values of all team members (not only the dominant culture).

Conflict management strategies.

View an example of an intercultural development lesson here.

Provide Structure for the Teamwork Journey

A healthy teamwork journey for developing teams can include checkpoints along the way; this can be especially important for students in lower-level classes who are just beginning to develop their team skills. Providing smaller, formative assessments along the project process can help identify emerging problems before they derail the project, and help the team to plan and structure their work through the full assignment period. Structural supports for teamwork can include:

Team charters.

Instructor-team “check-ins” for formative assessment early in the project.

Team logs that detail weekly work contributed by each member of the team.

Regular journal entries.

Asking students to submit parts of the completed assignment for formative assessment at regular intervals throughout the project.

Provide Opportunities for Reflection

Working in a diverse team provides opportunities for cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal growth (King and Baxter Magolda, 2005).  Self-reflection is a critical part of both the teamwork and intercultural learning journeys.  At the conclusion of the project, provide opportunities for students to self-reflection on their personal growth and intercultural learning throughout the process.

One possible strategy for connecting the project work with reflective learning is to use a learning tool such as PebblePad for some or all of the assignment components.  Students can complete regular reflections designed using templates in PebblePad, using hyperlinks to connect their reflective comments with the project work itself (completed using Pages or Portfolios in PebblePad, which allow the ability to flexibility combine text and multimedia components to display project content).

Putting it all Together

Reid and Garson (2017) provide an example of a scaffolded group work process that enhanced student satisfaction with group work, and positively shifted student attitudes towards intercultural collaborations.  Their process includes the following steps, which incorporate the principles discussed above.

Provide an initial orientation session where students identify the characteristics of successful teams.

Ask students to identify key strengths and skills that they can contribute to a team project.

Use information about student strengths to strategically form teams (Reid and Garson allowed students to choose one team member, but otherwise strategically formed the groups).

Use a class session to provide instruction on intercultural communication and working in diverse teams.

Ensure that the assignment grading reflects a focus on process (such as peer evaluation and self reflection).

Conclude the assignment by asking students to reflect on their experience working in a diverse team.

Additional Resources to Support Work in Diverse Teams

Facilitating Student Collaboration in Groups and Teams (Pressbook)

Finding Common Ground Video (this video provides examples of Arkoudis et al.’s principles for facilitating student interaction in the classroom).

Preparing to Work in a Diverse Team Example Lesson (PDF| Word)

Team Culture Development Exercise (for culturally diverse teams) (PDF| Word)

Suggestions for Building a Cultural Bridge(Student Learning Aid)

Getting the Best out of Group Projects (Student Learning Aid)

Tuckman’s Team Development Model (Student Learning Aid)

Conflict Management (Student Learning Aid)

Attribution Statement: Content in this chapter is adapted from Page, Perera and Gedak (Forthcoming). Facilitating Collaboration in Student Teams. Kwantlen Polytechnic University. https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/groupwork/

References

Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., … Watty, K. (2010). Finding common ground: enhancing interaction between domestic and international students. Australian Teaching and Learning Council. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/projectsites/enhancing_interact.html

Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., Lang, J., & Pearce, A. (2013). Finding common ground: enhancing interaction between domestic and international students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719156

Channon, S. B., Davis, R. C., Goode, N. T., & May, S. A. (2017). What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

Gunawardena, C. N., Frechette, C., & Layne, L. (2018). Culturally inclusive instructional design: A framework and guide. Routledge.

Harding, L. M. (2018). Students of a feather “flocked” together: A group assignment method for reducing free-riding and improving group and individual learning outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317708588

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0060

Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Kippenberg, D., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 782–804. Business Source Complete.

Reid, R., & Garson, K. (2017). Rethinking multicultural group work as intercultural learning. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316662981

Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity: The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259

8

Creating Inclusive Online Learning Environments

In a post-2020 world, online learning is an increasingly important sphere in postsecondary education.  Like face-to-face instruction, online learning environments are shaped by a distinct set of culturally-informed learning norms, which may be unfamiliar to learners. Additionally, access to full participation in online learning may require technology access and a set of digital literacies that are not equally accessible to all learners.  How can we harness of the potential benefits of online learning, while ensuring that our spaces remain open and equitable?  In this chapter, you will explore six strategies for creating inclusive online learning environments, informed by Gunawardena et al. (2018).

Survey Students About Technology Access and Experience

While we frequently hear discussions about our students being digital natives, in reality, digital natives do not exist, and the reality of our students’ interactions with and access to technology can differ widely (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017).  While some students may be accustomed to using a variety of technology and digital literacy strategies to support their learning, for others, technology may have played a minor role in their previous learning environments.  Additionally, online learning, particularly in situations where it is required and not chosen, can reinforce inequities between students, with some students lacking the infrastructure or devices needed to participate fully in the online learning environment.  For example, students may be hindered by limited internet connection speeds, or may be working on older or shared devices (Day et al., 2021). With these realities in mind, a helpful first step in an online course is to survey students about their access to and experience with learning technologies.

A technology access and experience survey can be included as an introductory activity in the learning management system.  Possible questions can include:

Do you have access to a computer, laptop, or smartphone?  For how many hours daily?

Do you have the capability to participate in audio or video conferences (e.g. via Zoom)?

Do you have access to the internet or a data connection sufficient for downloading course materials (e.g. videos and larger file downloads)?

Have you previously taken an online course for credit?

Do you have experience using Word/ Excel/ PowerPoint?

Do you know how to create an online portfolio or blog page?

Knowing this information early in the course can help you make adaptations to course materials and delivery.  For example, while it is always a good practice to include a written transcript with video files, transcripts become more necessary when students are unable to consistently watch videos.  Students who do not have adequate devices can be pointed to campus resources, such as laptop loans. If you become aware that students are unfamiliar with the software and processes that will be used in the course, options include linking to relevant tutorials, or connecting students with campus learning centre resources that can provide additional support. Alerting students to the technology requirements in the course also allows them the opportunity to practice needed skills before the course or early in the semester, before the pressure of assignments and exams increases.

Provide an Orientation Module for Your Course

Online courses often reflect the cultural context in which they are developed; icons, symbols, and strategies for organizing and distributing information are not universal, and can create an additional layer of unfamiliarity for some learners (Hannon & D’Netto, 2007).  In addition, online learning practices involve additional academic norms that may be unfamiliar to new online learners.  The “script” that governs an online course is often unspoken and implicit, and when these unspoken “scripts” differ from the understandings that learners bring into the course, misunderstandings can result.

An orientation module is one strategy for introducing students to the micro-culture that will shape how learning and interaction will take place during the course.  An introductory module can provide space to introduce students to your philosophy of teaching and expectations, to create course communication guidelines, and to explore how assessments and assignments will work in the course.  Content for an orientation module might include:

A video orientation/ tour of the course page.

A brief personal introduction to help students connect with you.

Suggestions for how to organize learning in the course each week.

“Netiquette” and other course communication guidelines.

Offer Support in Negotiating Identity and Building Social Presence Online

While online courses can increase accessibility for some learners, other learners experience challenges knowing how to effectively engage in intercultural communication in online spaces (Hannon & D’Netto, 2007).  Additionally, multilingual learners may feel intimidated by high requirements for written communication in English, experiencing anxiety over correctness in forum posts and email communication (Day et al., 2021).  In addition, some learners may wish to be selective in the aspects of their identity they reveal in online spaces, while others prefer a greater level of openness. For these reasons, it can be helpful to offer students specific support and guidance in building their social presence in the online classroom.

Strategies to support negotiating identity and building social presence online include allowing students choices in how they present their identity online (e.g. a choice between using a photo and an avatar in their course profile), and providing additional support with early online communications in the course.  For example, it may be helpful to provide an example of a forum post, or to suggest students attend an early office hour in the course for feedback on their first forum post.  A rubric or checklist for forum posts and replies may also be helpful for students.

Consider opportunities for students to forge social connections before moving into the learning tasks of the course. Informal ice-breaker activities or less structured class social hours can allow students to develop initial relationships in a low-stakes environment.  This can create additional comfort and safety later on in the course when students engage in group learning activities or projects.

Plan Your Communication Strategy

Online learning requires significant motivation and self-discipline; however, students report that online learning can reduce their feelings of motivation to persist with course work (Aristovnik et al., 2020; Day, 2021).  A strategy for frequent and varied communication can enhance students’ feeling of connection with you as the instructor, and with the course as a learning community.  Consider adding frequent and proactive communication with students to the regular routine of the course.  Varying the mode of communication — for example, using written, visual, and video communication strategically, can also ensure that your communication connects across learner preferences and communication styles.

Allow Flexible Paths to Learning and Demonstrating Knowledge

While Universal Design for Learning (UDL) supports learning in both online and face to face environments, flexibility can be even more important in the online learning space, particularly in recognition of barriers to equity students face in technology access and use.  Where possible, consider allowing students choice in how they access course content. For example, multilingual learners may benefit from accessing a transcript and a video recording at the same time, enhancing their ability to accurately understand the material presented. Allowing students a choice of how they demonstrate knowledge of a course learning outcome can reduce inequities, while at the same time enhancing students’ ability to create authentic materials that can be showcased in ePortfolios and that can support future employment applications.

For additional information and strategies for incorporating UDL principles into an online course, visit the Implementing Universal Design for Learning chapter in this resource.

Connect Students with a Network of Support

Online learning can leave students feeling disconnected from the network of campus supports that enhance opportunities for connectedness and learning success.  Consider the web of other campus supports that can assist students in their academic and personal development:  these include the library, learning centres, accessibility services, counselling, wellness, and peer mentoring services.  When away from the on-campus learning environment, students may lack awareness of the opportunities for support and connection that are available to them.  Consider embedding direct links to campus resources in the course syllabus and course site.  Additionally, it is helpful to emphasize the positive role that help-seeking can play in learning.

Consider opportunities to provide students with a more direct connection to campus resources.  For example, students may feel less intimated about seeking out peer tutoring or peer mentoring if they are introduced to a specific tutor via video or in a synchronous class session.  Direct referrals to campus services may be helpful to students who are more hesitant to reach out independently.  When students feel a direct connection to a broader supportive community on campus, the connectedness that supports persistence in learning can develop.

An additional strategy for creating connections and supporting student skill development is building structures for peer mentoring into learning groups within a course. Gunawardena et al., (2018) suggest that learning in online environments can be designed around group based inquiry tasks, where students take opportunity to mentor one another in areas of strength.  This can include a structured facilitated activity where students move through the process of group formation, specifically identifying their areas of strength and potential contribution to the group’s learning.  From this starting point, group members can take different leadership roles throughout the project, sharing their knowledge and expertise to build the skills sets of their peers.

Creating a Supportive Class Micro-Culture

An online course brings together students with varied life experiences and cultural identities into a new environment that has its own distinct micro-culture.  The micro-culture shapes the ways of relating within the online learning community, and the ways in which knowledge is shared and communicated.  Creating an inclusive online learning culture involves creating space for students to share their cultural identities and knowledges, as well as facilitating processes that create a common and shared understanding of how to learn in a connected and supported way.

References

Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438

Day, T., Chang, I.-C. C., Chung, C. K. L., Doolittle, W. E., Housel, J., & McDaniel, P. N. (2021). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on postsecondary teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer, 73(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2020.1823864

Gunawardena, C. N., Frechette, C., & Layne, L. (2018). Culturally inclusive instructional design: A framework and guide. Routledge.

Hannon, J., & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710760192

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

1

References

Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438

Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., … Watty, K. (2010). Finding common ground: enhancing interaction between domestic and international students. Australian Teaching and Learning Council. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/projectsites/enhancing_interact.html

Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., Lang, J., & Pearce, A. (2013). Finding common ground: enhancing interaction between domestic and international students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719156

Benzie, H. J., Pryce, A., & Smith, K. (2017). The wicked problem of embedding academic literacies: Exploring rhizomatic ways of working through an adaptive leadership approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1199539

Blasco, M. (2015). Making the tacit explicit: rethinking culturally inclusive pedagogy in international student academic adaptation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.922120

Carroll, J. (2005). Lightening the load: teaching in English, learning in English. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: improving learning for all. London; New York: Routledge.

CAST. (2021). About Universal Design for Learning. CAST | Until Learning Has No Limits. https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl

Clarence, S., & McKenna, S. (2017). Developing academic literacies through understanding the nature of disciplinary knowledge. London Review of Education, 15(1), 38–49.

Channon, S. B., Davis, R. C., Goode, N. T., & May, S. A. (2017). What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

Chardin, M. & Novak, K. (2021). Equity by Design. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Cogie, J., Lorinskas, S., & Strain, K. (1999). Avoiding the proofreading trap: The value of the error correction process. The Writing Center Journal, 19(2), 7.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy:  Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Davis, L. P., & Museus, S. D. (2019). What Is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. NCID Currents, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110

Day, T., Chang, I.-C. C., Chung, C. K. L., Doolittle, W. E., Housel, J., & McDaniel, P. N. (2021). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on postsecondary teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer, 73(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2020.1823864

De Costa, P. I. (2020). Linguistic racism: its negative effects and why we need to contest it. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(7), 833–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1783638

Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.

Dimitrov, N. (2009). Western guide to mentoring graduate students across cultures. University of Western Ontario Teaching Support Centre.

Dimitrov, N., & Haque, A. (2016). Intercultural teaching competence: a multi-disciplinary model for instructor reflection. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1240502

Dovchin, S. (2019). The politics of injustice in translingualism: Linguistic discrimination. In T. A. Barrett & S. Dovchin (Eds.), Critical inquiries in the sociolinguistics of globalization (pp. 84–101). Multilingual Matters.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ferris, D. (2008). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410607201

Fischer, L., Meyers, C., & Dobelbower, S. (2017). Exploring how pedagogical strategies change student perceptions of writing apprehension. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(4), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.04254

Gunawardena, C. N., Frechette, C., & Layne, L. (2018). Culturally inclusive instructional design: A framework and guide. Routledge

Hannon, J., & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710760192

Harding, L. M. (2018). Students of a feather “flocked” together: A group assignment method for reducing free-riding and improving group and individual learning outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317708588

Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial microaggressions targeting Asian international students in Canada. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035404

Indiana University Bloomington Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2021). Authentic Assessment. Teaching Resources: Assessing Student Learning. https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/assessing-student-learning/authentic-assessment/index.html

Kachru, B. B. (1996a). The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes, 15(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00112.x

Kachru, B. B. (1996b). World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333196

Kelly-Laubscher, R. F., & Van der Merwe, M. (2014). An intervention to improve academic literacies in a first year university biology course. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–23.

Killick, D. (2018). Developing intercultural practice: academic development in a multicultural and globalizing world. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=1032840

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0060

Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (2001). First Nations and higher education: The four Rs – respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. In R. Hayoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/IEW/winhec/FourRs2ndEd.html

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

Lampi, J. P., & Reynolds, T. (2018). Connecting practice & research: From tacit to explicit disciplinary writing instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(2), 26–28.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364

Lea, M. (2016). Academic literacies: looking back in order to look forward. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 88–101. http://cristal.epubs.ac.za/index.php/cristal/article/view/91/123

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2015). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 4(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5

Mahboob, A., & Szenes, E. (2010). Linguicism and racism in assessment practices in higher education. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 3(3), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v3i3.325

Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2011). Reading an ESL writer’s text. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 4–14.

McKay, T. M., & Simpson, Z. (2013). The space between: Pedagogic collaboration between a writing centre and an academic department. Perspectives in Education, 31(4), 27–42.

Middendorf, J. K., & Shopkow, L. (2018). Overcoming student learning bottlenecks: Decode the critical thinking of your discipline (First edition). Stylus.

Murdoch University. (n.d.). Working with students from Mainland China: A condensed guide for Australian lecturers. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from http://chinapostgraduates.murdoch.edu.au/

Murray, N., & Nallaya, S. (2016). Embedding academic literacies in university programme curricula: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.981150

Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Kippenberg, D., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 782–804. Business Source Complete.

Pecorari, D. (2010). Academic writing and plagiarism: a linguistic analysis. London: Continuum

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141

Reid, R., & Garson, K. (2017). Rethinking multicultural group work as intercultural learning. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316662981

Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Academic literacies: The word is not enough. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1360270

Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. R. (2012). Educational outcomes of English language learners at university. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(1), 80–97. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/182449/182509

Rose, L.T. (2016). The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness. Toronto: Harper Collins.

Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). “Canaries in the coalmine”: International students in Western universities. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: improving learning for all (ebook, pp. 3–10). Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Sah, P. K. (2019). Academic discourse socialization, scaler politics of English, and racialization in study abroad: A critical autoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 174+. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A581311618/AONE?u=ko_acd_can&sid=AONE&xid=ecb020f0

Sharma, D. (2005). Dialect stabilization and speaker awareness in non-native varieties of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(2), 194–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00290.x

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2016). Linguicism. In G. Gertz & P. Boudreault (Eds.), The SAGE Deaf studies encyclopedia (pp. 583–586). SAGE Publications. https://www-doi-org.roxy.nipissingu.ca/10.4135/9781483346489.n188

Stewart, S. (2016). Advancing a critical and inclusive practice. In F. Tuitt, C. Haynes, & S. Stewart (Eds.), Race, equity, and the learning environment: the global relevance of critical and inclusive pedagogies in higher education (First edition, pp. 9–22). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity: The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435259

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for Dis/Ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366-389,473-474.

Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268

Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000264

Wrigley, T. (2005). Inclusive pedagogies — restoring agency and voice to the learner. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 3(1), 297–315.

2

List of Contributors

Jennifer Hardwick, PhD

Jen is passionate about ensuring access and supports for learners who face barriers. She has spent the last 15 years teaching diverse students in large lecture halls, small seminars, academic bridging programs, Writing/Learning Centres, online environments, and co-curricular and community programs  She loves to problem solve and work collaboratively, and is keen to provide resources and supports to faculty as they adopt and practice Universal Design for Learning (UDL). She also welcomes conversations and consultations about intersecting fields such critical, digital, open, and decolonial pedagogies.

Seanna Takacs, PhD

Seanna has worked with children, teens, and young adults with learning difficulties from the earliest stages of her career. She holds a PhD in Educational Psychology from SFU where she studied reading comprehension and more broadly, variation in language acquisition and literacy processes. Seanna was an instructor in post-secondary for ten years, teaching courses on instructional psychology, reading, and learning disabilities. Her interest in Universal Design for Learning is contemporaneous with her investigation of learning differences: what differences exist, are those differences meaningful, and how can we ameliorate those differences through strong teaching and curriculum design practices? In her current role in  Accessibility Services at KPU, Seanna is excited to work on both sides of the fence supporting both students and instructors in equitable educational access for all.

Christina Page

Christina Page has been a faculty member at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) since 2015, and has worked in intercultural education in both Southeast Asian and Canadian contexts.  Her interests include intercultural teaching, the intersections between interculturality and learning, and academic literacies development in undergraduate students. Her research focuses on faculty intercultural teaching practices. She is currently a PhD candidate in Education at Nipissing University.

Her work at KPU includes the role of Learning Strategist, where she supports students in developing learning strategies and future skills throughout their postsecondary careers. Additionally, in the role of Educational Consultant, she facilitates programs in inclusive and intercultural teaching for faculty.

3

About the Editor

Photo of Christina PageChristina Page has been a faculty member at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) since 2015, and has worked in intercultural education in both Southeast Asian and Canadian contexts.  Her interests include intercultural teaching, the intersections between interculturality and learning, and academic literacies development in undergraduate students. Her research focuses on faculty intercultural teaching practices. She is currently a PhD candidate in Education at Nipissing University.

Her work at KPU includes the role of Learning Strategist, where she supports students in developing learning strategies and future skills throughout their postsecondary careers. Additionally, in the role of Educational Consultant, she facilitates programs in inclusive and intercultural teaching for faculty.