This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 16:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community College Journal of Researchand PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Multicultural Curriculum Developmentin Online Classes: Practices FromWashington State Community CollegesWarren J. Brown aa Student Learning , Cascadia Community College , Bothell ,Washington , USAPublished online: 09 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Warren J. Brown (2013) Multicultural Curriculum Development in Online Classes:Practices From Washington State Community Colleges, Community College Journal of Research andPractice, 37:10, 750-763, DOI: 10.1080/10668921003723268

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668921003723268

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Multicultural Curriculum Development in Online Classes:Practices From Washington State Community Colleges

Warren J. Brown

Student Learning, Cascadia Community College, Bothell, Washington, USA

The community college system is based on an open-door mission and serves to provide access to

students of diverse backgrounds. Online learning is one of the fastest growing segments of community

college offerings. If the community college system embraces its open-door mission, it must also

embrace new ways of providing multicultural experiences within online classes. Yet, little research

has been conducted in looking at connections between online learning and multicultural education

within community colleges. This study asked if multiculturalism plays a significant role in the

traditional face-to-face college classroom—what role, if any, does it play in an online classroom?

Literature on multicultural education, distance learning, educational theory, and social psychology

were explored within the context of community colleges. Community college faculty who reported

using multicultural approaches within their online classes were interviewed and observed. The results

indicated that these online instructors generally had a collection of instructional methods that

correlated to Banks’ (2004) Multicultural Dimensions. This article shares practices used by the faculty

that can affect change in online students’ experiences with multiculturalism.

Duguet (1995) proclaimed that online courses would enhance college access for thousands of

students. Eighty-one percent of college administrators believe that online courses are important

to both the mission and survival of their institution (Kambutu, 2002). Currently, the Washington

State community college consortium of online courses (WashingtonOnline [WAOL]) has seen

significant growth in the number of students enrolling in online courses (WAOL, 2009).

However, ‘‘it is the essence of culture that is often ignored or overlooked in an online course’’

(Tolan, 2007, p. 7). Furthermore, Nakamura (2002) argued that the technology used in online

classes mirrors the racist society that created it, propagates the White race, and commodifies

racism. Oakes, Joseph, and Muir (2004) also argued that there are race, social class inequities,

and access issues with educational technologies. Thus, ‘‘cyberspace itself is a culture and is

not culture-free’’ (Gobbo, Nieckoski, Rodman, & Sheppard, 2004, p. 32). Other researchers ques-

tion if multicultural education, which emerged from the efforts of people of color, is compatible

with online technologies that were developed mostly by White men (Roblyer, 1996). Ultimately,

higher education is charged to support issues of multiculturalism in both face-to-face and online

courses (Boyer, Brunner, Charles, & Coleman, 2006).

While online classes are hailed as a solution to the problem of limited access to college—they

also raise puzzling questions about multicultural instructional design. Although multicultural

Address correspondence to Warren J. Brown, Executive Vice President, Seattle Central Community College, Seattle,

WA 98122. E-mail: wjbrown@u.washington.edu

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37: 750–763, 2013

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1066-8926 print=1521-0413 online

DOI: 10.1080/10668921003723268

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

aspects of distance learning are not widely found in the research, in the past six years more

research articles on this topic have been accepted by academic journals. Ngai (2003) noted that

‘‘the two Ds—diversity and distance education—have been gathering momentum in higher and

continuing education’’ (p. 157).

Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Bjorklund, and Parente (2001) and Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and

Gurin (2002) claimed that multicultural content in traditional face-to-face classrooms promoted

student learning, ethnic identity construction, and cognitive growth and developed understand-

ing amongst different racial and ethnic groups. If multiculturalism plays a significant role in the

traditional face-to-face college classroom—what role, if any, does it play in an online class-

room? These questions were addressed through the investigation of how, if at all, community

college instructors design their online courses to adopt multiculturalism.

This is important research for several reasons: First, there is a significant gap in the research

that provides instructional detail on ‘‘how do we design distance education in ways that encour-

age diversity—male, female, rich and poor, Black and White?’’ (Duffy & Kirkley, 2004, p. 422).

Flowers, Pasearelle, and Pierson (2000) noted that beyond socioeconomic status and computer

literacy, race and ethnicity are central in understanding online learning for community college

and university students. Second, over 10 years has passed since Kerr (1997a) claimed a research

gap on the sociological aspects of online learning—this gap remains. Third, there is a significant

gap in the research that shares the experience of community college faculty teaching online

courses following multicultural design. As stated by Smith and Ayers (2006), ‘‘for community

college educators, responsiveness to cultural uniqueness must emerge in the planning, design,

implementation, and assessment of learning experiences, particularly those offered at a distance

through instructional technologies’’ (p. 405).

This article expands the field of literature on multicultural education and distance learning.

Also, this article provides an applied outcome by helping community college instructors under-

stand how to design multicultural aspects within their online courses.

DISTANCE LEARNING

During the mid-1990s, as distance learning evolved to online learning, some researchers noted

negative social implications of this new technology. As Cutler noted, ‘‘the technology is

emerging long before the social impact is understood’’ (1990, p. 61). Around this time, online

learning courses were relegated to university extension programs and were not generally

offered within university academic departments. This reluctance of many universities led

community colleges to develop online learning classes. Around this time, other researchers

also noted that online learning was fraught with problems regarding sociocultural issues

(Warschauer, 1998).

What has ensued in the literature over the last 10 years have been various debates regarding if

online learning provides students with a comparable learning experience as face-to-face classes.

Certainly, that debate is worthy. However, researchers should not lose sight on the importance of

understanding of the sociological and pedagogical aspects of online learning. Sociological

research is warranted because student demographics in online classes have shown to be highly

diverse (Kramarae, 2001; Distance education is coming to the Black colleges, 2004; WAOL,

2009). Therefore, it is critical to understand the diversity of students engaged in online classes,

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 751

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

how multicultural curriculum can be designed to support online teaching, and how faculty can

learn to apply new approaches to enhance online student learning.

Learning Theory and Online Learning Environments

Research describing online teaching and learning has generally suggested that in order to

improve student performance, faculty should encourage interpersonal communications and

collaboration amongst students (Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Alstete & Beutell, 2004; Duffy &

Kirkley, 2004). The lack of structuring student online collaborations can lead to reduced levels

of student persistence (Rovai, 2002). Furthermore, research has indicated that forming a com-

munity of learners leads to increased academic and social engagement (Palloff & Pratt, 2001;

Duffy & Kirkley, 2004). Thus, collaborative learning and learning communities are linked to

academic success for both face-to-face and online learning environments. As noted by Roberts

and McInnerney (2007) ‘‘online group learning . . . if implemented appropriately, can provide an

ideal environment in which interaction among students plays a central role in the learning

process’’ (p. 257).

The seminal work on learning theory that supports social and cultural learning approaches

was based on the works of Vygotsky (1978) and Tonnies (1940). As noted in Kerr (1997b),

‘‘[Vygotsky’s] notions are valuable for researchers and developers interested in creating new

kinds of educational environments especially technology-rich environments, for learners’’

(p. 9). As furthered by Hung (2001), Vygotsky’s social constructivist theories adequately con-

ceptualized the interactive capabilities of online classes instead of behaviorist and cognitivist

theories that previously epitomized correspondence courses.

Palloff and Pratt (2001) argued that creating a virtual sense of community leads to greater

success in online courses. Hara and Kling (1999) noted how a perception of an online com-

munity helped students deal with instructional and technical frustrations within a given course.

Motteram and Forrester (2005) discovered that having students share their academic knowledge,

thoughts, and fears substantially helped them to form online communities that increased their

academic success and enhanced their social and academic integration. Thus, well structured col-

laborative online learning environments can aid in student success, even if the online learning

environment is asynchronous (Offir, Lev, & Bezalel, 2008). Furthermore, a successful design

of multicultural curriculum into an online class also requires a well designed collaborative online

learning environment (Smith & Ayers, 2006).

Multicultural Education

Renowned multicultural education scholar, Banks (2004) conceptualized multicultural education

through the following five dimensions (Multicultural Dimensions): Content integration; knowl-

edge construction, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and

social structure. Each of these dimensions must be addressed before multicultural education can

be fully realized (Gaudelli, 2006). These Multicultural Dimensions have been more typically

analyzed in face-to-face teaching contexts rather than in online settings. Furthermore, a careful

literature review reveals that very limited published material merges this theory specifically to

752 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

online community college courses. Thus, this paper extends Banks’s (2004) Multicultural

Dimensions within the context of online community college instruction.

Some scholars believe that issues related to race, gender, and socioeconomic groupings are neu-

tralized in the online environment. Yet, Limburg and Clark (2006) argued that ‘‘the same dynam-

ics of privilege and disenfranchisement that exist . . . in three dimensional space persist when

teaching . . . in cyberspace’’ (p. 49). Given this argument, it became valuable to see Banks’s

(2004) Multicultural Dimensions as a critical framework for designing effective online curriculum.

Merging the Literature on Multicultural Education with Online Course Design

Duffy and Kirkley (2004) indicated that traditional means of face-to-face learning take on new

characteristics when we analyze teaching and learning in online classes. In discussing the merit

for online discussion forums, Gorski, Heidlebach, Howe, Jackson, and Tell (2000) noted that

‘‘discussion forums provide an important alternative to more formalized and traditional oppor-

tunities for cross-cultural dialogues’’ (p. 38).

Yet, some scholars are concerned about whether multicultural perspectives can be adequately

taught through distance learning technologies—given the social dimension of teaching:

A dependence on technology when unearthing the subject of multicultural education compromises

the social dimensions of pedagogy, it underestimates the entrenched nature of personal ideology

and positionality, and imperils the notion of teaching as a fluid and responsive art form that should

not be surrendered to machinery. (Munoz, 2002, p. 21)

Beyond understanding how different cultures engage in the online environment, there are ques-

tions as to whether specific cultural content should even be included in an online class and the

negative perceptions some cultures have regarding distance education (Kerr, 1997a; Ambler,

2004). Nakamura (2002) was troubled that online environments could assist individuals in

‘‘cross-racial passing’’ (p. 32). This practice can been seen in the way that some online faculty

create student avatars in an online class in order to stimulate diverse discussions. Certainly, in

online courses, ‘‘gender, race, class, ethnicity, and religious affiliation can be manipulated, con-

cealed, or accentuated’’ (Heisler & Crabill, 2006, p. 3). Furthermore, students can form ethnic

stereotypes based upon the limited information they receive from others in online classes. Accord-

ing to Heisler and Crabill (2006), university students often associated screen name with a racial

group and perceived that all creative e-mail messages were coming from White male students.

Thus, it is imperative for online community college instructors to understand both how online

courses can be designed to enhance student learning and how to establish instructional

approaches that embody multicultural education perspectives.

METHODOLOGY

This research took both a qualitative and quantitative approach, which can also be called a

‘‘mixed-method approach’’ (Creswell, 2003, p. 76). In this study, the mixed-method approach

included the following: Interviewing WAOL faculty who perceived themselves to be using

best-practice methods in designing multicultural curriculum into their online class; observing

those faculty as they engaged with their online class; and finally, surveying students in the

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 753

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

faculty members’ classes at the start and end of quarter to see if their level of multicultural

awareness changed over the duration of the academic term. Given space constraints, this article

focuses on the data from the faculty-respondents. Each methodological approach was used to

satisfy the elements of a concurrent triangulation strategy. A concurrent triangulation strategy

can be satisfied ‘‘when a researcher uses two different methods in an attempt to confirm,

cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a single study’’ (Cresswell, 2003, p. 217). Thus,

this approach was useful in understanding the quantitative data on student multicultural aware-

ness with the qualitative data on faculty’s best-practice instructional design. This methodological

approach also addressed any potential challenges of validity and reliability. As noted by Cress-

well (2003), ‘‘this traditional mixed methods model is advantageous because it is familiar to

most researchers and can result in well-validated and substantiated findings’’ (p. 217).

Respondents

Given that the faculty-respondents had to volunteer to participate in the study, this approach was

described as volunteer sampling and can be classified as a nonrandom, convenience sample

(Merriam, 1998; Seidman, 2005). During fall term 2008, the faculty-respondent recruitment

TABLE 1

Faculty-Respondent Characteristics

Respondent Gender

Geographic area

of home institution Courses taught online

#1 Male Western Washington Computer information systems

#2 Female Western Washington College studies; psychology

#3 Female Western Washington Communication studies

#4 Female Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area English; college studies

#5 Female Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area Economics; accounting

#6 Female Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area English

#7 Female Western Washington Nursing

#8 Female Eastern Washington Psychology

#9 Female Western Washington English

#10 Female Western Washington High school completion; adult

basic education

#11 Female Eastern Washington Economics; accounting

#12 Female Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area Humanities; history

#13 Male Western Washington Economics; accounting; English

#14 Female Eastern Washington Physical education

#15 Female Western Washington Physical therapy

#16 Female Western Washington Education

#17 Female Western Washington Anthropology

#18 Female Eastern Washington Art; physical education

#19 Female Western Washington Medical assisting

#20 Female Western Washington Humanities; English

#21 Female Eastern Washington Business; computer information systems

#22 Female Western Washington English

#23 Male Eastern Washington Geology=natural science

#24 Female Western Washington Math

754 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

went to each Washington state community college represented through WAOL. Given that

WAOL connects with community college faculty from across Washington state, it was the

choice of the faculty member if they chose to participate in a face-to-face interview, or via

telephone, and if they consented to an observation of one of their online classes. Twenty-four

faculty, representing a total of 33 online classes, volunteered to participate in the study

(see Table 1).

Data Collection Strategy and Procedures

Research from Gobbo et al. (2004), Banks (2004), Sherry, Fulford, and Zhang (1998), and

Merriam (1998) informed the development of a semistructured interview guide for the faculty-

respondents. Also, guidelines from Merriam (1998) and Gobbo et al. (2004) informed the struc-

ture for the faculty-respondent observations. Some faculty-respondents did not approve of the

online course observation, some approved the observation, and others approved of the research-

ers being a virtual observer in their online class. When permitted to log-on into the class, the

researcher maintained the role of a ‘‘complete observer’’ (Merriam, 1998, p. 101). Observational

notes were collected utilizing Schatzman and Strauss’s (1973) model of ‘‘information control.’’

RESULTS

Faculty-respondent data was analyzed through a three-phase approach: The first phase of

analysis categorized the interview data using theory from the literature; the second phase of

analysis categorized the observational data using the literature; the third phase categorized the

interview data and related it to the observational data. The third phase compared categories

across observational and interview data.

The three phases did not occur in chronological order. Occasionally, observational data

indicated the need to conduct additional respondent interviews, or vice-versa (see Table 2).

Ultimately, the categories identified data which both supported the Banks (2004) Multicultural

Dimensions.

However, there were two categories that showed tenuous connections with Banks (2004). As

such, these categories were set aside for additional investigation by noting areas that did not

conform to Banks (2004) and using additional literature to substantiate the qualitative research

findings. Using this method indicated a need to expand Banks (2004) to describe online class

environments.

Therefore, the three-phased analysis of the observations and interviews indicated that the data

from the online faculty members were generally able to be categorized and analyzed using the

Banks (2004) Multicultural Dimensions. As noted in the discussion section, faculty indicated

that online instruction, itself, should be considered an empowering part of school and social

structure. Also, there was an emergence of personal biography development as a potential

new category in the analytic framework.

As identified in the research question, this study was to discover what instructional practices

online faculty used to stimulate multicultural learning in their classes. Table 3 notes specific

instructional practices used by online faculty, collected via the interviews and observations, which

were perceived by the faculty to positively influence the multicultural awareness of their students.

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 755

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

DISCUSSION

As seen in Table 4, the category of empowering school culture emerged in this study in some-

what unexpected ways. Some faculty-respondents’ described how an empowered community

college culture led to a partnership with a university in offering culturally appropriate online

degree programs for Native Americans, which is called the Enduring Legacies Program. This

program provided an example of how nondiverse curriculum can be transformed in a way that

supports ethnically diverse students in obtaining a college degree. This insight was furthered by

TABLE 2

Findings from this Study that were Consistent with the Literature (Banks, 2004)

Themes from interviews Themes from observations Overall results and comments

Content integration

Case studies; field research;

diverse texts

Content integration

Observed the artifacts from faculty

as they designed their online

curriculum and lesson plans.

All consistent with the literature.

The observational data, interview

data, and literature are consistent.

However, the observational and

interview data had different levels

of detail. The respondents described

how they used various texts. However,

for the observation—there were

limited textural sources that were

presented to me.

Knowledge construction

Perspectives of the discipline;

critical thinking

Knowledge construction

Observational data supported

interview data. More specifically,

critical thinking was seen through

several activities=assignments

including ‘‘neighborhood lab’’

and ‘‘online debates.’’

Generally consistent with the literature.

Observational and interview data were

inconsistent with literature. The

observations could not uncover

evidence of how the instructors taught

perspectives of the discipline. However,

with the richness of examples

of how critical thinking was designed

from the instructors—there is enough

detail to conclude that the subcategories

in both areas are related to the overall

category of Knowledge instruction.

Equity pedagogy

Interpreting diversity;

English as a second

language; learning styles;

teaching approaches

Equity pedagogy

Consistent with the interview data,

I observed written classroom

policies and notes that indicated

appropriate posting rules. Also, I

collected several artifacts

that asked students to select their

own culturally relevant texts.

All consistent with the literature.

Respondents regularly noted that

online instructors need to be deliberate

and purposeful in providing clarity

and non-offensive language. The

interviews indicated how

instructors are flexible in their course

objectives—some having students

co-create the class content.

Prejudice reduction

Empathy building; student-led

corrections; teacher

monitored interaction

Prejudice reduction

Various websites were identified,

either as the instructor shared the

student activity sheets—or having

seen the instructor lead me through

the website content.

All consistent across the literature,

interview, and observations

756 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 3

Instructional Practices and Resources Collected through Interviews and Observations (Banks, 2004)

Content integration

The subcategories

Case-studies Field research Diverse texts

. Texts: Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology; Our America for the case studies as well as for

preventative psychology based on ethnic populations.

. Nursing: Diversity in patients’ scenarios

. Give students assignments where they have to weigh the textbook concepts with experiences from their lives or from

the community in which they live in.

. Assignments where students must conduct community interviews; tackle the issues of language, identity, and

stigmatization within their communities.

. Have students attend art museums and compare cultural art with popular art.

. Service learning projects; share what they have learned as expanding the knowledge of their peers.

. A virtual field trip: http://www.youtube.com/ucberkeley

. Infuse content from human rights websites that use documentary films to teach students about various social justice

issues. http://www.humanrightsproject.org/content.php?sec=about

Knowledge construction

The subcategories

Perspectives of the discipline Critical thinking

. Provide an open discussion for various perspectives: Geologists versus Christian perspectives.

. Providing modern context for unenlightened points of view: 1890 anthropologist views on Native Americans.

. Look at the privileged groups and language within higher education: Note effects upon diversity within higher

education for ethnic diversity, age, gender, disability.

. Set-up online debates and assign the topic and perspectives of each group. http://www.swlearning.com/economics/

policy_debates/econ_debates_labor_markets.html

Equity pedagogy

The subcategories

Interpreting diversity English as a second language Learning styles Teaching approaches

. Utilize weblinks for APA style guide but writing in various languages.

. Consider that online classes are text-heavy and can be difficult for students for whom English is their second

language. Consider http://www.englishclub.com/esl-games/ also the Purdue Online Writing lab was noted: http://

owl.english.purdue.edu/

. Permit students to form groups but actively monitor online work groups; Latino or Spanish-speaking groups will

identify themselves immediately.

. Students may not be accustomed to a diverse classroom; thus, the instructor needs to be direct and monitor the

environment.

. Use journaling or e-portfolios so that that typical college writing formats are not privileged.

. Every curriculum has to be emergent, it has to be cocreated with students.

. Avoid technological privilege by making sure that online files are backward compatible. Don’t rely too much on

streaming of video—consider student’s bandwidth.

(Continued )

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 757

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hai-Jew (2008) who described the Enduring Legacies Program, which matches Banks’s (2004)

description of what an empowering school culture should provide.

Furthermore, when comparing the results with literature, it is argued that online classes fulfill

a broader definition of an empowering school culture. Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt (2006)

made a compelling argument that online classes, by providing access to students that may other-

wise not enroll in higher education, creates democratization of higher education. This point is

further supported by data from WAOL (2009) that shows Native American students are

enrolling in online classes at a higher percentage than face-to-face classes.

However, what were problematic in the results were faculty-respondent notions of online

learning as being ‘‘intimate.’’ Also, looking at the category of student profiles the words ‘‘trust’’

and ‘‘safety’’ were used by the instructor to describe the learning environment. The Banks

(2004) Multicultural Dimensions explicitly do not describe intimate or trusting connections

perceived by students as a descriptor of an empowering school culture. Yet, it is inferred that

the student biographies and the establishment of online identity (Turkle, 1999; Gruber, 1999),

or telepresence (Minsky, 1980; Dede, 1991), has manifested itself in the richness and openness

that can speak to a well-designed online course where students feel an empowering school

culture.

Yet, based on those conclusions, the literature was further engaged. As a result, the literature

explains why online classes, when properly designed, create a perception of an empowering and

safe culture by having students and faculty post their online biographies. Bray (2006) argued

that ‘‘online teachers and students can create a more egalitarian, empowered and, therefore,

TABLE 3

Continued

Prejudice reduction

The subcategories

Empathy building Student-led corrections Teacher-monitored interaction

. Form writing assignments framed around students reflecting when they were in the minority.

. Use online resources that illustrate how ethnic groups have been persecuted. For example, at: http://www.pbs.org/

itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/resources.html#guide

. Post on the class announcement page an online etiquette statement to avoid inflammatory posts.

. Facilitate student learning so that they understand the difference between open dialogue and offensive dialogue.

Empowering school culture and social structure

The subcategories

Technological access issues Online classes as empowering Intimate and revealing

. Instructors must confront the class with notions of race and gender because all students initially draw meaning from a

student’s name; create examples so students are careful about making racial assumptions or stereotypes.

. Note the practices of the Enduring Legacies Project—the role of faculty development and culturally appropriate case

studies (http://www.evergreen.edu/tribal/legaciesproject.htm).

. The instructor must set a safe online environment; this reduces student hesitations in online posting. This leads to a

more intimate, meaningful experience.

. Develop a planned curriculum around a student’s online biography.

758 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

productive educational relationship if they disclose and discuss their social diversity’’ (p. 1). In

essence, Bray (2006) is evoking the theory of telepresence. However, instead of trying new iden-

tities, Bray (2006) found that an honest student and instructor profile advanced and valued diver-

sity, which assisted her lesbian or gay students in ‘‘coming out’’ in her online class. Thus, online

courses can be a more open and empowering environment for students to share their identity and

learn about the cultural perspectives of each other.

Also, a significant finding was described in how some faculty-respondents were struggling if

online biographies created an empowering culture at the expense of students communicating

only within their perceived ethnic groups:

Because I have such a high percentage of Hispanic students in my [online] classes, they really seem

to focus on the student bios. Even when they are responding to different students—they have to

respond to different students for each topic every week and you know it is interesting—because

the Hispanic students respond to the other Hispanic students. I have to admit I have not found a

way to address that problem, if it is a problem. (Faculty-respondent #11)

TABLE 4

Findings from This Study That Were Inconsistent with the Literature

Themes from interviews Themes from observations Overall results and conclusions

Empowering school culture

Technological access issues;

online class as empowering;

intimate and revealing.

Respondents noted that online

classes and WAOL proves both

access and culturally empowering

content—in particular the

Enduring Legacies Project

being noted as a model program.

Empowering school culture

Intimate and revealing student

posts were seen.

Both students and instructors

commented on occasional

problems with access to links

and the electronic drop-box.

Collected artifacts on the

Enduring Legacies Program.

Both consistent and inconsistent with the

literature and across each area.

The literature doesn’t address ‘‘intimacy’’

as part of an empowering school

culture. Additionally, the observations

could not identify what was

empowering about online classes.

However, the literature argues that online

classes are significant in democratizing

higher education (Larreamendy-Joerns &

Leinhardt, 2006; Kramarae, 2001)—thus

based on student demographics for

online classes it can be argued that

online classes are ‘‘empowering.’’

Student profiles=bios

Instructors shared how these

opening week activities create

‘‘trust’’ and ‘‘safety’’ for

students. Some faculty-respondents

reported using this activity in

different ways: Creating an

assignment; requiring that students

read and respond to others’ bios.

Student profiles=bios

I noted a variety in the way

that students self-reported their

biography—from the very

superficial to the introspective.

However, based on Human

Subjects limitations on what

I could observe, I did not

collect data on students.

Additionally, I did not see

many faculty members

designing introspective bios.

Inconsistent with the literature.

Not clear if this is an extension

of Banks (2004) content

integration—or a separate category.

However, the observational and interview

data raised similar subcategories. This

finding seems to support the work of

Turkle (1999), Gruber (1999), and Bray

(2006) and the value of establishing

social presence in the classroom. Rich

introspective bios that encapsulates the

students identity leads to deeper cultural

self-knowledge and can lead to content

integration if successfully framed by the

instructor.

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 759

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

This finding led to social psychology literature and in particular Tatum’s (1997) Why areall of the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? As generally noted in Tatum (1997),

which would be an extension of the literature to fit these results, would also apply in online

class. In both face-to-face and online classes, minority students perceived the need to

self-segregate so they can safely develop their own cultural identity with students like them-

selves. Also it seemed to support a finding by Brigham (1993) where ethnic minority students

in face-to-face classes preferred a greater degree of social distance between races than the

White students. Also, this finding supports Rovai and Gallien’s (2005) discovery that online

African American students performed better in homogenous online groups than in hetero-

geneous online groups. Thus, it is concluded faculty should be conscious in supporting such

culturally homogenous online groups, yet become aware of the costs and benefits of online

cross-ethnic dialogues.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Consistency in research data, when compared to the literature, was evident through the

application of Banks’s (2004) categories of content integration, knowledge construction,

equity pedagogy, and prejudice reduction. Therefore, it can be concluded that online envir-

onments can offer as supportive an environment for multicultural curriculum development

as the face-to-face environment. Thus, to answer the larger research question—if multicul-

turalism plays a significant role in the traditional face-to-face college classroom, what role,

if any, does it play in an online classroom? The following is the answer: an equal or per-

haps greater role than it plays in the face-to-face classroom. This answer can be supported

by extending Banks’s (2004) framework with new concepts based on the results from this

study.

It was noted that most of the faculty-respondents taught humanities or social science

based courses. Yet, there was one faculty member who taught computer information sys-

tems and one who taught math who both noted that multicultural education does not relate

to their online teaching. This faculty response was not surprising, given that educational

content is often filled with unacknowledged biases (Banks, 2004). As noted by Hughes

(2007), online collaborative learning is inclusive of diversity and the instructor needs to

build congruence between students’ social identities and the interactions within the online

community. Clearly, as noted in the discussion section, the analysis of the results and rel-

evant literature supports personal biographies as an important aspect of an empowering

school culture.

The faculty-respondents in this study were conversant and generally aware of the ben-

efits of multicultural course design. Furthermore, WAOL supports that online faculty use

the Quality Matters rubric (Quality Matters, 2009) to assess aspects of the course design

and use of technology for the online faculty member. However, the Quality Matters

rubric, like other rubrics for online course design, does not include standards for asses-

sing multicultural pedagogy. Given this omission, it is recommended that individual com-

munity colleges establish a rubric for assessing online multicultural course development

and to assist faculty in understanding and applying theories of multicultural education

in online classes.

760 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Identification of Biases

Being an African-American and asking mostly White faculty about how they adopted

multiculturalism within their online classes may have created perception of differing levels of

power. Additionally, within this context, qualitative interviewing may have raised experiences

and feelings within the respondent regarding diversity issues. Thus, the researcher could have

been perceived as having a hidden agenda by asking questions about multicultural design.

Yet, when the researcher is perceived as an insider, he or she must be mindful of his=her rolein the interaction and try to mitigate that perceived bias (Lofland & Lofland, 1995).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

The recruitment of faculty-respondents was solely based on faculty members volunteering to be

part of the study. As such, there was a lack of diversity within gender and academic programs of

the faculty. Out of the 24 faculty-respondents, only 3 of those respondents were male. Addition-

ally, social sciences and the humanities courses were the most frequently reported courses in the

study. There was a general lack of representation of science faculty responding to the study.

Future research can focus on the varied perceptions of male faculty and science faculty with

issues of online multicultural course design.

Concluding Remarks

Thus, these results answered the following research question: If multiculturalism plays a signifi-

cant role in the traditional face-to-face college classroom, then what role, if any, does it play in

an online classroom? In addressing this question, most faculty-respondents applied multicultural

pedagogical practices in intentional ways through multicultural curriculum design. Furthermore,

most of the faculty-respondents noted the special opportunities that online instruction provides

for multicultural curriculum design. Although there are several faculty that are attempting mind-

ful multicultural practices, there is certainly a larger group of online faculty members, those who

did not volunteer for this study, who might be both unaware of the need and unaware of the

range of available methods for adopting multicultural pedagogical approaches in their online

classes. Thus, it is hoped that this research, by creating a conceptual framework of separate

but interrelated work on online learning and multicultural education, will lead to improvements

in the way we teach and learn in increasingly more diverse online environments.

REFERENCES

Alstete, J. W., & Beutell, N. J. (2004). Performance indicators in online distance learning courses: A study of manage-

ment education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 6–14.

Ambler, M. (2004). Distance education comes home. Tribal College, 15(4), 8–13.

Banks, J. A. (2004). Race, knowledge construction, and education in the United States: Lessons from history. In

J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 761

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Boyer, L., Brunner, B. R., Charles, T., & Coleman, P. (2006). Managing impressions in a virtual environment: Is ethnic

diversity a self-presentation strategy for colleges and universities? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

12(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/boyer.html

Bray, C. (2006). Coming out in bytes and pieces: Self-identification online. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,

2(3), 1–8.Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(23), 1933–1967.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Cutler, B. (1990). The fifth medium. American Demographics, 12(6), 24–29.

Dede, C. J. (1991). Emerging technologies: Impacts on distance learning. Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, 514, 146–158.

Distance education is coming to the Black colleges. (2004). The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 45(1), 112–114.Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duguet, P. (1995). Education: Face-to-face or distance? OECD Observer, 194, 7–21.

Flowers, L. A., Pasearelle, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in the first

year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 637–667.

Gaudelli, W. (2006). Convergence of technology and diversity: Experiences of two beginning teachers in web-based dis-

tance learning for global=multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 97–116.Gobbo, L. D., Nieckoski, M., Rodman, R., & Sheppard, K. (2004). Virtual limits: Multicultural dimensions of online

education. International Educator, 31, 30–39.

Gorski, P., Heidlebach, R., Howe, B., Jackson, M., & Tell, S. (2000). Forging communities for educational change with

e-mail discussion groups. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(4), 37–43.Gruber, S. (1999). I, a Mestiza, continually walk out of one culture into another: A virtual reshaping of feminist and

liberatory pedagogies. In K. Blair & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), In feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic

spaces (pp. 178–210). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational

outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.

Hai-Jew, S. (2008). Culturally targeted online course redesigns for English composition and research writing: A case

study. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 94–108.Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education. First Monday-Peer-reviewed

Journal on the Internet, 4(12), 1–24.

Heisler, J. M., & Crabill, S. L. (2006). Who are ‘‘stinkybug’’ and ‘‘packerfan4’’? Email pseudonyms and participants’

perceptions of demography, productivity, and personality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1).Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/vol12/issue1/heis-ler.html

Hughes, G. (2007). Diversity, identity and belonging in e-learning communities: Some theories and paradoxes. Teaching

in Higher Education, 12(5), 709–720.

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Education Media International,38(4), 281–287.

Kambutu, J. (2002). Administrators prefer technology-based distance learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,

3(3), 341–344.

Kerr, S. T. (1997a). Identifying and applying best practices in educational technology to information outreach effortsfor medical personnel. (Unpublished research paper). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Kerr, S. T. (1997b, November). Why Vygotsky? The role of theoretical psychology in Russian education reform. Paper

presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies conference, Seattle, WA.

Kramarae, C. (2001). The third shift: Women learning online. Washington, DC: American Association of University

Women Educational Foundation.

Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational

Research, 76(4), 567–605.Limburg, F., & Clark, C. (2006). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Teaching multicultural education online.

Multicultural Education, 13(3), 49–55.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

762 W. J. BROWN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, 14, 45–51.

Motteram, G., & Forrester, G. (2005). Becoming an online distance learner: What can be learned from students’

experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance Education, 26(3), 281–298.

Munoz, J. S. (2002). Disintegrating multiculturalism with technology. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 19–24.Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ngai, P. B. (2003). Linking distance and international education: A strategy for developing multicultural competence

among distance learners. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(2), 157–177.Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2004). Access and achievement in mathematics and science. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.

Banks (Eds.),Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 69–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus

asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172–1183.Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online

classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Quality Matters. (2009). Online rubric standards. Retrieved from http://qminstitute.org/home/Public%20Library/

About%20QM/RubricStandards2008-2010.pdf

Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational

Technology & Society, 10(4), 257–268.

Roblyer, M. D. (1996). Technology and cultural diversity: The ‘‘uneasy alliance.’’ Educational Technology, 36(3), 5–13.Rovai, A. P. (2002). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher

Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Rovai, A. P., & Gallien, L. B. (2005). Learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis of African American

and Caucasian online graduate students. The Journal of Negro Education, 74(1), 53–62.Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Seidman, I. E. (2005). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sherry, A. C, Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative

and qualitative method. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4–28.

Smith, D. R., & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning: Implications for the globalized

community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(1), 401–415.Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all of the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Bjorklund, S. A., & Parente, J. M. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in

the classroom: Does it promote student learning? Journal of Higher Education, 72(5), 509–522.Tolan, D. (2007, July). Making the visible the invisible. Online classroom: Ideas for effective online instruction, 7–8.

Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/~lmillio/IT598/Resources/02_Online%20students/Making%20Visible%20the%

20Invisible.pdf

Tonnies, F. (1940). Fundamental concepts of sociology (C. P. Loomis, Trans.). New York, NY: American Book.

Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and identity. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 643–648.

Vygotsky, E. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press (Original work published in 1934).

Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(1), 68–88.Washington Online (WAOL). (2008). Raw data from the surveys. Retrieved from http://www.waol.org/info/resources/

AllWAOLSurveyResponses.pdf

MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 763

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

16:

48 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014