Category: weekly-reflection

Photo by Vonecia Carswell on Unsplash

This week’s readings focused on inclusivity and how to make education accessible for everybody.  I really enjoyed the readings because I’m genuinely interested in inclusivity, especially inclusive design. I think it’s important to recognize that learners have diverse needs, and creating flexible, accessible learning environments helps ensure that no one is left behind.

My interest in inclusivity stems from being extremely shy during childhood, where I often found myself on the margins in social and academic settings. I became aware of subtle cues such as when I was genuinely welcomed versus merely tolerated, and those experiences had a lasting impact on my mental health. Feeling excluded or invisible shaped how I see the world, and it’s made me deeply empathetic toward others who might not feel like they belong.

I also became interested in inclusive design after watching a YouTuber, who is color blind, deeply moved by a video game that included color blind mode. He genuinely appreciated the game more because it accommodated his needs, and it made me think more about how design can create more meaningful and accessible experiences for everyone. I try to apply this into my personal projects, such as adding subtitles or captions or adding high contrast color palettes. Here is a short video that demonstrates how gamers can benefit from color blind modes by simulating color blindness.

That being said, I enjoyed the Inclusive Design Research Centre’s (n.d.) article and found its emphasis on individual variability and co-creation insightful.  It resonated with me and reinforced ideas I was already familiar with. I really like this line: “Co-designers are not just invited to a “table” that wasn’t designed with them, but included from the beginning to design an inclusive process.”  It shows the importance of moving beyond tokenism in design, and as someone who was on the receiving end, it’s painfully obvious when you are treated as more of an afterthought.

The readings made me reflect on the process of inclusivity and how it’s not just about saying, “Oh, look at this extra thing I did for you.” True inclusion goes beyond adding a feature here and there, and it’s about embedding inclusive thinking into the entire design process from the start.

There was a recent emergence of people recognizing female characters that were clearly written by a man or a woman, with people increasingly able to recognize the difference in how they’re portrayed.  Here is a funny article that shows instances of male authors writing female characters in an unrealistic manner. In the below picture, are you able to tell which female character was designed and written by a woman vs a man?

Elizabeth from Seven Deadly Sins (Left) and Frieren from Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End (Right)

This is not to generalize authors from either gender, but as someone who consumes a lot of media, I notice that women written by men are mostly included to elevate the male characters and lack anything beyond sexual appeal or stereotypes. Most of the time, I can overlook it, accept that it’s just a story, and move on. But there are moments when it really puts me off and pulls me out of the experience. This is a very common occurrence in anime, although improvements have been notably made in recent years.

(As a side note, I want to emphasize that I don’t believe male authors are inherently worse at writing female characters. Many have created incredible stories that have deeply impacted my life. One of the best examples, in my opinion, is Hajime Isayama. In his work, characters are written as complex individuals first and foremost, without relying on stereotypes.) 

All of this is to say that inclusivity matters. When creators do not incorporate their creations with care or authenticity, it can alienate people, especially those who rarely see themselves represented accurately. Having a female character doesn’t automatically mean that you’ve achieved inclusivity if the character doesn’t help people feel seen or connected to the narrative. Just like how incorporating one feature doesn’t automatically mean that you’ve achieved inclusive design. Authenticity and care matters, and it’s really obvious when designs lack these.

Reference

Inclusive Design Research Centre. (n.d.). What is inclusive design? Inclusive Design Research Centre. https://idrc.ocadu.ca/about/philosophy/

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash

Throughout my education, I have had numerous opportunities to engage in online courses. I was more compelled to take online courses because of how convenient it was to be in the comfort of my own home while still getting credits. However, I also noticed that I was quick to drop online courses within the first two weeks because of how distant it felt. Furthermore, I have had many experiences where professors in online courses seemed to brush off the importance of teaching and social presence, especially in asynchronous courses; which is strange because you’d think they would do the opposite to make up for the lack of face-to-face interactions.

Even in face-to-face classes, I found myself getting frustrated when professors were physically present but would not communicate with students, such as providing feedback on assignments leading up to the course’s final project. I just felt like I wasn’t getting the most out of the class because, even though the professor was knowledgeable, they barely put any emphasis on teaching processes which affected their ability to teach effectively.

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

Barnes’ (2016) work resonated with me the most in this week’s readings because I could personally relate to the topics and issues discussed. I liked how she mentioned that “deep knowledge of subject matter is only one piece of being a quality instructor” and that content and process are both equally formidable in complexity. I definitely felt that a lot of my professors were knowledgeable but were not very great at teaching. I’ll admit that I’ve been guilty of this myself. In the past, I’ve been asked to tutor younger friends, but I often struggled to teach them effectively because I couldn’t fully understand their perspective or pinpoint exactly where their confusion stemmed from. It made me realize that the teaching process is important (I might even say MORE important) than having knowledge of a certain concept.

Teaching presence, as defined in Barnes’ work, is defined as “the ability to structure the class, create the social environment, give instruction, and assess student work… the basis for creating a community of inquiry in an online class where successful learning can occur” (2016).  It’s easier to have teaching presence in face-to-face classrooms, but it’s what brings life to online courses. It clarifies expectations and ensures that students feel supported, and when done well, teaching presence bridges the gap between content and learner. I really appreciate teachers that are successful at establishing teaching presence.

Barnes’ work also mentions social presence, and I agree that successfully established social presence in online courses makes me feel more connected and engaged (2016). When instructors and classmates actively participate, it helps humanize the online learning environment. For me, this kind of atmosphere makes the course more enjoyable and fosters intrinsic motivation since it makes me feel more invested in the material. Feeling like I’m part of a learning community instead of just as a student in a course has definitely made my learning experience more enjoyable and meaningful.

Reference

Barnes, C.L. (2016). “Where’s the Teacher? Defining the Role of Instructor Presence in Social Presence and Cognition in Online Education.” Humanizing Online Teaching and Learning. https://humanmooc.pressbooks.com/chapter/wheres-the-teacher-defining-the-role-of-instructor-presence-in-social-presence-and-cognition-in-online-education/

Photo by Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

For this week’s readings, I was able to read Bozkurt et al and Selwyn et al’s work, but was unable to access “Facing up to the dilemma of sustainable futures”. That being said, I enjoyed the readings and thought about the central theme between the two, which is about ethical and social responsibility when it comes to the future of EdTech. Selwyn et al’s article was insightful because it illustrated how systemic inequalities continue to shape who benefits from digital advancements (2019). I believe that the digitalization of education has been incredible for removing barriers to education because technically anyone can using it to learn about anything they want if they do enough research. Technology is incredibly convenient and helps students access information anytime anywhere.  But with any technological innovation, they can perpetuate educational disparities by benefiting those with more resources and digital fluency. I have noticed that schools are addressing this by providing students with Macbooks at an early age, which is incredible because it means that students who don’t have the means to own technology equipment will have the opportunity to develop digital fluency at school.  The article mentions something that really stuck out to me, which is the idea that classrooms could become extensions of corporate data farms, especially when decisions about educational tools are driven by private companies rather than public sectors (Selwyn et al, 2019, p.3). It does make me wonder, how do we make sure that educational tools serve students and the public good and not just market interest? The authors’ take on this question is stressing the importance of helping educators stay in control, rather than letting companies dictate how education evolves (Selwyn et al, 2019, p.4).

The other reading by Bozkurt et al complements Selwyn et al’s work by providing grounded examples of how AI is already reshaping learning in both higher education and K-12 (2023). It presents a more optimistic yet cautious view which is similar to my short presentation assignment where I discussed AI grading. We both came to similar conclusions, which is that Ai has immense potential to personalie learning and enhance student engagement, but only if it’s implemented thoughtfully and ethically. Concerns about bias and privacy aren’t just side notes, but structural issues that need to be addressed. The authors really go into this idea more though by calling a need for AI literacy and the development of new, creative assessment models to prepare both educators and students not just to use AI, but to critically engage with it (Bozkurt et al, 2023). Taking these readings in together, both readings suggest that the challenges of the 2020s is to shape emerging technologies in ways that reflect the needs and demands of our societies.

My personal thoughts on AI is that it is an incredible tool that can automate so many tasks and help redirect focus away from repetitive and meticulous tasks to more meaningful areas of work. I think it’s pointless to tell students to not use AI because:

1. They absolutely will use it regardless, and restriction just results in sneakier students
2.  It denies students a valuable educational tool.

Photo by Emiliano Vittoriosi on Unsplash

Bozkurt et al’s work resonated with me because it acknowledges that instead of trying to control and restrict students, that we should try to work around emerging technologies and adapt to it. I believe this mindset has the potential to create positive, lasting changes in how we teach and learn, but only if AI is implemented thoughtfully and with clear purpose. Although I am not an educator myself, I’ve seen numerous videos and online posts from teachers who express concern that students are becoming overly reliant on AI tools. Some educators have observed that students struggle to engage in critical thinking or problem-solving independently, turning to AI for quick answers instead of working through the learning process.

However, if students are already using these tools, then the solution isn’t to ban or shame their use, but to guide it. We should focus on teaching students how to use AI responsibly and critically. Empowering students to engage with AI thoughtfully will better prepare them for a future where these technologies are deeply embedded in everyday life.

References

Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., Farrow, R., Bond, M., Nerantzi, C., Honeychurch, S., Bali, M., Dron, J., Mir, K., Stewart, B., Costello, E., Mason, J., Stracke, C. M., Romero‑Hall, E., Koutropoulos, A., Toquero, C. M., Singh, L., Tlili, A., Lee, K., Nichols, M., Ossiannilsson, E., Brown, M., Irvine, V., Raffaghelli, J. E., Santos‑Hermosa, G., Farrell, O., Adam, T., Thong, Y. L., Sani‑Bozkurt, S., Sharma, R. C., Hrastinski, S., & Jandrić, P. (2020). What’s next for Ed‑Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945

Photo by Julia Taubitz on Unsplash

For Week 2’s readings, David Wiley and Suzan Koseoglu’s posts stood out to me. Wiley’s blog argues  that there is an additional R in the 4Rs of Open Education Resources (OER), which is Retain (Wiley, 2014).  He explains that the problem with modern day textbooks is that students are usually offered temporary digital access through rentals or subscriptions. In short, students can read textbooks but they can’t keep them, which he believes takes away ownership and therefore power away from them. However, Koseoglu argues that open pedagogy is not just about ownership or technical permissions like the 5Rs (2017). Instead, she views it more as a teaching philosophy rooted in sharing, social justice, and creating inclusive classrooms (Koseoglu, 2020). For her, open pedagogy means inviting students into the learning process and to create an inclusive learning environment, even when OER isn’t involved. Wiley focuses on the tools that make open practices possible, but Koseoglu emphasizes the purpose behind those practices.

I see the value in both perspectives, but I find myself leaning more towards Koseoglu’s. Her framing of open pedagogy as an intentional human-centered practice resonates with me because it places students and their lived experiences at the heart of education. On the other hand, I (respectfully) disagree with parts of Wiley’s post, coming from a current student’s perspective. Wiley explains that giving students and educators should be able to retain content because it gives them control and long-term access to learning resources, even after a course ends. But in my own experience, ownership of textbooks have never felt particularly important, mainly because I often didn’t want the textbooks in the first place. I have dropped certain classes that required me to purchase textbooks because I didn’t want to spend additional money on a course when other courses are capable of offering substantial content without purchasing additional resources. And for the mandatory courses in my program that require textbooks, I don’t think I have ever used or had a desire to use them after the course ended.

This is not to say that I completely disagree with Wiley’s post. I don’t speak on behalf of all students since I know that there are some who have genuine interest in some of the textbooks presented in the class and have gained more value than I did from the resources. I would imagine that they’d agree with Wiley and would love the idea of being able to revisit and have ownership over previous temporarily-accessed readings.

Ultimately this week’s reading helped me reflect on what openness in education should actually serve. I believe learning should feel collaborative, inclusive, and centred on real student needs. In the end, it’s not just about what resources are available or who owns them, but how educators use those resources to build empowering, particapatory learning experiences.

References

Wiley, D. (2014). The Access Compromise and the 5th R. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221

Koseoglu, S. (2020). Open Pedagogy: A Response to David Wiley.  Rebus Community. https://press.rebus.community/openatthemargins/chapter/open-pedagogy-a-response-to-david-wiley/

For this week’s reading, I chose Heller & Leeder’s journal, “Distributing Knowledge Creation to Include Underrepresented Populations” (2025). This paper talks about how research and education often leave out diverse or underrepresented groups, which creates bias in the knowledge we have (Heller & Leeder, 2025, p. 252). It acknowledges that sharing knowledge through online and distance education is common today, but creating knowledge in a way that includes people from different places is still not widely done (Heller & Leeder, 2025, p. 253).  However, when research includes the experiences of people from various communities, it becomes more useful locally and more likely to influence policies and actions (Heller & Leeder, 2025, p. 253).

Something interesting that I found from the article was how it discussed three issues that show the need for distributed knowledge creation, and that one was colonial bias in knowledge systems. They explain that many academic systems still center Western ways of thinking, and that scholars from places like India and Mexico have pointed out that Western knowledge is often seen as “universal”, pushing out other perspectives (Heller & Leeder, 2025, p. 255). The authors argue that addressing this bias requires actively including underrepresented voices in research and education, which can help create more equitable  and meaningful knowledge that challenges existing structures.

As a health informatics student, learning about inequities in healthcare delivery has made me passionate about finding ways to make health systems  (or processes) more inclusive and equitable. This article stood out to me because it emphasizes the importance of including underrepresented populations in the research population itself, as active contributors to knowledge creation.  Although I have had good experiences with physicians, it was shocking for me to hear from other women how little some physicians knew (or were willing to help) when it came to women’s health. Of course, the physician’s personal biases affected their ability to deliver quality healthcare to their female patients, but I also believe that these instances reflect the lack of research and knowledge about women’s health (in spite of us making up half of the population). With how complex and dynamic the nature of healthcare is, I think it is irrational to believe that one model (aka the Western model) is sufficient to address the needs of our diverse population, and there are multiple studies that support this.

Some of the articles I have read in the past are:

• Hafeez, H., Zeshan, M., Tahir, M.A., Jahan, N., & Naveed, S. (2017). Health Care Disparities Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth: A Literature Review. Cureus. 9(4): e1184. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1184
• Phillips-Beck, W., Eni, R., Lavoie, J., Kinew, K.A., Achan, G., & Katz, A. (2020). Confronting Racism within the Canadian Healthcare System: Systemic Exclusion of First Nations from Quality and Consistent Care. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228343

I enjoyed reading this article because it reinforced the need to rethink how we produce and value knowledge, which is something that I am passionate about. It is especially relevant to me as a future health informatician because the collection of diverse health data is an important aspect to my career.

Reference(s):

Heller, R. F. & Leeder, S.R. (2025). Distributing Knowledge Creation to Include Underrepresented Populations. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 26(2): 252-267. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i2.8074