Log on:
Powered by Elgg

Ania Rolinska :: Blog :: ENTRY FOUR - ON INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION ONLINE

January 30, 2011

This post continues a theme from the second entry: Remember the Human

 

One of the stories from week one described a situation in which a wheelchair user participated in an online course – an example of inclusion on a logistical level where online creates a convenient and easily accessible environment for learners with disabilities. However, as I mentioned in the previous posting, online might offer inclusion in other respects too. In that particular case the disabled student chose to keep their health condition secret. That could have been dictated by many motives, for instance their unwillingness to manifest their otherness and so not to get ‘preferential’ treatment (being it true or fake sympathy or even harassment – hence inverted commas – or a degree of favouritism in assessment – ‘She is scraping through but since she is disabled and so making an extra effort to continue her education, let’s reward her with a higher mark) or the fact that they thought it was irrelevant in the given circumstances. Whatever the reason, the person did not experience any exclusion which could have otherwise occurred, became an integral part of the group and only at the in an off-hand remark revealed the actual state of things.

 

Clara, you pointed out in your comment that this might be just illusion of receiving equal treatment and so the need to hide a part of oneself might be considered exclusionary. I agree you can’t be certain whether the environment is inclusive or exclusive unless you test the waters by simply revealing who you really are and the others’ gut reaction might provide the proof of the pudding (I’m not sure though what counts as a gut reaction online and how you measure it!) However, I think it all comes down to how the ‘other’ person perceives themselves. If the self-perception is linked with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, then the main reason for withholding the truth might be fear and thus could count as exclusionary. If there is acceptance of the condition in the person and they simply opt out because they think it’s their private matter and it’s not pertinent to the course (but if asked, they would admit it), then it’s more inclusive. I think what I wanted to stress in my previous post is that the online might offer more control over private information to learners with disabilities or belonging to minorities (sexual, racial, cultural, religious) who could be subjected to discriminatory behaviour and simply denied access to the group on the grounds that they are transsexual, a Gypsy, an orthodox Muslim or Palestinian. They identify themselves to others, thus shaping the way the others can interpret them (‘if the [visual] cues are not discussed, pragmatically they do not “exist;” textualisation constitutes “reality”’ [Lai & Ball, 2004: 24]). Thanks to that they can promote themselves as individuals without being unjustly associated with  collective stereotypes that every Palestinian is a terrorist.

 

I think the idea of inclusion and exclusion might have some connection with how the participant sees themselves, especially in relation to other people. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs the needs of love/belonging (feeling of acceptance  by the community)  and esteem (being valued and respected by others) constitute two of the 4 basic deficiency needs, coming right after physiological and safety belonging needs. If these needs are not satisfied, a person might experience feelings of social anxiety and develop notions of low self-esteem and inferiority, which in extreme cases might lead to depression.

 

Levy (1998:34) pointed out that the boundaries between the private and the public blur online. Once I log into the course VLE, the classroom and my own cosy room penetrate each other. For this reason, it is often claimed that shy, less confident students often feel empowered by the online medium and contribute more when seated within their comfort zone than in an actual face-to-face classroom ([Faculty Focus, 2010] but I need to find more references). By more active participation they might start blossoming, gelling with the rest of the group,  building relationships and gaining respect of the others, thus satisfying their needs of belonging, a certain sign of online being inclusive.

However, and this is me thinking aloud, it might also happen that some hypersensitive and more vulnerable individuals might experience enhanced insecurity and anxiety, and in their fear of losing face, they might post nothing or very little to the forum. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to contribute, they might fade into oblivion (especially on big courses, self-study courses, or courses where participation is not part of assessment). In such a situation in order defend themselves and to pre-empt any imagined rejection they might project feelings of dislike, or even hostility onto their actually neutral coursemates. By doing so they exclude themselves from the group, in extreme cases spiraling downwards to depression.

 

Online experiences can shape the way we perceive ourselves, can’t they? An example (although this is personal it’s just an observation, I was just analyzing my thoughts and feelings): I posted my introduction to the forum, nothing fancy but that’s me (or how I see myself), no frills, straightforward. No response from anybody and a thought creeps into my mind: quite pejorative self-assessment fed by feelings of hurt, exaggerated by other circumstances having nothing to do with the course. A moment of reflection and I slowly regain the grasp of the reality (accompanied, however, by a shrug of shoulders). Then somebody replied, so far it seems the only fellow student I established some communication with. I don’t feel part of the group … Self-exclusion but I’m ok with it. How many students do a similar thing, how many students do it and are ok? How many do it and suffer in silence? And what should a tutor do? Fish them out and save (but the course is not a psychotherapy session), reason with them (it’s good for their learning to participate and it strengthens the fabric of the course and network) or maybe  leave them in peace (they are adults after all and so should know themselves what’s best, they are responsible for their actions).

 

Keywords: exclusion, IDEL11, inclusion, online relationships

Posted by Ania Rolinska


Comments

  1. Great point about it coming down to self perception and I take your point that the key is around visual cues (handy quote from Lai & Ball!). 

    I completely concur with your point about the double-edged sword of permeable spaces.  This ties to a point I was just discussing with another student in their blog – that the scenarios from week 1 could be argued to illustrate how we perceive and impose our own filtered expectations and assumptions on to a interactions (online or off).  By that I mean, with the lack of social context (cues, background knowledge about people) we have a tendency to fill in the gaps with our own concerns, insecurities and fears.  Linking this to your point on Maslow – perhaps the solution is to ensure the space is both social and safe enough for the digital equivalent of these basics and safety needs to have been met.

    I feel for your introductory experience (and using these kind of examples is both welcomed on the bog and also brilliantly illustrates your argument).  It’s an issue that others have blogged on as well – the impact of the lonely post.  It points to one of the inherent tensions of online learning  - the claim to being flexible and individual but also the need to time activities so that students are participating when everyone else is.  As a tutor, I often wait a day, see if anyone has responded and if not, come in with a response myself.  But is that too much like being paired up with the teacher?
     

    Clara O'SheaClara O'Shea on Wednesday, 02 February 2011, 11:48 GMT # |

You must be logged in to post a comment.