Category: cfp Page 1 of 4

CFP: Equity of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (Journal of Computing in Higher Education)

Below is a call for papers for a special issue to be published by JCHE focusing on Equity of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education

Guest Editors:

Lin Lin Lipsmeyer, Southern Methodist University, USA
Nia Nixon, University of California, Irvine, USA
Judi Fusco, Digital Promise, USA
Pati Ruiz, Digital Promise, USA
Cassandra Kelley, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Erin Walker, University of Pittsburgh, USA

In this special issue, we center opportunities and challenges in the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) for promoting the equitable design, implementation, and use of technologies within higher education. Equity is meeting people where they are with what they need to be successful (Levinson,  Geron, &  Brighouse, 2022). Issues related to equity are multiple and complex, involving but not limited to the choice of learning goals in the design of technologies, facilitating broader access to emerging technologies, and ensuring that technologies are responsive to the needs of individuals and communities from historically and systematically excluded populations. We are looking for articles that engage meaningfully with topics related to equity as part of their research questions, design and implementation focus, data analysis, and/or discussion when considering AI systems in higher education. We are interested in articles that address the impact of AI technologies on psychological experiences, processes (e.g., sense of belonging, self-efficacy), and/or domain knowledge. How can we use AI to know what people are learning? How can we use AI to support a diversity of learners and teachers? How should AI technologies in education differ across different populations of learners?

As AI technologies become more sophisticated, there are increasing opportunities for human-AI partnerships in service of learning. There is a need for increased understanding of what might be involved in these partnerships, grounded in the learning sciences, educational psychology, assessment, and related fields. Alongside this work there is a need for technological advancements that ensure these technologies are designed and implemented in ways that advance equitable outcomes for historically and contemporarily underserved groups. Core questions in this space revolve around the roles for humans and AI systems in higher education; how should each contribute within these partnerships, what should humans take away from these partnerships, and what does learning look like in environments where AI is being widely used? Specific to the JCHE, what is the role of higher education in the evolution of more equitable human-AI partnership? We define equitable human-AI partnerships as one where humans of varied backgrounds and identities are included in the design and deployment of the technologies, have agency during use of the technologies, and all see positive outcomes that meet their individual and community goals as they use the technologies for learning and life.

Technologies offer extensions to human abilities but also areas where traditionally human skills might be lost or replaced, yielding opportunities and pitfalls. AI-based advancements can yield new opportunities for educational settings, including an improved ability to model learning across contexts, support learning in individual and group settings through personalized adaptations, and enhance learners’ and teachers’ ability to engage in learning environments. On the other side, the use of AI-based technologies can invite concerns related to privacy and overly prescriptive models of learning. They are often implemented inequitably, sometimes due to lack of equal access to the technologies, but also due to a lack of culturally relevant design for communities that are often most harmed by bias encoded in new technologies, and a misalignment between the goals of the technologies and the goals of the communities they serve. AI systems might also replace things students have been asked to do in the past and it is not clear what the implications are of new approaches, and what is lost and what is gained with these changes?

Unique Collaboration with CIRCLS

To support this important agenda related to foregrounding equity and inclusion in the design and understanding of AI technologies for Higher Ed, we are partnering with CIRCLS to host a series of three support sessions for authors submitting to this special issue that will provide additional resources for doing this effectively, as well as convening an Advisory Board to support the authors of submitted articles. Authors are strongly encouraged to participate in these sessions and engage with the Advisory Board as part of their submissions to this issue.
Key Topics

Papers considered for this special issue will report ground-breaking empirical research or present important conceptual and theoretical considerations on the conjunction of equity, inclusion, and AI. In general, papers may pursue one or several of the following goals:

  • Innovating new assessments, technologies, modeling, and pedagogies as we use more AI for learning across a variety of content domains.
  • Exploring the impact of AI technologies on marginalized communities
  • Investigating AI literacy, education, and awareness building
  • Defining equitable human-AI partnerships
  • Exploring the impact of AI technologies on domain knowledge and psychological experiences and processes (e.g., sense of belonging, self-efficacy)
  • Aligning goals of learning in this new AI-enhanced landscape with the diversity of goals held by students as they pursue higher education.
  • Engaging with topics such as but not limited to privacy, security, transparency, sustainability, labor costs, ethics, learner agency, learner diversity, and cultural relevance as they intersect with more equitable learning processes and outcomes.
  • Developing accountability metrics for researchers and educational technology development teams


December 15, 2023 — Abstracts of proposed papers due to the editors.

January 15, 2024: Authors notified of initial acceptance of abstracts.

February 2024 (Date TBD) – CIRCLS Support Session A

April 1, 2024 – Papers due in the Editorial Management system

June 1, 2024 — Reviews completed & authors notified of decisions

June 2024 (Date TBD) – CIRCLS Support Session B

October 1, 2024 — Revised manuscripts due

December 1, 2024 — Reviews completed & authors notified of decisions

February 15, 2025 — Final manuscripts due

March 15, 2025 – Final manuscripts sent to the publishers
Submission to the Special Issue

Indicate your interest in participating in the special issue by submitting your abstracts here at
For more information, resources, and updates related to this Special Issue, please visit the AI CIRCLS & JCHE Collaboration web page.


Meira Levinson, Tatiana Geron, and Harry Brighouse. 2022. Conceptions of Educational Equity. AERA Open 8: 23328584221121344. 

CFP: Equitable Educational Systems that Cultivate Thriving (in RRE)

CALL FOR PROPOSALS:  Equitable Educational Systems that Cultivate Thriving Review of Research in Education (RRE) Volume 49 (2025)

A plethora of evidence has demonstrated that education contributes in substantive ways
to the well-being and advancement of nations, communities, and individuals. Indeed,
researchers have documented for decades education’s remarkable benefits on a host
of metrics, including equity indicators (e.g., poverty reduction, social mobility, national
development). At the same time, however, scholars have documented a complicated
paradox; that is, just as educational systems can be designed to advance equity, schooling
policies and practices can also perpetuate inequalities (Carter & Welner, 2013; DiPrete &
Fox-Williams, 2021), leading to and reinforcing social stratification, cultural and linguistic
assimilation, and the erasure of Indigenous peoples (Lomawaima, 1999; Wiley, 2000).

A critical lesson from this historical tension is that educational systems must be intentional
in designing and implementing practices and structures with an explicit and ongoing focus
on equity and achieving social justice, which is, at a minimum, concerned with questions of
redistribution, recognition, and participation. Although this reasoning reflects a seemingly
straightforward logic, it represents a monumental challenge due in part to the intricacies
embedded in complex concepts such as justice. For instance, some conceptions of justice
emphasize individual rights while others focus on collective rights, and distinctions have
also been made between corrective and distributive justice. The latter has had a major
influence in deliberations and efforts to advance justice through the allocation of resources
among groups—i.e., the “morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens
among society’s members” (Young, 1990, p. 16). The focus is on the ways resources and
opportunities are distributed to determine the most equitable allocation patterns (e.g.,
high-quality teachers, rigorous curricular materials or course offerings, adequate facilities,
funding, extracurricular opportunities) (Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond &
Darling-Hammond, 2022). Framing equity in relation to access is necessary, but it alone is
insufficient for achieving just educational systems that contribute to collective well-being
and equitable societies. Distributive models concentrate on end-state patterns (e.g., school
racial segregation) often at the expense of attention to the precursors that formed such
inequities (e.g., structural determinants, unconscious biases, organizational contexts,
administrative processes) (Artiles, 2011, 2019; Young, 1990).

In this volume, we are interested in scholarship that wrestles with these and other
ambiguities, paradoxes, and tensions of educational equity. We are interested in
scholarly work that provides critical perspectives on educational equity, wrestling with
the ambiguities, paradoxes, and tensions associated with its conceptualization and its
historical and everyday applications. We aim to explore how education systems might move
to create policies and paradigms that support thriving and justice during formal schooling
and other learning spaces across the lifespan and across domains, with attention to both
individual and collective well-being and thriving. Such exploration includes raising questions
about the characteristics of equitable humanizing systems that cultivate collective thriving,
and interrogates theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of justice and its potential
tensions and ambiguities, including how we understand community, equity, and potential,
and do so to craft new directions forward.

Increasingly, research in education and in the health sciences has focused on thriving
(Cantor & Osher, 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine,
2019; Shonkoff, 2017). This work has called attention to embedded systemic inequities
(Bornstein et al., 2003; Huston & Bentley, 2009; Osher et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2019)
and to persistent structural barriers and dilemmas faced by children, youth, and families
in marginalized communities (Gadsden, 2017). Thriving is especially difficult to achieve
within educational, social, and legal systems, and this challenge is exacerbated by lack of
adequate attention to the continued harm created by institutionalized racism, colonialism,
ecological precarity, and systemic fragmentation. New and expansive frameworks and
research are needed that move past individualistic definitions of thriving and highlight
the possibilities for youth, families, and communities. We need to embrace our collective
imagination to create equitable systems that honor the whole person as well as community
needs, values, and desires (Tuck, 2009).

Our focus in this volume is on the ways that systems and practices can be used to promote
and ensure pathways for thriving. Whether and how youth thrive relies at least on how
education systems structure access to learning opportunities and meaningful participation
(e.g., Horsford et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Malin et al., 2020 ); how community and family
knowledge and resources are respected and engaged (e.g., Baker at al., 2016; Ishimaru,
2019;) and how multiple ways of knowing, thinking, and being are nurtured (e.g., Bang &
Medin, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2021;). This requires understanding and addressing, at a
minimum, the embedded nature of racial inequality in the everyday lives of students and
families and its mediating influence in the creation of educational inequalities (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2019; Nasir, Lee, Pea, & McKinney de Royston, 2020). In short, we are
interested in equity paradigms that push the traditional boundaries of justice visions and
have the potential to promote a more rigorous notion of thriving, one that takes seriously
the foundational paradigms that have created generational inequalities but are more than
critical responses to them.

For this volume, we invite papers that focus on the different ways in which we
conceptualize equity to formulate a robust multifaceted definition and advance policies
and practices that build capacities of the institutions, families, and communities in which
children and youth are located. While we expect proposed papers might focus on a range
of topics, we are asking each paper to wrestle with what we view as enduring tensions,
described below, that have challenged scholarship on equity and justice:
• The first is the tension between “good intentions” or the impulse to promote positive change and solutions alongside the longstanding persistence of theoretical and empirical frames that narrowly emphasize “broken” children, families, and communities. This tension requires us to move beyond deficit frames that still permeate theories and methods in our disciplines; to view young people, families, and communities as whole and fully human; and then to consider how to address their needs by building on the strengths, resilience, and values that are already
there in order to create systems that support thriving within and across communities.
The challenge here is to hold ourselves accountable not just for our intentions but also
for the ultimate impact of our work, both with respect to how systems use our work
and in relation to how our work disrupts or perpetuates deficit ideologies that feed
problematic constructions of communities.

• The second is the tension between a view of justice that is rooted in an
individualistic sensibility in contrast to a focus on collective well-being or
thriving. Rogoff (2003) has written about how our scholarship often serves to bring
into view only one of many possible lenses one could view a situation or learning
environment with. This tension highlights the tradition in education research that sees
equity or justice as equivalent to each child having their rights honored, rather than
all of the young people and their communities thriving collectively. When we shift the
lens, the tenor of the conversation and the possible solutions also shift. Addressing this
tension asks us to consider how we see the collective as more than just a collection of
individuals, and how we build the structures and systems to attend to collective well-

• The third tension, which builds from the first two, refers to intervention
efforts targeting individual students and families, as opposed to intervening
in systems that promote unwellness by utilizing policy levers, reconstructing
systems, or pursuing other theories and practices of change. The historical
tendency to focus on “fixing” individuals and families also has the unintended
consequence of reifying deficit orientations, and failing to intervene in the systems that
keep inequities in place. We invite authors to lean in on the kinds of policy levers and
systems (re)design that would support collective thriving, and the frameworks and ways
of knowing that might get us there.

• And finally, the fourth tension is the tendency to uphold disciplinary divides
versus engaging in expansive and deep interdisciplinarity. We too often
acknowledge the need for and value of interdisciplinarity in equity-driven scholarship,
and yet fail to engage systematically in interdisciplinary theorizing coupled with robust
methodological alignments. And yet, achieving robust interdisciplinarity is necessary
for the kinds of rethinking of equity problems and their potential solutions that match
the scale of challenges that we are facing (e.g., Warren et al., 2020). Engaging this
tension requires a clear understanding of what counts as interdisciplinarity, a critical
engagement with the genealogy of ideas that are integrated in interdisciplinary
frameworks, and an awareness of the implications of interdisciplinary ideas for
methodologies, as well as the ethical and historical demands of interdisciplinary work.

These tensions sit at the heart of scholarship on equity and justice in education, and
we must wrestle with them in order to make true progress toward building systems that
cultivate collective thriving. We name them explicitly because when we do not, we fall into
default ways of thinking, analyzing, and conceptualizing new possibilities with respect to
equitable and just systems in education. Generating fresh perspectives, with the potential
to support deep system transformation, will require us to take up these tensions, perhaps
reframe them in alternative or novel ways to gain clarity and push beyond our current
boundaries of thought and action. The complexities raised by these tensions are and will
remain central to the work of creating equitable education systems. The invitation in this
call is thus for us to think together at the edges of the education field. In other words, there
is no new brand of equity work that will provide a short-cut out of doing the hard work of
interrogating our field, our past, and our complicity in reproducing inequities again and

We invite papers that directly address one or more of these tensions, and that do so while
taking up a historical or contemporary research problem in policy or practice that has
implications for creating equitable education and learning systems that foster thriving.
Examples might include interdisciplinary conceptual or empirical manuscripts addressing
urgent and complex topics such as:

• Taking up our very definitions of equity, and tracing them over time, examining the
philosophical underpinnings of the ways we conceptualize, measure, and imagine equity
to inform solutions or reforms;
• Examining work on the future of ability differences and racial justice and utilizing an
interdisciplinary lens to explore the tensions between individual rights and collective
thriving, and offering a model to guide future research and systems design;
• Considering equity in education in the context of a changing climate, highlighting the
ways in which our deficit notions of families and communities have led to environmental
injustice, and offering a way to re-conceptualize the intertwined fate of communities to
achieve collective thriving;
• Exploring the role of big data and/or data science to support new lines of research on
equitable systems for thriving, examining the ways in which the current wave of attention
to setting up massive data systems runs the risk of leaning into reductive paradigms
and reproducing past inequities, and considering the properties of expansive new data
systems that provide a different possible directions forward;
• Reconsidering the “reading or other curricular wars” through an equity lens that puts
the public debates into historical context, that offers evidence about what we have
learned, and crafting a direction forward that reimagines the kinds of readers or learners
we want to have, and how we might get there;
• Employing a comparative lens to explore the nature of inequities and the building of
equity systems for thriving across geographic contexts and developmental domains.
These are just examples—we invite scholars to bring their creativity, and expansive and
interdisciplinary thinking, to reimagine new kinds of education and learning systems
that cultivate thriving within and across communities.

The focus of the volume both calls upon existing paradigms of equity and urges new
theoretical and analytic perspectives on transformative approaches to learning and
development in schools and other educational contexts. The present is an especially
important historical moment—i.e., within the mounting challenges to equity, learning,
and schooling—in which to address these longstanding issues and direct energies toward
change. Authors are encouraged to draw on conceptualizations of equity that
embrace the potential for transformation in the present moment, and to engage
our collective imaginations towards more ambitious futures. We invite teams
that can draw on knowledge across disciplines, that embrace the challenges of building
critical epistemic cultures in education, that weigh the possibilities of different types of
methodologies, that propose dynamic models and analytical methods, and that integrate
the voices of children, youth, families, and communities.

The editorial team will review proposals and invite authors to prepare manuscripts based
on the overall objectives of the volume and the promise of each proposed work. Proposals
are due by January 15, 2024. The authors who are invited to submit manuscripts will
be notified by March 28, 2024, and will be expected to submit final manuscripts for peer
review no later than August 15, 2024, to allow for publication in the spring of 2025.
Invited manuscripts will be subject to blind review.

Proposals for manuscripts should not exceed 1,000 words and should be submitted to All inquiries should be directed to RREeditor@aera.
net. Final manuscripts may not exceed 10,000 words (exclusive of references and figures).
Authors will also be expected to include in the AERA-RRE repository a detailed description
of the methods and procedures underlying their literature searches and a specification of
the relevant literatures that forms the basis for the analysis in the article.

Vivian Gadsden (General Editor)
David Osher (General Editor)
Megan Bang (Editor, Volume 2025)
Alfredo J. Artiles (Editor, Volume 2025)
Na’ilah Suad Nasir (Editor, Volume 2025)


Artiles, A. J. (2011). The Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture—Toward an
interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the
racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445.
Artiles, A. J. (2019). 14th annual Brown Lecture in Education Research—Re-envisioning
equity research: Disability identification disparities as a case in point. Educational
Researcher, 48(6), 325–335.
Baker, T. L., Wise, J., Kelley, G., & Skiba, R. J. (2016). Identifying barriers: Creating solutions
to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, 26(2), 161–184.
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the
navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.
Bornstein, M. H., Davidson, L., Keyes, C. L., & Moore, K. A. (Eds.). (2003). Well-being:
Positive development across the life course. Psychology Press.
Carter & Welner (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every
child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
Cantor, P., & Osher, D. (Eds.). (2021). The science of learning and development: Enhancing
the lives of all young people. Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2022). The civil rights road to deeper
learning: Five essentials for equity. Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Podolsky, A. (2019). Breaking the cycle of teacher shortages: What
kind of policies can make a difference?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 34–34.
DiPrete, T. A., & Fox-Williams, B. N. (2021). The relevance of inequality research in sociology
for inequality reduction. Socius, 7, 1–30.
Gadsden, V. L. (2017). Gender, race, class, and the politics of schooling in the inner city.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 12–31.
Huston, A. C., & Bentley, A. C. (2010). Human development in societal context. Annual
review of psychology, 61, 411–437.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and
communities. Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Asking a different question.
Teachers College Press.
Lee, C. D., White, G., & Dong, D. (2021). Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse.
National Academy of Education.
Lomawaima, K. T. (1999). The unnatural history of American Indian education. In K. Gayton
Swisher & J. W. Tippeconnic III (Eds.), Next steps: Research and practice to advance
Indian education (pp. 3–31). ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Malin, J. R., Brown, C., Ion, G., van Ackeren, I., Bremm, N., Luzmore, R., … & Rind, G. M.
(2020). World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in
education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–14.
Nasir, N., Lee, C., Pea, R., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2020). Handbook of the cultural
foundations of learning. Routledge.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The promise of
adolescence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. Author.
Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Williamson, S. (2018). Creating Safe, Equitable, Engaging
Schools: A Comprehensive, Evidence-Based Approach to Supporting Students. Harvard
Education Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Breakthrough impacts: What science tells us about supporting early
childhood development. YC Young Children, 72(2), 8–16.
Spencer, M. B., Fegley, S. G., & Harpalani, V. (2019). A theoretical and empirical
examination of identity as coping: Linking coping resources to the self processes of
African American youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 181–188.
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review,
79(3), 409–428.
Warren, B., Vossoughi, S., Rosebery, A. S., Bang, M., & Taylor, E. V. (2020). Multiple ways of
knowing*: Re-imagining disciplinary learning. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of
learning (pp. 277–294). Routledge.
Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the
United States. In T. Ricento (Ed). Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on
English, pp. 67–85.
Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.

Special issue CFP: Decolonizing Digital Learning: Equity Through Intentional Course Design

Below is a call for proposals for a special issue of Distance Education on the topic of Decolonizing Digital Learning: Equity Through Intentional Course Design. If you’re interesting in this area, you may also be interested in the special issue on Higher Education Futures at the intersection of justice, hope, and educational technology my colleagues and I are co-editing (submissions due by the end of October).

Decolonizing Digital Learning: Equity Through Intentional Course Design

Krystle Phirangee, University of Toronto,;

Lorne Foster, York University,

What’s the purpose of lived experience in assessments? How do we even grade lived experience? These were some of the questions asked by faculty during a departmental presentation focusing on assessment and course design in the ChatGPT era. It got us thinking about the digital divide and how much of the literature focuses on unequal access to digital technology and skills. Whereas the divide seems to go beyond access to impact what counts as knowledge and how it is represented and reshaped by power in distance learning modes.

When COVID-19 hit, many educational institutions pivoted to emergency remote teaching (ERT), which allowed learners to learn from anywhere at any time; making open, flexible, and distance learning models even more necessary in the education system. However, ERT amplified the digital divide and inequities among learners during the pandemic. Some governments tried to address this gap within their jurisdictions by giving devices to students who needed them but the lack of access to the appropriate supports (i.e., high-speed internet) and quality use of the technology (i.e., knowing how to navigate the technology) still caused disadvantages for students in completing their online work or attending online classes, thus limiting them from sharing their lived experience. In addition, the digital divide is now prevalent in online exam proctoring software, with the software disproportionately targeting marginalized students. There is also a need for caution when selecting and using online meeting tools, such as Zoom, since personal data from users were sent to Facebook and some classes were hacked by trolls posting offensive and hateful content (Peters et al., 2020). These realities highlight that technologies are not neutral in their development and deployment and as a result could cause unexpected disruptions and inequities in education.

Nevertheless, how these technologies are used in open, flexible, and distance learning in terms of course design and engaging students can make a difference (Dron, 2022), and has proven to be vital in minimizing such inequities. During the pandemic, many educators experimented with instructional strategies and assessments in open, flexible, and distance learning to further support learning, which also helped to inform new learning models. Research has shown that although many like open, flexible, and distance learning due to its convenience of learning from anywhere at any time, the distance between peers and the instructor has contributed to feelings of isolation and disconnection (Chan & Lee, 2010; Rush, 2015; Mbukusa et al., 2017)  In addition, identity incongruence, which refers to when a student’s identity clashes with or does not fit in with the group, has also been shown to be another contributing factor to such feelings among students (Hughes, 2007; Phirangee & Malec, 2017). Whereas identity congruence exists when students have a strong sense of community (SoC) that is a feeling of belonging and being accepted; having a strong SoC motivates students to participate more in their courses and thus lowers feelings of isolation and disconnection. This highlights the importance of using an equity lens in course design to minimize disengagement.

Others have harnessed the digital landscape to revitalize and preserve a culture to teach and pass on to the next generation. Many Indigenous communities have harnessed the digital landscape to revitalize and preserve their ways of knowing, languages, music, and stories through cellphone recordings, websites, an open language archived community and much more since resources to learn Indigenous languages continue to be limited due to the lack of trained teachers and materials that follow external standards and Western pedagogies (Meighan, 2021). There is now digital content created by and for Indigenous peoples, which has contributed to the ongoing decolonization of the digital landscape (Meighan, 2021). Therefore, by “addressing the inequities that may be affecting the learning of students in our classrooms, we can choose to design courses that make learning more accessible and obtainable to all students” (Woodford, 2022, p. 11).

Despite the digital divide needing improvements for both physical and non-physical access and equitable representation in knowledge, it is beginning to narrow, with the decolonizing of the digital landscape (Meighan, 2021). Decolonizing pedagogy requires that we critically wonder about knowledge and how we approach knowledge in ways that reinforce the “monolithic, monocultural, mono-epistemological academic traditions” (Biermann, 2011, p.386). This approach is concerned with what counts as knowledge and how it is represented and reshaped by power. As Kanu (2006) noted, we must decolonize the space of education, but to do this, we must decolonize the mind; in other words, we must be open to negotiating our own biases to develop a shared understanding. Digital learning and its associated pedagogies, “can help to realize higher education as an entry into new spaces and cultures of reasoning and understanding. They call, though, not just for a rare imagination on the part of the teacher but a preparedness to recede into the background and to tolerate a heightened level of pedagogical risk” (Peters et al., 2020, p.14).

This special issue aims to identify and examine specific decolonizing instructional strategies and intentional course design approaches used to create a more equitable open, flexible, and distance learning environment to minimize the inequities caused by the digital divide. The themes of the special issue will include, but are not limited to:

  • Uses of technology or its features to enhance learner’s sense of belonging;
  • Instructional strategies to foster identity congruence;
  • Culturally responsive teaching;
  • The role of lived experiences in assessments;
  • Using an equity lens to design online courses;
  • Leveraging universal design for learning principles;
  • Using educational technology platforms within distance learning to decolonize(dis)ability;
  • Indigenous knowledge and reclaiming diverse non-western centric epistemologies in distance learning;
  • Adopting a blended learning approach (i.e., blended, hyflex, and hybrid) to address student disconnection and inequities;

Call for papers: Higher Education Futures at the intersection of justice, hope, and educational technology

Please share with interested colleagues our call for papers for a special collection to be published by the International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.

Submission details and guidelines are available here.

Our societies face enormous economic, demographic, political, ecological, and social challenges. In this environment of uncertainty, doubts about the future of higher education have proliferated, particularly as demographic changes take hold, technology rapidly advances, wealth inequality increases, and climate destabilizes. In the face of these challenges, and in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have argued the time is right to not only tinker with the status quo, but to imagine otherwise, to imagine alternative higher education futures that are more hopeful, more equitable, and more just.

This collection invites prospective authors to turn towards reimagining the futures of education, and to contribute scholarship that speculates what higher education at the intersection of justice, hope, and educational technology could look like.

This is not a call for papers grounded in technological solutionism or technological determinism. The educational technology literature is replete with papers which are optimistic about the possibilities of technology. Rather, this call invites writing that imagines higher education and its practices otherwise, writing that engages the imagination from diverse and justice-oriented perspectives. In Houlden and Veletsianos (2022), for example, we noted that hopeful futures are shaped by themes such as “connection, agency and community and individual flourishment” and we have suggested that “hopepunk, solarpunk, and visionary fiction” can serve “as models of storytelling grounded in hope which imagines more liberatory education and learning futures.”

We are especially interested in scholarship that engages critically with educational technology issues while resisting oppression and despair; scholarship that begins with the ongoing undoing of colonial, racist, ableist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist structures of power; and scholarship that invites hope as a practice of change and not as a return to an idealized past.

This collection is open to diverse forms of research and scholarship, including empirical, theoretical, speculative, and anything in-between.

Topics of interest include higher education futures at the intersection of justice, hope, and educational technology that engage with

  • Speculative methods and pedagogies
  • Indigenous, Black, Queer, and (Dis)ability issues and methods
  • Reimagining technology in higher education
  • Co-creation with learners and/or other communities
  • Local and contextual realities

Research questions of interest may include but are not limited to

  • What does the intersection of hope, justice, and educational technology look like, or ought to look like?
  • How do current education systems need to transform to enable just and hopeful education futures?
  • How can we understand hope and justice in the context of higher education futures?
  • What is the role of hope and justice in imagining diverse education futures?
  • What are the roles and limits of technology in desirable, just, and hopeful higher education futures?
  • In what ways are hopeful and/or just technology-infused higher education futures similar or different across contexts?
  • How can hopeful futures be enacted beyond envisioning in higher education systems? For example, how might speculative futures scholarship address problems higher education faces today?
  • What do hopeful, speculative futures approaches reveal about current contexts and future orientations for higher education practices and policies?
  • What methods might be used to support generative higher education futures that are at the intersection of hope, justice, and educational technology?
  • What might empirical approaches to such futures look like within higher education settings?
  • Whose voices and perspectives are made explicit in generating hopeful educational futures, and how?


Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2022). Impossible Dreaming: On Speculative Education Fiction and Hopeful Learning Futures. Postdigital Science and Education.


Call opens: May 1, 2023

Call closes: October 31, 2023

Guest editors: 
George Veletsianos, Royal Roads University, Canada
Shandell Houlden, Royal Roads University, Canada
Jen Ross, University of Edinburgh, UK
Sakinah Alhadad, Griffith University, Australia
Camille Dickson-Deane, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

CFP: Rethinking Multimedia Design for Learning (special issue of the Journal of Applied Instructional Design)

Journal of Applied Instructional Design (JAID): Special Issue 2022 Call for  Proposals Rethinking Multimedia Design for Learning 

Special Issue Editors  

Dr. Ahmed Lachheb, Learning Experience Designer, Center for Academic Innovation,  University of Michigan.

Dr. Rebecca M. Quintana, Associate Director, Learning Experience Design, Center for  Academic Innovation and Adjunct Lecturer, School of Education, University of Michigan.

Dr. Chris Quintana, Associate Professor, School of Education, University of Michigan.

Jacob Fortman, Learning Experience Designer and Graduate Certificate Coordinator, Center  for Academic Innovation, University of Michigan.

Email contact for the Special Issue Editors:


Multimedia design for learning has been a topic of research and a core professional function  in the instructional design profession since its inception. Much of the research on multimedia  design for learning has been grounded in work such as Mayer (2002) to provide theoretical  models about the cognitive processing of multimedia information and practical guidelines for  using multimedia in learning contexts. However, as technology and modes of instruction  evolve and substantially change over time, the landscape of multimedia research and design  for learning must keep pace with modalities that emerge from new technologies. For  example, Ainsworth (2018) noted that human learning is inherently multi-representational  and that new representational forms are being invented as new educational technologies are  advanced. Yet, most—if not all—well-established principles of multimedia learning are  rooted in empirical research bounded by historical contexts that are different from today’s  21st-century learning landscape, as Hinderliter (2022) and Moore (2021) aptly remarked.

With the rise of technologies such as immersive digital simulations (Lui & Slotta, 2014),  embedded phenomena (Moher, 2006), augmented and virtual reality (Lindgren et al., 2016),  and other forms of interactive media, what counts as “good multimedia design for learning” is  less certain. This calls for a continued inquiry by instructional design and learning sciences  communities to re-examine long-held principles and approaches to support multimedia  design for learning and adequately attend to the affordances and features of new kinds of  technology-enhanced learning environments.

Contributors to this special issue are invited to present their view on how instructional  designers, educators, and researchers should rethink multimedia design for learning in  diverse technological contexts, from an applied research and practice perspectives, through  one of the following topics (although, this list is not exhaustive):

  • The challenges and opportunities in adhering to well-established theories and  guidelines of multimedia design for learning as they relate to new representational  forms and technology-enhanced learning environments
  • Proposed theoretical revisions or expansions to existing multimedia learning theory  given the modalities and approaches supported by new technologies (e.g., haptic  interactions, grounded and embodied learning, collaboration and remote learning  platforms)
  • Potential opportunities and limitations of emerging learning environments (e.g.,  augmented, mixed, and virtual reality) with respect to new types of affordances,  features, and modalities to support educational research and instructional design
  • Multimedia design failures and/or successes, and the lessons learned from bounded  or situated design experiences
  • Ethical, social, political, or economic considerations in the design of multimedia for  learning in 21st-century learning environments

Submissions from instructional design, learning sciences, and related fields that successfully  present scholarly work in K-12, higher education, and corporate training settings are  welcome. While there is some flexibility, submissions should be between 4,000 to 5,000  words in length (excluding references and appendices). We particularly welcome  submissions that are in line with the following types of submissions:

  • Instructional Design Practice 

This is an applied journal serving a practicing community. Our focus is on what  practitioners are doing in authentic contexts and their observed results. These  articles cover topics of broad concern to instructional design practitioners. The  articles should represent issues of practical importance to working designers.

  • Research Studies on Applied Instructional Design 

JAID is interested in publishing empirical studies exploring the application of  instructional design principles in applied settings. Quantitative and qualitative studies are welcome.

  • Instructional Design/Performance Design Position Papers 

JAID also accepts position papers that attempt to bridge theory and

practice. Examples may include conceptual frameworks and new ideas facing the  instructional design community. The paper must also provide enough information to  allow the replication of the innovation or continuation of the research in other  settings. Position papers must be based in the context of a theoretical framework. Efficacy data is strongly preferred, but not always required, contingent upon the  potential generalizability or value of the innovation.

Important Dates 

March 21, 2022 Call for proposals is open.
May 15, 2022 Interested authors should submit a brief 500-word proposal  to this form*
June 1, 2022 Invitation to submit full manuscript sent to authors.
August 1, 2022 Full manuscripts due.
September 15, 2022 Reviews completed and authors notified of decision
October 15, 2022 Revised manuscripts due
December 1, 2022 Final manuscripts due to JAID.
December 2022 Publication in 2022 special issue.


*Authors may contact the editorial team ( to discuss relevance  and fit prior to submitting their proposals.

Submission Process 

If invited to submit a full manuscript, please prepare submissions according to the JAID  guidelines:

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design (JAID) is a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by  the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)

CFP Special issue: Inclusive Distance Education for Learners with Dis/Abilities

Below is a call for proposals for papers to be published in a special issue of Distance Education.

Inclusive Distance Education for Learners with Dis/Abilities

Leading up to, and now moving through the COVID-19 Pandemic, educational institutions at all levels were developing a greater awareness of learners with diverse physical, emotional and learning challenges (de Bruin 2019; Sniatecki, et al., 2015; Kocdar & Bozkurt, 2022; Weedon & Riddell 2016). Despite the heightened awareness, educational opportunities for learners with dis/abilities are lagging. For example, while enrollment in institutions of higher education in the U.S. is increasing, degree completion rates for students with dis/abilities has been low (Järkestig Berggren et al. 2016).

Learners that are identified with disabilities are often seen for what they are unable to do without support versus what they can do in learning settings. Thus, it is critical to consider shifts in thinking from disability to dis/ability where learners are also acknowledged for their strengths and potential. Currently, these learners are considered at-risk of not receiving the same level of education as their peers, and thus there was a ‘necessity and urgency’ to provide learners with dis/abilities, access to the regular education system (UNESCO 1994, viii). Nations have stated their agreement and desire to provide an inclusive learning environment through their signing of the Salamanca Statement (1994), this was re-affirmed with the signing and rectification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), the Millennium Development Goals (2000), and most recently the UN Sustainable Development Goals (2016). As a result of these global movements, many countries have clarified and amended their respective laws to include access for learner with dis/abilities to educational opportunities at all levels.

The increasing use of distance learning strategies and affordances during the COVID-19 pandemic for all students can be seen as both an affordance and a barrier for learners with dis/abilities. A review of literature from Kinash et al. (2004) found that attending to the needs of students with dis/abilities held strong promise for ensuring online education would be accessible for all students, regardless of disability identity or status. This promising finding has not found its way into the growing use of technology in distance and online learning. Instead, there is a growing concern that access to the distance/online educational setting will solidfy within an ableist framing as it develops into a normative way of learning and away from the discourse of alternative, disruptive methods of learning. This is unfortunate since there is evidence that accessible instruction and inclusive practice lead to achievement for all students (Black et. al., 2014; Burgstahler 2015; Hromalik et al., 2018).

Such insights have important implications as universities and K-12 educational settings have increased their use of online and distance education strategies during the pandemic and will likely continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Since these modalities have the potential to address accessibility barriers and reshape expectations for when and how learning might occur, it is important to review how these strategies impact learners with dis/abilities in its current form (Xie et al., 2021). Clearly, it cannot be expected that students who stand to benefit substantially from inclusive efforts, such as increased accessibility of course materials, will automatically succeed merely because they are learning online or in some type of distance setting (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Layne et al., 2013; Xu & Jaggars, 2014).

The purpose of this special issue of Distance Education is to share research and theorize distance/online education practices across higher education and school settings (K-12) that attend to the inclusion of learners with dis/abilities. Accepted manuscripts will represent exemplary scholarship, reflect international perspectives, and embody the spirit of inclusion in the use of terminology, study design, and theoretical framing.

Suggested topics for this issue include:

  • Analysis/critique of policies in government/law-making bodies that expand or constrain online and distance learning and their potential to include/exclude learners with dis/abilities.
  • Analysis/critique of understanding about how to support learners with dis/abilities across primary, secondary, and tertiary distance education settings in various domains, including but not restricted to academic learning, social-emotional learning and life-long learning.
  • Empirical work, including design-based research approaches, documenting attempts at inclusive design and/or instruction in distance education or online settings and the various outcomes of these attempts, including student outcomes. (Note: Please do not send a study of perceptional outcomes without other sources of data).
  • Empirical or theoretical work about transition to, and from distance educational spaces as well as between two distance education spaces.
  • Theoretical work highlighting the intersectional and evolving notions of dis/ability and its implications for distance education; this can include post-human theories and lenses.
  • The preparation of instructors at primary, secondary, or tertiary education to teach online in ways that are inclusive and informed about dis/ability—meaning that instructors learn to teach using perspectives other than traditional behavior and/or cognitive construction of learning and disability.


Submission of 500-word abstract (  – May 16, 2022

Notification and invitation of articles – May 20, 2022

First draft submitted through Manuscript Central to Distance Education – July 18, 2022

Revision notifications – August 26, 2022

Second draft submitted through Manuscript Central – September 26, 2022

Final notifications of acceptance – October 10, 2022


Special Issue Editors

Mary Rice
University of New Mexico, , Albuquerque, USA

Michael Dunn
Washington State University, Vancouver, USA


Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education52(2), 402-416.

Burgstahler, S., & Russo-Gleicher, R. J. (2015). Applying universal design to address the needs of postsecondary students on the autism spectrum. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability28(2), 199-212.

De Bruin, K. (2019). The impact of inclusive education reforms on students with disability: An international comparison. International journal of inclusive education23(7-8), 811-826.

Hromalik, C. D., & Koszalka, T. A. (2018). Self-regulation of the use of digital resources in an online language learning course improves learning outcomes. Distance Education39(4), 528-547.

Järkestig Berggren, U., Rowan, D., Bergbäck, E., & Blomberg, B. (2016). Disabled students’ experiences of higher education in Sweden, the Czech Republic, and the United States–a comparative institutional analysis. Disability & Society31(3), 339-356.

Kinash, S., Crichton, S., & Kim-Rupnow, W. S. (2004). A review of 2000-2003 literature at the intersection of online learning and disability. American Journal of Distance Education18(1), 5-19.

Kocdar S., Bozkurt A. (2022) Supporting learners with special needs in Open, Distance, and digital education. In Zawacki-Richter O., Jung I. (Eds.) Handbook of open, distance and digital education.

Layne, M., Boston, W. E., & Ice, P. (2013). A longitudinal study of online learners: Shoppers, swirlers, stoppers, and succeeders as a function of demographic characteristics. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(2), 1-12.

Nair, S., Naidu, V., Judd, M., Kinash, S., Fleming, J., Santhanam, E., … & Tulloch, M. (2015). Case studies to enhance online student evaluation: University of Western Australia–A journey towards greater engagement through closing-the-loop. Learning and Teaching papers118.

Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., & Snell, L. H. (2015). Faculty Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding College Students with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability28(3), 259-275.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.

United Nations (2016). 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Weedon, E., & Riddell, S. (2016). Higher education in Europe: widening participation. In Widening higher education participation (pp. 49-61). Chandos Publishing.

Xie, J., Gulinna, A., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education42(1), 70-87.

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education85(5), 633-659.

Call for chapters- AECT at 100: A Century of Leadership in Educational Technology 

Sharing this CFP on behalf of colleagues.

The editors of AECT at 100: A Century of Leadership in Educational Technology have extended this call for chapter proposals until November 30, 2021 and are still accepting submissions on a variety of topics, particulary in the gap areas highlighted in the attached revised call for chapters.


The purpose of this book is to highlight AECT’s 100 years of leadership in educational technology and learning. AECT has a rich history, evolving from the National Education Association’s (NEA) Department of Visual Instruction (DVI) and later the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction (DAVI). Over its 100 years, AECT and its members have had a substantial impact on the evolution of American educational technology and learning, including in the areas of audiovisual instruction, instructional design, and online learning. This book seeks to recognize the individuals within AECT whose leadership has contributed to the survival of the association and to the association’s impact on the field of educational technology. Additionally, issues faced in the field and research and theory topics over the years will be addressed.


A full description of the updated call is attached and can also be found at:


Initial proposals should include an extended abstract for chapters (1000 words plus representative references) or a description of a leader spotlight (500 words plus a summary who the spotlight will address and what makes the spotlight interesting to readers and/or researchers

To submit your proposal go to


A list of author resources are provided at the following page.

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén