CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Online and Blended LearningTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesGlobal Education and Multiculturalism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Knowledge and Practices of Online Faculty

Open access
Heitner, Keri L., Jennings, Miranda·2016·Online Learning
DOI 10.24059/olj.v20i4.1043
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cultural differences between faculty and their students can create important challenges that affect the quality and efficacy of online teaching and learning. The objectives of this study were to: (a) create and pilot test an assessment for online faculty to measure culturally responsive teaching knowledge (CRT) and culturally responsive educational practices (CREP) in teaching and advising students of color, military students, LGBTQ students, religious minority students, and international students; (b) describe participants’ CRT knowledge, value, and CREP; and (c) examine differences between their knowledge and their practices. The combined pilot and main study sample was comprised of 47 completed surveys. Internal consistency reliability was high for all subscales (.895-.970); subscale intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from .526-.833. The pilot round revealed strong face and content validity. Campbell-Fiske multitrait-multimethod matrix generated evidence of construct validity. Within-group comparisons of subscale scores using Wilcoxon Signed-ranks test revealed some significant differences between perceived knowledge and practice. Mann Whitney U test did not reveal significant differences in subscale scores or overall score by sector, degree level taught, or gender. The results have important implications for faculty training, professional development, mentoring, and support. Faculty who teach online who understand and value culturally responsive pedagogy and have the knowledge and skills to implement best practices in meeting the needs of diverse learners will enhance both teaching and learning. Culturally responsive knowledges and practice are particularly important as online programs are becoming ubiquitous across traditional institutions of higher education and their core faculty are teaching an increasingly diverse student body.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24059/olj.v20i4.1043

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heitner, K. L., & Jennings, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Phoenix (US)
  • Northcentral University (US)
ORCID
Heitner, Keri L.
Venue
Online Learning
Publisher
The Online Learning Consortium
Published
2016-12-16
Volume
20
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1092-8235 (ISSN-L)
  • 2472-5730
  • 2472-5749
DOI
10.24059/olj.v20i4.1043
OpenAlex
W2588900129
Cited by
76
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Online Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Global Education and Multiculturalism
Keywords
culturally responsive teaching, online instructors, students of color, military cadets, LGBTQ students, international students, faculty training, faculty professional development, student diversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review