Introduction: Navigating the Digital Age as Learners and Educators
In an era where learning increasingly unfolds through screens, networks, and shared digital spaces, online participation and digital literacy have become indispensable for educators and learners alike. The Open Networked Learning (ONL) course’s first topic, Online Participation and Digital Literacies, invited participants to explore how we communicate, collaborate, and construct meaning in virtual environments. Beyond mastering tools and platforms, this topic illuminated the social, ethical, and affective dimensions of digital engagement. As our group, Roots & Routes, discussed, thriving in this environment requires confidence, critical thinking, and a reflective approach to our own digital identities.
Digital Participation and Engagement (Rotich)
Rotich emphasized that successful online participation depends on both student and faculty engagement. Students are expected to manage time effectively, maintain digital etiquette, and cultivate responsibility for their learning, while instructors must provide clear communication, accessible materials, and meaningful feedback. These practices are consistent with research showing that engagement in online education depends on the quality of digital interaction and the presence of “social immediacy” (Henry, 2020; Stancin et al., 2025).
Rotich’s insights align with pedagogical frameworks emphasizing community, connection, and autonomy as drivers of motivation in virtual classrooms. Faculty can encourage deeper participation by using strategies such as peer review, open discussions, and negotiated expectations for camera use, approaches that create belonging while respecting learners’ diverse contexts (Acacia University, n.d.). This balance reflects the human side of digital learning: building trust and connection through intentional design.
Modes of Participation: Synchronous, Asynchronous, and In-Person (Lia)
Lia compared online synchronous, asynchronous, and in-person learning, emphasizing that no single modality is superior. Each offers distinct advantages and limitations. Synchronous learning enables real-time dialogue and shared presence but demands coordination across time zones. Asynchronous formats promote flexibility and reflection but can feel impersonal. In-person settings strengthen social bonds yet lack the global reach of online environments.
Lia’s contribution underscores the value of a blended approach that integrates all three modes to cultivate meaningful inquiry. This mirrors findings by Afonso et al. (2025), who argue that hybrid and flexible models empower students to engage through varied learning rhythms and cultural lenses. By blending modalities, educators not only accommodate learners’ individual needs but also sustain community across digital boundaries.
AI and Authentic Participation (Daniela)
Daniela explored how generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude are transforming online class participation. She argued that discussion boards, once cornerstones of asynchronous interaction, risk losing their authenticity when students can generate responses instantly. This challenge calls for educators to rethink assessment and move toward authentic, reflective, and dialogic forms of engagement.
Daniela proposed alternatives such as oral assessments, reflective journals, and project-based learning, echoing Hertz’s (2025) call for assessment that fosters “genuine intellectual growth.” She also advocated for transparent institutional guidelines on AI use, framing it not as a threat but as a catalyst for redefining what constitutes meaningful participation. This approach positions AI as a partner in inquiry, not a shortcut to performance.
Developing Digital Literacies
I believe the essential role of faculty development is in building digital literacies. According to her synthesis, instructors who model consistent, creative technology use inspire students to develop their own competencies. Digital literacy, as Buchan et al. (2024) explain, extends beyond technical skills to include critical evaluation, adaptability, and ethical responsibility.
Supporting both students and faculty through professional development and mentorship enhances confidence and inclusivity in online learning spaces. This resonates with Zhang and Wu’s (2025) findings that faculty digital teaching skills directly influence teaching quality and student motivation. Ultimately, fostering digital literacy is not merely a technical endeavor; it is a human process of empowerment and connection.
Third Spaces and Brave Spaces
This topic also opened conversations around Third Spaces, a framework I explored deeply in my reflection. Drawing on Bhabha’s (1994) theory, the Third Space represents a hybrid zone where learners negotiate their personal and professional identities, merging what they know with who they are becoming. In online education, these spaces invite authenticity and intercultural dialogue, enabling students and educators to co-construct meaning beyond institutional boundaries (Zhang & Jian, 2020).
In my reflection, I emphasized that teaching in multilingual and multicultural environments requires co-creating Third Spaces where both teacher and learner bring their full selves into dialogue. As Fellows (2025) notes, digital third spaces foster “identity work and relational agency” that make learning personally significant.
While Third Spaces address identity and hybridity, Brave Spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013) add the emotional and ethical dimension necessary for learning in the open. The Six Pillars of Brave Space: vulnerability, storytelling, respectful challenge, accountability, empathy, and acknowledgment of inequity (University of Maryland School of Social Work, 2021), remind educators that discomfort is not failure but growth. To best capture this spirit, we need to understand that learning in the open requires managing the fear of being seen. As Rountree (2025) argues, such spaces become “ritual grounds for voice and belonging” when difference and discomfort are welcomed rather than silenced.
Conclusion
Our ONL group’s exploration of Online Participation and Digital Literacies revealed that thriving in digital education requires much more than technical proficiency. It involves cultivating critical awareness, emotional courage, and relational sensitivity. Lia’s focus on flexible modalities, Rotich’s insights on engagement, Daniela’s call for authenticity amid AI, the emphasis on literacy-building, and my reflection on Third and Brave Spaces all point to a shared truth: online learning is a deeply human practice. As learners and educators, our task is not only to navigate networks but to create spaces, digital or otherwise, where knowledge and identity evolve together.
References
Afonso, A., Morgado, L., Noguera, I., Sepúlveda-Parrini, P., Hernandez-Leo, D., Alkhasawneh, S. N., Spilker, M. J., & Carvalho, I. C. (2025). Flexible learning by design: Enhancing faculty digital competence and engagement through the FLeD project. Education Sciences, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070934
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus Publishing.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
Buchan, M. C., Bhawra, J., & Katapally, T. R. (2024). Navigating the digital world: Development of an evidence-based digital literacy program and assessment tool for youth. Smart Learning Environments, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00293-x
Fellows, A. (2025). Third spaces in digital pedagogy: Identity, agency, and relational learning. Routledge.
Henry, M. (2020). Online student expectations: A multifaceted, student-centered understanding of online education. Student Success, 11(3), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.1678
Hertz, A. (2025). Authentic assessment in the age of AI: Rethinking academic integrity and creativity. Journal of Digital Pedagogy, 9(2), 45–58.
Rountree, L. (2025). Voicing difference: Brave spaces in digital learning communities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Stancin, K., Jaksic, D., & Petrovic, A. (2025). How can we understand students’ needs and expectations in online courses to improve their engagement and learning experience? In Advances in Online Learning Research (pp. 97–118). Springer.
University of Maryland School of Social Work. (2021). The six pillars of brave space. https://share.google/014hEAo3Yn9ujJsYY
Zhang, J., & Wu, Y. (2025). Impact of university teachers’ digital teaching skills on teaching quality in higher education. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2436706
Zhang, X., & Jian, X. (2020). The third space and Chinese language pedagogy: Negotiating intenti
Leave a Reply