Design Justice in Online Courses: Principles and Applications for Higher Education

Definition

Design justice is an emerging framework that centers marginalized communities in the design of systems and technologies. Originating from the intersection of design, technology, and social justice movements, design justice challenges traditional design practices that often reinforce societal inequities. When applied to online education, it prompts critical examination of who benefits from digital learning environments and whose needs are overlooked. The framework operates on the principle that those most affected by a system should have a central role in designing it, going beyond accessible or universal design to fundamentally alter power structures within the design process itself. This entry introduces the principles of design justice and explores their relevance to online education and instructional design, arguing that seemingly neutral elements of course design—such as assessment modes, interface layout, or content formats can perpetuate inequities if created without attention to learners’ diverse contexts.

1. Introduction or History

Design justice in education calls for learning environments that confront inequities and prioritize the voices of those historically marginalized in academic spaces. Purposeful curricular choices can foster belonging and shift online learning climates toward more inclusive participation [1]. This perspective aligns with the view that education should be a liberatory practice that challenges dominant norms and affirms learner agency [2]. Together, these ideas position equitable course design as a justice-focused commitment that shapes who participates, who is heard, and who ultimately succeeds in our learning systems.

Online education has undergone a rapid and transformative expansion, moving from a niche alternative to a central pillar of the global educational landscape [3]. Research, including insights from [4,5], highlight the growing trend of online learning and its significant impact on higher education. These findings emphasize the need for institutions to adapt to increasing student demand for online learning, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. This includes developing robust online programs, building necessary infrastructure, and ensuring faculty are equipped to teach effectively in online and hybrid learning environments [6]. While this proliferation has increased access for many, it has also brought into sharp focus the systemic inequities and biases that can be embedded within digital learning environments. As online courses became the primary mode of instruction for millions, it became evident that the uncritical design of these systems could unintentionally disadvantage students from marginalized communities, highlighting a pressing need to adopt a more intentional, critical, and justice-oriented approach to instructional design [7]. Four empirically validated design justice principles that enhance online learning inclusivity for all students are transparent teaching, inclusive design, safe spaces, and accessibility measures [8]. This entry posits that seemingly neutral elements of course design can perpetuate inequities and advocates for applying these principles to advance equity and student agency in digital education.

Recent empirical research underscores the urgency of justice-centered approaches in online education. Post-pandemic studies reveal persistent digital divides that disadvantage marginalized students: Ref. [9] systematic review documented how online learning inequities disproportionately affect students from low-income backgrounds, rural areas, and underrepresented racial groups. Similarly, ref. [10] found that institutional responses to rapid online transition often amplified existing inequities rather than addressing them, with students lacking reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or private study spaces experiencing significantly lower engagement and completion rates. Ref. [11] documented declining engagement among STEM undergraduates during remote learning, with the steepest drops among first-generation college students and students of color. These findings demonstrate that technical access alone is insufficient; online learning environments must be deliberately designed with equity as a central goal. This entry, therefore, has three primary objectives: (1) to trace the emergence and evolution of design justice as applied to online higher education contexts; (2) to identify and synthesize empirically validated principles that promote equity in digital learning environments; and (3) to examine real-world applications, challenges, and future directions for justice-centered online course design. By examining design justice through these lenses, this entry contributes to the growing body of scholarship advocating for transformative rather than merely adaptive approaches to online education.

2. Defining Design Justice

Design justice is a framework that emerged from the intersection of design, technology, and social justice movements, fundamentally challenging traditional design practices that often reinforce societal inequities. This concept was formally articulated and popularized by [12]. The core premise of the framework is that design, far from being a neutral or objective practice, is a political act that shapes power dynamics, distributes benefits, and harms [13]. Ref. [1] found that integrating curricular interventions and ensuring diverse representation fostered a stronger sense of belonging and improved team dynamics. Recent research in design justice practice confirms that these approaches can create more inclusive online learning environments [14]. Design justice, therefore, seeks to reorient the design process to explicitly center the voices and needs of people who are typically marginalized, excluded, or harmed by existing technologies and systems. For example, ref. [15] advocates that pedagogy is central in course design, emphasizing that technological choices should serve educational goals rather than drive them.

At its heart, design justice is a design practice that centers marginalized voices and equity goals [12,13]. It operates on the principle that those who are most affected by a system should have a central role in designing it. This stands in contrast to conventional design methodologies that often involve creating solutions for a target user group without their direct input. The framework highlights how seemingly minor design decisions can have significant, and often negative, impacts on specific communities. For instance, the design of a facial recognition algorithm that struggles to identify people with darker skin tones is not a technical flaw but a consequence of a design process that did not prioritize or include marginalized groups in its development and testing [16]. Similarly, a public health app that assumes users have reliable internet access and smartphones may inadvertently exclude low-income communities.

The theoretical foundations of design justice extend beyond the seminal work of [12] to encompass broader critical frameworks. Ref. [17] data feminism framework complements design justice by examining how power operates through data and algorithms in educational technologies. Their principle of “elevating emotion and embodiment” is particularly relevant to online education, where data-driven decision-making (such as learning analytics or algorithmic grading) can erase the lived, embodied experiences of students. Ref. [18] describes Banjamin’s concept of the “New Jim Code” further illuminates how discriminatory design becomes encoded in educational technology, often under the guise of innovation or objectivity. These scholars collectively argue that technical solutions to educational challenges are never neutral; they carry the values, biases, and priorities of their creators and the systems in which they are embedded.

The design justice framework is distinct from, and goes beyond, other equity-oriented design practices such as universal design or accessible design. While universal design aims to create products and environments usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, and accessible design focuses on providing access for people with disabilities, design justice is more explicitly political and systemic [12]. It goes beyond creating a single, universally usable solution, and seeks to fundamentally alter the power structures within the design process itself. This means recognizing historical and ongoing systemic oppression—such as racism, sexism, ableism, and colonialism—and designing with the explicit goal of dismantling these injustices [2]. It moves the focus from making a product “equitable” to making the entire design process a vehicle for social change and liberation, supporting the idea espoused by [19].

3. Application to Online Education

The principles of design justice are particularly relevant to online education, which functions as a complex designed system. Digital learning environments are not natural or neutral spaces; they are intentionally constructed architectures comprising platforms, tools, and pedagogical strategies [3]. Every element, from the choice of a learning management system (LMS) to the format of an assignment, is a design decision that has consequences for learners [20]. Recognizing digital learning environments as designed systems allows us to critically examine the power dynamics inherent in their structure.

Power dynamics in online education are pervasive and often hidden. They manifest in various forms, such as:

Platform Choice: The selection of a proprietary LMS (e.g., Canvas Instructure, Blackboard Learn) over an open-source one can lock an institution into a specific set of features and policies, limiting customization and potentially excluding learners who cannot afford required software or devices. Research on MOOCs reveals that platform choices significantly impact diversity, equity, and inclusion outcomes [21,22].

Course Structure: The layout and organization of a course can favor certain learning styles while disorienting others. A rigid, linear course structure may be difficult for students with executive function challenges or those who need to access materials non-sequentially due to work or family commitments [8].

Tech Tools: The integration of third-party tech tools (e.g., proctoring software, collaboration apps) can introduce new barriers. Proctoring software, for example, has been widely criticized for its biases against students of color and those with disabilities, and for creating a climate of surveillance rather than trust [16].

Examples of these power dynamics are common. A seemingly benign LMS navigation system, designed with a single, ideal user in mind, might be confusing or difficult to navigate for learners with visual impairments who rely on screen readers [8]. “Camera-on” policies, intended to foster engagement, can inadvertently penalize students who lack a private space, have unstable internet connections, or feel unsafe or uncomfortable sharing their home environments [7]. Furthermore, default accessibility settings in platforms may not go far enough to support learners with a wide range of needs, requiring them to advocate for themselves or use workarounds. These examples illustrate how the uncritical adoption of technology and design norms can perpetuate inequities by privileging the needs of a dominant, typically privileged, user profile. To combat this effect, ref. [23] provides suggestions for how AI’s intersection with cultural inclusion might add depth to the challenges and tensions regarding AI bias and justice.

4. Principles of Design Justice in Online Contexts

Applying the principles of design justice to online education involves a paradigm shift from designing for students to designing with them [12]. This is the cornerstone of participatory design. Instead of instructors and instructional designers acting as experts who create a finished product for learners to consume, participatory approaches involve students as co-creators from the earliest stages of the design process [19]. This can include soliciting feedback on course outlines, co-developing assignment prompts, or even co-authoring course policies. This approach not only ensures that the final design is more responsive to learners’ needs but also validates their lived experiences and empowers them as agents in their own education [2].

4.1. Empirically Validated Principles for Online Inclusivity

Recent empirical research [1,8] has distilled four key design justice principles that have demonstrated efficacy in advancing equity for marginalized student populations in online learning environments. These principles move beyond mere compliance to foster environments of trust, belonging, and empowerment.

Transparent Teaching: Focuses on clearly communicating the purpose, task, and criteria (PuT-C) of assignments to reduce ambiguity that often disadvantages first-generation and underrepresented students [12,14]. This practice is strongly associated with curriculum revision and improved learning outcomes [17] and reduced attrition.

Embedded Inclusive Design: Involves integrating culturally responsive content and ensuring diverse representation [1,15], throughout the curriculum. Studies [20,24] show that this intentional integration fosters a stronger sense of belonging and positive team dynamics.

Creation of Safe or Brave Spaces: Requires the intentional design of virtual environments that promote psychological safety [14], trust, and empathy [2]. Implementation methods include systematic and intentional goalsetting [23] and intercultural competence practices [18].

Accessibility Measures: Extends standard accessible design by implementing tailored technological adaptations (e.g., color, language, text-to-speech) and addressing structural barriers (e.g., lack of private space or reliable internet) [9] to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and socio-economically disadvantaged learners [24].

By operationalizing these four principles, institutions can transition from an uncritical adoption of technology to a deliberate, justice-centered pedagogical approach.

4.2. Recognizing and Addressing Barriers to Academic Competence

A core principle of design justice is the recognition and active addressing of systemic barriers [12,13]. In online education, these barriers extend beyond individual disabilities or access issues. They include institutional policies, socio-economic inequalities, and cultural biases [25] that are embedded in the design of learning environments. For example, a university’s policy on late submissions might disproportionately affect students whose engagement is declining since [11] they may also be working multiple jobs or caring for family members. A design justice approach would challenge this policy, advocating flexible submission windows or alternative assessment methods that do not penalize students for circumstances beyond their control [8]. Similarly, it would push for the decolonization of curricula by including diverse perspectives and knowledge systems that have historically been excluded from academic canons [2].

Finally, design justice emphasizes contextual relevance [12]. This means that online learning environments must be designed with an awareness of the diverse linguistic, socio-cultural, and geographical contexts of the learners. A course designed for students in a Western, English-speaking context may not be effective for learners in a different part of the world [3]. This principle advocates for:

Linguistic Equity: Providing course materials in multiple languages or using plain language that is accessible to non-native speakers [26]

Socio-Cultural Norms: Designing group projects that account for different cultural norms around collaboration and communication.

Time Zones: Creating asynchronous activities and flexible deadlines that accommodate learners in different time zones, rather than assuming a universal 9-5 schedule [6]

By prioritizing contextual relevance, designers can create online learning experiences that are truly inclusive and effective for global and diverse students [26].

5. Challenges and Tensions

Implementing design justice in online education is not without its challenges. The most significant tension arises from the conflict between institutional inertia and the need for radical change [19]. Many educational institutions are built on long-standing traditions of standardization, top-down decision-making, and risk-averse behavior. These structures can make it difficult to adopt the fluid, participatory, and context-specific approaches that design justice requires [12]. Standardized curricula, pre-packaged course materials, and rigid assessment schedules are often seen as necessary for ensuring quality and scale, but they directly conflict with the principles of localized, learner-centered design [2]. Overcoming this inertia requires not just changes in practice, but a fundamental shift in institutional culture and a willingness to question established norms.

Another key challenge is balancing scale with responsiveness. Online education platforms are often designed to serve thousands, if not millions, of users [3]. The economic and logistical pressure to create scalable solutions can push designers toward a “one-size-fits-all” model that inherently overlooks the unique needs of diverse learners [8]. A design justice approach, by contrast, demands a high degree of responsiveness and customization, which can be perceived as inefficient or impractical on a large scale. The tension between these two goals is a central dilemma in the field. Resolving it may involve leveraging technology to create customizable learning pathways, or decentralizing design processes to allow for localized adaptation of materials [6].

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) presents a new set of challenges for design justice. While AI can personalize learning and automate tasks, it also carries the risk of reinforcing existing injustices [18]. Recent research on AI in higher education reveals both promising opportunities for cultural inclusion and significant concerns about perpetuating bias, particularly when AI systems are not designed with justice principles in mind [27]. Ref. [28] developed a comprehensive ethics framework for AI in education, emphasizing that algorithmic systems must be evaluated not just for technical accuracy but for their impact on educational equity, student agency, and power dynamics. Their framework advocates transparency, accountability, and continuous evaluation of AI tools through a justice lens. AI algorithms are trained on historical data, which often reflects societal biases. If an AI tool is used to grade essays or recommend learning materials, it may inadvertently perpetuate biases related to race, gender, or socio-economic status. For example, a grading algorithm might favor a particular writing style or vocabulary common in a dominant culture, penalizing students who write differently. Ref. [29] caution against what they term the “digital automation of education,” arguing that increased reliance on AI-driven systems can diminish pedagogical judgment and reduce complex learning interactions to quantifiable metrics that privilege certain ways of knowing. A design justice approach to AI integration would require critical scrutiny of the data used for training, transparency about how algorithms make decisions, and the development of accountability mechanisms to address biased outcomes. It is not enough to simply use AI; it must be used with an explicit goal of advancing equity, not just efficiency [24,27].

6. Case Applications

Design justice principles are being applied in various online education contexts, demonstrating that these concepts are not merely theoretical [7]. One powerful example is Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) and virtual exchange models. Unlike traditional online courses that may be monocultural, COIL projects are intentionally intercultural [3]. They pair classes from different countries to work on shared projects, forcing students to engage with diverse perspectives and modes of communication. This approach inherently challenges ethnocentric biases and requires design processes [23] that are flexible and responsive to different cultural contexts and time zones. The success of a COIL project hinges on the design team’s ability to facilitate cross-cultural understanding and collaboration, not just content delivery [12].

Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of COIL approaches for promoting equity. Ref. [23] found that globally distributed online learning projects increased students’ critical consciousness about cultural assumptions embedded in educational content, with participants reporting greater awareness of how their own educational privileges shaped their learning expectations. The key to successful implementation lies in deliberately designing cultural humility rather than cultural competence. This posture recognizes that understanding across difference is an ongoing process rather than a checklist of achieved knowledge.

Another compelling application is the development of community-based online courses, particularly those focused on Indigenous knowledge. Traditional academic institutions have historically excluded or marginalized indigenous ways of knowing [2,30]. Community-based online courses, often co-designed and led by Indigenous elders and knowledge keepers, represent a significant departure from this norm. These courses prioritize oral traditions, storytelling, and land-based learning, using technology to support rather than supplant these practices. The design process for these courses is a direct application of the “design with, not for” principle, ensuring that the course structure, content, and assessments are culturally relevant and respectful [12,19]. They exemplify how online education can be a tool for cultural preservation and empowerment, rather than assimilation.

Refs. [23,31] document how genuine partnership with students (including Indigenous students and knowledge keepers) in curriculum co-creation challenges traditional power hierarchies in education. Their research found that when students moved from consultative roles to partnership roles in course design, outcomes included more culturally responsive assessment methods, more diverse epistemological approaches, and higher student engagement. Transparency teaching methods have shown promise in virtual classrooms, particularly in enhancing clarity and reducing ambiguity for underrepresented students [32]. Ref. [33] further argues that conceptualizing students as partners rather than consumers fundamentally shifts the design justice orientation from “designing for” to “designing with,” which is essential for decolonizing online educational spaces. In the context of Indigenous knowledge courses, this might mean replacing written exams with oral presentations, digital storytelling projects, or land-based assignments that honor traditional assessment practices.

Finally, the principles of design justice are being embedded into faculty training models [7,26]. Rather than simply training instructors on how to use new technology, these models focus on raising awareness about power dynamics in education and providing practical strategies for creating more equitable online learning environments [2,32]. Training might include modules on identifying and mitigating algorithmic bias [16,31], designing content and alternative assessments that are culturally responsive [8,26], or using participatory methods to gather student feedback [19]. By targeting the educators themselves, these training programs aim to create a ripple effect, empowering a new generation of instructors to build justice-centered online learning experiences.

Emerging research on professional development demonstrates measurable outcomes. Ref. [24] found that when faculty received training in Universal Design for Learning principles grounded in design justice frameworks, students with disabilities reported significantly improved perceptions of course accessibility and belonging. However, Ref. [25] emphasized in their revised framework that accessibility training must go beyond compliance checklists to cultivate what they term “plus-one thinking,” the practice of continuously asking “who might this design exclude?” at every stage of course development. This shifts faculty mindsets from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusive design, embedding justice principles into pedagogical practice rather than treating them as add-ons.

7. Future Directions

The application of design justice to online education is still an emerging field, and there are several promising directions for future work [12]. A critical step is to further empower students by including them more formally in the course design process [19]. This could involve creating student design advisory boards, embedding co-design projects into academic programs, or establishing formal feedback loops that allow student input to directly influence the evolution of online courses and platforms. Moving beyond a consumer-of-education mindset, this approach recognizes students as valuable experts on their own learning experiences [2].

Faculty development models that emphasize responsiveness and consultation have shown promise in advancing equity-focused online engagement [34]. These models support instructors in adopting participatory design practices and embedding justice principles into their pedagogy. Another important direction is the development of open-source and community-governed edtech [35]. Proprietary educational technology often operates as a black box, with opaque algorithms and business models that can conflict with equity goals [16]. By contrast, open-source platforms and tools, governed by the communities that use them, can be transparent, customizable, and more easily adapted to local needs [12]. Community-governed models would also ensure that the development of edtech is not driven solely by corporate interests but by the needs of students and educators. This shift could lead to the creation of learning tools that are more ethical and more aligned with social justice principles. complex.

8. Conclusions and Prospects

8.1. Key Findings on Design Justice in Online Education

This entry has synthesized the principles and applications of design justice as an emerging framework for online higher education. Several key findings emerge from this analysis. First, design justice fundamentally reconceptualizes online course design as a political act rather than a neutral technical process, requiring explicit attention to power dynamics, systemic barriers, and the voices of marginalized learners [12,14]. Second, empirically validated principles—including transparent teaching, inclusive design, safe spaces, and accessibility measures—provide concrete pathways for implementing justice- centered approaches [9,10,11,12,13]. Third, successful applications across diverse contexts (COIL programs, Indigenous knowledge courses, and faculty development initiatives) demonstrate that design justice is not merely theoretical but practically achievable [15,35,36]. However, significant tensions persist between institutional pressures for standardization and scalability versus the responsive, contextual, and participatory approaches that design justice requires [13,26,37]. Looking forward, the integration of AI and algorithmic systems into online education presents both opportunities and risks [27,30]. Without intentional justice-centered design, these technologies may automate and amplify existing inequities. The future of design justice in online education depends on developing open-source, community-governed educational technologies; creating institutional policies that incentivize equity-focused innovation; and most critically, positioning students, especially those from marginalized communities, as co-designers rather than consumers of online learning experiences [2,16].

8.2. Contributions

This entry contributes to scholarly conversation in three ways. First, it provides a comprehensive synthesis of design justice principles specifically applied to online higher education, a context that has received limited attention in the design justice literature despite the rapid expansion of digital learning. Second, it bridges theoretical frameworks (critical pedagogy, data feminism, algorithmic justice) with practical implementation strategies, offering educators and instructional designers a roadmap for justice-centered practice. Third, by grounding design justice in recent empirical research (2022–2025), this entry demonstrates that equity-focused design is not aspirational but evidence-based, with measurable impacts on student engagement, belonging, and success [21,22,32]. This work extends interdisciplinary scholarship across critical pedagogy, digital inclusion, and AI ethics to demonstrate the broad relevance and urgent necessity of design justice in contemporary higher education.

8.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

As a conceptual review rather than empirical research; this entry has inherent limitations. The analysis relies on existing literature and cannot provide original data on the outcomes of design justice interventions. The scope is limited primarily to higher education contexts in English-speaking countries, and more research is needed to understand how design justice principles translate across diverse global educational systems with different technological infrastructures, cultural norms, and institutional structures. Additionally, while this entry identifies promising practices, longitudinal research is needed to assess the sustained impact of design justice approaches on student outcomes, institutional change, and broader educational equity.

Future research should pursue several directions. First, empirical studies are needed that measure the long-term effects of participatory design approaches on student agency, engagement, and learning outcomes across diverse student populations. Second, comparative research examining design justice implementations across different institutional types (community colleges, research universities, vocational programs) and global contexts would illuminate contextual factors that enable or constrain equity-centered innovation. Third, critical investigation of AI and algorithmic systems in online education is urgent, particularly research that examines how these tools can be designed and governed through justice frameworks rather than purely technical or efficiency metrics [27,30]. Finally, action research conducted in partnership with students from marginalized communities could generate new knowledge about what genuinely equitable online learning environments look like from the perspectives of those most affected by educational injustices.

Ultimately, the application of design justice to online education represents a paradigm shift from designing digital learning for students to designing with them. By aligning policy with practice, embedding participatory approaches into institutional structures, and maintaining vigilant critique of emerging technologies, higher education institutions can ensure that the future of online learning is not merely accessible, but truly just [2,16].