Designing Competitive Discussions for Equity and Inclusion

Main Article Content

Craig D. Howard
Anupam Das


In this case, we focus on two innovations in the design of competitive discussions for a high stakes learning context. The designer created the intervention to provide learners first-hand discussion experiences despite large class sizes. It was a business communication course, and the large class sizes and group dynamics previously had inhibited constructive feedback and limited learner participation; however, the combination of a (1) time-constrained asynchronous CMC activity, along with (2) strategically selected smaller groups, created an interactive space that matched the designer’s values of equity and inclusion that he wanted to bring to the design. The case chronicles a number of unforeseen consequences of logical design moves, and presents a multimodal re-conception of what it means to discuss in the context of modern business school.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Howard, C. D., & Das, A. (2019). Designing Competitive Discussions for Equity and Inclusion. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 10(1), 1–13.
Author Biographies

Craig D. Howard, University of Tennessee Knoxville

Craig D. Howard is Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the IT and Learning, Design and Technology programs. Craig holds graduate degrees from Teachers College Columbia University (MA), and Indiana University Bloomington (PhD). He studies instructional communications, and how we document and disseminate instructional innovation via design cases.

Anupam Das, Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, India

Anupam Das is Assistant Professor in Humanities and Liberal Arts in Management at the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, India. He teaches human communication, and has published widely in pragmatics, discourse analysis, computer-mediated communication, and the pedagogy of communication. He earned his PhD in Linguistics with a minor in Information Science from Indiana University Bloomington.


Baaki, J., Maddrell, J., & Stauffer, E. (2017). Designing Authentic and Engaging Personas for Open Education Resources Designers. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(2), 110-122. https://

Bach, K., & R. M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Francis, G. & S. Hunston (1992). Analyzing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.

Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1), n.p. Retrieved on 10/19/11 from

Gibson, J. T. (2009). Discussion approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.

Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4).

Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computermediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. Retrieved 9/6/2007 from

Herring, S. C., Das, A., & Penumarthy, S. (2005). CMC act taxonomy.

Howard, C.D. (2002) Variations of Turn Taking in the Speech of EFL Learners. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 14(1), 393-407.

Howard, C.D. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 40-55.

Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 52(3), 34.

Howard, C.D., Staples, C., Dubreil, S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2016). The App Farm: Engaging design process as a means for French learning. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3), 42-61.

Mulcahy, R. S. (2011). Bottom line: Defining success in the creation of a business simulation. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 1–17.

Parrish, P. E., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Learning experience as transaction: A framework for instructional design. Educational Technology, 51(2), 15-22.

Pena-Shaff, J., & Nichols, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussion. Computers and Education, 42, 243-265. compedu.2003.08.003

Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computermediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 41-86.

Rosean, C., Lundeberg, M., & Terpstra, M. (2010). The case for constructing video cases: Promoting complex, specific, learnercentered analysis of discussion. Educational Technology, 50(1), 18-22.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(S1), 1-54.

Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.