Lunch and Share (March 2026 Edition): Amplifying Voices Through Learning Technology
ARLT SIG Lunch and Share is a platform where participants are invited to share practical examples of projects, challenges, or successes where antiracism intersects with education and learning technology.
The March edition of ARLT SIG’s Lunch and Share took place on the 31 March 2026 and the topic of discussion was ‘How do individuals and organisations ensure engagement from diverse groups of people?’
Following the February edition, where we explored how learning technologies can be used to amplify the voices of underrepresented communities, the March edition focused on the challenges of engaging these voices and the strategies being adopted to address them. Participants in this session represented institutions from two countries and spanned both the higher education and non-profit sectors.
Early in the discussion, a significant challenge to engagement quickly emerged: tension between home and international students. Cultural differences can unintentionally create ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups,’ leading to isolation, particularly for international students, but sometimes also for home students enrolled on programmes with predominantly international cohorts. This clustering often results in reduced engagement during learning activities, especially when students are required to work across groups. In some cases, engagement is reluctant and laboured; in others, there is an outright refusal to participate.
Addressing this issue requires more than surface-level interventions. Participants emphasised the importance of breaking down cultural barriers by creating opportunities for interaction beyond the classroom. Social spaces, where students can relax, lower their guard, and interact in low-pressure environments, were seen as particularly effective in fostering more meaningful connections.
Several participants drew on frameworks such as Andratesha Fritzgerald’s work on antiracism and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to inform their approaches. Others described adopting an explicit antiracist institutional stance, supported by the development of inclusive design frameworks, particularly in assessment design, aimed at creating more equitable learning experiences.
Beyond cultural dynamics, additional barriers were highlighted, particularly within the international education and development sector. These included limited internet access, multilingual cohorts, and widening socio-economic divides. In many contexts, including the UK, socio-economic inequality manifests in reduced access to computing resources and reliable internet connectivity. This lack of affordability significantly limits students’ ability to engage with learning and with educational technologies intended to amplify their voices, especially those from marginalised communities.
Language was identified as another critical barrier. Different languages have distinct locutions, which may not align easily with the language of instruction, most often English. As a result, non-native speakers may hesitate to contribute to class discussions, a hesitation that is sometimes misinterpreted as disengagement. Levels of language confidence vary widely: some students are comfortable speaking publicly, while others are acutely self-conscious, leading to uneven participation.
Recognising that confidence, not willingness, is often the underlying issue allows educators to design more effective interventions. In this context, the goal is not simply to encourage more speaking, but to build confidence in ways that feel safe and inclusive. As several participants noted, identifying the root cause of disengagement is far more effective than attempting to treat the symptoms.
A range of potential solutions were discussed. These included the use of assistive AI tools, although concerns were raised about the absence of robust governance frameworks to guide their ethical and academic use, an issue many institutions will need to address urgently. Other approaches involved real-time polling tools such as Vevox, which allow students to contribute anonymously. This anonymity can increase confidence and may, over time, support a transition to more vocal participation.
Participants also highlighted the value of ‘energiser’ activities at the end of learning sessions. These activities can help bring marginalised voices to the centre by drawing on students’ local contexts and lived experiences. For example, platforms such as Padlet can be used to invite learners to share how a topic manifests in their own cultural or geographical setting.
Ultimately, regardless of the specific tools or approaches adopted, educators must remain attentive to the diverse and often nuanced challenges faced by different student cohorts. A one-size-fits-all approach is rarely effective. Meaningful engagement requires a willingness to listen, to understand underlying causes, and to respond with thoughtfully designed, inclusive strategies.
In our next edition on April 28th, Dr William Essilfie & Prof Annie Hughes from Kingston University will share their Anti-Racist Teaching and Learning Programme. The goal is to share practices and incentivise colleagues to keep pushing for an anti-racist agenda and training. We invite you to join us as we continue to reflect on our practice as educators and consider how we can more effectively deliver learning through the antiracist use of educational technologies. Click here to register!