I'm thinking about Autumm's point about the ways companies find loopholes around institutional policies by going directly to teachers.

Evidence?

How is "power" being conceived here? Because for me, online proctoring reinforces asymetric power relationships in which students, particularly students from historically marginalized communities, are punished/policed more.

Framed as a new feature - something that you would want - they are doing you a favor. No mention of the potential harms - and how would you turn it off at an institutional level if you want to protect your students from this technology?

When might we want our seams to be showing? What's a learning experience like when it's been smoothed down and down?

What is the company's definition of "active" learning? How are they selling a specific vision of active learning?

What exactly does a partnership entail?

Hello! Welcome to an #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can act as counternarratives and living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website.

If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

• What do you notice? What do you wonder?
• What narratives do the companies tell about education? About being a student? A teacher?
• What assumptions do the companies make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
• What claims do the companies make about their technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

Thank you for joining the conversation!