All people are learners. Proctorio's use of "aspiring" is part of a larger narrative I've seen elsewhere that frames their surveillance technology as enabling people who otherwise wouldn't be able to complete their education to do so. It's a bogus story of uplift.

Also seeing "access" repeated early in the letter. I count 51 matches for "access" in the letter. Now seems like a good time to raise how digital redlining affects students' access to high-speed internet.

Not just integrity, but high-integrity!

Well, not really. The increase in online proctoring has less to do with distance learning and more to do with teachers' reliance on narrow, often inauthentic assessments.

Will Olsen tell the senators he posted a student's chat log to Reddit?

One of Proctorio's favorite words. Note that "integrity" appears 28 times in this letter. The company often frame integrity in terms of a student's degree; that is, the company promises a degree's integrity, or value, is what's most important. What (and who) does this vision of education as driven by the marketplace leave out? How does an obsession with integrity harm students?

In what ways will Proctorio defend its technology as "inclusive" when many students have experienced acute exclusion from its technology?

How does Proctorio define "quality"? In what ways does focusing on "quality" fit into the company's larger vision of education?

Read the senators' letter to the CEOs.

Visit the Against Online Proctoring library for an open, growing collection of journalism; peer-reviewed articles; examples of student, staff, and teacher resistance; and various blog posts and Twitter threads addressing online proctoring.

I notice the quote is attributed to the university rather than an individual person. I wonder: why attribute the quote to the university rather than an individual person?

I’m struck by the image of the software constantly watching students that’s conjured by “unblinking”. I also can’t help but think of HAL 9000.

The word “Instant” suggests immediate access for all students. However, digital redlining and a lack of high-speed internet means that, for many, “Instant” is not possible.

I’d like to know what evidence Proctorio can offer to support this claim. The company often says it’s up to the teacher (or in my experience, a staff member) to review a student’s video and then decide if the behavior flagged by the algorithm as suspicious constitutes cheating. But the teacher or staff member cannot help but hold implicit biases in addition to any explicit biases they may possess. So how can Proctorio prove their software eliminates bias? And what other forms and sources of bias are built into the software?

Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #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 also act as 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. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

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

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

Thank you for joining the conversation!

Online proctoring and its defenders often argue the software protects the value of a student’s degree (or an institution’s degrees). I agree with a recent tweet from Ben Williamson, a professor at the University of Edinburgh: We need to “Reclaim the idea that a higher education is for the social and public good, and define the public good of HE for persons and society. This is about stating the purpose of HE beyond employability and measurability.”

What are the cognitive, psychological, and emotional effects on students from “continuous monitoring”?

I think “Crushes” is a problematic word. First, it’s a violent image. And second, those brick and mortar test centers employ people, so by “crushing” them, ProctorU is putting people out of work.

Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #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 also act as 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. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

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

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

Thank you for joining the conversation!

From a student profiled in a September 29, 2020, article titled "ExamSoft’s remote bar exam sparks privacy and facial recognition concerns": “It feels like we’re being treated like we’re expendable, like our rights and our data and privacy are expendable, and so I think that’s where we’re at right now.”

I’m skeptical of this claim. If teachers or staff must review video of students the algorithm flags, in addition to all their other responsibilities, how does that save time? I believe teachers should spend their time building stronger relationships with their students and developing their teaching practices instead of honing their policing skills.

Who is “We” and what alternatives were considered? Because one of the problems with online proctoring is, in the words of Professor Joshua Eyler, "when you use proctoring software, you are measuring a student’s ability to manage cognitive load and to regulate negative emotions just as much (maybe more?) as their knowledge/understanding/ideas." Trust students, understand why students might cheat, and develop better assessments.

Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #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 also act as 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. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

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

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

Thank you for joining the conversation!

As I've noted elsewhere, this information about the tool lacks critical engagement with the tool's assumptions and processes. Often, the information reads like ad copy rather than stating how Proctorio really works and how its very design damages students.

I wonder how we can make those terms present in clear, decipherable language.

Again, please include students. It's the students' audio and video that's being captured.

Here's an opportunity to be explicit about the nature of Proctorio. It's an invasive technology built on flawed technology. It's snake oil. It's cop shit.

If that's the case, then why keep giving Proctorio money?

I mean, do we really want to be using technology that requires consent forms?

Perhaps. But not when access to high-speed internet is an ongoing problem for many students due to digital redlining. Or if a student is sharing a computer - or a room - with family members. So "choice" is misleading.

Just go ahead and say it: "We do not believe Proctorio is an ethical tool."

This warning is indicative of the way Proctorio - and other harmful technologies like Turnitin - are framed to teachers. The resources' authors hedge. They hem and haw. Yes, I'm glad the warning is present, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to explain why Proctorio can't do what it purports to do - and why teachers shouldn't use the surveillance technology in the first place.

Proctorio claims it weeds out bias. It doesn't. The algorithms are biased and so is anyone who reviews the exam recordings.

The influence of neoliberalism in higher ed. Let's get away from celebrating efficiency at the cost of our students' well-being.

The algorithms are bullshit. Racist, ableist bullshit. The equally bullshit facial recognition technology trained on the bullshit algorithms is a dire threat to students. I know Ohio State and Michigan have some history, but it's vital to heed a recent study from researchers at Michigan and their conclusion: "We strongly recommend that [facial recognition] technology be banned from use in schools."

Now is a good time to at least mention that student behavior is flagged as "abnormal," which should raise questions about what we mean by "normal" and how such language reveals the ableism inherent to Proctorio.

What - who - is erased in this statement? The exam doesn't produce audio. A student sighs. A student's hungry child cries. A student blows her nose because she's sick. We must not erase students and how technology harms them.

A good place to ask, "A solution to what?" If the answer is cheating, then let's include reasons why students might cheat and link to ways teachers can design authentic assessments.

The page assumes teachers should use Proctorio. What if the site was titled something else? I'd like to revise the title to Why You Shouldn't Use Proctorio. Too often these resource pages assume a neutral stance towards technology, and I think that's a mistake. Objectivity upholds the status quo, and maintaining the status quo means maintaining white supremacy.

As I've noted elsewhere, this information about the tool lacks critical engagement with the tool's assumptions and processes. Often, the information reads like ad copy rather than stating how Proctorio really works and how its very design damages students.

I wonder how we can make those terms present in clear, decipherable language.

Again, please include students. It's the students' audio and video that's being captured.

Here's an opportunity to be explicit about the nature of Proctorio. It's an invasive technology built on flawed technology. It's snake oil. It's cop shit.

If that's the case, then why keep giving Proctorio money?

I mean, do we really want to be using technology that requires consent forms?

Perhaps. But not when access to high-speed internet is an ongoing problem for many students due to digital redlining. Or if a student is sharing a computer - or a room - with family members. So "choice" is misleading.

Just go ahead and say it: "We do not believe Proctorio is an ethical tool."

This warning is indicative of the way Proctorio - and other harmful technologies like Turnitin - are framed to teachers. The resources' authors hedge. They hem and haw. Yes, I'm glad the warning is present, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to explain why Proctorio can't do what it purports to do - and why teachers shouldn't use the surveillance technology in the first place.

Proctorio claims it weeds out bias. It doesn't. The algorithms are biased and so is anyone who reviews the exam recordings.

The influence of neoliberalism in higher ed. Let's get away from celebrating efficiency at the cost of our students' well-being.

The algorithms are bullshit. Racist, ableist bullshit. The equally bullshit facial recognition technology trained on the bullshit algorithms is a dire threat to students. I know Ohio State and Michigan have some history, but let's heed a recent study from our neighbors to the north when they state: "We strongly recommend that [facial recognition] technology be banned from use in schools."

Now is a good time to at least mention that student behavior is flagged as "abnormal," which should raise questions about what we mean by "normal" and how such language reveals the ableism inherent to Proctorio.

What - who - is erased in this statement? The exam doesn't produce audio. A student sighs. A student's hungry child cries. A student blows her nose because she's sick. We must not erase students and how technology harms them.

A good place to ask, "A solution to what?" If the answer is cheating, then let's include reasons why students might cheat and link to ways teachers can design authentic assessments.

I'd like to revise the title to "Why You Shouldn't Use Proctorio." Too often these resource pages assume a neutral stance towards technology, and I think that's a mistake. Objectivity upholds the status quo, and maintaining the status quo means maintaining white supremacy.

In my experience, it's often individuals teachers who're the first to challenge entrenched systems. Personally, I've found the courage to say no when I speak with other teachers at my school as well as connecting with teachers on Twitter. More strategies on ungrading in "Grades Can Hinder Learning. What Can Professors Use Instead?"

This invitation to the community seems key to me, and I'm curious what the co-construction would look like in practice.

Standards-based grading and its connection to behaviorism.

And who decides what information is valuable? Often it's individuals and institutions that are more interested in maintaining the status quo than, in Henry Giroux's words, challenging students to think dangerously.

The issue of monitoring and its deleterious effects on students' learning and intrinsic motivation is made all the more acute with online gradebooks that allow students (and their parents) to track how every single assignment impacts their grade. I've witnessed many students feverishly refreshing their browser to see how the latest test or essay affected their grade.

Sounds a lot like connected learning.

I'm curious to know more about how other educators rupture and unsettle in your teaching context.

Giroux overlooks staff - like me - who often work alongside faculty. We are teachers. See Sean Michael Morris' "Instructional Designers Are Teachers" for more.

I've found the work of Audrey Watters and Jennifer Binis to be essential resources for understanding the cultural and personal narratives I've encountered and (re)produced with regards to education.

Audit culture and conservative educational policies.

Giroux defines characteristics of a new language for educators.

Strikes me as an odd word choice. Rather than "endow" these groups by giving them something, which suggests a degree of passiveness on their part, I think we should be working with them to build a healthier democracy.

What does Giroux's "be considerate of others" look and feel like in practice? How is it related to the problematic calls for civility?

Giroux extends what he means by "education."

Giroux offers his take on dangerous thinking's "core."

Though online media and the platforms on which it appears are also part of the problem with regards to the health of our democracy.

I'd like to know more about what Giroux means by "screen culture."

I find this description to be a useful way of thinking about my own writing and what I admire about writers who can connect the personal with the public/historical.

Further articulation of Freire's vision of pedagogy. I'm interested in what "bafflement" looks like in this context. An openness to being surprised? A kind of Socratic ignorance? A beginner's mind?

I want to reflect on this more, but this is just to say I find Freire's vision of hope to be a call to action.

I'd like to know more about how others practice this self-criticism and how you "equip students with [the] analytical skills" described by Giroux.

Giroux sums up Freire's definition of pedagogy.

Thus the role of metacognition as part of critical pedagogy.

I'm reminded of Illich's argument in "Deschooling Society."

This phrase makes me think of Audrey Watters' "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Some Thoughts from ASU+GSV" and the Koch Brothers' influence at George Mason. How have others seen "the corporatization of education" and/or the influence of corporations and their CEOs in your context?

This echoes bell hooks' emphasis on self-actualization as part of the learning process for students and teachers alike.

Who - on an individual and institutional level - defines what it means for students to manage themselves well? And how does this definition reflect, reinforce, or challenge the status quo?

I'm curious if others have examples of this mobilization. For me, I think of #DisruptTexts on Twitter.

A compelling image that captures hooks' vision of engaged pedagogy.

I wonder whether viewing teachers as healers invites a deficit-thinking approach to students.

Or an algorithm...

I wonder how we can extend this courage to transgress to individuals who don't currently teach but whose work still touches the lives of students. What does it look like when an educational technologist transgresses these boundaries? An instructional designer? A librarian? A first step is to think of each role as inextricable from teacher.

A helpful reminder when considering not just what it means to be a teacher-writer, but a writer in general. I'm also reminded of edtech's role in negating and even punishing this engaged voice; see, for example, John Warner's piece "Another Terrible Idea from Turnitin" and its authorship investigation.

I'd like to know more about how others go about this process of deconstruction. I found Jade Davis' "Decolonizing (digital) Pedagogy by Shifting the Seat of Power" to be a helpful guide for carrying out the deconstruction hooks describes.

I found spontaneity to be one of the hardest things to grow comfortable with as a teacher. I think that's the case because I rarely ever witnessed spontaneity as a student, and if I did, I doubt I knew what had just occurred was, in fact, unplanned. I think the more teachers can make their pedagogy transparent to students, the better both groups can understand why and how to create more opportunities for the kind of excitement hooks is describing.

In your development as a teacher, who has played or is playing the role of mentor or guide?

I'm reminded of Claude Steele and his work on stereotype threat.

hooks' observation here makes me think about educational technology's role - and the teachers requiring students to use certain technologies - in reinforcing obedience to authority as the most important lesson in college. I know a lot has been written about Turnitin and other related, surveillance-based tech. I'm curious: how do others resist these technologies, especially if you're experiencing pressure to adopt them?

I connect with hooks' emphasis on knowing the individual student means knowing that student's family and the historical forces that have shaped the student and their family's experience.

I wonder how teacher education programs - and other professional development - can make clear that all teaching is political.

Reminds of the refrain, "Oh, you're just a teacher."

Ah, okay, here's hooks recognizing teaching and writing aren't mutually exclusive.

I wonder why being a teacher-writer wasn't an acceptable identity. Have others encountered assumptions of what a teacher can and cannot do? Or should and shouldn't do?

I'm thinking about the difference between "in" and "of" here. For me, "of" suggests a distance that isn't present with the preposition "in." I read this renewed joy as something accomplished through living learning, being surrounded by it, merging with learning, rather than stepping outside of it. I also think it's important to note the joy is communal; it's "our joy," which challenges me to consider how my joy is contingent upon others' also seeking and achieving joy.

For more on digital redlining, read "Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy" by Chris Gilliard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcSXbvzW91U

Another idea for a related assignment: challenge students to create a timeline of controversial art using H5P, and then embed the timeline into the text.

I'd be curious to see citations throughout as a model for how students can cite their work and extend their knowledge.

A possible assignment: identify, research, and analyze a contemporary example of artwork that was rejected or demeaned because of these prejudices.

I wonder what assumptions are being made here about students and the cultural institutions they're familiar with.

As I reflect on how instructors and students might co-create an OER text, I see questions like this, generated by the instructor/author, as an opportunity to establish and explore essential questions together. After brainstorming these questions, a possible next step would challenge students to write their own chapter (or other unit) in response to this question.

What are some of your favorite public art pieces? For me, Alexander Calder is high on the list.

I'm curious to learn more about what the author means by "limitations" and who defines what "controversy" means.

Agreed!

And staff, too, such as instructional designers and educational technologists.

Which again raises the question of pedagogy. The practice also creates a classroom environment based at least in part on begrudging compliance and resentment. Not great!

How can students play a more active, integral role when institutions are considering adopting these platforms?

Huh. This is new to me. How frequent is this practice?

I wonder if these students ended up using the materials in other courses. I'm also curious as to whether instructors within a major or department share which texts they're using in order to shape course readings across a major or minor.

Perhaps an opening to discuss how to structure a more engaging lecture?

For more on these other factors, see the recent report "College and University Basic Needs Insecurity: A National #RealCollege Survey Report."

The student's description of the course reminds me that conversations about OER go hand-in-hand with conversations about pedagogy. How does adopting and (co)creating OER texts affect the how's and why's of teaching and learning? And for instructors (and students) new to OER, how can they receive support before, during, and after the use/creation of an OER text?

And not just teacher educators: as an educational technologist, I've led professional development for teacher educators (and preservice teachers) on a number of different technologies and how/why they might be used in the classroom.

I'm struck by the choice of "snafu" to describe "privacy settings." I worry describing privacy as a snafu undermines the seriousness with which teachers and students should evaluate a technology's privacy settings when choosing to incorporate the technology into a classroom and other learning environment.

I'm of two minds when it comes to the attention Mal received from her administrators. One the hand, go Mal! She's engaging in a public discourse about teaching with technology, and she receives professional recognition as a result. However, I also wonder whether just seeing "examples of students using technology projects" reinforces a kind of surface level understanding of how technology shapes teaching and learning and misses the chance to ask critical questions about why and how students are using the technology featured in the photographs. What do others think?

Did the author have connected learning principles explicitly in mind when creating this option (and the course in general)?

I'd like to learn more about how the TCs explored the apps. For instance, what questions did they ask about the technology? In my own development as an educator and educational technologist, one area where I've grown the most is being able to identify questions to ask about technology (and the people behind that technology), why those questions and their answers are important, and how the answers might shape my current and future actions.

I'm curious to know whether teacher educators discuss the phenomenon of the so-called "teacher influencer" with teacher candidates. A related issue is the rise of "educelebrities" using hashtags like #edutwitter to promote technologies or books in which they often have a personal financial stake. Seems to me another aspect of teacher training should include critically reading the posts and other work of the educators-as-brand-ambassadors.

I'm interested to learn more about this "we" and how the group functions on an individual and collective level. I also read the title as a way for the members of the "we" to distinguish themselves and "how [they] do it" from other groups and how those groups do "it," which I'm assuming is teaching English with technology. Last note: I now have Montell Jordan's "This Is How We Do It" in my head as I begin the article, which is a plus.

I second both this statement and the researchers' recommendation in the previous entry about "real world academic engagement..."

I'd like to learn more about whether teachers who engage in CL find it affects their pedagogy and how they approach teaching and learning that's not based on digital tools or spaces.

I don't have a doctorate, but I got to say, if I ever go down the PhD route, research on CL sounds way more fun than prodding mice in a lab all day.

Aside: I'm intrigued by what this place-based media production would look like in an online course in higher ed. I can see such media production as a way to scale the walls of the LMS and connect the lives of students and teachers with course material in more meaningful ways.

Another thumbs-up from me: let's acknowledge and celebrate the ways schools support students' learning, whether it's through CL or not. Yes, programs and organizations beyond schools have an important role to play, but I think relying too heavily on these programs, or framing the narrative as if schools are inherently deficient - which isn't what's happening here, but is happening, I'd argue, in the larger conversation about schools, especially public schools - undermines a school (aka: the teachers, students, staff, parents, and community members) as a transformative force.

I appreciate challenging the notion that "official" CL can only occur "across contexts and settings" rather than solely in a school. For me, a related issue is who can access these different contexts and settings. Digital redlining blocks or slows access for many students (and teachers), and I'd like to learn more about how CL addresses digital redlining.

I wonder about the degree to which CL acknowledges and addresses the harassment faced by different individuals and groups when they work in an online space. A related question: to what degree are CL practitioners investigating the technology itself? How might Ethical EdTech provide questions and tools to support CL?

I'd like to understand why teachers/schools were unable to achieve these same positive results. In my experience, teachers/schools do not have the freedom as independent programs. Sometimes a teacher's or school's freedom is circumscribed by various official (or unofficial) mandates, such as the hours and hours lost to studying for and taking high-stakes tests. Other times, a teacher's pedagogy or a school's culture don't include centering students. Guess I need to read the study!

This stands in stark contrast to so-called "personal learning" technologies sold to schools.

A tangential thought that may be addressed elsewhere, but I'm curious how/if CL in its various forms affects whether or not a teacher remains in the profession. Given our nation's teacher shortage, can/is CL be(ing) used to create and maintain communities that help teachers stay and grow in their classrooms?

I appreciate pairing CL with theoretical and methodological frameworks. I've taught in both public and private schools, and I think one of the challenges in a private school setting is helping teachers, some of whom may have little-to-no background in educational/learning theory, engage with theory in their teaching context as part of their professional development.

I'm fairly new to CL, so I'm curious: how is CL viewed in more "traditional," for lack of a better word, academic circles?

I think it's important to note the source/s of this rhetoric. How is a particular technology's narrative shaped, and by whom, and for what end/s?

I think it's important to note that corporate interests do not (or rarely) align with the interests of educators, students, families, and communities. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders. And while the call for more data is not inherently problematic, what happens if (or when) the corporations building the technology used to produce and store student/user data turnaround and sell that data or use it to further refine a product to sell? For instance, I'm thinking of Instructure's recent announcement to use all the student data is can access to improve machine learning/AI.

Sometimes with rather harmful effects.

I appreciate reframing students as active versus passive.

Yes, but working in the open is not safe for everyone, and finding closed or semi-open spaces is also an important responsibility. Another option is to for students to choose to work in the open.

On the importance of humility and kindness.

Agreed! I'm disheartened by advice some teachers, especially those new to the profession, get to avoid smiling until March because doing so would erode their authority.

I think part of this modeling means asking questions of the technology and talking through the responses to those questions with students. What are questions y'all ask of a technology before deciding to use it with students?

Transparency and honesty go a long way.

Another important and, in my experience, often unspoken part of being an effective teacher: knowing enough about the school and broader community to bridge gaps in personal knowledge/ability to assist a student.

Such an important part of being a good teacher, IMO. Yes, be curious about a subject, but don't lose sight of the people in the room.

That's a lot to put on the designer of this learning experience. What about inviting students and community members to co-design?

I'm bristling at the repeated use of "payoffs." Since @bakerdoylek got us started using dictionaries, I'll keep it up by sharing the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of "payoff": "A payment made to someone, especially as a bribe or reward, or on leaving a job." What's a better word or phrase for "payoff"? Benefit? Growth? Improvement?

One way is to let the learners identify their interests rather than imposing personal interests or guessing students' interests.

To what degree does success on test scores translate into learning?

I'm new to CL, and I wonder what about the model is particular to youth learning versus other age groups.

I'm curious to know more about this field testing. What exactly were the environments? And what did the testing look like?

I find this daunting, humbling, and exciting all at once.

Is there room for research-driven, evidence-based methods to exist side-by-side with critical pedagogy? What does this look like?

Put another way, "How am I caring for students online?"

My sense is that no, students - and many instructors - don't know how the LMS tracks and uses the data they produce. Recent events like the $1.75 billion sale of Turnitin or Instructure's announcement they'll be using (and presumably monetizing) student data as part of a machine learning endeavor suggests to me that such questions must be asked and asked now - and answered by students and teachers working together.

As a recent graduate of a master's program in educational technology, I wish we'd had more (a lot more) conversation about the whys and whethers of tech.

I'm trying to nudge the faculty who participate in such how-to trainings towards deeper reflection on their pedagogies prior to beginning whatever training we're doing. I find Kevin Gannon's "Radical Hope: A Teaching Manifesto" to be an accessible opening for faculty (and staff and students) to consider another person's pedagogy before elaborating on their own beliefs.

I'd extend this to, "This is not only how it's done at our institution, but this is also how it's done at other institutions, or this is how our professional organizations say it should be done, so that's how it's going to be done."

I'm curious: how do y'all think joining our voices with educational technology sounds/looks/feels like?

I appreciate Sean’s relentless and restless questioning. No writer, no text, no idea is sacred.

I agree with Sean’s critique here insofar as he’s - to my reading - warning against a vision of learning that’s more concerned with mass complacency than individual critical thinking. Yet I find Bloom’s Taxonomy to be a helpful launch point. For instance, I think it’s important for teachers to help students remember what they’ve previously learned in order to build on that knowledge. I think building knowledge does require recall; otherwise, new information remains in isolation. The problem arises when teachers and students alike do not engage in the more complex acts of analyzing and evaluating. For me, when I’m (co)designing a lesson, I return to Bloom not as a tablet delivered from on high, but as a taxonomy of possibility, a collection of verbs that stimulates my own thinking about the types of learning that might happen in a certain class with a specific set of students.

The emphasis here on mindfulness as a core component of vital exchanges makes me think of the most recent newsletter from Middlebury College's digital detox initiative: "Mindfulness and Radical Listening in Digital Spaces."

I think the verb "play" is important, and it's a word that carries its own pedagogy. For one, play suggests freedom from evaluation. And two, play is unstructured; it meanders, drops off, becomes something else entirely. I'm curious what tools others have used that fit this (or other) descriptions of play. I think of Flipgrid, the video discussion platform, though even the play that occurs within its fields is circumscribed and preproduced by its limitations. Then again, limitations aren't inherently problematic. They can condense and sharpen, invite people to reimagine and remix.

I'm reading Joshua R. Eyler's excellent new book How Humans Learn, and this line from bell hooks reminds me of Eyler's discussion of pedagogical caring. Eyler includes Richard Hult Jr.'s distinction between caring "about" versus caring "for" a person. When we go beyond caring about something or someone, Eyler via Hult Jr explains, to care for that something or someone, we "'behav[e] with special skills to support or increase some condition of value in the cared for.'" I'm drawn to the idea that caring for someone means encouraging them to see and develop something they define as important. As an educator/educational technologist, the challenge then becomes moving from an interest in and care about another person to an interest for and care for that person.

I struggle with this question of efficiency. I work with faculty who teach sections with hundreds of students. I understand their desire for efficiency. Yet here efficiency is framed as antithetical to teaching and learning. I'm curious how others think of efficiency. Do you agree its not worth valorizing? Or is there a type of efficiency that doesn't undermine teaching and learning, or a context where efficiency might find a use?

I'm new to higher ed. In August, I joined the College of Education and Human Ecology at Ohio State as the educational technologist. Prior to my current role, I taught high school English and some college composition for eleven years. One challenge I'm wrestling with is this notion of "outcomes over epiphanies." Yes, as a high school teacher, I had to account for state standards when designing a curriculum, but I also had the privilege to work in schools where I had more freedom and not every decision was dictated by value-added measures and high-stakes testing. In other words, I could create learning environments conducive to epiphanies rather than clouded by outcomes.

Now, I'm sometimes asked to help align syllabi with Quality Matters standards. While the QM standards ensure essential information makes it into the syllabus, they also have a more pernicious effect, one that prizes outcomes over epiphanies. And a lot rides on a successful QM review. Namely, the faculty member's ability to have their course accepted by the committee in charge of such decisions.

I agree with Sean and Jesse that educators feel "flummoxed by a system." In their bewilderment - and in their understandable desire to get their course approved - they turn to easily plotted outcomes instead of messy, unpredictable epiphanies. The culprit, as Sean and Jesse note, is "a system." Importantly, it's not the system, but only one version of it. I view my work, and the work of critical digital pedagogy, as developing an alternative system liberated from the rule of King Outcomes.