I wish I could be persuaded by heartfelt reflections on one's pedagogy, but I'm not really. After discovering the "Open Pedagogy, UDL and Appreciative Inquiry" all promote what the author basically wants, it apears to affirm what the author believes. Many students may resist the "messy spaces of interaction" because, for one reason, well, they are messy. Are they some victims of a de-humanized system that forces them not to appreciate interaction? Sure. Are they also validly wanting transactional value for their monetary investment? In the current system, yes. Do you teach for the way the world is or they way you want it to be? That is a very basic question. In my Teaching Perspectives Inventory, I score very low on social reform and also not very high on nurturing. I accept that and seek ways that mitigate that. My TPI has nothing to do with my political views, by the way. But if someone is so committed to social reforms that they are more interested in forcing their beliefs about "critical pedagogy" upon their students rather than let it extend to "particular methodologies and frameworks," are they really being brave? Or are they experiencing an echo chambre where their beliefs about teaching constantly are reflected back to them? I already said that I wish I could be persuaded by an article like this but I can't. I feel the Venn Diagram of spaces to be covered by content, interaction, and "critical pedagogies" are a lot slimmer than what is expressed in this post. Focus less on critique and more on ways that make things THAT work based on our knowledge of cognition. That would seem to step around issues of student resistance and one's own ideology as much as possible.