What an enormous challenge for those of us in faculty development and other "community-building" businesses. Are we actually serving when we help people acculturate? We might be. We also might be trying to capture peoples' time and attention and loyalty.

I'd like to unpack that idea of "technological imperative".

This is a tricky needle to thread - how do we expand people's knowledge of their options, without appearing to mandate that they take certain options?

Very interesting stuff in this section.

I want to disagree with this and argue that we should be crafting lessons which allow students to understand the different forms of power which are in play in self-assessment and assessment by others. I appreciate, though, that grades may have too many advantages for that lesson to really take within the context of a course.

Love this quote - have used it in my classes

Not just in the classroom - in life. Failure is part of human life, relationships, and work, and it's important we help students understand and accept that as Sharpe states.

I find this model helpful. It makes me think of how a rocket is launched. Every part works toward getting the main capsules into space, and that main capsule is given more freedom or has less structure as it gains more altitude.

It was odd and a little frustrating that I had to open the non-Hypothesis article in order to see the example tables.

I can speak to this from personal experience as a student and an instructor in a hybrid format.

Funnily enough, this is how I feel about DIGPins, more due to a personal feeling of being inadequate and overwhelmed than anything the facilitators of this experience are doing.

Interesting to connect this back to Network week... the strength of weak ties (and network bridges) as a risk.

Important points - technology is not pedagogy; pedagogy is related to identity and mission.

I feel like the shift to content platforms challenges this in a significant way. We have lots of terms for different kinds of participation - visitor/resident, participant/lurker, etc. - but producer/consumer strikes me as potentially a change in kind, not in shading. Even when the consumer is allowed to add a comment, the value of their participation is substantially different (I would argue lesser) than if they were treated as a collaborator or community member.

During our 1st #DigPINS week on Digital Identity many expressed concerns around a lack of control in digital spaces. Perhaps something similar happening here?

I'd love to explore this more. I think my reaction is that all "likes" are not equal (and therefore the search for them as goods in their own right is fruitless). But acknowledgement by other members (or potential members) of a genuine community is sustaining to dialogue. So the "right" likes and followers do help us make communal progress toward self, even as the "wrong" acknowledgements can frustrate it.

(See next paragraph for a good caveat about identity work - or the lack thereof - in static homogenous groups.)

Thinking of identity as contextual, interpretive, work-in-process, instead of as a static output, seems really positive and potentially integrative.

This is a great distinction to make. I wish I would have been introduced to the digital realm with some understanding of what commentary is appropriate in different contexts.

I'm sure this can really stretch some of the participants. Various comfort levels with putting themselves out there.

There are murmurings of letting the instructional designers from Pedago.me participate in a #digPINS session.

I am not a millennial but I can identify with coming up with time-saving strategies in order to do more work. It is crazy when you think about it.

My friends and I have been using the expression "adulting" for years, and in my experience we usually use it tongue in cheek. Its typically used in recognition that we are privileged to be going through certain challenges for the first time.

I remember telling my then girlfriend (now wife) "adulting is hard" in response to her asking how my first day of my first full-time job went after college went. I wasn't expressing that I didn't want to continue working, simply that I was tired after a long day.

I realize that this might just be my social circle but I think expressions like this are often taken more seriously than they should.

I see this sentiment so often both as someone who used to teach in a high school, and someone who works in higher ed now.

During their undergrad students are encouraged to both "explore and figure things out" and "major in something that will get you a job" by different groups of people. They hear these two conflicting messages at the same time. For many students these two sentiments reflect two entirely different college experiences.

This kind of generalization always worries me. "They" as a whole or as a statistically identifiable majority? Or "they" as a memory, where intense experiences stand out with no regard to their probability?

I'm solidly Gen X, but I certainly recognize this tendency in myself. What forces are at play which lead people to treat this as a generational trait? Who benefits?

High priority = job and work.

I'm a little unnerved by the semi-legal nature of the "Interactive Project Release Form" but I think it's a great model (whether really legally enforceable or just a class constitution-type document).

This is really worth thinking about. Which virtual spaces are "my space" and which are "our space?" How do they relate and affect group dialogue and individual learning?

I wish I had a better sense how a multiauthor "class blog" fits into this framework.

Traditional scholarly publishing has a huge benefit of momentum - everyone is already there.

Seems like a good pair of guiding questions.

This is a grand, grand, grand piece of writing. Perhaps somewhere there's an open educator - rocker - knitter - skier who's not thrown by any of these terms, but for the rest of us at least one of these examples should be disorienting.

I haven't taken an anatomy course since high school, or any sort of animal anatomy course, but when my dog tore both of her ACL's, I became REALLY well versed on doggie knees (both because I love my dog and if I'm paying thousands of dollars for new ones... I want to know what I'm getting). So from personal experience, this is a really interesting way to get students to learn and retain information.

I really like the idea of allowing students to choose their interests for a project, and I tried it in my Public Econ class this past spring. The students overall enjoyed it, but I did get a few comments that said they wanted more direction about the project topics (kind of resisting the idea of self-direction). I also got quite a few comments that the students said they were surprised at how INVESTED they became in the project.

Anyone else ever attempt to give an open ended project like this? Suggestions, modifications?

I went to this link and I LOVE how she is encouraging students to be enegaged and really "claim" their education and their spot in the classroom... male or female can really benefit from this I believe. I'm going to use this as part of my intro class in an attempt to inform students about what they should be trying to get from our class.

I have some dear family who are homeschooling their children. Other family members are anxious about this very point. But the joy and enthusiasm these children experience as they learn biology in the meadow, or history as they talk to veterans while volunteering, is priceless. And enviable.

So essential but so often overlooked

And why?

The issue for me here is that sequencing of Content does not help promote a scientific mindset because if we want to build people who BECOME scientists, they need to know how to construct knowledge and discover and experiment in non-linear ways too

DigPINS collaborative annotation Summer 2018

What a fascinating article! It is reassuring to learn from Karen Cangialosi about the way instructors in the sciences are continuously engaging with active learning strategies from open pedagogy.

As an open pedagogy instructor in the Humanities myself, I appreciate hat we share similar pedagogical approaches in our classrooms!

Thank you, Karen! I look forward to meeting you in our sync meeting with the SNC DigPINS group next week!

I love that the expectations were collaboratively created with the students - take a moment to check out this link

This post is soooooo good. Take a moment to read this when you get a chance. Student voice in this post is really amazing.

Focus on ownership and agency of the learner

One thing that interests me is the extent to which our agency depends on others' recognition. In this context, our ability to name oppressive practices depends (obviously in complex ways) on the ways in which others respond to the names that we provide. YPAR's approach seems doubly useful, then. Not only do teachers aim to provide students with the tools they need to name their own experiences and concerns; they also commit to taking a certain perspective on their students, one that recognizes the names that students arrive at as authoritative, and so constitutive of a developing public language. That second step is crucial.

Yes, it certainly does -- with avowedly mixed results. #gamergate, anyone?

I can see this if we recognize that what is being learned here is basically skills for getting along with and maybe occasionally pursuing goals with groups of people who already share a common interest. That's a really important skill-set for life, but it's at least a couple steps removed from the kind of civic engagement that can redress systemic injustices or strengthen community life outside of these very niche spaces.

I'm not sure I accept the proposition that opportunities for youth to learn about civic engagement ever WERE tethered solely to classrooms. (I'm not sure which other spaces these authors consider "traditional" here.)

I understand the value of mobilization and awareness, but I also understand the critiques of "clicktivism" or "slactivism." I think the better, less judgmental term is "hashtag activism," as used by Bonilla and Rosa 2015, #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnogrpahy, and the racial politics of social media in the United States (not sure if this link is behind a paywall or not). But then again, a former student of mine who this time last year was a viral photo and BLM activist is now a Charlotte City Council Member, having received the second-highest number of votes for an at-large seat this past Tuesday. How do we understand the continuum between hashtag and 'real' activism?

I've taught both the Boellstorff and Nardi ethnographies in my digital anthropology class (http://digital.anthro-seminars.net/), and I'm very conscious of the ephemerality of cyberspace (itself a term that is less commonly used nowadays). This semester, while we didn't read the whole books, they read articles by Boellstorff - I had to explain what Second Life was, show them the trailer of Life 2.0, and it still seemed to the students like a far-off, historical way of living, as exotic as the Amish.

My first reaction at this point was to wonder how collaboration in these virtual worlds might exacerbate the growth of oppressive ideologies, thinking mainly of the reactionary cult of masculinity involved in GamerGate. But maybe we should put some pressure on any apparent disanalogy between the racism, sexism, etc. that organize many virtual spaces, and the kind of high-minded respect that some people might expect in more traditional civic spaces. Oppressive ideology pervades our discourse in both of these spaces, so perhaps we shouldn't shy away from seeing virtual spaces as sites of civic engagement on these grounds alone. I'm going to have to hunt down Boellstorff, Chen, and Nardi to see if they address these kinds of issues.

I wonder how to ask this question, without asking in this way.

Tommie Shelby has a new book out on the ways in which we respond to the geography of inequality, critiquing in particular what he calls "the medical model." This model acknowledges that those who are least well off are the victims of past injustices, but assumes (for a variety of reasons) that the effect of that past injustice leaves its victims ill-positioned to speak on their own behalf. The deficit approach seems to fit squarely within this model, and it might be productive to read this piece in conversation with Shelby's book. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674970502

This should be shouted from the top of all the academic towers ;)

Will likely be returning here often over the next while.