Does the initial statement seem overreaching here to anyone else? From the paragraph it seems that instructional designers are dedicated to improving learning. Technology seems to be ancillary to student success ("doing whatever it takes to improve student learning outcomes"

I wonder how much design is done for non-digital delivery?

Interesting how this adds up to 119% I wonder if some people responded that they have both masters and doctoral degrees?

so thankful he was wrong in this prediction, and that computers have enabled the formation of communities not otherwise possible

It doesn't get framed like this often enough

In contemporary American society we need to remember this more often.

This is a powerful observation.

love these questions

what an interesting little piece we know now that television did not end the careers of teachers, much as contemporary ed tech wont bring and end to teachers. because teachers are important for their humanity.

I think this is a point that tech companies often forget when designing and places often forget when implementing

Thankful for the people who ask the later question.

More people need to remember this as our world is increasingly digital and that digital world is invasive.

My first read through of this paragraph I switched citizens for students. And I loved that read through too

+1!!! What a powerful conclusion.

what great imagery for education

This takes an incredible amount of trust. It says a lot about the community you've created in your classroom that you are able to do this.

How do you navigate sensitive situations where students may feel less safe sharing? What are your guidelines to keep this a safe and equitable space?

I love this.

This is so powerful and important. There are such different lenses at work here. There is a limited personal epistemology which frames the students as "disadvantaged;" as receptacles to be filled by some authority - and ones that can be "less than" others because they don't meet the authority's expectations. And a far more sophisticated personal epistemology which frames students as actors in their world and in their learning. Here the learners stand on an equal ground as knowledge creators. They have power and in that power they aren't "disadvantaged" but experiencing the world in a different frame- a frame which has validity and authenticity and relevance.

I love this, as it stresses the need for a holistic view point - after all the whole is greater than a sum of its parts.

How do we leverage this for students? I think we often reach a point in education where banging your head against a wall doesn't lead to the learning breakthrough we hope but rather to "breaking" the learner. Where their significant take away involves having no power or leverage in the system and education inflicted upon them. How can we provide this stress essential to breakthroughs and growth without diminishing the capacities of our learners? In other words, how do we find just enough stress?

I wish more of education was framed this way. Every subject would greatly benefit from increased capacity to discuss and argue in the classroom. After all that is more authentic to the fields being taught than the static delivery of information.

I wonder, must voice be used to change the hearts and minds of others? Is there not power and value in a voice for naming, articulating, and potentially affirming things for oneself?

It seems to me that the article brings to light a major problem in urban education is the separation between communities and schooling, so that any "anti intellectual vibe" is actually a result of being alienated by the educational system which does not value their lives and experiences as they are lived. From an education system which does NOT see students as actors in their own lives during schooling hours, but as vessels to be filled and given to by educators, thereby erasing their authenticity and autonomy.

What would this look like?

If you are familiar with Antigonish and Bonnie Stewart's #Antigonish2, I am imagining Trauma Informed Teaching would be a similar notion- bringing together communities for the communities- but what other forms of Trauma Informed Teaching would there be? How do teachers, students, and communities all reclaim a space, and can they do so together or are there tensions at work that make it impossible for all entities to reclaim something?

What can we do to help equip students navigate who they are and who they are expected to be? since this expectation is certainly not one that ends in schools and is something people must grapple with their entire lives.

How do we wrestle with this fundamental problem of education? Education is often seen as a necessity to improving one's life, in a variety of ways. How can we address improvement, growth, betterment without erasing value of their lives as they currently exist?

I think "giving" here is a real problem, the thought of some authority giving privileged, access, betterment rather than students building access and betterment--constructing the value of their lives... but even with that re-framing it seems a delicate balance to aim to improve without erasure. And if education's purpose isn't to improve quality of life, what is it?

This is such a powerful statement. How do we improve anything without unifying with the community? Why would we aim as educators to create new, distinct communities of practice that by their very nature create experiences of "us" vs "them" not just within the classroom(s) but within the very communities that are necessary to sustain learning and where we send students home to everyday? That's creating more barriers to education, not supporting learning

I feel like this notion is caught up in our obsessions for rigor in academia, and for STEM and "objective" science as disciplines. The dominant notion persists that we can somehow separate ourselves and our experiences from our work, and that somehow things don't count the same if we cannot do so. And it is a fundamentally dangerous way of thinking that is so disingenuous to how we actually experience the world

powerful more reasons why I appreciate Hybrid Pedagogy (http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/) as a journal

+1

ever so important Personal epistemology is an important consideration here as well - particularly captured in "what we count as knowledge" and with personal epistemology are a whole range of political considerations

yes please

important; and in my experience as a student completely uncovered by the general curriculum

Must also be aware of the praxis of teaching and learning. Not just to the development of new understandings about learning, but how those are put into practice-implemented and used-by not just other learning scientists but all educators.

what a phrase, I love it.

the same must be said of scholarship and academia... and of all learning, not just institutional or formal

yes

Any reason to specify children here, rather than learners in general? Is it reductionist to only talk about learners as children (and then the tangential effects of relationships that come there after--families and communities)? Or are children specified because they have no,or very little, say and agency in the indoctrination to an educational system?

non-dominant is an interesting phrase.

dominant =/= majority, but perhaps does = persistence, loudest, etc. ... what other things may dominant communities entail?

something about this and scholarship/academia and validity feels very important to me, but I cannot adequately gather my thoughts into why at the moment

Which feels to me a symptom of trying to be "a science" where the [false] notion of objectivity and neutrality reign supreme

I love this concept. Challenging the narratives of progress. Challenging narratives.

Critical reflection must not only be private, but rather shared and voiced.

powerful

Is there any such thing as neutrality? Certainly there is indifference, but can one truly be neutral?

This is critically important. We must keep power in mind as we research and implement research narratives on learning.

This is critical, transparency and modelling the process--stumbles and all.

Yes, yes, a million times yes

This is ever so important.

Yes, we must destroy the notion of a dispassionate researcher. This is more relevant to the sciences which pretend as if there is such a thing, but the process of research is the same across fields, and passion and enjoyment of research drives our continuous participation

What realities, today, do we need to bring students in contact with?

!

What happens when we see these become distinct lines, differing spirit? Thinking recent events in 2016/2017 where there seems to be a cultural divide in what we conceive should be one society... how do we move on from here?

As with so much of what Dewey writes, this is a moving and powerful sentence. It strikes me as not only is something as strong as it's weakest link type of though, but also that the whole is more than it's parts. For society to be whole, we must conceive of it as more than just individuals.

This seems ever so important in these contemporary times.

It strikes me that this is written very much from a western perspective, and that culturally this doesn't hold true everywhere. There are places that take a focus more on communal learning than individualistic, and I think there is value in that.

yes! Fantastic call to action

I look forward to reading more of your research on this; it is such an important topic that we must consider, especially as more academics are using social media

This should be the staple phrase for describing qualitative research.

I am hopeful that hypothes.is will help to change this. Although it is possible for hypothes.is to reinforce an author's "authority" depending on how it is used, I am hopeful that those of us using it critically will continue to do so in a way that integrates the readers with the text.

Yes! We need more research on this

Hope you don't mind me bringing in hypothes.is into this, but this seemed like the perfect call for it!

yes!

This is so important.

And feels particularly relevant as an American with the current political climate.

The questions or the answers are the stuff of education?

Wow what a question. I can't wait to see what other people have to say. It seems like it would be easy to come up with ways that are not civil, or trustworthy, online discourse - but to frame this as which conditions are created is far more powerful.

As I mentioned in an earlier annotation, I think much of this has to do with shifting personal epistemology through the process of discourse with "authorities" and authors, the societal weighting of evidence and supportive information, and the interaction among participants and text at various levels. But there is a whole lot there that can go wrong. I love all of the occasions I've had to interact with others via hypothes.is thus far, but it does strike me that they have been primarily among peers with similar perspectives, epistemology, ideals, and academic background as myself. And perhaps that is a good place to start- modeling constructive and supportive behaviors in certain communities of practice?

Edit to add: I think the social expectation that comes with using hypothes.is the way I have (through annotation flash mobs and annotatathons) is important. Having annotated this article as separate from a flash mob type event I find myself constantly checking back for new annotations, commentary, and responses. Web annotation for me has become inherently a cooperative and collaborative practice.

something we should always ask ourselves, and ask ourselves repeatedly

in the same line of thought as with choral explanations?

I think there are particular personal epistemological assumptions tied up in this, that impact not only how we wish web annotation to be used, but how it functionally can and will primarily be used. If you approach knowledge as something coming from an authority, it is very hard to fathom being able to create it yourself, or talk back to it, even if those platforms exist. Conversely, if you think any opinion is valid, because knowledge is completely subjected as individual "truths" then I think you end up with what we see in a majority of places on the internet that allow discourse... I wonder if, and suspect that, hypothes.is could a powerful tool in shifting personal epistemology - especially where the text creators or "authorities" engage with annotators and the comments they pose...

...forgive me, I bring everything back to personal epistemologies

As always, so glad you did.

What sort of digital literacy does this require?

oh right, authoritative scholarly voice... guess I should leave out all those "I think"s... ;)

now I am just adding noise; this can be deleted.

Are there standards for citing web annotations? How do we acknowledge and credit this shared authorship?

+1

I think this is such a powerful motivation for using web annotation as a component of peer-review and academic conversations.

I love the idea of the public playground, and I think that concept along with the affordances of hypothes.is, say something about the relative safety net of open annotation. Like a public playground, it is not without risk to those participating; however, a degree of anonymity is still offered. You can disconnect your hypothes.is user information from your identity. This can, of course, be both a good and bad thing in generating commentary, but is an important feature of this particular "openness"

I also just love the connection to "play"

Could we perhaps use tags or groups to functionally sort through the layers of "noise" ? Perhaps things like: content critique, meta, grammatical nuances, etc?

Interrupted seems like such a harsh word here. Perhaps punctuated fits better? You don't have to interrupt reading the conversation with the annotations, but you can. Of course in a journal of disruptive media, maybe interruption is exactly the disruption desired...

According to the wiki, the point of alchemy was to "purify, mature, and perfect" objects, not just transformation. In terms of narratives, can we ever purify and perfect? Should we even attempt to? What does it mean to be perfected, to be purified? What standards are we reaching for? I admit I do like the concept of maturing though, to see what becomes over time and manipulation...

Damn, I was hoping it was found somewhere a bit more situated and context driven ;) Although if we make up our own worlds, maybe its all a laboratory anyway...

This makes me think of the open dissertation virtually connecting missed conversation today. What is the product, and who determines its value?

Makes me think of Minerva schools approach to curriculum

We must always be critical and ask "for whom will this benefit?" "who will use this and how?"

This is such an important statement. We build institutions out of our shared actions and needs. Out of our shared habits.

Is there knowledge in abundance, or just information - noise? and how do we transform that into knowledge

(Can you even have an abundance of knowledge?)

This whole paragraph. So important.

How do we get this number closer to 100% is we aren't having the same conversations?

How do we have different conversations? How do we make conversations more inclusive? I love things like annotation flash mobs because we are doing that - opening things up for anyone to participate. But if we enter different conversations based on value, how do we reconcile differences in values?

I just need to +1 this 1000xs. I feel like there is something insightful for me to say here, but I just can't find the words for it. Community is ever important. Once again, it isn't about having information, its about usage, interactions, how things work for people in situated contexts...

This is such an important point. Usability must be a component of "open" that we consider. And one we consider often.

I'm often caught up on the words "knowledge" and "information" and wonder can we have access to knowledge, or do we only have access to information and must construct or own knowledge? Then the assumption that we have access to knowledge becomes the problem, because it is inherently means we have a complete package or picture when we must do the work of making connections ourselves. I think knowledge resides within individuals, within collectives ... within but not alone and not static. Alone it is simply information. And access to information can be entirely useless if you don't have the ability to turn it into knowledge - something that works and makes sense for you [the collective, etc]

Yes.<br> How do we do this? is there a way to support and scaffold mutual care without a disaster to bring us together?

Reading these annotations, I was struck by the notion of language. The public we choose to engage or leave out when working, thinking, writing publicly in a particular language. It is particularly interesting that we are having these conversations in English right now, on this document, among international users. What impact are we making by having this dialogue in a particular language?

(note: I can only participate in English, and am thankful that this conversation is taking place in my native tongue, but it feels somewhat unsettling that it is only taking place in English. That I'm not being asked to stretch my understanding and comprehension to accommodate another language - with different contexts and meanings - while others are)

What seeds of critical literacy can we plant? How do we sow them? As an instructional designer, what can I do and should I focus on to ensure the seeds of literacy are embedded in the activities, lessons, and resources I design?

Perhaps the most important, and certainly the most powerful sentence in this article.

What literacy must we consider with hypothes.is and digital annotation? For whom are we annotating? Why are we making these notes in the margins, and even more so why do we share them with the public? Who participates in these digital annotations, and who is left?

Is the purpose conversation, or making sense for oneself? Are these mutually exclusive actions?

At what point do we differentiate between being digitally literate and being critical? Or do we?

I love that what we are doing here, in the "margins" is negotiating over the meaning, and thus our knowledge. Negotiating with the paper/writing, negotiating with ourselves, and working with each other to negotiate further understanding.

Oh good, 'cuse this is dense and they seem to fit together to me... not that they are the same per say but they are overlapping in their explainations

What are the differences between these things?

This feels very community of practice to me too

<3

what a powerful statement

Personal epistemology!

Personal epistemology!

Back to communities of practice. Taking the perspective that CoP exist and account, in one way or another, for what we do network learning is bringing someone into a community, while rhizomatic being self-directed is assuming someone is already in a CoP and familiar enough with the expectations and practices to be able to direct themselves

What room does this leave for unintended learning?

This statement makes it feel very community of practice to me too - common expectations, ways of doing things, vernacular, etc.

Isn't this a beauty of sharing our work? In appropriating things to make our own understanding and our own narratives work we grown and enhance meanings and understanding. In one way I can appreciate needing to see what was intended in the original conception, but I think the melding, mixing, and growth of concepts and ideas from the spattering of different perspectives is what makes doing anything worth it...

I like the yoga metaphor, but this also makes me think of the appeal of games and the flow that can be achieved by immersion in them. The key in both I think is facing challenges that are not insurmountable, then overcoming these challenges.

I also like the connection here to mindfullness. Being in the flow is being mindful - which is an important counter to being reflexive. Both, I think, are necessary and important in education and learning.

Questioning persists! As it should! There is no Truth, and thus no way to ever know it all.

From a design perspective, I really like this comment. Just providing resources isn't enough to "connect the dots" for all learners.

This introduction really brings me back to my fixation on Personal Epistemology. I have to wonder if the epistemology of the learners would make a huge difference here - are learners more able to make those connections from provided materials with a more sophisticated epistemology?

Also, are we stressing the importance of the WHY for the how?

I love this, am in complete agreement with this entire paragraph, and strive to create learning experiences which leverage the possibilities which are both unknown and endless.

But often I feel we are constrained. It takes an impressive amount of trust from an institution to allow designers and instructors and students this freedom. I've been thinking about privilege on and off a lot lately, and it seems to me that being able to execute something like this takes a lot of privilege. ...something I wish wasn't so in the educational system/schooling.

This entire article makes me think of personal epistemology - but this in particular sentence really made the connection for me on how Baxter Magolda transitioned from personal epistemology to self-authorship. Because the two necessarily go hand-in-hand

How do we, as educators, learning experience designers, learning engineers, learning scientists... what have you... approach this balance? How do we provide support and perhaps some structure until those we are facilitating are able to stand on their own?

I love the thought here of mirroring back. It reminds me a lot of my experiences with therapy/counseling. It is not the therapist/counselor who is doing the work but ME. They are there mostly encouraging me, lending a hand where I need it, but largely providing positive support for the tentative steps I take...

Should I now consider myself a learning therapist, or learning counselor? I'll have to ponder it, as I like the possibilities.

I love this. I love breaking down the artificial barrier between academic and lived knowledge and experiences. For all that I love the abstract, it really is the pragmatic that is important. What works. And often I feel that schooling looses sight of that far too easily and too often, using a distinction of "academic" to make itself feel more important or significant.

There is such an important distinction here; what was public--and shaming--was at least apparent. Now it is implicit, and with that people aren't even aware its occurring. We may think our world is expanded and complete without being aware of how narrow we are allowed to see (feeling very Truman Show?)

Do we as educators make that boundary more clear? Do we embrace the invisible boundaries and teach our students to push back at everything, seeking out those invisible barriers and rail against them?

I am surprised, as throughout the article you enforce the power hierarchy of "student and professor." Not of peers. Not of partnership.

If this doesn't speak to a one-to-many view of knowledge transmission, I don't know what does.

I particularly enjoy Twitter as an academic tool because of the ability for conversations, connections, and negotiation it affords. Not following your students back enforces that knowledge is not up for discussion (which, as an academic we know to be untrue) and that your students are not capable of having peer level conversations and content. Which I'm sure they are.

This may be the only thing in which we agree on.

As a patient with chronic illness, who sees a lot of doctors, this statement troubles me.

Many of us feel that doctors are obligated to do more than "tell us what we need to hear" and CERTAINLY are obligated to do more than they think is best. If I did not negotiate my relationship with doctors, if I did not push back and advocate for myself, I would not have any quality of life. I would be missing organs, and I would not have correct diagnoses.

My doctors are not above critique, above feedback, and above working with me to find the best solution. And neither are professors above working with their students.

If, in 31 years of college teaching, the boundaries and expectations for student-teacher relationships has not changed or evolved then I am concerned. The world does not stand still. As I would hope your pedagogy has grown and fluctuated within your time as a professor, your relationship with with students should as well.

With relationships comes negotiation. Even within power hierarchies. It seems to me that if expectations and boundaries are not clear on both sides, then you too should make adjustments.

Moreover, no two relationships are the same. Relationships are defined by the interacting objects.To make a blanket statement about the professor-student relationship simplifies the nature of relationships and those participating in them.

shudder

This makes me thing of the constant misconstruing of "Survival of the Fittest" Most people you talk to take it to mean that those who exemplify a system, who do things best, are those who survive... But really, "Survival of the Fittest" is about what works. Things that fit within the system stay in the system. Thinking of it as a competition automatically positions the players/agents/what-have-you against one another rather than viewing them as all possibly being solutions that can (and do!) work in any given situation.

LOVE this. This is what I strive to do in activities I create for Virginia Career VIEW

again I think of games

Learning outcomes here being learning goals, not performance objectives, yes? [my distinctions discussed a bit in this blog post]

Thinking of games here, which also were brought up in the #digped online learning vs learning online conversation. Games are great here because they are simulated risk, while still being safe spaces.You can always try again. Rehash the story, the experience. There is no absolute end and if you fail--if things don't go why expected--then you can try again. You can invest completely because there is always a "do over"

Keeping on with the #digped online learning vs learning online convo and metaphor, are the canned courses kind of like taking a razor to a painting to make it fit the frame, rather than framing the painting in a way that retains all of the original work and allows re-positioning for different views?

Reminds me of the recent #digped convo on online learning vs learning online, and the metaphor we worked of an LMS being a frame for a portal to experience- like glasses or a painting. I stand by the experience is in the ACTION, and I think that is supported here, though Amy may say in the CONNECTIONS or RELATIONSHIPS.

"Go through it" What implications. I cant help but read that and think of something causing suffering, being forced, etc. ...which are things I do associate with traditional education... but it still kind of hit me to see "Why do people go through it?" so blatantly put. And what can we do, if anything, to make education feel like something we don't have to "go through"? Or is that even something people (more than me) are concerned about? Is it even valuable? Is my preoccupation with learning as an everyday experience essential to life and not a performance we "go through" worth anything? And in true critical pedagogy fashion - to who? and why?

Feel like this too goes all the way back to behaviorism roots in ed psych

Fall back to behaviorism maybe? I personally believe individuals construct their knowledge, but what is constructed is socially influenced and shaped, and that the relationships and contexts are essential.

Had not thought of it this way before, and am so glad it was brought to my attention now. Fascinating thing to consider.

If having chronic, invisible, and sometimes diagnosed, illnesses have forced my into accepting anything, it's this. Sometimes a clear answer doesn't exist in any way that we can come to know it.

I think this may be my favorite quote. Its such a salient point. When he was little, learning everything he could about dinosaurs, it was play; it was fun, and by choice. In contrast, education often frowns upon the notion of fun, especially as grade-level increases. The view that education is some serious stuff, that learning must be taken seriously and strenuously to be rigorous kills me. And with increased availability it of a wide variety of information, it is essential we stay aware of accessibility. And, the personal epistemology and skills necessary for navigating the information available and making decisions about its worth. Which, I wholeheartedly agree, can be done as play.

I'm intrigued by the juxtaposition of liar and storyteller here. Particularly with the later statement "So, I lied in order to make the world align better with my imagination." Because I view storytelling as our way of making sense of, and sharing our understanding of the world. But where that crosses over into lying is an interesting consideration. At what point is making sense of your world actually lying? Or does lying inherently imply not sharing your actual sense making with others, but sharing something else?