Just a tiny Shakespeare reference :)

How can we assure that the relationships between educators and students aren't purely (or primarily or even significantly) transactional? What does moving away from transactional relationships afford? What are the implications for student learning?

Ultimately, this also means new, remixed, reimagined approaches to syllabi, curricula, assessment, grading, etc. I think OER and Open Pedagogy is ultimately a step toward a generally more reflective (and constantly evolving) pedagogy.

I'm increasingly finding this word problematic, because it assumes that I CAN feel what these students are feeling. But I don't think that's possible (especially for the most marginalized students I work with). The economics of college have changed fundamentally since I was a student, and we are still figuring out the full ramifications of that. I'd change the word here to "compassion" or "listening."

I would go further and say that this marketing is often predatory. Publishers will market directly to the most powerful, least knowledgeable people at an institution. They work purposely around (or over the head of) folks in charge of OER initiatives, digital pedagogy, or centers for teaching and learning. This isn't to say there is no good will at all among massive corporate publishers, just that those companies are often so large that individuals operate in good faith, even as the institution as a whole moves in problematic or unethical directions. Ultimately, profit motives frustrate necessary internal conversation and thoughtful engagement with institutions.

Current students have told me they have to budget anywhere between $400 - $1000 for a semester.

This closing section has a lot of wonderful bits in it. I think the artfulness of this piece earns you the ability to make a stronger claim in the closing section. Even if it is an impressionistic one. It could even be in the parenthetical describing this last bit of music. I kind of love the parentheticals that offer a bit more substantive commentary on the choice. They feel like productive tangents that brush against the text in a useful way.

So lovely.

I like that this sentence theoretically explains the movement from the "I" to the "we." I wonder if you could call that out more directly with a line like. "We (Peter, Karen, and Katherine) draw our stories together here in order to..."

The writing here is so lovely and precise.

There's a stylistic inconsistency in how each of these sections is presented. I feel like tidying the formatting so that each of these biographical sections has a similar form (and parallel structure) would help keep the reader from veering too far. Honestly, though, I'm loving the mash-up of forms, media, voices. That is working really really well. Just needs a bit more polish as you continue revising.

I find myself wanting this to be the lead-off sentence of the piece. It sets the stage in a way that helps the rest flow from this claim, rather than around it.

I find myself pausing here. I find stronger your emphasis on how critically-engaged practice-based research makes the work better. And I appreciate how auto-ethnomethodology allows different pathways into and out of the work. But this actually feels on the cusp of being regressive. It's a fact of academic culture, certainly, but there is something about practice-based research that transcends (for me) the conventions rather than just kowtowing to them. Think on this two-sentence close. I'm not sure if we need to be brought this far back to earth, as it were ;)

Yes, glad you're bringing this in. The other thing I have been thinking about as I read is Writing Machines by Hayles: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/mediawork/titles/writing/writing_book.html

Find myself thinking about Kenneth Goldsmith's Uncreative Writing. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/uncreative-writing/9780231149907

Find myself hungering for a fuller anecdote here :)

Yes! Nice turn.

This whole section is very very strong. Really enjoying the trip you're taking me on as a reader.

Might be a stylistic choice. But I feels there's something strange about removing yourself from the claim here. You're talking about auto-enthnomethodology while removing the "I" from your own writing. Even if you don't bring the first person more fully into the whole piece (which I'm in favor of), it feels apropos to at least bring the "I" back to this section.

I wonder if you need this sentence. It feels so broad that I find myself nodding, but I also get pulled right out of the specificity of your previous claim. Would the section work if you just removed this sentence altogether?

Love. And glad this is called out in the formatting. The assertiveness of this propels me into the rest of the section nicely.

You start with a passive sentence, which pushes me further away as a reader. Can you move a main noun and action verb to your opening? Something like "Practice-related research confounds traditional distinctions (and hierarchies) that put our 'work' and the writing we do about that work on two ends of a spectrum." Doesn't have to be that, of course, but looking for a way you can reel the reader in to sit with all the nuance that unfolds throughout this section.

So much life in this bit. A flurry of fields I want to dive more deeply into.

You might consider being even more explicit/assertive. Something like: "Readers will, for all intents and purposes, write the text alongside the authors."

Love this.

This is where the energy really starts to amp up. I wonder if some version of this could be your opening. You can always back up and offer context. A claim like this that wonderfully pushes the discussion forward shouldn't be relegated to the backside of paragraph 3. :)

I love everything in these opening paragraphs, but I feel like I want a bit more of the author at the outset. I think this could all be the second paragraph, and the stage could be set more vigorously with a claim that draws me in.

I took a picture of LEGO Shakespeare's production of MNDream with Galadriel as Titania and Bottom as a Brony.

I love the juxtapositions of words here. I love the notion that a river could forcefully move a continent. And that this "movement" could have both emotional and physical registers. Reminds me of the Carole King lyrics:

I feel the earth move under my feet<br> I feel the sky tumbling down, tumbling down<br> I feel my heart start to trembling<br> Whenever you're around