Cocreating guide dog partnerships: dog training and interdependence in 1930s AmericaNeil Pemberton

Promoting health and well-being through more than human collaboration and companionship

Being well together?

However, if psychology is truly going to help insight change in education or itself, it needs to get over its distaste for qualitative methods and desire to distance itself from sociology.

we don’t want to fund teachers and manageable class sizes, so we outsource the plagiarism problem to a for-profit company that has a side gig of promoting the importance of the problem it promises to solve.

Native nationhood. Without this recognition, our status as sovereign nations whose people were—and are—Indigenous to this continent are erased

My engineering courses were pushed to use Matlab and Mathematica by the companies selling them, who have then successfully set themselves up for market dominance outcompeting literally free, equivalent tools despite ludicrous cost and abhorrent business models. Changing our practices and what tools we use is the first part of escaping that.

Turnitin’s practices have been ruled as fair use in federal court. But to Morris and Stommel, the ceding of control of students' work -- and their ownership over that work -- to a corporation is a moral issue, even if it's legally sound. Time spent on checking plagiarism reports is time that would be better spent teaching students how to become better writers in the first place, they argue. “This is ethical, activist work. While not exactly the Luddism of the 19th century, we must ask ourselves, when we’re choosing ed-tech tools, who profits and from what?” they wrote in the essay. “The gist: when you upload work to Turnitin, your property is, in no reasonable sense, your property. Every essay students submit -- representing hours, days or even years of work -- becomes part of the Turnitin database, which is then sold to universities.”

Try, explore, fail, share, revise.

Let students curate course content.

Build course policies, outcomes, assignments, rubrics, and schedules of work collaboratively with students. Once we involve students in creating or revising OERs or in shaping learning architectures, we can begin to see the syllabus as more of a collaborative document, co-generated at least in part with our students.

Students can choose to openly license the work that they post on these sites, thereby contributing OERs to the commons; they can also choose not to openly license their work, which is an exercising of their rights and perfectly in keeping with the ethos of Open Pedagogy. If students create their own learning architectures, they can (and should) control how public or private they wish to be, how and when to share or license their work, and what kinds of design, tools, and plug-ins will enhance their learning. It is important to point out here that open is not the opposite of private.

So one key component of Open Pedagogy might be that it sees access, broadly writ, as fundamental to learning and to teaching, and agency as an important way of broadening that access.

Will they be able to read their Chemistry textbook given their vision impairment? Will their LMS site list them by their birth name rather than their chosen name, and thereby misgender them? Will they have access to the knowledge they need for research if their college restricts their search access or if they don’t have Wi-Fi or a computer at home? Are they safe to participate in online, public collaborations if they are undocumented? Is their college or the required adaptive learning platform collecting data on them, and if so, could those data be used in ways that could put them at risk?

Open Pedagogy” as a named approach to teaching is nothing new. Scholars such as Catherine Cronin,[1] Katy Jordan,[2] Vivien Rolfe,[3] and Tannis Morgan have traced the term back to early etymologies. Morgan cites a 1979 article[4] by the Canadian Claude Paquette: “Paquette outlines three sets of foundational values of Open Pedagogy, namely: autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.”

We hope that this chapter will inspire those of us in education to focus our critical and aspirational lenses on larger questions about the ideology embedded within our educational systems and the ways in which pedagogy impacts these systems. At the same time we hope to provide some tools and techniques to those who want to build a more empowering, collaborative, and just architecture for learning.

avoid digital redlining,[26] creating inequities (however unintentionally) through the use of technology.

For Paquette, open is very much about learner choice, (albeit for him this is really about creating a classroom environment where this can be optimized).  Good stuff right? Of course, this becomes much more fascinating if you consider the sociopolitical context in which these ideas were playing out.

What would that look like? I don’t know, but I suspect that the answer relies on building capacity and a network of colleagues who can share the labor, work together, and change a system to be in the service of those it is charged to serve-to place the system into the obediential service of students and faculty/staff alike.

help institutions be their “best selves” in this tradition.

earning and the best principles of American higher education. This commitment holds that educating the whole person, with knowledge, skills, and the larger capacities for a life of purpose, is essential both for professional success and for a life of fulfillment and flourishing. Colleges and universities, at their best, are distinctive as institutions that can produce this kind of learning.

Learner-centered digital tools must respect the sovereignty of student identity, of data related to a student’s own learning, and of intellectual work itself (representing knowledge, skills, and abilities) as well as the relationships among all three.

meld, seamlessly and transparently, with the platforms that support the best assessment practices

Domains, the Personal API, and related efforts are all emergent examples of how learner-centered technologies could be fundamentally reimagined within broader digital strategies at the institutional level.

New majority students are typically the most in need of support in learning how to make use of such tools; the skills and capacities for using the web effectively are distributed very unevenly. This further strengthens the argument for taking the most authentic digital learning environment as the starting point for remaking higher education.

There is an intricate and inalienable relationship between attaining digital fluency and being liberally educated in the twenty-first century. Yet in most institutions there is a mismatch between the most common digital environments where students spend their time, on the one hand, and the commitment to developing students as critically capable agents in a networked world, on the other.

With technology fluency, a student not only navigates within a single environment, but also begins to ‘demonstrate an ability to make effective choices and use the tools to advance their understanding and communication.’...[T]he ultimate sign of technology fluency is the ‘ability to manipulate, transform and move information across various media and platforms.’”

How are students being empowered to curate their learning? Are all students—especially new majority students—being given the full range of tools and capacities they need to thrive in digital environments? Is the collection of student data transparent? Are students being given the tools to make their learning portable and to make their learning records flexible, so they can be reshaped for different purposes during multiple job and career changes?

We have as human beings a greater opportunity than ever before to narrate, document, and shape our digital lives. We are also subject to having our data and behavior tracked and our information profiles shaped and manipulated in ways we may not even understand. It should be a distinctive responsibility of higher education institutions at least to prepare students for this world.

diverse instructional staff (including faculty) are engaged in the redesign of learning experiences,

Digital learning environments are not merely scaled systems through which students pass; they are empowering environments in which students learn to make meaning, solve problems, and marshal their best work in communities of practice.

Focusing only on faculty designs and ignoring what students actually do and learn misses a crucial element of the equation.

I t respects and builds on what faculty know. While faculty may not be experts in technology, they bring key expertise to the conversation. “Training” that disregards faculty expertise misunderstands the nature of professional learning, discards crucial knowledge resources, and is unlikely to produce meaningful engagement.

Effective faculty development around digital learning goes beyond technology training to focus attention on pedagogy.

n contrast, our contention is that, just as colleges and universities must rethink and rebundle to make college learning more integrative and adaptive, so too must the faculty role be rebundled in the emerging digital learning ecosystem.

Connected learning previews the new ecosystem where learners move easily between formal and informal contexts, connect knowledge and lived experience, and deepen learning through engagement with others.

eedback, for example,

We should be asking – always and again and again: just what sort of future is this technological future of education that we are told we must embrace?

You can delete the data. You can limit its collection. You can restrict who sees it. You can inform students. You can encourage students to resist. Students have always resisted school surveillance.

individual's interpretation of that policy

THE ROOTS OF REDLINING

Not all plagiarists are smart, but the smart ones will not steal from OA sources indexed in every search en-gine. In this sense, OA deters plagiarism.1

Academic publishers are not monolithic. Some new ones were born OA and some older ones have completely converted to OA. Many provide OA to some of their work but not all of it.

There are many hypotheses to explain the correlation between OA and increased citations, but it’s likely that ongoing studies will show that much of the correlation is simply due to the larger audience and heightened visibility provided by OA itself.

n fact, the idea that OA depends on author altruism slows down OA progress by hiding the role of au-thor self-interest.

Public and private funding agencies are essentially public and private charities, funding research they regard as useful or beneficial. Universities have a public purpose as well, even when they are private institutions. We sup-port the public institutions with public funds, and we support the private ones with tax exemptions for their property and tax deductions for their donors.

The academic custom to write research articles for im-pact rather than money

no legitimate scholarly purpose in suppressing attribution to the texts we use.

The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited

But for research articles we’re generally talking about authors from the special tribe who want to share their work as widely as possible. Even these authors, however, tend to transfer their copyrights to intermediaries—publishers—who want to sell their work.

and reflect on its purposes — individually and as a class. 

Drier’s final grades are based on students’ written self-assessments, which, in turn, are based on their review of items in their portfolios. 

“When school is seen as a test, rather than an adventure in ideas,” teachers may persuade themselves they’re being fair “if they specify, in listlike fashion, exactly what must be learned to gain a satisfactory grade…[but] such schooling is unfair in the wider sense that it prepares students to pass other people’s tests without strengthening their capacity to set their own assignments in collaboration with their fellows” (Nicholls and Hazzard, 1993, p. 77).

Extrinsic motivation, which includes a desire to get better grades, is not only different from, but often undermines, intrinsic motivation, a desire to learn for its own sake (Kohn 1999a). 

But while the stylus-touch interfaces of modern tablets and the proliferation of online media do fulfill much of Bush’s technological vision, the key underlying epistemic concept put forth by Bush has been largely neglected.

History and humanities more generally are dominated by the single-author article and monograph, so a system built to pool research notes may seem counterintuitive.

The goal for the project was not to publish a completed set of sites or records, but rather to facilitate active research.

“it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.”

idea of open science dates back to the very origin of modern science,

The Public Library of Science (PLOS), for example, has a policy that requires authors “to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction,” with refusal to do so being grounds for rejection of a manuscript (PLOS, n.d.a). Importantly, PLOS positions this Data Availability policy as being a natural extension of OA publishing.

not only must it be online, but it must be public, it cannot be behind a paywall or login or have other barriers to use.

“open skies” policy enables a nation to allow other nations’ commercial aviation to fly through its airspace — though, importantly, without giving up control of its airspace.

n an outcomes-based regime, outcomes become central and crowd out other considerations.

Offering students the possibility of experiential learning in personal, interactive, networked computing—in all its gloriously messy varieties—provides the richest opportunity yet for integrative thinking within and beyond "schooling."

I have found firm ground

class, race, gender, nationality, sexuality,

“firm ground”,